by Staff Reporter | Mar 25, 2026 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Maricopa County leaders say it’s time to bring federal monitoring to an end for a judgment made nearly 15 years ago.
President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and the ACLU alleged racial profiling in a lawsuit against the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) under former Sheriff Joe Arpaio. A federal court found MCSO to be guilty in 2011, and placed the department under a federal monitor to achieve reforms.
Last December, Maricopa County filed a motion to end that federal oversight. Then, last month, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Vice Chair Debbie Lesko followed up on that termination request before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. Joining Lesko were MCSO Community Advisory Board member Felix Garcia and Goldwater Institute’s vice president for litigation and general counsel Jon Riches.
The trio emphasized in their individual testimonies how county spending has gone on “indefinitely” to meet the “moving goalposts” of federal oversight.
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05), gubernatorial candidate, led the subcommittee hearing, “The Monitoring Racket: The Grift That Keeps on Giving.”
This month, another Maricopa County leader spoke up to advocate once again for an end to federal oversight. Supervisor Mark Stewart published a Substack article criticizing the federal government’s lack of interest in removing the federal monitor.
Stewart and county leaders say the oversight has cost the county nearly $350 million (though proponents of the oversight such as the ACLU argue that county inflated this total with unrelated costs and the real total is far less: around $60 million).
“Notably, over the past five years, there has not been a single sustained claim of racial profiling. Yet federal oversight remains in place, costing Maricopa County taxpayers nearly $350 million,” stated Stewart. “Even as compliance has been achieved and maintained, Maricopa County residents continue to bear the financial burden of prolonged oversight. Hindering resources that could otherwise be invested directly into public safety, training, hiring, and community engagement.”
The county’s millions spent in compliance efforts over the years have yielded reforms to include the implementation of body-worn cameras, structured constitutional policing curriculum, and data-driven accountability policies.
About ten percent of the $350 million estimate given by the county for compliance payments, over $30 million, was given to the court monitor Robert Warshaw.
Warshaw has faced allegations of capitalizing on a financial incentive to continue his federal oversight, not only in Arizona but in municipalities within other states. He has earned tens of millions over his years as a federal monitor.
Elected officials say MCSO has met and exceeded criteria for resolving the issues found by the court, yet the monitoring activities have not only continued but in recent years gone beyond the initial scope of the court findings.
The ACLU and the district judge in the case, G. Murray Snow, acknowledged last October that MCSO reached Phase One compliance with the 2011 court order.
“Courts are often called upon to correct past failures. They are also uniquely positioned to recognize when those corrections have taken hold,” said Stewart. “Maricopa County has reached that point. The progress is undeniable, leadership is strong, and the time has come to move forward.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Ethan Faverino | Mar 24, 2026 | News
By Ethan Faverino |
The Goldwater Institute put the City of South Tucson on notice for alleged non-compliance with Arizona’s Permit Freedom Act, a 2023 law designed to streamline government permitting processes and protect citizens from arbitrary bureaucratic delays and decisions.
In a formal letter on March 13, 2026, addressed to Mayor Roxanna Valenzuela, Goldwater Institute Staff Attorney Parker Jackson reminded city officials of their obligations under the Act (codified at A.R.S. § 9-843).
The letter highlights the city’s handling of a permit application from businessman Marv Kirchler for a billboard near I-10. Despite initial approval from the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission, the city has refused to grant the permit, prompting the group’s intervention.
The Permit Freedom Act requires municipalities to:
- Specify permit criteria in “clear and unambiguous language” for activities affecting land use, appearance, or density.
- Process complete applications within 60 days, after which the application is deemed approved if no decision is made.
- Provide proper notice of application completeness or deficiencies, adhere to statutory timelines for reviews, and include specific details in denial notices.
The Act also states that cities print notices of these protections on permit applications and comply with related statutes like A.R.S. §§ 9-495, 9-834, and 9-835. Failure to follow these rules can result in automatic permit approval, fee refunds in certain cases, and exposure to litigation.
The Goldwater Institute’s letter points out apparent shortcomings in South Tucson’s processes, including potential non-compliance with notice requirements on its new Permit Portal, which became effective March 2, 2026. It warns that ongoing violations could lead to automatic approval of Mr. Kirchler’s application.
Since its passage, the Permit Freedom Act has been credited with significantly reducing permit timelines, improving objectivity in criteria, and easing backlogs across Arizona. This action underscores broader concerns about government overreach in land-use permitting, which has long frustrated property owners, developers, and businesses. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the need to curb “the uncontrolled will of an official” to protect constitutional rights, including property use.
The Goldwater Institute emphasized that the dispute with South Tucson is not isolated but reflects the importance of full statewide compliance nearly three years after the law’s enactment. The organization vowed to continue holding officials accountable and advocating for similar reforms nationwide.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Mar 19, 2026 | Education, News
By Staff Reporter |
The honor colleges at all three of the state’s universities are mandating courses educating students on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).
The Goldwater Institute detailed two of the three colleges in a newly released investigatory report, “Desert Brain Drain.”
The three honors colleges in Arizona are Barrett Honors College at Arizona State University (ASU), which has about 7,500 students enrolled; the Honors College at Northern Arizona University (NAU), which has about 1,500 students enrolled; and the W.A. Franke Honors College at University of Arizona (U of A), which has about 4,500 students enrolled.
The Goldwater Institute found through public records that one of ASU Barrett Honors College’s required courses, The Human Event, hid a majority (85 percent) of its syllabi from the online catalog. ASU waited nearly a year to respond to Goldwater’s records requests on the hidden spring 2025 syllabi, and in its response, it redacted the names of the professors associated with the courses with the hidden syllabi.
Those records did reveal that 70 percent of the hidden syllabi from the spring 2025 catalog contained DEI content focusing on the alleged systemic oppression of certain identities related to race, gender, and sexual orientation.
Among the topics advanced by these hidden syllabi were the critical race theory concept of anti-racism, land acknowledgements, explorations of sexuality, decolonization, secularization, globalization, and transgenderism — with some content being graphic.
The W.A. Franke Honors College at U of A requires students to choose among the courses offered within its Honors Seminar, many which focus on DEI subjects similar to those presented by ASU Barrett Honors College required courses. Several courses focused on deconstruction of personal identity within the context of social justice, breaking down the idea of the self through the recognition of personal identities — race, gender, religion, class, and “social violence” — and recontextualizing the fractured and rebuilt self on political activism.
Although NAU Honors College was not included within the Goldwater Institute’s report, their primary required course (HON 190: Honors Colloquium) contained similar explorations of identity-based systemic oppression.
The spring 2026 semester came with two class options for the mandatory course, taught by professors Perry Davidson and Dina Yordy.
Davidson’s class requires students to read three novels challenging religion and embracing secularism: the classic work, “The Great Gatsby,” “Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit,” in which a lesbian leaves the Pentecostal community she grew up in, and “So Far From God,” in which characters serve to display criticisms of Catholicism and patriarchal structures while exploring decolonization and political activism.
Yordy’s class requires students to read three works as well: “The Piano Lesson,” a play about a Black family’s history with slavery and systemic racism, “We Have Always Lived in the Castle,” a novel about the persecution of a family by the intolerant religious townspeople, and “Home,” a novel advocating for the social justice understanding of homes through discussions of homelessness and immigration.
Timothy Minella, Goldwater Institute’s Director of Higher Education, argued in a press release that DEI shouldn’t be a requirement for Honors degrees at public universities.
“This isn’t just an Arizona problem,” he said. “Taxpayers and lawmakers across the country should pay attention to what’s happening in their universities and not sit idly by while activist professors indoctrinate our next generation of leaders on the public dime.”
Although the Arizona legislature has not been successful in its attempts to ban DEI in higher education, President Donald Trump did issue a series of executive orders last spring to cut off federal funding for entities advancing DEI. Those orders have been challenged and even struck down in court.
In an effort to circumvent these judicial challenges, the General Services Administration recently announced a proposed rule change blocking federal funding for schools implementing DEI.
Goldwater’s full report can be found here.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Mar 16, 2026 | Education, News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) accused a major media outlet of misrepresenting the amount of fraud that occurs within the state’s school choice program.
Per ADE, 12News claimed the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) Program had fraud totaling 20 percent. ADE said this figure was false, and that the true fraud rate sits at 0.3 percent.
The 20 percent claim originated from a risk-based audit — an audit of limited scope — which targeted specific higher-risk participants and accounts. It does not account for the entire ESA Program population, says ADE.
ADE presented the 0.3 percent figure from a study by Stanford PhD on a random sample to obtain a more accurate assessment of the entire ESA population. That study, which reviewed 3,000 random ESA orders between July 2025 and February 2026, also concluded that unallowable spending amounted to less than two percent of the total.
ADE Superintendent Tom Horne demanded 12News issue a retraction.
“A ridiculous figure of 20 percent fraud has been circulating concerning ESA purchases which resulted from a total misinterpretation of data provided to Channel 12. The 20 percent figure represented program participants that ADE had selected for risk-based auditing,” said Horne in a press release. “Continued use of the 20% fraud allegation is an outrageous misrepresentation to the public that must stop.”
By comparison, Horne noted, other government programs have higher rates of improper spending: Medicaid totals over seven percent, food stamps total over nine percent, and unemployment insurance totals over 14 percent.
Horne clarified that the unallowable purchases rate doesn’t constitute fraud necessarily. The superintendent said “most” of those purchases were confirmed as “innocent mistakes” such as improper form completions or viewing certain unpermitted educational items as permitted, like backpacks or lunch boxes.
Horne said ADE promptly recovers misspent funds, and has recovered over $1.2 million.
The disputed 20 percent figure was mentioned in multiple articles by 12News, including one of the latest pieces of coverage published on Wednesday.
“According to state records obtained by 12News Investigates, nearly 20% of ESA parents or at least 18,000 ESA account holders, have misused voucher funds,” read Wednesday’s article.
The original 20 percent figure by 12News stemmed from a report on public records reviewed by the outlet which estimated that misspending “could” amount to 20 percent of all purchases in the ESA Program. The report stated that over 18,600 out of the 102,000 ESA account holders had at least one unallowable purchase over the course of a year.
Horne said at the time that the percentage provided wasn’t totally representative of fraud; rather, the superintendent said “most of it” was attributable to mistakes by the parents.
While critics of the program highlight the millions ADE is forced to recover, mainly from misspending and marginally from fraud, supporters of the program highlight the millions saved by children entering the ESA Program rather than their designated public district school system.
Goldwater Institute director of education policy, Matt Beienburg, said in a press release that wrongful spending occurs just as much, if not more, in the public school district system.
“It’s also worth observing that just 52 cents of every dollar sent to Arizona district schools now makes it to classroom instruction according to the state auditor general,” said Beienburg. “Among the many uses of those funds outside the classroom: a $500,000 trip to Las Vegas by a school district that promptly cut bus services for students; a district spending $4,000 per person to send staff to Napa, California for a conference featuring wine tastings, a district spending $18,500 on ‘membership dues and for staff to attend golf tournaments,’ and more.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Mar 4, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled that prevailing wage ordinances enacted by the cities of Phoenix and Tucson violate state law, ruling in favor of the Associated Minority Contractors of Arizona, represented by the Goldwater Institute in a lawsuit challenging those laws.
The decision holds that local ordinances requiring contractors on certain public works projects to pay “prevailing wages” are prohibited under a 1984 state statute, A.R.S. § 34-321(B), that forbids cities from imposing prevailing wage requirements. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s judgment that the ordinances conflict with state law.
Goldwater’s lawsuit was brought on behalf of the Associated Minority Contractors of Arizona, the Arizona Builders Alliance, and the Arizona Chapter of the Associated General Contractors of America, who argued that the ordinances exceeded cities’ authority under Arizona statute.
In a statement, Timothy Sandefur, Vice President for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute, said, “The real winners in today’s ruling are Arizona taxpayers—as the court itself made clear.”
Sandefur then quoted the court’s language, writing: “The Cities’ interpretation would grant the Cities broad power. With that power, the Cities could dictate how much any employer pays any employee anytime an employer contracts or subcontracts with the Cities. Put differently, the Cities by ordinance could dictate pay whenever an employee works under a public contract, regardless of the contract’s value or the nature of the work performed.”
He added, “That, of course, would cost taxpayers more—reducing their freedom of choice and their ability to invest in their own futures—all for the benefit of politicians and politically well-connected lobbyists.”
In a post to X, he wrote, “The decision’s an important victory for taxpayers throughout the state, who’d otherwise be forced to pay inflated prices for public works projects even though a state law approved by voters abolished ‘prevailing wages’ over 40 yrs ago.”
Prevailing wage laws, distinct from minimum wage laws, require employers on public contracts to pay workers based on wage rates calculated by formula, often higher than standard minimum wages. The 1984 state law expressly prohibits cities from requiring public works contracts to include prevailing wage provisions.
In the case before the appellate court, Phoenix and Tucson had passed ordinances applying prevailing wage rates to city contracts exceeding defined monetary thresholds, $4 million for Phoenix and $2 million in Tucson, and set wage requirements by reference to federal Davis-Bacon Act wage schedules.
Attorneys for the cities had argued that subsequent voter-approved minimum wage measures, including the 2006 voter-approved Minimum Wage Act and subsequent amendments, allowed local governments to regulate minimum wages and thus could support prevailing wage requirements. The court rejected that interpretation, finding that the statutory authority for cities to regulate minimum wage does not extend to prevailing wage mandates.
In its ruling, the appellate panel wrote that prevailing wage provisions do not qualify as “minimum wages” under the relevant Arizona statutes, noting that prevailing wage requirements apply only to a subset of workers on specific public contracts, whereas minimum wage laws apply generally to all employees once employed.
“Section 34-321(B) prohibits political subdivisions from requiring contractors or subcontractors to pay the prevailing rate of wages on public works contracts,” the court wrote. The panel further held that Phoenix’s and Tucson’s ordinances “conflict with § 34-321(B) and are therefore invalid.”
The court concluded that the 1984 prohibition on prevailing wage requirements remains in effect and was not repealed by later minimum wage laws, determining that the newer statutes and the prevailing wage prohibition can coexist without conflict.
“The Local Permission Provision authorizes regulation of minimum wages,” the court wrote, referring to § 23-364(I). “Prevailing wages are not minimum wages.”
Prevailing wage ordinances have been the subject of multiple legal challenges in Arizona. In 2024, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge similarly ruled against prevailing wage ordinances in Phoenix and Tucson, finding they violated the same state prohibition.
The appellate decision affects not only Phoenix and Tucson but also any Arizona city considering similar prevailing wage mandates under state law, consistent with the court’s interpretation of A.R.S. § 34-321(B) on municipal wage-setting authority for public works contracts.
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.
