For months, we have documented the pattern of errors, distortions, and outright fabrications that characterize the coverage of Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program by Channel 12’s political reporter Craig Harris. Each new episode—the fabricated 20% fraud claim, the defiance in the face of correction by the Arizona Department of Education itself, the constant shifting of goalposts as each of his claims is debunked—seemed like it might result in Channel 12 taking appropriate corrective action.
But they never did.
Last week, at the Arizona Legislature’s final stretch of its 2026 session, the mask came off entirely.
While lawmakers debated a series of consequential ESA-related bills and resolutions on Thursday and Friday—including a constitutional amendment to protect military family scholarships—Harris was captured on camera doing something that no journalist who takes the job title seriously can explain away: coordinating, via text message, with members of Save Our Schools Arizona, the anti-school-choice advocacy group that is a principal sponsor of the Protect Education Now ballot initiative, about where they should position themselves inside the Capitol building for maximum political impact.
Text message conversation between Channel 12’s Craig Harris and anti-school choice activists.
Let that sink in. A reporter on the education beat, covering legislation in real time, was not observing the advocacy groups in the building. He was directing them.
The text exchange was visible on the screen of a Save Our Schools activist—readable thanks to a conspicuously large font and no privacy screen—and was flagged by our Heritage Foundation colleague Corey DeAngelis, who shared images of the messages on social media after receiving them from a local activist. Harris subsequently confirmed on X that the images of the group chat, named “ESA DDD Confidential 12News,” were real.
After Harris told the activist that he was in the state senate chamber as that is “where [the] bill will first get introduced,” Save Our Schools board member Kathy Boltz asked Harris for advice regarding where their team of activists should place themselves in the capitol building. “Should we be in the senate? Hmm,” she asked. Within a minute, Harris answered in the affirmative.
This is not ambiguous. This is not a misunderstanding. This is a journalist using his knowledge of the Arizona Legislature’s political process to provide tactical advice to an advocacy group that has a direct political stake in the legislation he is supposed to be covering neutrally.
Harris was no longer covering the news. He was helping to manufacture it.
But that wasn’t the worst of it.
The same captured text conversation revealed Harris mocking a local school choice supporter, asking whether the individual “stars in porn.”
This derision was not just a lapse in professionalism. This was contempt—contempt for the families, advocates, and ordinary citizens who show up at the Capitol to make the case for educational freedom, expressed in a private conversation with advocates on the other side of the issue.
Text message conversation between Channel 12’s Craig Harris and anti-school choice activists.
Multiple Arizona politicos were quick to call out the behavior publicly. State Senator Jake Hoffman called for Channel 12 to fire Harris and called on the station to “open an investigation into every story he was involved in and retract any instance of undisclosed coordination.” Hoffman observed that this coordination with activists is “precisely the kind of unethical behavior that has caused the majority of Americans to deeply distrust the media.”
Arizona Republic columnist and former State Senator Paul Boyer called it “a really bad look” for Channel 12 to have their reporter, “who is also reporting on these same groups” to be discovered “coordinating with them at the legislature to defeat the same type of legislation he’s myopically focused on.” Similarly, J.P. Twist, executive director of Citizens for Free Enterprise, called out Harris for “literally strategizing with a partisan union to undermine parents’ rights.”
The parent company of Channel 12 publishes a “Principles of Ethical Journalism” statement committing its journalists to the values of truth, independence, public interest, fair play, and integrity. It’s hard to see how coordinating with one group of political activists and crudely mocking the other side comports with those standards.
Sadly, Harris’s breach of journalistic ethics does not end there.
Later that night, in a hearing on legislation to protect military family scholarships, Harris took to social media to characterize two of the three supporting witnesses who testified as people “making money off ESAs,” implying their support was financially motivated rather than principled.
One of those witnesses was Kevin Biesty, spokesperson for the Arizona Christian Education Coalition. As Biesty detailed on X, he reached out to Harris privately and asked him to correct or remove the post. Harris declined. As Biesty observed, the logic Harris applied to him — that representing clients who are affected by ESA policy makes one a financially conflicted advocate — is never applied to the other side. The staff and lobbyists of Save Our Schools Arizona and the teachers unions, who are paid to oppose the ESA program, are never characterized by Harris as people “making money off” the issue.
Harris also claimed that no military family spoke at the hearing. That too was false. Biesty had personally presented a written statement from a military mother who could not remain for the late-night session, and referenced letters from other military families — all of this while Harris was in the room. At no point did Harris ask Biesty for that mother’s contact information or seek to include her perspective in his coverage. He was, however, apparently attentive enough to the gallery to communicate with his Save Our Schools contact — the same ESA mother and SOS board member who, Biesty observed, is never identified as such in Harris’s stories — while sitting at the press desk on the floor.
Indeed, when ESA students and their families share their stories, Harris is quick to dismiss them. Recently, a young ESA student with disabilities named Jordan Visser shared on video about the ways the Protect Education Now initiative would harm students like himself. Harris went on social media to dispute his account, claiming that the initiative would not affect students with special needs—effectively accusing a student with disabilities of lying about the impact of a ballot measure on his own situation.
He was wrong. As the student’s mother, Kathy Visser, and others documented, the text of the initiative itself bore out what the student had said—the ESA funds that the family had saved to continue providing him with services would be seized by the state if the Save Our Schools ballot initiative were adopted.
The irony of Harris’s posture—aggressively checking the credibility of a disabled student while coordinating inside the Capitol with the very advocacy group sponsoring the initiative in question—encapsulates the problem. It is not that Harris is a journalist who occasionally makes mistakes. It is that the mistakes run in one direction, consistently, and that when corrected, he doubles down rather than acknowledging any error. And it is now documented, on camera, that he was coordinating tactics with one side of the debate he was purportedly covering.
Arizona families with children in the ESA program deserve better than a reporter who coordinates with the opposition at the very hearings he is assigned to cover. Arizona viewers deserve better than a news organization that has allowed this pattern to continue unchecked. And the thousands of children—including those with disabilities—who rely on these scholarships deserve a press corps willing to represent their stories honestly.
Channel 12 has not issued a correction or a retraction of the false fraud statistics. It has not yet acknowledged Harris’s coordination with activists or the mockery of a school choice supporter.
Channel 12’s parent company should answer a simple question: Is the behavior documented at the Capitol last week consistent with its Principles of Ethical Journalism? If not, what will it do about it?
Jason Bedrick is a Senior Research Fellow and Matthew Ladner is aSenior Advisor for education policy implementation at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.
A varied coalition of political voices will be the newest contributors to the Arizona Republic opinions page.
Those joining as representatives of the center and the right are former Maricopa County recorder Stephen Richer, former state lawmaker Paul Boyer, and Goldwater Institute vice president Timothy Sandefur.
Those joining from the left are Navajo Nation member and founder and director of Arizona Native Vote Jaynie Parrish, and the founder, CEO, and board chair of Aliento Reyna Montoya.
Since losing reelection to the recorder’s office, former Maricopa County recorder Stephen Richer has joined multiple leftist organizations including: States United Democracy Center (board member), State Democracy Defenders Fund (board member), and Harvard Kennedy School Ash Center Reimagining Democracy Program (senior fellow). Last year, Richer announced his intention to vote for Joe Biden over Donald Trump.
Goldwater Institute leader Timothy Sandefur’s latest opinion urges for laws to come from Congress again, not presidential dictate, citing former President Joe Biden’s executive order prohibiting farming and mining on one million acres of northern Arizona land and President Donald Trump’s tariffs. Sandefur was previously a litigator with the Pacific Legal Foundation.
Both Richer and Sandefur are adjunct scholars with the Cato Institute.
While in the legislature, former state lawmaker Paul Boyer maintained his stance as an independent among Republicans. Boyer introduced the bill that successfully became law allowing in-state tuition and financial aid to illegal immigrant students. Boyer also consistently stood against the Republican flock when it came to supporting election integrity bills.
Boyer maintains he left the legislature following death threats for his resistance to election legislation advanced by fellow Republicans. Presently, he teaches Latin at Heritage Academy Schools.
Both Boyer and Richer were on the board of Save Democracy Arizona, a now-defunct nonprofit that aimed to make primary elections nonpartisan through a ballot initiative.
Arizona Native Vote leader Jaynie Parrish was previously the executive director for Navajo County Democrats and social media manager for abortion activist group EMILY’s List. Arizona Native Vote runs ballot curing, voter registration, and voter education campaigns. Like Richer, Parris attended the Harvard Kennedy School of Government.
Parrish has made clear the goal is to mobilize Native American voters for Democratic candidates.
“We are fighting against structures that weren’t built for us. They weren’t meant for us there. They were trying to kill us all. We’re not supposed to be here,” Parrish said. “We’re not supposed to be voters.”
The nonprofit led by Montoya, a recipient of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), provides illegal immigrants with plans to counter immigration enforcement efforts and resources to evade immigration enforcement. Montoya received seed money from George Soros’ Open Society Institute.
Montoya was 10 years old when her mother smuggled her from Tijuana, Mexico, into the state. Montoya has expressed concerns that she will be deported under Trump.
Montoya worked closely alongside Boyer for the passage of in-state tuition and financial aid for illegal immigrants.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
What was supposed to be a three-way challenge for incumbent Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers has turned into a one-on-one contest with recently resigned Councilman Jamie Aldama. The third candidate was failed former state lawmaker Paul Boyer, who had a long and contentious relationship with the Glendale mayor and the city of Glendale. However, Boyer ultimately came up short of the signatures required to file for office and did not meet the April 1st deadline.
That makes the July 30th primary a winner take all event that promises to offer the citizens of Glendale two very different visions for the city. As mayor, Weiers has overseen the resurgence of this West Valley city, and a dramatic improvement in its economy, its bond rating, and its job base. The city regularly reports on companies and developments that have chosen Glendale or existing companies that are expanding.
While Weiers has been mayor, the city has hosted a number of national events, including two Super Bowls, and after this week, its second NCAA Final Four men’s basketball championship.
Aldama’s pitch is more nuanced, because after nearly a decade on the City Council he wants to take credit for the good things in the city, while simultaneously trying to convince voters that the city council is divided and failing in its job. This is a difficult tightrope for him to walk, say consultants, and supporters of the mayor point out that many of the projects and policies that have made Glendale successful are items that Aldama voted against, and those votes that contributed to the success of the city that Aldama voted for and could campaign on, were also championed by the mayor himself.
Aldama supporters believe the city would be better off if it embraced more of the left-leaning policies of cities like Phoenix, which has a Democratic mayor, like Aldama is trying to be. And Aldama himself has been very aggressive in campaigning as a Democrat and soliciting Democrat votes and support, even though city races are nonpartisan and those sorts of partisan appeals are generally frowned upon.
Campaign finance reports will be filed soon and will give more insight into the race and the prospects for the two candidates, but as with mayoral elections every four years, Glendale voters are once again in for a ride.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Republican legislators expressed displeasure with a bill brought forth by State Senator Paul Boyer (R-Glendale) to require county recorders to publicize the total number of early ballots returned to voting locations on election day — 14 of 31 Republicans voting against it. Effectively, House Republicans were divided in half on the issue.
One of the first legislators to express their disapproval of the bill was State Representative John Fillmore (R-Apache Junction). He said that Arizona had passed three historic election integrity bills and failed 14 others, 13 of which he blamed on Boyer. Fillmore said the bill was an insult to Arizona voters.
“This bill doesn’t do a darn thing but insult our caucus, the state of Arizona, and the Republic,” said Fillmore. “This is a bill that should’ve never been brought to the floor.”
The bill, SB1329, passed with some bipartisanship. 15 Republicans joined 22 Democrats to pass the bill. In addition to Fillmore, State Representatives Brenda Barton (R-Payson), Leo Biasiucci (R-Lake Havasu City), Walt Blackman (R-Snowflake), Judy Burges (R-Skull Valley), Neal Carter (R-Queen Creek), Joseph Chaplik (R-Scottsdale), Mark Finchem (R-Oro Valley), Teresa Martinez (R-Oro Valley), Kevin Payne (R-Peoria), Beverly Pingerelli (R-Peoria), and Justin Wilmeth (R-Phoenix) voted against the bill.
Democrats expressed wholehearted support for the bill. State Senator Lorenzo Sierra (D-Avondale) claimed that belief that the 2020 election was rigged in favor of President Joe Biden was the biggest lie of all time. Sierra’s assertion elicited groans from those around him, provoking him to insist that Fillmore instigated him.
“I support this bill because it attacks the greatest lie ever told in the course of human history,” said Sierra. “[Fillmore] started it, it’s going, I vote yes!”
State Senator John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) made light of Fillmore’s ire, remarking that his colleague’s vote against the bill seemed to inspire all Democrats to support it. His comment stoked laughter around the room.
“I wanted to thank Representative Fillmore for discovering a new, secret weapon for the Republicans. Apparently if he votes against an election integrity bill, every Democrat votes for it, which is absolutely amazing,” said Kavanagh with a laugh.
As an explanation of her “no” vote, Martinez simply referenced the recent documentary on widespread mail-in ballot fraud in the 2020 election, “2000 Mules” from conservative commentator Dinesh D’Souza.
“2000 Mules. And with that, I vote no,” stated Martinez.
Minority Leader Reginald Bolding (D-Laveen) insisted that the bill was a common-sense policy that offered transparency to voters concerning the number of ballots cast and counted in real time.
“This gives many of the unfounded issues that we saw during the 2020 election when people asserted that there were somehow additional ballots that were out there, floating, that were being added to support candidates or another,” said Bolding.
SB1329 now heads to Governor Doug Ducey for approval.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Votes by State Senators on three bills Thursday may have been overshadowed by the struggle to get budget legislation passed, but some legislators say the importance of those votes should not be ignored.
After its passage Thursday in the Senate, SB1074 was sent to Gov. Doug Ducey. The bill introduced by Sen. David Livingston (R-LD22) prohibits the state, as well as any state agency, city, town, county, or other political subdivision of Arizona from using public monies for and requiring an employee to engage in orientation, training, or therapy premised on any form of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex.
The 16 to 14 vote banning what is commonly called Critical Race Theory training from government workplaces is something Sam Stone, chief of staff for Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio, applauds the Legislature for, as it stops what he calls “hate” in its tracks.
“A lot of people who aren’t familiar with it confuse Critical Race Theory with the racial sensitivity training they may have had in the past. Critical Race Theory is not that,” Stone told AZ Free News. “It is a pernicious, racist ideology that seeks to rewrite history, and asserts that every single white person is, by definition, a racist and every person of color a victim.. No one should ever be told who or what they are based on the color of their skin.”
But there is much more to SB1074 than the training prohibition.
If Ducey signs the bill, it will usher in a major change to how cities, towns, counties, and community college districts approve the financial statements related to statutorily-required audits. The approval is often conducted under the radar by a city or town council, county board of supervisors, and college board of directors through the consent agenda of a meeting.
No discussion is allowed of items on a consent agendas, leaving the public with little awareness of any problems identified during an audit. But under Livingston’s bill, Arizona’s cities, towns, counties, and community college districts would be prohibited from shielding a negative audit through a consent agenda vote.
SB1074 also requires the governing body to have the CPA or auditor who performed the audit or prepared the financial statements to make a public presentation of the results. And it must be conducted during a regular meeting of the public body which has been properly noticed.
Another bill headed to Ducey is HB2792 introduced by Rep. Jake Hoffman (R-LD12) to make it a felony for a county recorder or other election official to knowingly mail out an early ballot to a voter who has not requested the ballot. The bill is one of several put forth by Republicans in connection to election reforms, and it passed the Senate on a party line vote of 16 to 14.
One bill that did not make it to Ducey after Thursday’s vote is SB1532, which seeks to prohibit blame or judgment tenets or lesson plans, such as Critical Race Theory, from public schools. It also set rules for how educators can teach controversial topics, and includes a civil penalty of up to $5,000 per incident against a teacher who violates those mandates.
SB1532 has been the focus of many passioned comments from legislators since being introduced by Livingston several weeks ago. It passed the House earlier this month on a 31 to 29 party line vote, and would have needed the support of all 16 Republican Senators on Thursday to pass.
But it was the bill’s provision allowing prosecutors from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office or a local county attorney’s office to sit in classrooms to investigate a teacher’s conduct which led to Sen. Paul Boyer (R-LD20) voting no.
“I’ve been struggling with this bill,” said Boyer, a junior high school teacher, in explaining his vote.
The bill would have died on a 15 to 15 vote, but Livingston utilized a procedural maneuver to change his yes vote to a no vote on his own bill. The resultant 14 to 16 vote ensures Livingston has a chance to work on a possible amendment which would garner Boyer’s support on a reconsideration vote.