by Staff Reporter | Nov 25, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Supreme Court held a hearing on Monday to decide whether the city of Phoenix can hide certain public records.
The city is being sued by the Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix-based public policy and litigation organization, over its hiding of records concerning union negotiations.
In Goldwater v. Phoenix, the Goldwater Institute argued the city of Phoenix has a duty to disclose those records in order to allow the public to have an informed decision, and because they serve as the entity negotiating on behalf of the public.
The organization filed their lawsuit in March of 2023 after the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) declined to provide a draft memoranda of understanding (MOU) for public input at the end of 2022. PLEA had provided its MOU drafts in preceding years.
Per the city’s “Meet and Confer” ordinance, unions must submit MOUs by Dec. 1 in the year before the expiration of an operative agreement so that the public may provide input prior to negotiations between the union and city.
Despite not having a draft MOU available for the public to review, the Phoenix City Council moved forward with a meeting to collect public comment on an unsubmitted draft.
The city then began negotiations in January 2023.
The city of Phoenix refused to give PLEA’s draft MOU to the Goldwater Institute upon request, claiming the records were exempt from public records disclosure because public scrutiny would burden negotiations.
The city claimed they were protected under the state’s public records law exemption allowing the withholding of records should they prove detrimental to a government’s best interest.
“Releasing those types of materials would create a chilling effect on the parties’ willingness to candidly engage with each other and it would hinder the negotiations process,” said the city in their denial message.
The city also expressed concerns that public access to MOUs would politicize union negotiations.
Parker Jackson, Goldwater Institute staff attorney, disagreed that these records were covered by the best interests exemption.
“With few exceptions, public records must be made available to the public,” said Jackson in a press release. “When there’s a need to protect things like personal privacy or public safety, the government must be able to show that specific and significant harm is likely to result from public disclosure. It cannot simply withhold information based on self-interested speculation that some minimal inconvenience ‘might’ occur.”
In January, the Arizona Court of Appeals remanded the case to the Arizona Superior Court so that court could privately review unredacted and redacted versions of the contested MOU documents, and determine whether the documents deserved exemption from public disclosure according to the best interests of the state.
The Arizona Supreme Court is considering two issues in this case:
- Did the Court of Appeals err by not requiring the City, after it invoked the “best interests of the state” exception, to establish a probability that specific, material harm will result from disclosure, as Mitchell v. Superior Court requires?
- Did the Court of Appeals err by not applying the Carlson v. Pima County balancing test de novo to independently determine whether the City’s purported interests in nondisclosure outweigh the presumption in favor of disclosure?
The public may watch the archived video of Goldwater v. Phoenix here.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Ethan Faverino | Nov 17, 2025 | News
By Ethan Faverino |
The Goldwater Institute has filed a lawsuit against Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, demanding the release of consumer records tied to the AG’s 2024 antitrust lawsuit against nine major residential landlords and RealPage, Inc.
Filed on November 12, 2025, in Maricopa County Superior Court, the suit accuses the Democratic attorney general’s office of violating Arizona’s public records law by refusing to disclose basic information about complaints, or lack thereof, that prompted the state’s allegations of an illegal rent price-fixing conspiracy affecting hundreds of thousands of renters in Phoenix and Tucson metros.
Stacy Skankey, litigation director for the Goldwater Institute’s American Freedom Network, noted that there was no mention of any actual consumer complaints.
Skankey emphasized that Goldwater takes no position on the underlying antitrust claims. Instead, it seeks only aggregate data: the total number of consumer complaints received by the AG’s office regarding RealPage and the defendant landlords, including any unsolicited submissions.
The Goldwater Institute first requested the records in April 2024. After months of silence, the AG’s office issued a denial in January 2025. Follow-up attempts went unanswered, prompting Wednesday’s legal action.
“It should be very easy to comply with, and yet, you know, after this long, drawn-out process, here we are now having to demand that these be produced,” stated Skankey.
The Center Square reported that when it contacted the Attorney General’s Office, the agency responded that it had produced all documents required under state law.
Kris Mayes’ communications director, Richie Taylor, also told The Center Square, “Attorney General Mayes is proud to have taken on major corporate landlords and RealPage for allegedly orchestrating a price-fixing scheme that drove up rents for families across Arizona.”
Skankey responded, saying she and her team disagree with the statements made by the AG’s office, and there is no proof they complied with the state public records law.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Nov 14, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Supreme Court recently declined to review an Appeals Court ruling holding the City of Tucson liable for a public nuisance caused by homeless encampments, siding with three property owners who suffered property damage and financial losses. The Goldwater Institute highlighted this case as “welcome news for all Arizonans,” following the adoption of voter-approved Proposition 312.
The case, Bradford v. City of Tucson, comes on the heels of a similar court ruling against the City of Phoenix over its “Zone” encampment and is now being highlighted by the Goldwater Institute alongside voter-approved Proposition 312—a 2024 measure that lets property owners seek refunds when cities decline to enforce basic public nuisance laws.
Filed on behalf of three Tucson residents, the lawsuit sought injunctive relief against the City of Tucson, after homeless encampments near their homes and businesses in the Navajo Wash developed with makeshift toilets, dangerous fires, and individuals engaging in violent and criminal behavior.
The appellate court, reversing a trial court ruling against the residents, found that the “record is replete with testimony of specific incidents which proved that camping in the Navajo Wash has caused unsanitary and indecent conditions that invade the rights of the neighboring residents and business owners,” and demonstrated that Tucson was not shielded from liability “because the City knew the activity of homeless camping in this location was being carried on and that it repeatedly and continually caused a nuisance, yet consented to it anyway.”
Prop 312 now gives property owners a reimbursement tool in situations like those described in Bradford v. Tucson, allowing Arizonans to seek relief when a municipality “follows a policy, pattern, or practice of declining to enforce existing nuisance laws prohibiting illegal camping, obstructing public thoroughfares, loitering, panhandling, public urination or defecation, public consumption of alcoholic beverages, or possession or use of illegal substances, or maintains a public nuisance,” according to the Goldwater Institute’s explanation of Prop 312 claims.
Reimbursements are capped at the amount of property taxes paid the prior year, with any excess eligible for reapplication later.
Goldwater explained the law’s necessity on its website:
“Rampant homelessness is overtaking Arizona’s cities, as municipalities refuse to enforce laws against public camping, loitering, intoxication, and other nuisances. The result has been a rise in violent crime, biohazardous pollution, property destruction, and even death. Residents and business owners have had to take matters into their own hands, installing fences, hiring security, and cleaning up garbage, human waste, and other hazardous materials themselves—services the city is supposed to provide with the tax money these residents pay every year.”
Under Prop 312, once the Department of Revenue notifies a municipality of a claim, the city has 30 days to accept or reject it. If rejected, property owners may challenge the decision in superior court; if the city does not respond in time, the refund is deemed approved. Goldwater has offered to assist residents, saying, “If you believe your claim was improperly denied and you would like legal assistance, please contact us! Our lawyers may be able to help you.”
Claims are filed through the Department of Revenue’s online portal at prop312reimbursement.aztaxes.gov, which requires proof of property ownership, tax payment, and mitigation costs. The department notifies cities and issues approved reimbursements by check.
The decision represents a major blow to a large Arizona city’s assertion of immunity and underscores growing frustration with Tucson’s approach to homelessness amid public safety concerns.
In an op-ed Monday, Timothy Sandefur, Goldwater’s vice president for legal affairs, urged city leaders to act:
“Homelessness is a tragic and frustrating issue. But policies that leave people living on the streets aren’t the answer. Instead, they only create a new set of victims: the innocent taxpayers who must pay for police protection that they don’t receive. The time has come for city officials to shoulder their responsibilities—instead of forcing homeowners to shoulder the costs.”
Sandefur also warned that property owners in other states lack similar protections, citing Utah, and encouraged lawmakers elsewhere to “follow Arizona’s lead” by adopting Goldwater’s proposed Safe Neighborhoods Act.
Correction Notice: A previous version of this story incorrectly linked the Bradford v. Tucson case to the Goldwater Institute and cited an unrelated ruling.
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 Tiffany Benson | Oct 29, 2025 | Opinion
By Tiffany Benson |
The report on Average ACT Test Scores By State Graduating Class of 2025 shows that Arizona public schools are still failing our students. A Legal Process highlighted the results, stating:
“From the data on the class of 2025, college admissions officers and future employers can reasonably conclude that if the applicant is a graduate of Arizona schools, more likely than not, they cannot proficiently read, write, perform math, or understand science in comparison to their peers.”
A Legal Process also noted that a majority of Arizona’s 2025 graduates failed to meet one core academic benchmark. “55% of Arizona’s students can graduate high school and still not demonstrate college-ready level competency in a single core academic subject matter,” the publication said.
World Population Review published Public School Rankings by State 2025, which shows Arizona dead last overall in four categories: K-12 performance, school funding and resources, higher education quality, and safety. This is corroborated by Consumer Affairs, which rated Arizona number one on its list entitled, “Which states rank poorly for education?”
Arizona wastes between $10,000 and $14,000 per student, depending on the source. Meanwhile, the average ESA is estimated between $6,000 and $9,000 for students in 1st through 12th grade. Current trends also reveal that K-12 families are ditching government education at an impressive rate. Even if these calculations are off by 10 decimal points, my conclusion remains the same: The A-F School Letter Grade classification system is a complete joke, and school choice is the one good thing happening in Arizona education.
On September 21, 2025, the Goldwater Institute published a report titled, “The Hidden Ways Arizona School Superintendents Are Paid.” In the opening paragraph, it states:
“Arizona school district superintendents receive high salaries. Yet, the true scale of that pay is often obscured by a triangle of complex contract provisions that school boards, and the superintendents themselves, deliberately design to mask the full measure of compensation from taxpayers…
These same school districts go to great lengths to block access to superintendent contracts—in some cases even from their own board members—shielding from the public how tax dollars enrich those who often are their community’s highest-paid public employees.”
Goldwater requested more than 40 superintendent contracts—official records that should be accessible to the general public—only to receive the documents after four months of repeated requests and warnings of potential litigation. The following information is also sourced from their report:
- Not including health insurance or pension costs, Arizona superintendents’ base salaries average $215,000 a year, while taxpayers are charged up to $490,000 per superintendent after accounting for “lucrative perks.”
- In addition to pension benefits, several school districts are double-charging taxpayers for superintendents’ retirement packages.
- Taxpayers are funding superintendents’ personal and vacation leave to the tune of 15 weeks off, when combined with school holidays. When vacation days are unused, superintendents receive a payout in the form of additional compensation.
Goldwater rightly called attention to Tolleson Union High School District Superintendent Jeremy Calles, who makes off with roughly $500,000 a year. Although Tolleson ranks as the 16th largest district in the state, Calles earns at least $100,000 more than any other Arizona Superintendent. Not surprisingly, he was accused of financial misconduct and, according to ABC 15, the auditor general’s investigation into Calles is expected to be completed by January 2027.
Notably, Calles also stands accused of inflating enrollment numbers, loaning $25 million to the Isaac School District, and allowing one teacher to resign with full benefits after complaints that the former employee had an inappropriate relationship with a student. Regardless, Calles appears to have an explanation for everything. And, despite the embarrassing controversy, he still finds half a million reasons to show up for work.
In his October 2025 superintendent message, Calles declared:
“There are so many good things happening [in] our district right now that it is difficult to put them all into one newsletter…Our letter grades continue to rise…Success is not without consequence. If we are going to be the best district in the state, then we cannot get there by trying to do what everyone else is doing; we have to innovate.”
He signed off by stating that how Tolleson residents respond to a bond and override this November will “reveal how the community feels about the direction of the district.” I know how I would vote if I lived in Tolleson—it’s the same way I’m voting in Peoria.
If you’re anything like me, you’re a fish out of water when it comes to district finance. Simple is the only way I know how to be. Thus, maintenance and overrides (M&O) allow school districts to exceed their budget for salaries and daily operations by 15% in most cases. M&Os are marketed to the public as a means to “enhance student safety and special education programs.” Districts sell educators on increased pay, so (radical) teachers’ unions generally support overrides as well.
Tax increases are presented to homeowners in fractions and decimals and crumbs, rather than the sum total. Consequently, landowners must research their property value before they can know the full size of their “fraction.” Note that since overrides have literally been in place for decades, district representatives automatically expect taxpayers to honor the tradition of compliance as they’ve done in previous elections.
In August 2025, AZ Free News reported:
“Despite a 5% drop in district school enrollment since 2019, Arizona’s public-school districts have continued to expand facilities, increase capital spending by 67% to $8.9 billion, and boost transportation costs by 11.3% to $561.2 million, even as eligible bus riders plummeted by 45%…The fastest-shrinking districts have increased capital spending the most, with 20% of districts (serving 73% of students) receiving 81% of capital funding.”
Let’s be real. Taxpayers are not investing in gifted programs or sponsoring all-day kindergarten. This, my fellow proletariats, is what you call a bailout.
Rather than telling Arizonans how to vote in this election, I will instead refer you back to the information covered in this post. I encourage parents, property owners, and slighted educators to use sound judgment at the ballot box. Remember, the most basic definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result.
Again, I’m no mathematician. But I’m willing to believe that at least a significant portion of the funds required to increase teacher salaries, enhance special needs programs, and implement cutting-edge safety plans can be found in the bank accounts of every district’s highest-paid employee.
Tiffany Benson is the Founder of Restore Parental Rights in Education. Her commentaries on education, politics, and Christian faith can be viewed at Parentspayattention.com and Bigviewsmallwindow.com. Follow her on socials @realtiffanyb.
by Matthew Holloway | Oct 25, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
On Tuesday, the Goldwater Institute announced a new initiative to educate lawmakers and students across the country and advocate for the resurrected concept of “federalism.”
Based upon its newly released report, “Federalism and State Constitutions: Model Language for ‘Tenth Amendments’ in State Constitutions,” Goldwater is launching a civics offensive to rekindle federalism in state governments, urging them to etch the spirit of the 10th Amendment directly into their own constitutions.
Dubbed the “Blueprint for Federalism,” the initiative from the group’s Van Sittert Center for Constitutional Advocacy was introduced with a policy report offering lawmakers a ready-made template: model language mirroring the U.S. Constitution’s reservation of powers to the states and the people. It’s a direct shot at the creeping centralization that’s turned America’s “laboratories of democracy” into mere outposts of Washington bureaucracy.
“America’s founders wisely recognized it from the beginning—the best chance for a sprawling young republic to survive would be for important political decisions to remain close to the people,” the Goldwater Institute declared in unveiling the plan.
Describing civic education as “in decline” and leaving generations adrift on the basics of our constitutional republic, the blueprint calls for states to put the measure on ballots starting in 2026, just ahead of the nation’s 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
Matt Beienburg wrote in a post to X, “What if Americans could stop fearing that every 4 years might usher in an over-powered president of the other party who will wreck the country? Whether you’re on the left or right, we already have the blueprint for empowering Americans rather than Washington D.C.”
As federal overreach swelled vastly under the Biden administration, including mandates on everything from education to energy, states like Arizona have already led the charge, making the legislature fertile ground for Goldwater’s initiative. Back in 2014, Arizona voters approved a constitutional tweak affirming the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy and barring state resources from propping up unconstitutional federal acts. It’s one of nearly a dozen states with similar guardrails, from Massachusetts’ 1780 original to Louisiana’s 1998 update.
Co-authors Matt Beienburg, director of education policy at Goldwater, and Sean Beienburg, an associate professor at Arizona State University’s School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership, lay out the playbook in the report. The core text proposed for state constitutions is a near-verbatim nod to the U.S. Constitution’s Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In full, the proposed language reads:
“The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land to which all government, state and federal, is subject.
The government of the United States is a government of enumerated powers, and all powers not delegated to it, nor inhibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people thereof.
Among the sovereign powers so reserved to the states is the exclusive regulation of their own internal government; but the people’s retained right of local self-government should be exercised in pursuance of law and consistently with the Constitution of the United States.”
The blueprint goes even further, though, pitching add-ons like explicit vows to uphold federal supremacy and rejecting funding for D.C. edicts that trample state sovereignty. It’s nonpartisan ammo, aimed at red strongholds and blue bastions alike, to spark a public awakening on where power truly belongs.
The Goldwater Institute has notched over 400 wins across all 50 states, including more than 50 policy and litigation triumphs in 2024 alone. This latest salvo fits their 2025 battle plan, as reported by AZ Free News: dismantling DEI indoctrination in universities, slashing government meddling in property, water rights, and healthcare, shielding parental rights in schools, and addressing unconstitutional tax hikes.
In the report, the authors push for a 2026 ballot blitz to “recommit legislative bodies to the principle of federalism” and ignite a nationwide conversation on the republic’s blueprint. The Goldwater Institute has the full model language for state constitutions and a deeper dive available online.
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.
