by Ethan Faverino | May 3, 2026 | Education, News
By Ethan Faverino |
The Goldwater Institute has called on Arizona’s largest school district to immediately repeal a policy that prohibits “personal attacks” on school board members, staff, students, or members of the public during public comment periods, arguing the rule unconstitutionally silences criticism while allowing praise.
In a formal letter sent to Mesa Public Schools Governing Board President Courtney Davis, the Goldwater Institute contends the policy constitutes blatant viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment and the Arizona Constitution.
The Mesa Public Schools Governing Board adopted this policy in July 2024, banning any “personal attacks” during the public comment portion of board meetings. According to the Goldwater Institute, the rule effectively permits speakers to praise or thank board members, administrators, and teachers by name, but forbids any negative, critical, or challenging comments directed at the same individual—no matter how factual or civil the critique may be.
“This prohibition punishes a specific viewpoint insofar as it prohibits ‘attacks,’” the letter states. “It is not, then, the speaking about Board members, staff, students, or members of the public in general that the Governing Board is preventing, but only speech about those groups from a certain viewpoint. That is unconstitutional.”
Adam Shelton, an attorney for the Goldwater Institute, who wrote the letter, told The Center Square, “The Supreme Court has consistently held that viewpoint discrimination is almost always unconstitutional.”
The Goldwater Institute became involved after concerned Mesa parents contacted the organization, requesting a review of the policy. Shelton noted that the board reads the restriction aloud before every public comment session.
“The policy has chilled the speech of some of the parents,” Shelton added. “They’re afraid to speak out and bring problems before the school board. These parents are concerned about being banned or punished for making negative comments about school board officials.”
Public comment periods at school board meetings serve as a vital democratic function, allowing parents and community members to bring forward issues, including complaints about teachers, policies, or administrative decisions. The Goldwater Institute argues that Mesa’s policy undermines this purpose by making it nearly impossible to discuss real problems without naming those responsible.
Federal courts have repeatedly struck down similar policies. In Ison v. Madison Local School District Board of Education, the Sixth Circuit invalidated a rule banning “antagonistic” or “abusive” speech personally directed at board members as impermissible viewpoint discrimination. More recently, in Moms for Liberty – Brevard County, FL v. Brevard Public Schools, the Eleventh Circuit ruled against a prohibition on “abusive” comments, noting that such policies effectively require “happy-talk”—allowing positive comments while suppressing negative or challenging ones.
The Eleventh Circuit emphasized that restricting “personally directed” speech obstructs the core purpose of school board meetings: educating officials and the community about legitimate concerns. The court observed that a parent complaining about a math teacher’s instructional methods would struggle to explain the issue without referencing the teacher.
The Goldwater Institute warned that maintaining the policy exposes the district to potentially costly litigation. Following its victory in the Brevard case, Moms for Liberty secured a settlement requiring the Florida school district to pay nearly $600,000 in attorney fees, costs, and expenses.
In addition to federal constitutional concerns, the letter highlights that the policy likely violates Article II, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution, which provides even broader protections for free speech than the First Amendment.
The Goldwater Institute has requested that the Mesa Public Schools Governing Board promptly amend its policy by removing the prohibition on “personal attacks.” The organization expressed willingness to work cooperatively with the board to bring the rules into compliance with constitutional standards and noted that all options remain under consideration if the policy is not revised.
No response has been received from the Board President, Courtney Davis, or the governing board as of the time of publication.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | May 1, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona’s off-cycle elections draw significantly lower voter turnout than general elections while deciding billions of dollars in public spending, according to a new report from the Goldwater Institute.
The report, titled “Off-Cycle Voting in Arizona: Economic and Democratic Costs?”, was authored by Henry Thomson, an associate professor at Arizona State University. It analyzes municipal and school district elections held outside of regularly scheduled general election cycles.
A 2018 state law sought to require that most Arizona elections, except special and recall contests, be held alongside regularly scheduled general elections. However, the City of Tucson challenged the law, prompting a legal dispute over whether the state can mandate election timing for charter cities. In 2020, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that charter cities have constitutional authority over local election matters and that state law cannot override those provisions unless the issue is one of statewide concern.
According to the report, voter turnout in recent off-cycle municipal elections in Arizona averaged 26.9%, which the analysis states is more than 44 percentage points lower than turnout in comparable on-cycle elections. The report attributes this difference to the timing of elections held outside traditional November general election dates.
The report further states that the composition of the electorate in off-cycle elections differs from that of general elections. It describes off-cycle voters as, on average, older and wealthier, and more likely to have a direct financial interest in government spending decisions.
Thomson writes that these differences in turnout and voter composition may influence policy outcomes. The report states that policies adopted through off-cycle elections may reflect the preferences of a smaller subset of voters rather than the broader electorate.
The report also highlights the scale of fiscal measures decided through off-cycle elections. In November 2023, $4.36 billion in school district spending measures were placed on ballots in Maricopa County, an amount it compares to the county’s annual budget of approximately $4.35 billion.
Examples cited in a Tuesday press release from the Goldwater Institute included a regional transportation plan approved by voters in Pima County in 2026, authorizing approximately $2.67 billion in spending, with less than one-third of registered voters participating, as well as a 2023 Phoenix bond election with a turnout of approximately 22% that authorized hundreds of millions of dollars in spending.
The report argues that the timing of elections is a policy choice made by local governments and may affect participation levels. It states that holding elections outside of general election cycles can result in lower turnout.
“Off-cycle elections convert community decision-making into a procedural rubber stamp, providing a democratic varnish of approval to policies pushed by special interests that benefit from growing local governments and ballooning municipal budgets,” Thomson wrote in the report. “They allow a small, unrepresentative electorate to decide enormous public spending commitments at the local level and should be reformed.”
The report recommends aligning local elections with higher-turnout general election cycles as a potential reform. It states that such changes could increase participation and broaden the electorate involved in local fiscal decisions that impact taxpayers for decades.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Staff Reporter | Apr 28, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) introduced legislation this week to create stronger rules on court-ordered federal oversight of police.
The proposed bill is a direct response to the ongoing monitorship of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), which began well over a decade ago following racial profiling allegations under the administration of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Biggs’ Monitor Accountability Act would further limit federal district courts’ discretion on monitor selection and duration.
The bill as written would limit monitors to five years of service, prohibit courts from reappointing the same monitors under the same court order, prohibit monitors from coming from the same law firm or employer, cap monitor compensation and encourage courts to require pro bono or reduced-cost work, require public comment on proposed monitors prior to court appointment, limit extensions of monitorship to those without substantial and sustained compliance, and require case reassignment to a different judge after six years.
Additionally, the Monitor Accountability Act would apply retroactively to monitorships older than six years. This would ensure Maricopa County — Biggs’ impetus for the bill — secures a new monitor and judge.
The costs associated with the monitorship have neared $350 million according to Biggs and the county, about a tenth of which has gone to the court-appointed monitor and his firm. Proponents of continued monitorship counter that the actual cost of the monitorship amounts closer to $60 million.
Biggs, who is running to unseat Gov. Katie Hobbs this November, released a statement claiming that the MCSO monitorship, among others, has become exploitative.
“The federal monitor’s continued existence in our county and propensity for moving the goalposts from his original charge only serves to exploit taxpayers and undermine the brave work of the men and women who serve our communities — and this is only one of dozens of similar arrangements across the country,” said Biggs. “It’s time for Congress to take back the reins from rogue judges and monitors who have exceeded appropriate bounds.”
Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels joined Biggs’ statement with support for the bill as a corrective measure to prevent further exploitation of the monitor system.
“We’ve seen this problem first-hand in Arizona: Maricopa County has been the victim of a rogue monitor for more than 13 years, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and shifting resources away from keeping the community safe,” said Dannels.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors filed a motion to end the monitorship last December, and in February testified to a House Judiciary Committee hearing on their effort in court. Biggs led that subcommittee hearing.
The board has pleaded for relief from what it claims to be indefinite taxpayer spending to keep up with ever-moving goalposts.
The Goldwater Institute has also requested the court to publicize the invoices associated with MCSO’s monitorship.
“[T]he government should not be allowed to keep such information secret unless there’s good reason, and even then, they’re required to specify what those reasons are,” stated the organization’s vice president of legal affairs, Timothy Sandefur.
The Department of Justice, who initially filed the lawsuit under former President Barack Obama along with the ACLU, signaled support for an end to MCSO’s monitorship.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Apr 26, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The housing moratorium crippling new construction in the Valley imposed by Gov. Katie Hobbs’ administration may not go on for much longer.
The Maricopa County Superior Court struck down the moratorium on Tuesday in Home Builders Association of Central Arizona v. Arizona Department of Water Resources, et al.
Under Hobbs, the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) issued new groundwater regulations rolled out in November 2024 dubbed the “Unmet Demand Rule” and the “Depth-to Water Rule.”
Per the court, these rules went impermissibly beyond the longstanding obligation for builders outlined in Arizona law, which required assurance of sufficient groundwater supply in order for each development to take place (100 years’ worth).
ADWR imposed the rules based on a groundwater model claiming that unmet demand and exceedance of the 1,000-foot depth-to-water limit existed throughout Phoenix. In other words, their regulations meant a developer seeking a certificate for one subdivision had to answer not just for their development area, but for the water status of the entire Valley. This resulted in ADWR’s indefinite suspension on granting certificates to any developers.
The consequence of these regulations brought new home construction to a halt throughout Maricopa County. The Home Builders Association of Central Arizona (HBACA), a trade association for the residential construction and development industry, challenged ADWR’s authority to impose new rules.
ADWR attempted to style the Unmet Demand Rule as a new implementation of an old rule, but the Maricopa Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney rejected that view as an undoing of the necessary limitations of administrative agency powers.
“‘To permit this would neuter all statutory limits on agency rule-making[,]’” stated Blaney in his ruling, quoting HBACA’s argument.
Blaney also found that ADWR didn’t follow state law on agency rulemaking under the Administrative Procedures Act. Blaney invalidated both rules.
“ADWR acted unlawfully by implementing two agency rules without first complying with the mandatory provisions of the APA[,]” wrote Blaney.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) called the court ruling a win and criticized ADWR’s model justifying the overturned regulations as flawed.
“The Maricopa County Superior Court has struck down the Hobbs Administration’s attempt to impose a sweeping housing moratorium based on its flawed water model — a stinging loss for Katie Hobbs and a ruling that the state failed to follow proper legal procedures,” stated AFEC. “This is a major victory for transparency, accountability, and Arizona homeowners.”
Jonathan Riches, vice president for litigation and general counsel for the Goldwater Institute, represented the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona. Goldwater Institute’s vice president for legal affairs, Timothy Sandefur, hailed the ruling as a necessary check on an administrative state attempting to impose greater burdens than that which the law requires.
“The case is also a reminder of the dangerous power that the pervasive ‘administrative state’ wields over our daily lives — as unelected and unaccountable bureaucracies exert authority over every detail of construction, business, and property ownership, to cite just a few examples,” said Sandefur. “The only solution to the arbitrariness and lawlessness of these agencies is to rein in their power — and for courts to ensure that they obey the law.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Apr 14, 2026 | Education, News
By Matthew Holloway |
A new report from the Goldwater Institute alleges that Arizona’s public universities are not complying with state requirements to provide students with instruction in American civics, history, and economics. The findings follow previous Goldwater reports examining the integration of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion content into both honors and American civics courses.
The report, titled “Civic Decline: Arizona’s Public Universities Smuggle DEI into Required American Civics Courses,” examines how the state’s three public universities are implementing the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) American Institutions policy within their general education programs.
The policy requires universities to incorporate coursework covering key areas of American civics, explicitly stating:
“The study of American Institutions will include at minimum (I) how the history of the United States continues to shape the present; (II) the basic principles of American constitutional democracy and how they are applied under a republican form of government; (III) the United States Constitution and major American constitutional debates and developments; (IV) the essential founding documents and how they have shaped the nature and functions of American Institutions of self-governance; (V) landmark Supreme Court cases that have shaped law and society; (VI) the civic actions necessary for effective citizenship and civic participation in a self-governing society – for example civil dialog and civil disagreement; and (VII) basic economic knowledge to critically assess public policy options and to inform professional and personal decisions.”
The report asserts that some universities are allowing courses outside of traditional civics instruction to satisfy those requirements.
Timothy Minella, director of higher education policy at the Goldwater Institute and the report’s author, said universities are not meeting the intent of the requirement.
“Arizona’s public universities are failing students by allowing niche courses steeped in DEI to satisfy the state’s robust history and civics requirements,” Minella said in a statement released with the report.
At Arizona State University, Minella states that courses such as “Anthropology of American Democracy,” “Social Welfare, Work, and Justice in the US,” and “Theatre and U.S. Democracy” are being used to meet civics requirements.
He argues that the first course, “ ‘Anthropology of American Democracy,’ fails to meet AMIT requirements and instead centers on the claim that American society oppresses certain groups.”
“The syllabus states that the course ‘emphasizes the relationship between personal narratives and broader historical forces, highlighting how belonging, rights, and obligations are experienced differently across diverse social, racial, and cultural contexts.’ … In the list of required readings for the course, there are only two that could plausibly be considered ‘founding documents’: the U.S. Constitution (which appears in only one section of the course) and the Declaration of Sentiments from the Seneca Falls Women’s Rights Convention.
Almost every other reading comes from specialized anthropological studies, including ‘I’m American, not Japanese!: The Struggle for Racial Citizenship among Later-Generation Japanese Americans’ and ‘Replicate, Facilitate, Disseminate: The Micropolitics of U.S. Democracy Promotion in Bolivia.’ Revealing the course’s leftist orientation, one module covers ‘anthropology’s role in American Empire Building,’ requiring students to read excerpts from Base Nation: How U.S. Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World.”
At Northern Arizona University, Minella’s report identifies courses such as “Sociology of Chicanx and Latinx Communities” and “Indigenizing Museums and the Art World” as qualifying for civics and history requirements.
The report also alleges that the University of Arizona has failed to implement the American Institutions policy.
Minella wrote, “In utter defiance of ABOR’s directive, the University of Arizona (UA) has so far failed to implement AMIT at all. UA’s plan to integrate AMIT into general education has been mired in delays and troubling protocols.”
In December 2025, Mark Stegeman, an associate professor of economics at the University of Arizona, warned the university was failing to implement a civics program in accordance with the ABOR mandate, describing the U of A proposal for a single 3-unit course as “a car crash in the making.”
The report recommends that state lawmakers take action if universities do not fully comply with the policy.
The findings follow a separate March report from the Goldwater Institute examining honors colleges at Arizona public universities, including Barrett, The Honors College at Arizona State University, and the W.A. Franke Honors College at the University of Arizona, and the integration of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion into honors programs and American civics courses.
The Civic Decline report is available on the Goldwater Institute’s website.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
