by Jonathan Eberle | Sep 23, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro announced that Arizona’s legislative leaders have filed amicus briefs in two companion cases before the U.S. Supreme Court: Little v. Hecox (Idaho) and West Virginia v. B.P.J. The cases, expected to be argued this fall, address whether states may preserve the integrity and safety of girls’ and women’s sports by limiting participation to biological females.
Petersen emphasized that the cases offer the Court an opportunity to uphold fairness and safety in female athletics. “These cases give the Court an opportunity to affirm what science and common sense already make clear: biological males hold inherent physical advantages that make women’s athletic competitions unfair and unsafe when they are allowed to participate,” he said.
Speaker Montenegro echoed these sentiments, highlighting Arizona’s legislative action. “Arizona passed the Save Women’s Sports Act to keep competition fair for girls,” he said. “It’s unacceptable that our state’s top lawyer refuses to defend that law. While Attorney General Mayes stands aside, House Republicans are doing the job she won’t—standing up for Arizona’s daughters and every female athlete who trains and competes. The Ninth Circuit sidelined our law; I’m confident the Supreme Court will correct course and affirm what parents and coaches know: girls’ sports are for girls.”
The Save Women’s Sports Act, signed into law in 2022, restricts participation in girls’ athletic events at public schools to biological females. After Attorney General Mayes declined to defend the statute, Republican leaders in the House and Senate intervened in federal court. While the Ninth Circuit recognized the state’s interests in competitive fairness, student safety, and equal athletic opportunities, it left the act enjoined as applied to two transgender, biologically male athletes.
Arizona’s briefs in the Idaho and West Virginia cases urge the Supreme Court to uphold state laws that maintain female-only sports to protect safety, fairness, and equal athletic opportunities. The filings assert that the federal injunction against Arizona’s law has already harmed girls, impacting placements, roster spots, and playing time. They also argue that courts should defer to elected legislatures—rather than unelected athletic bodies—when setting uniform participation standards, particularly in areas involving scientific and medical disputes.
“Girls deserve a level playing field,” Speaker Montenegro said. “House Republicans will continue to vigorously defend Arizona’s law and support states working to keep girls’ sports fair and safe.” The Supreme Court’s rulings in the Idaho and West Virginia cases will likely shape the future of Arizona’s law and similar legislation across the country.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Jonathan Eberle | May 4, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen announced Wednesday that the state legislature has joined a coalition of 20 states in support of Idaho’s voter ID law, which prohibits the use of student IDs when registering to vote or casting a ballot. The move comes as the law faces an appeal in federal court.
The coalition, led by Arizona and Montana, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of March for Our Lives Idaho v. Phil McGrane. The brief defends Idaho’s authority to establish its own voter identification requirements under the U.S. Constitution.
The challenged Idaho law, enacted in 2023, was designed to tighten election security by limiting acceptable forms of voter identification. Student IDs from high schools and higher education institutions are no longer valid under the new law. Two advocacy groups, including March for Our Lives, sued to block the measure, arguing it disproportionately impacts young voters. Although a lower court dismissed the case, it is now being appealed.
In their legal brief, the 20-state coalition argues there is no evidence the law violates the 26th Amendment, which prohibits age-based discrimination in voting rights. The states contend that Idaho’s law does not intentionally target young voters and that legislatures have broad constitutional authority to prevent election fraud before it occurs.
“Every state has an absolute right to implement voter ID laws through its legislature,” said Senate President Petersen. “Arizona has been at the forefront of this movement to ensure the integrity of our elections through voter ID requirements. Prevention is better than prosecution.”
Petersen emphasized that states should not be required to wait for fraud to occur before taking preventative steps. He praised Idaho’s approach and affirmed Arizona’s commitment to maintaining strict election standards.
Voter ID laws have been a source of national debate, with supporters saying they protect election integrity and opponents claiming they can disenfranchise voters, particularly younger and marginalized communities. Legal challenges continue to test how far states can go in setting identification rules without violating federal protections.
The Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in the Idaho case could have broader implications for other states with similar laws or those considering tightening voter ID requirements. No date has been set for oral arguments in the appeal.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Nov 7, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
An attempt to transform Arizona’s elections systems on Tuesday night fell well short after voters went to the polls.
Proposition 140, which would have imposed a mixed system of Ranked Choice Voting and jungle primaries for future elections in Arizona, was defeated with almost 60% of the vote share, as of Wednesday evening.
“We are so grateful for the Arizonans who stood up to oppose this radical transformation of our elections systems,” said Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould, co-chairs of the No on Prop 140 Committee. “Voters of all political persuasions wisely concluded that Prop 140 would do irreparable harm to our state if enacted. Arizona elections must be free, fair, and transparent, and that is what our system remains after this just result.”
One of the measure’s fiercest opponents, Scot Mussi, the President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, praised the outcome. He said, “Prop 140 was one of the worst ideas to ever be proposed in our great state, and it is fitting that it met its demise from a vast majority of Arizonans. Radical leftists, out-of-state billionaires, and scheming consultants tried to hoodwink voters into adopting this failed system, spending millions of dollars and duplicating signatures to qualify for the ballot. We are so pleased that millions of Arizonans did their homework and said ‘hell no’ to, what would have been, a disastrous transformation of our elections system. California can keep their destructive policies and systems on their side of the state line.”
The organization behind Prop 140, Make Elections Fair Arizona, did not appear to issue a statement as of Wednesday on its website or social media platforms. Immediately following the close of polls on Tuesday night, its account promised to be “back online soon with an Election Day campaign update,” but that does not seem to have materialized yet.
In a Wednesday press release, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club highlighted the defeat of Ranked Choice Voting questions in several states in Tuesday’s General Election. Those results were as follows:
- Colorado: Proposition 131 was defeated with almost 55% of the vote
- Idaho: Proposition 1 was defeated with almost 70% of the vote
- Montana: Both CI-126 & 127 were defeated
- Oregon: Measure 117 was defeated with almost 60% of the vote
- South Dakota: Amendment H was defeated with more than 65% of the vote
- Nevada: Question 3 was defeated with almost 54% of the vote
- Alaska: Measure 2, which repeals the state’s ranked choice voting system, appears headed toward passage
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Terri Jo Neff | Nov 25, 2021 | Economy, News
By Terri Jo Neff |
A partisan effort to make it harder for fossil fuel-based energy companies to obtain bank financing and banking services prompted a warning letter to the U.S. banking industry on Nov. 22 from the top financial officers of several states, including Arizona.
“Denying banking services to traditional, reliable energy production industries simply to advance radical, socialist policies from the White House, is both immoral and goes against the very free market principles that our country was founded upon,” said Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee in announcing the letter. “In this case, they are picking the energy industry as the losers and that goes against the free marketplace in America.”
Yee joined the financial officers of Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming in signing the letter, cautioning the banking industry of potential consequences for allowing itself to be used as a political pawn against law-abiding companies in the coal, oil, and natural gas industries.
According to the letter, the Biden Administration is “pressuring U.S. banks and financial institutions to limit, encumber, or outright refuse financing for traditional energy production companies.” The White House is also supporting an end to American financial support for traditional energy production projects in developing countries around the world, “likely ceding future development and exploration to Chinese interests,” the letter states.
“We believe, as almost all Americans do, that the free market should remain free and not be manipulated to advance social agendas,” the letter states. “We are not asking for special treatment of the fossil fuel industries. To the contrary, we simply want financial institutions to assess fossil fuel businesses as other legal businesses – without prejudice or preference.”
The letter also says the states have a compelling government interest “to select financial institutions that are not engaged in tactics to harm the very people whose money they are handling.”
Each state will undertake its own actions to counter the “undue pressure” being placed on the banking industry, according to the letter. Yee has not outlined what steps her office might take if financial institutions which do business with the state engage in efforts to deny services to the energy industry.
Page 1 of 11
