JASON BEDRICK: 2 Anti-School Choice Campaigns In Arizona Mislead Voters

by Jason Bedrick | May 6, 2026 | Opinion

By Jason Bedrick |

Originally published by The Daily Signal.

Arizona’s trailblazing Empowerment Scholarship Accounts program enables the families of more than 102,000 students to choose the learning environments that work best for their children.

All Arizona K-12 students are eligible for an education savings account, which lets families direct their children’s education funding toward private schools, tutoring, curricula, therapies, and other educational expenses that fit their children’s unique needs.

Families love it. Three-quarters of parents of school-aged children in Arizona support it.

Yet, although the ESA program is very popular and highly accountable, special-interest groups pushing two separate ballot initiatives are seeking to curtail and regulate it. Advocates working on both campaigns have been caught on camera giving false information to voters whom they are soliciting to sign their petitions.

Ballot Initiatives to Curtail School Choice

The first campaign, calling itself Protect Education Now, is a joint project of the Arizona Education Association and Save Our Schools Arizona, an anti-school choice group that has failed to push anti-ESA ballot initiatives in the past.

The initiative aims to regulate the Empowerment Scholarship Account program in several ways, including restricting eligibility to families earning under $150,000 annually—less than the median income of an Arizona firefighter married to a registered nurse—which could kick tens of thousands of children out of the program.

Although students with special needs would still be eligible, they would have to spend 45 days in a public school before getting access to the ESA.

As the Goldwater Institute detailed, the initiative would impose a host of unnecessary and harmful regulations on private schools and homeschoolers. It would also severely restrict what families can buy with their ESA funds, and it would confiscate any unspent funds remaining in a family’s ESA at the end of the year, punishing families who have spent wisely and saved. Those funds would be redirected to district schools that did not educate the ESA students.

The second campaign, Fortify AZ, is more surprising. It is backed by the American Federation for Children, a pro-school choice group.

Their initiative mostly mirrors the union-backed anti-ESA initiative, including a modified version of a provision that the Goldwater Institute has warned “[t]hreatens to block parents from buying basic school supplies and grind the ESA program to a halt with mindless bureaucratic red tape.” However, it would retain the ESA program’s universal eligibility and would not confiscate yet-to-be-used ESA funds.

Nevertheless, the American Federation for Children initiative is worse in other ways, as it would impose regulations and restrictions that the union-based initiative does not.

For example, it would require all ESA students to take a standardized test—something no school choice law in Arizona has required in three decades—and would eliminate two of the four ways that families can spend their ESA funds, leaving only direct pay and “Marketplace,” which is an online platform managed by ClassWallet.

The last provision is particularly puzzling, as the American Federation for Children claims its initiative is intended to “strengthen fiscal accountability and prevent fraud,” which it would supposedly accomplish through “an online marketplace payment system.” According to the Arizona Department of Education, only 0.3% of ESA funds have been spent on fraudulent or egregious purchases, and nearly all the fraud was in Marketplace.

Meanwhile, the two payment methods that the American Federation for Children would inexplicably eliminate—debit cards and reimbursements—have almost no fraud. It makes zero sense to eliminate the more accountable payment options in the name of “accountability.”

The American Federation for Children ballot initiative goes against the wishes of nearly every ESA family, 90% of whom say they support having ESA debit cards.

Arizona School Choice Advocates Oppose Both Initiatives

“The entire Arizona school choice coalition opposes both anti-ESA initiatives,” explains Jenny Clark, the founder and executive director of Love Your School, a local school choice group.

“These initiatives have the potential to disrupt the education of tens of thousands of students,” warned Clark. “They would make it harder for families to use their ESAs, impose unnecessary regulations of private schools and homeschoolers, and even throw children out of the program and potentially out of the schools that serve them.”

Dan Kuiper, the executive director of the Arizona Christian Education Coalition, agrees. “These initiatives were crafted and funded by out-of-state special interest groups without any input from Arizona families or education providers.”

Kuiper worries that if either initiative were to pass, it “would force education providers who serve even one ESA family, including those who serve children with disabilities and special needs, to become part of the government bureaucracy that has already failed many of these families, causing them to seek the alternatives that the ESA offers their children.”

National school choice organizations are also weighing in. EdChoice, the nation’s premier school choice organization, also opposes both ballot initiatives because they would impose “new restrictions” that “would do little to improve accountability while directly reducing the flexibility that families value most.”

Caught on Camera: Initiative Backers Misleading Voters

Under Arizona law, citizens can bypass the Legislature by collecting enough signatures to place a measure directly before voters. Once enough valid signatures are gathered, the initiative goes on the ballot, and a simple majority decides the law.

The ballot initiative process depends entirely on voters understanding what they’re signing. That process is undermined when activists give false or misleading information to voters.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what signature gatherers working for both initiatives are doing.

In one video taken by an ESA parent, a signature gatherer working on behalf of the American Federation for Children initiative made it appear as though the ballot initiative was creating a new school choice program rather than curtailing an existing one. She claimed erroneously that the ballot initiative was “to help out with the cost of charter schools, private schools, tutoring, for the kids.”

Not only do charter schools not charge tuition, but full-time charter school students are not eligible for ESAs.

Worse, the American Federation for Children signature gatherer appeared to encourage Arizona voters to also sign the other, union-backed anti-school choice petition, claiming that it is “the same thing,” albeit with an income cap. “This is just to help get it onto the ballot,” she explained, “either or, whichever one you sign.”

When the ESA parent challenged the signature gatherer, noting that the ESA program already exists, she had no response.

This was no isolated incident.

In another video, a signature gatherer working for the American Federation for Children erroneously stated that their initiative was “to keep the ESA scholarship for families.” Of course, no initiative is needed for that.

Even more troubling, the American Federation for Children signature gatherer misrepresented the initiative, falsely portraying it as “not restrict[ing] ESA funds.”

As in the other video, the American Federation for Children signature gatherer told the voter that she could “sign both” anti-ESA petitions.

In a third video, a pair of signature gatherers representing each of the two initiatives falsely claimed that their ballot initiatives expanded school choice.

When asked what the ballot initiative would do, one signature gatherer misrepresented that it was “to support the children so that they get the funding … to receive the funding and expand the Empowerment Scholarship program.” The second gatherer also fraudulently asserted it was “to expand the [ESA] program.”

When the voter asked the first signature gatherer how the initiative would expand the ESA program, she replied, “By adding more funds.” That is false. The ESA program is already fully funded via the state funding formula. Neither initiative adds additional funding.

The series of false statements by the signature gatherers working for both anti-ESA initiatives could lead to legal trouble.

Arizona Revised Statutes § 19-116 states: “A person who is a circulator of an initiative or referendum petition and who induces any other person in the circulator’s presence to sign the initiative or referendum petition by knowingly misrepresenting the general subject matter of the measure is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor.”

Likewise, Arizona Revised Statutes § 19-119.01 states that “any fraudulent means, method, trick, device or artifice to obtain signatures on a petition” constitutes “petition signature fraud.”

Whether Arizona’s anti-school choice attorney general actually prosecutes the fraud is an open question. But one thing is certain: Both anti-ESA ballot initiatives would hurt the children who currently benefit from the ESA.

“Neither of these initiatives deserves to reach the ballot,” said Clark. “If you’re approached to sign either one, the right answer is simple: Decline to sign.”

Jason Bedrick is a Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.