A teachers’ union-backed initiative to end Arizona’s universal school choice program relied on a variety of violent felons to collect signatures in violation of state law.
In what some critics have called a twist of irony, the initiative allegedly failed to conduct background checks on those gathering signatures for a reform that would require background checks for providers within the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program.
An amended complaint filed by the Goldwater Institute this week identified nearly 28,000 signatures collected by multiple felons, including a child predator, kidnapper, human trafficker, meth dealer, and killer.
In all, the Goldwater Institute estimated that these signatures, combined with all other invalid signatures, would render the petition ineligible for the November ballot. The Protect Education Act ballot initiative would need about 256,000 signatures at minimum to qualify.
One of the signature gatherers was Jess Redhorse, Jr., convicted of sexual abuse of a minor. According to a mandatory notice issued by the Flagstaff Police Department, Redhorse was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor in 2015 and released in October 2017 as a Level Two sex offender. Level Two signifies intermediate risk to the community. Redhorse’s victim was a 14-year-old female.
Redhorse is not listed on Arizona’s sex offender registry.
Per the Goldwater Institute complaint, Redhorse gathered more than 600 signatures for the petition.
Save Our Schools and the teachers unions say they are fighting to “protect” Arizona’s children.@NEAToday@ArizonaEA@arizona_sos
This is who their campaign trusted to collect signatures.
According to the verified complaint filed by the Goldwater Institute, Jess Redhorse Jr.… pic.twitter.com/NUecaSieoa
— Arizona Free Enterprise Club (@azfec) July 22, 2026
Other signature gatherers had violent felony-level criminal pasts as well according to the Goldwater Institute:
Dwight Perkins, Jr., was convicted of aggravated assault in Arizona and cocaine dealing in Illinois. Perkins gathered nearly 3,400 signatures.
Aaron Soto and Jose Roberto Valencia Toscano were convicted of trafficking illegal aliens for profit in Arizona. Soto gathered more than 3,100 signatures and Toscano gathered nearly 1,800 signatures.
According to a complaint filed with the Arizona District Court in 2023, Valencia Toscano trafficked illegal aliens using an unregistered vehicle in March 2023.
Freddie Wilkerson, Jr., was convicted of conspiracy to sell or transport marijuana in Arizona. Wilkerson gathered more than 2,900 signatures.
Alvin Harrison, Jr., was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Nevada. Harrison gathered nearly 2,700 signatures.
News reports state that Harrison was convicted of manslaughter in the case of a slain security guard, Jose Parra. It appeared that Harrison robbed the man after he killed him, taking his watch and wedding ring.
Melvin Alston was convicted of attempted manslaughter in New York. Alston was included in the amended complaint but not included in the original complaint.
Mark Trusiak, Sr., was convicted on a drug paraphernalia-related felony in Arizona. Trusiak gathered more than 2,000 signatures.
Adam Lopez Milligan was convicted of assault, kidnapping, and weapons misconduct in Arizona. Milligan gathered more than 1,100 signatures.
Kisha Antoinetta Christian was convicted of importing methamphetamines in Arizona. Christian gathered more than 50 signatures. Christian was also convicted of trafficking illegal aliens in 2018.
Trevor Tatsuya Murphy was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, unlawful taking of a vehicle, and trafficking stolen property in California. Murphy was not included in the original complaint.
A police department in California issued a press release in 2014 identifying Murphy as one half of a pair responsible for a series of thefts and vehicle burglaries that concluded with the pair striking a victim with a stolen vehicle while fleeing.
Robert Smith, Jr., was convicted of attempted murder, arson, stalking, criminal threats, and drug-related charges in California. Smith gathered two signatures.
Scott Simpson was convicted of felony drug offenses in Arizona. Simpson gathered about 100 signatures.
Jennifer Smith was convicted of drug possession in California. Smith was not included in the original complaint.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
A ballot initiative to end the state’s universal school choice program is facing a new challenge to the validity of its signatures.
The Goldwater Institute filed the challenge in court on Monday.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC) also announced that it joined Goldwater’s legal challenge, with AZFEC Vice President of Policy Greg Blackie serving as a plaintiff in the case. According to AZFEC, it worked alongside Goldwater and other school choice advocates to review petition sheets, identify alleged irregularities, and help ensure Arizona’s ballot qualification laws are enforced.
The Goldwater Institute said “a large amount” of the more than 415,000 signatures submitted appeared to be “fallacious.” The initiative needs about 256,000 signatures to qualify for the November ballot. The complaint raised more than 73,300 objections; the complaint asserted that, with all signatures removed as a result of the objections, the ballot initiative would be left with fewer than 256,000 valid signatures.
The 900-page complaint filed in the Maricopa County Superior Court stated that the signatures weren’t properly registered with the secretary of state’s office as required by law.
Specifically, the complaint raised objections including paid but unregistered circulators, signatures gathered prior to circulator registration, false residential addresses, permanent address contradictions, bad telephone numbers or email addresses, false identities, bad service addresses, and ineligible, missing, or mismatched IDs.
Additionally, the Goldwater Institute claimed that certain circulators were ineligible to collect signatures because they had been convicted of a criminal offense involving fraud, forgery, or identity theft; convicted of another felony offense in which their civil rights haven’t been restored; or adjudicated an incapacitated person.
Individuals named as ineligible circulators were convicted of felonies and other crimes related to drugs, human trafficking, manslaughter, sexual abuse of a minor, assault, kidnapping, weapons misconduct, forgery, false reporting, and credit card forgery.
Finally, the complaint claimed that certain circulators failed to write their full and correct assigned circulator identification number on multiple petition sheets.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi said the allegations raised questions about the campaign’s vetting and oversight of paid petition circulators.
“Save Our Schools and the teachers unions have spent years accusing ESA families of fraud and demanding greater scrutiny of parents. Now, their own campaign is facing serious questions about the people they hired to gather signatures,” said Mussi. “Arizona’s election laws must be fully enforced. If this campaign failed to collect enough lawful and valid signatures, it must not qualify for the ballot.”
Goldwater Institute CEO and President Victor Riches criticized the initiative for its heavy sourcing of out-of-state special interest funding.
“This is a shameless attack on Arizona’s parents, funded by an out-of-state union,” said Riches. “They’re trying to game the system by turning in tens of thousands of invalid signatures in an effort to destroy the most successful school choice program in the country. This won’t happen on our watch.”
The Goldwater Institute also stated in a press release that the original title of the initiative was misleading.
If enough signatures are validated and voters approve the measure, the Protect Education Act would impose an income eligibility cap on the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program.
Doug Ducey, former Arizona governor, was quoted in the Goldwater Institute press release saying the entire effort to dismantle the ESA program proved the true intentions of teachers’ unions. Ducey signed the bill into law that made the ESA program open to all students.
“Once again, we are reminded how little these out of state unions care about Arizona students and their parents,” said Ducey. “This measure would strip tens of thousands of Arizona families of educational choices they have made for their children, forcing students out of the schools that are serving them well and back into schools they chose to leave. That is unacceptable, and we will vigorously challenge this measure at every possible step.”
In response to the submission of the ballot initiative signatures earlier this month, Ducey launched a political action committee to secure school choice accessibility for military families.
Protect Education, Accountability Now (PEAN), the organization behind the ballot initiative, filed a challenge last week to the competing legislature-referred ballot initiative that would negate their proposed ballot initiative.
The Goldwater Institute has filed a motion in Maricopa County Superior Court seeking to intervene on behalf of two Air Force veterans in a lawsuit challenging a proposed constitutional amendment that would protect certain scholarship funds for children of military families.
The motion was filed on behalf of Nickolas Kupper and Robert Figueroa, whom Goldwater identified as Air Force veterans whose children currently participate in Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program. The proposed intervenors are seeking to defend House Concurrent Resolution 2048, the “Military Families College Savings and Scholarship Protection Act,” which the Legislature recently referred to the November 2026 ballot.
The lawsuit was filed by the Protect Education Accountability Now Committee, Save Our Schools Arizona, and voter Linda May Lyon against the State of Arizona and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes. According to Goldwater’s motion to intervene, the plaintiffs are asking the court to block HCR 2048 from appearing on the November ballot.
Arizona's military families don't deserve to have their children's educational opportunities ripped from their hands. That's why we're stepping up to defend them. https://t.co/ayRcX5JbBE
— Goldwater Institute (@GoldwaterInst) July 2, 2026
Goldwater said in a July 2 announcement that Kupper and Figueroa are seeking to defend the measure because their families have used ESA funds for years and have a direct interest in the outcome of the litigation.
“Proposed Intervenors seek to intervene as Defendants to defend the constitutionality of House Concurrent Resolution 2048 (‘HCR 2048’), the ‘Military Families College Savings and Scholarship Protection Act,’ which is a legislative referral passed to protect the educational stability of military families,” the motion states.
HCR 2048 proposes adding a new section to Article XI of the Arizona Constitution. Under the measure, the state could not confiscate funds from the scholarship account of a child of a military family if the account is maintained under a state program that designates such students as eligible and allows the funds to be used for tuition or fees at eligible postsecondary institutions.
The measure defines a “child of a military family” as a student who is the child of a person serving on active duty in the U.S. armed forces, who was serving on active duty when the student’s eligibility was initially determined, or who was killed in the line of duty.
The proposed amendment also contains a nonseverability provision. If a future law or voter-approved measure violates the military-family scholarship protection, the entire conflicting law or measure would be void, and a court could not sever only the offending portion.
The House passed HCR 2048 initially on March 2, the Senate passed it on June 12 by a 16-13-1 vote, and the House passed the final reading on June 13 by a 31-22-7 vote.
Goldwater’s motion argues that Kupper and Figueroa have a right to intervene because the lawsuit directly threatens their ability to secure long-term constitutional protections for their children’s education funding.
“By seeking to keep HCR 2048 off the ballot, Plaintiffs directly threaten to block Proposed Intervenors’ ability to secure long-term constitutional protections for their children’s educational funding,” the motion states.
The filing also argues that the existing government defendants cannot adequately represent the families’ specific interests. Goldwater said Fontes is defending the measure as a neutral election administrator, while Kupper and Figueroa are defending the substantive validity of the proposed amendment because their children rely on ESA funds.
In its July 2 statement, the Goldwater Institute said, “The Arizona Constitution is clear: Arizona voters have the right to amend the state constitution, and the Military Families Protection Act would trump the activists’ efforts to cripple the scholarship opportunities currently afforded to Arizona military families and others.”
The lawsuit comes as ESA opponents are also seeking to place the Protect Education Act on the ballot. Save Our Schools Arizona says the proposal is intended to “reform Arizona’s universal ESA voucher program” and increase transparency and accountability.
The Protect Education Campaign announced last week that it submitted 421,451 signatures to the Secretary of State’s Office.
The Protect Education Act proposal would require unused ESA money to revert to the state and be directed to public schools, and it would bar families making more than $150,000 annually from joining the program. It would also ban ESA spending on non-educational or luxury items and require the Arizona Department of Education to report how much voucher funding each school receives.
HCR 2048 could conflict with the Protect Education Act because the proposed constitutional amendment would block future laws or ballot measures from changing the protected scholarship-account funds for military families.
Goldwater argued in its motion that the litigation is directly tied to that conflict, saying an adverse ruling could remove HCR 2048 from the ballot and leave the families’ ESA accounts vulnerable to “regulatory and financial rollbacks” under the competing Protect Education Act.
“Without HCR 2048, Proposed Intervenors’ educational accounts will remain highly vulnerable to systemic legislative and political volatility, including the exact regulatory and financial rollbacks slated under Plaintiffs’ competing ‘Protect Education Act,’” the motion states.
Kupper and Figueroa are asking the court to allow them to enter the case as defendants, either as a matter of right or by permission. They also said they intend to file a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim rather than expand the litigation with counterclaims.
The case is assigned to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Kreamer.
Activists reported that they have turned in more than 420,00 signatures for a ballot initiative that would end the universality of Arizona’s school choice program.
Supporters wearing red shirts reading “Public School Proud” affiliated with Save Our Schools Arizona (SOSA) gathered outside the secretary of state’s office to watch the box truck delivery of the boxes containing the signatures for the ballot initiative. Both SOSA and the Arizona Education Association (AEA) were behind the initiative.
SOSA and the AEA contend the universality of the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program diverts far too much in funding away from public schools. Families within the program don’t have to depart their public schools; however, since the expansion of the ESA program to all students in 2022, enrollment in public schools has declined. Defenders of the ESA program counter that per-pupil spending in the program costs less than in public schooling.
ESA program funds may be used for private school tuition, tutoring, online courses, homeschool curriculum, educational therapies, textbooks, educational software, testing fees, and college courses.
The Protect Education Act (PEA) would impose income restrictions on the ESA program.
Estimates show that approximately 20,300 current students in the ESA program would be disqualified under the PEA initially, though that number would grow to exclude more than half of Arizona’s families with school-aged children due to inflationary impact on incomes outpacing the income cap adjustment.
The act would also impose accreditation requirements and further restrictions on spending.
The ESA program has reported the enrollment of more than 100,000 students. More than 8,200 were listed as new students enrolled for the next school year.
Those who support keeping the universality of the ESA program have been maneuvering to preserve protections for some member families.
The Republican majority in the state legislature passed a ballot measure of their own last month: HCR 2048, the “Military Families College Savings and Scholarship Protection Act,” which would amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit the confiscation of ESA program funds from students belonging to military families.
Should voters approve both the lawmakers’ measure and PEA, it is likely the latter would be voided under language included in the former.
In addition, Doug Ducey, the former governor who signed universal school choice into Arizona law, made an announcement Thursday of a political action committee dedicated to securing school choice protections for military families. Ducey was announced as the chairman of the Protect Military Families PAC.
“Out-of-state special interests and their union allies are trying to take educational scholarships away from the children of Arizona’s military families,” said Ducey.
Serving alongside Ducey on the political action committee is Ashley Ragan, president of InCompliance AZ.
Out-of-state special interests and their union allies are trying to take educational scholarships away from the children of Arizona’s military families.
That is why today, we are proud to launch Protect Military Families PAC @ProtectMilFam.
The Goldwater Institute, a public policy think tank and litigation organization, filed a motion in the Maricopa County Superior Court earlier this week on behalf of two military families involved in the ESA program.
The organization said that about 1,000 other military families stand to be disqualified from the ESA program should the universalization end.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Eight years ago, the United States Marine Corps moved my family to Arizona. Since then, my husband and I have used Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program to help provide the education our three children need to succeed.
As both a mother and a teacher, I have seen firsthand the difference educational choice can make in a child’s life. That is why I oppose the so-called Protect Education Act.
Despite its name, this measure does not protect education. It limits educational opportunities and restricts parents’ ability to choose the learning environment that best fits their children’s needs.
My own children have benefited from ESAs, and many students at the high school where I teach attend through the program as well. These are real children with unique learning styles, goals, and challenges. The ESA program empowers parents to make decisions based on what is best for their child, not what is most convenient for a government system.
Critics often claim that ESA programs drain funding from public schools. The reality is that the typical ESA award is only a fraction of the combined state and local tax dollars spent on a student in the public school system. When a student leaves a public school and uses an ESA, the state generally spends less on that individual child.
Opponents also point to isolated examples of misuse within the ESA program. No government program is perfect, but the Arizona Department of Education reports that the overwhelming majority of ESA families follow the rules. State analyses have found that truly egregious fraud accounts for approximately 0.3% of ESA spending. By comparison, federal SNAP benefits experience improper payments and fraud estimated in billions of dollars annually, representing a far larger percentage of total program spending. Yet no one argues that food assistance should be eliminated because a small number of people break the rules.
The answer is accountability, not fewer choices for families.
Arizona has become a national leader in educational freedom because we trust parents. Whether a family chooses a public school, charter school, private school, homeschool, or another educational option, that decision should remain with the people who know the child best: their parents.
The Protect Education Act would move Arizona in the wrong direction. It would limit options, create new barriers, and make it harder for families like mine to access the educational opportunities our children need.
For the sake of educational freedom, parental rights, and student success, I encourage Arizonans to look beyond the title and reject the Protect Education Act.
