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 Matthew Holloway | Feb 20, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Attorneys with the Goldwater Institute are scheduled to appear in Maricopa County Superior Court at 10 a.m. Friday for a hearing in their lawsuit challenging water policy changes implemented by the administration of Katie Hobbs.
The case, filed in January 2025 on behalf of the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona, contests new requirements adopted by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) affecting groundwater supply determinations in parts of Maricopa County.
The Goldwater Institute said the policy changes have halted approvals for new housing developments in certain areas of the Phoenix metropolitan region, including portions of Queen Creek and Buckeye.
Under Arizona law, homebuilders in designated Active Management Areas must obtain a certificate demonstrating a 100-year assured water supply before beginning construction.
Goldwater’s lawsuit challenges a policy change announced by ADWR in November 2024. It contends that the department adopted a new framework based on what it describes as “unmet demand,” which it says is not referenced in Arizona statute.
Goldwater penned a letter to the ADWR one month later, urging the agency to reconsider its “AMA Wide Unmet Demand Rule,” asserting that the new rule was in violation of the law, having been imposed without legislative approval or via the required rulemaking process.
ADWR has defended its authority to interpret and apply groundwater modeling within the state’s assured water supply program. The department has not publicly characterized the policy as a formal rulemaking.
The Maricopa County Superior Court previously denied ADWR’s motion to dismiss the case, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.
During Friday’s hearing, attorneys for Goldwater are expected to ask Judge Scott Blaney to enter judgment in favor of the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona.
The case is being heard at the Maricopa County Superior Court, East Building, located at 101 W. Jefferson Street in Phoenix.
In a statement, Goldwater Institute Vice President for Litigation Jon Riches said: “Decisions on vital statewide concerns like the availability of affordable housing and the responsible stewardship of our natural resources should be made through a transparent, democratic process—not imposed by executive fiat.”
Additional information about the case is available on the Goldwater Institute’s website. No ruling is expected at the time of the hearing.
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 Matthew Holloway | Dec 2, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Jim Griset, the proprietor of a souvenir store, an art gallery, and a Harley Davidson shop in Prescott, has secured a hard-fought victory in his efforts to bring his vision of a new hotel to the city’s historic downtown. Represented by Goldwater Institute attorney Jon Riches, Griset’s victory successfully overturned a City Council ruling that upheld the Prescott Preservation Commission’s denial of his permit.
According to the Goldwater Institute, Griset has sought to transform three buildings he already owns on Prescott’s historic Whiskey Row into a hotel. The buildings already house his existing businesses, but he has endeavored since 2023 to bring the hotel into being that would “complement the surrounding architecture and preserve the charm and character that make Prescott special.”
As noted by Goldwater, none of the buildings in question are listed as historic. Still, they are located within the city’s designated historic district and thus require approval from the Preservation Commission.
Writing for Goldwater Riches explained:
“When Jim first submitted his application in 2023, the commission rejected it—not based on any clear or objective standards, but in response to NIMBY [not-in-my-backyard] opposition and vague impressions. Instead of pointing to identifiable criteria in the city’s preservation code, the commission relied on subjective notions like whether the design was ‘respectful’ of the district’s ‘intimate scale.’
Those terms don’t appear anywhere in the law. They’re not defined. They’re entirely subjective—which is exactly what the law is supposed to prevent.”
The law Riches refers to is The Permit Freedom Act, a Goldwater Institute-developed law enacted in 2023. He notes, “The Act prohibits local governments from making new rules midstream or applying vague, subjective standards to block lawful use of private property. And that is precisely what Prescott did.”
When Griset applied for the permit and was denied, he reportedly took the commission’s feedback, revised his designs, and worked to meet the standards set. “Yet every time he met the standards placed before him, the standards seemed to change,” Riches wrote.
When the denial was appealed to the Prescott City Council, the Council ruled against Griset. The council brought in a neutral historic preservation expert, who found that Griset had met the standards, and Goldwater attorneys brought the potential violation of the Permit Freedom Act to the City’s attention. Goldwater told the city, “Based on this review, under the Permit Freedom Act, there was simply no legal criteria authorizing the denial of his permit,” per Riches. However, the Commission again ruled 3-2 against Griset and his hotel plans.
Riches noted that in 2024, Prescott’s City Council sold the old City Hall building to a property developer with similar plans for a four-story hotel in the very same district. But it wasn’t rejected by the Commission or Council.
On November 4th, the City Council heard Mr. Griset’s appeal. Riches wrote, “Several council members spoke openly about the importance of private property rights and the need for fair, consistent rules—not decisions driven by subjective preferences or political pressure. Members of the public echoed the same: government rules must be fair, consistent, and objective. They should not favor some over others.”
Riches concluded, “Property owners in Prescott, and across Arizona, deserve certainty. They deserve to know the rules before they invest. When government shifts the rules or invents new ones as it goes, it undermines confidence, deters investment, and violates the law.”
The council voted to overturn the Preservation Commission’s decision. Mr. Griset’s hotel plan is pending approval from Prescott’s city zoning and planning commission and, subsequently, from the Council. A water service agreement will also require approval.
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 Matthew Holloway | Sep 14, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Attorneys from the Goldwater Institute, representing the Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, joined former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould on Thursday to challenge Proposition 211. The measure, called the “Voters’ Right to Know Act,” is being contested on the grounds that it violates the state Constitution’s protections for free speech and privacy.
In the wake of Turning Point USA co-founder Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and a decade marked by attacks on political figures—the security risks of effectively doxxing political donors loom large in the case.
If upheld, the law would force nonprofit groups that weigh in on ballot measures or reference incumbents near an election to publicly disclose their donors—not just names and amounts, but also home addresses and employers—in a searchable database.
In today’s climate of escalating political violence—from death threats and swatting to vandalism, arson, and even assassinations—a database like this could essentially become a “hit list.”
In a press release the Goldwater Institute explained its position stating, “While proponents of the Voters’ Right to Know Act say they’re simply combatting so-called ‘dark money’ in politics, it is clear to Goldwater and its clients — the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and individual donors — that their real intent is to intimidate their political opponents into silence.”
“Arizona’s Proposition 211 is as un-American as it is dangerous. No one should be exposed to retaliation or violence simply for supporting causes they believe in,” said Jon Riches, Goldwater’s Vice President of Litigation. “The law also violates Arizona’s Constitution, which provides stronger protections for freedom of speech and privacy than even the U.S. Constitution. That’s why we at the Goldwater Institute believe the Arizona Supreme Court will ultimately strike down Proposition 211.”
Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi added, “They’re afraid of the activist organizations out there. They’re afraid of politicians and others that want to exact retaliation because they simply support a position or belief that they disagree.”
Mussi characterized the law as “a dangerous threat to our right to free speech and association.”
“As drafted, the law can be used to unconstitutionally target and harass private citizens, including our organization and our supporters,” Mussi stated. “We are confident that the Supreme Court will recognize the danger this law poses and will rule in our favor.”
In a statement to AZ Free News in May, Mussi elaborated on the potential for political intimidation: “Both the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution guarantee citizens the right to speak freely, which includes the right to not be forced to speak. Prop 211 not only violates this right for donors by silencing them from supporting causes they believe in but impairs the speech of nonprofits like ours as well.”
Peter Gentala, President of the Center for Arizona Policy, stated in a press release that Proposition 211 “creates an atmosphere of fear among those who support nonprofits that engage in the most pressing issues in Arizona today.”
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 Matthew Holloway | Sep 1, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Goldwater Institute attorneys and former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould are set to argue against Proposition 211 at the Arizona Supreme Court on September 11th. The Goldwater attorneys and Justice Gould argue that Prop 211, which requires nonprofit organizations to disclose the personal information, including names and addresses, of all their donors, violates the Arizona State Constitution’s guarantee of privacy.
According to Goldwater, “Under that law, donors to organizations that spend money on initiative campaigns must have their names, addresses, phone numbers, and employment information placed on a publicly accessible government list—thereby inviting retaliation, ostracism, and even violence.”
Goldwater Vice President of Litigation Jon Riches told AZ Free News, “Arizona’s Proposition 211 is as un-American as it is dangerous. No one should be exposed to retaliation or violence simply for supporting causes they believe in. The law also violates Arizona’s Constitution, which provides stronger protections for freedom of speech and privacy than even the U.S. Constitution.”
He continued, “That’s why we at the Goldwater Institute believe the Arizona Supreme Court will ultimately strike down Proposition 211 and offer the first clear roadmap for mounting state constitutional challenges to donor-disclosure laws across the country.”
The legal challenge was brought by Goldwater Institute on behalf of the Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, working on the basis that “Arizona’s constitution forbids the state from stripping people of their confidentiality as the price of supporting or opposing a political view.”
The Arizona State Constitution, unlike its federal counterpart, offers explicit protections for privacy in Article 2, Section 8, which reads, “No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law.” Likewise, under Article 2 Section 6, the right for all Arizonans to “freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects,” when coupled with the landmark Supreme Court of the United States case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission would seem to overwhelmingly uphold the right of Arizonans to donate privately to support or oppose a political cause.
As the late Justice Antonin Scalia observed, “The dissent says that ‘speech’ refers to oral communications of human beings, and since corporations are not human beings they cannot speak. Post, at 37, n. 55. This is sophistry. The authorized spokesman of a corporation is a human being, who speaks on behalf of the human beings who have formed that association—just as the spokesman of an unincorporated association speaks on behalf of its members. The power to publish thoughts, no less than the power to speak thoughts, belongs only to human beings, but the dissent sees no problem with a corporation’s enjoying the freedom of the press.”
In May, Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, echoed that sentiment writing, “We are thankful that the Arizona Supreme Court accepted review of this vital case for our First Amendment liberties. Both the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution guarantee citizens the right to speak freely, which includes the right to not be forced to speak. Prop 211 not only violates this right for donors by silencing them from supporting causes they believe in but impairs the speech of nonprofits like ours as well. We are hopeful that the Arizona Supreme Court will rule in favor of the Constitution after considering the merits of the case.”
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.
