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.
by Matthew Holloway | Aug 23, 2025 | Education, News
By Matthew Holloway |
Controversy has once again embroiled Arizona State University (ASU), threatening the credibility of the institution, Arizona PBS, and the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism. Emails uncovered by the Arizona Republic reveal that ASU President Michael Crow, former Arizona Republic publisher Mi-Ai Parrish, and other officials allegedly favored Democratic gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs over Republican Kari Lake during the 2022 Arizona gubernatorial election.
Lake has accused them of “collud[ing] to prevent me from having a debate forum.”
Reporting from the Arizona Republic’s Stacey Barchenger earlier this month exposed internal discussions among ASU leadership that appeared to prioritize Hobbs while sidelining Lake. The emails, obtained through public records requests, show that Parrish emailed Arizona PBS leaders, writing, “We may have issues,” after discussions with PBS Senior Director of Content, Ebonye Delaney. They expressed concerns about equal time laws and the risk to ASU’s relationship with the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission.
Crow emailed Parrish, stating, “Whatever the format there remains the fact that it is our venue and brand. We need structure…and format…….and….people who believe in elections as participants.” He later instructed his chief of staff, James O’Brien, and Parrish to “make sure you are both on the same page here,” prompting Parrish to ask, “What outcome are you seeking?”
ASU offered Hobbs a solo interview on Arizona PBS, a move that severed the university’s long-standing partnership with the voter-approved Clean Elections Commission. This decision was influenced by Crow’s reported disagreement with Lake’s views on election integrity and his labeling her an “election denier.”
Barchenger’s report, citing expert opinions, stated “That ASU leaders would consider one candidate’s views, and then reach down and influence television programming, called into question Arizona PBS’ independence as a news organization and its autonomy from university influence, experts said.”
“And it could have risked legal repercussions for Arizona’s largest university, they added.”
The Arizona Republic’s Robert Anglen shared the findings on X, writing, “Newly released emails detail how ASU’s top leaders sought to muzzle Kari Lake in 2022 for her election-denial views and give preferential treatment to Katie Hobbs on Arizona PBS during the governor’s race.”
Lake rejected Arizona PBS’s offer of a 30-minute solo interview, insisting on a joint debate with Hobbs. She told reporters at the time, “If she doesn’t appear with me, they should kick her out. If Democrats don’t have to sit on the debate stage with the Republicans, if they can just stomp their feet and demand a safe space … then we’ll never have a debate system again.” Lake instead participated in a Clean Elections-sponsored interview on another station and vowed to avoid PBS-related events.
In a statement responding to the exposé, Lake said: “Taxpayer-funded Michael Crow and taxpayer-funded ASU, along with taxpayer-funded PBS, colluded to prevent me from having a debate forum for fear I would talk about election fraud, and because their chosen candidate Katie Hobbs would’ve been destroyed in a debate with me. They interfered in the 2022 Arizona Gubernatorial election and trampled on my First Amendment rights. Their actions were not just unethical; they were likely illegal, too.”
ASU spokesman Jay Thorne defended the university’s actions, however, stating, “The shared objective of ASU and Arizona PBS after the gubernatorial debate was cancelled was to provide a forum for the voters of Arizona to hear from the two candidates for Governor in an interview format. It was an opportunity provided under identical conditions to each candidate, and only one accepted the offer.”
The controversy has raised serious questions about Arizona PBS’s journalistic independence and ASU’s impartiality. Crow, who received a contract extension with a pay raise and bonuses in 2024 despite prior scandals, faces renewed scrutiny over allegations of partisan interference in the electoral process. The decision to prioritize one candidate’s platform over another has sparked outrage and could have lasting repercussions for the institutions involved. This rewritten version organizes the information into clear sections, eliminates redundancy, and enhances readability while preserving all original quotes.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC) announced August 20th that it has filed a Hatch Act complaint against ASU “for using taxpayer-funded resources to meddle in the 2022 Governor’s race.”
Scot Mussi, President of AZFEC, stated, “This was a blatant misuse of taxpayer-funded university resources to tilt the scales of a gubernatorial election. Arizona law is clear: universities must remain impartial and neutral in election-related activities.”
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 Jonathan Eberle | Aug 9, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
Arizona Public Service (APS), the state’s largest electric utility, announced Wednesday it will no longer pursue its previous pledge to achieve zero carbon emissions by 2050. The company also scrapped its interim emission reduction targets and removed a commitment to end coal-fired generation by 2031 from its website. The utility now aims to be “carbon neutral” by 2050 — a less stringent target that allows for continued fossil fuel use if emissions are offset through technology such as carbon capture.
“Our aspiration has evolved based on changes to energy markets and customer needs, and our plans are built around doing what’s right for the people and prosperity of Arizona,” said APS spokeswoman Jill Hanks in a statement to 12News.
The announcement quickly drew sharp criticism from environmental advocates, who accused the company of backing away from its public commitments. “APS is walking away from every clean energy promise it made to the public, to regulators, to shareholders, and to the communities it serves,” said Autumn Johnson, Executive Director of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association. “We are left with vague intentions and zero accountability.”
A free-market advocacy group also voiced concerns, though from a different perspective. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club argued that the new plan still comes with a heavy cost to consumers. “While this is modestly better than the carbon-free plan they have been pushing for the last five years, APS’ new ‘carbon neutral’ plan will still cost ratepayers billions,” said Scot Mussi, the group’s president. “The priority should be reliable and affordable baseload power for Arizonans, not meeting arbitrary carbon goals that require massive amounts of expensive wind and solar that will degrade the grid.”
Some of Arizona’s elected officials also weighed in. Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs criticized the decision on X, writing, “Arizona needs an abundance of energy, with a strong, and reliable grid to keep our communities safe and to continue our economic growth. This decision sets us back. It makes our air dirtier, hurts our growing clean energy economy, and forfeits the cost savings of renewable options.”
She continued, “I’ll be reaching out to APS to discuss their decision and reiterate that we must continue investing in new energy technologies and diversify our energy portfolio at the fastest rate possible.”
Hobbs’ response is interesting given her history with APS. After her inauguration, it was revealed that Pinnacle West Capital Corp., the owner of APS, donated $250,000 to Hobbs’ inaugural fund. The group also made a $100,000 donation in 2024 to Hobbs’ secret litigation fund.
Republican gubernatorial candidate, and sitting U.S. Representative, Andy Biggs offered a sharply different take than Hobbs, posting, “Every utility in our state should be prioritizing reliable and affordable energy for Arizonans, not trying to meet the demands of environmentalists pushing the Green New Scam that hurts Arizona businesses and families. As Governor, I’ll make sure Arizona aligns with President Trump’s energy agenda to help our economy flourish.”
APS data shows most of the state’s surging energy demand is coming from the expansion of data centers rather than residential growth. The company and its investors view the sector as a major opportunity for revenue.
While APS maintains it remains committed to expanding cost-competitive clean energy, the rollback represents a significant departure from the 2020 pledge.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Jonathan Eberle | Aug 7, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
The Arizona Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments on August 19 in a closely watched lawsuit challenging the state’s early ballot signature verification process—one that could reshape how election officials authenticate mail-in ballots. The case, Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes, will be heard by Division Two of the Court of Appeals, which lifted a prior stay in the case following a joint request by all parties to move forward on the merits.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the Secretary of State’s Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) has unlawfully expanded the scope of documents used to verify a voter’s signature on early ballot envelopes. The plaintiffs—Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections, and Yavapai County voter Dwight Kadar—argue that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and his predecessor, now-Governor Katie Hobbs, enforced EPM guidance that violates state law.
Under Arizona statute A.R.S. § 16-550(A), election officials are required to compare a voter’s early ballot envelope signature to the one in their “registration record.” However, the current EPM—originally authored by Hobbs in 2019 and maintained under Fontes—permits election officials to validate signatures by comparing them to any election-related document on file, such as early ballot requests, provisional ballot envelopes, or Active Early Voting List notices.
“The current election procedures manual adopted by the Secretary of State has rewritten state law regarding signature verification for mail-in ballots,” said Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi. “The result is a process that invites questionable methods and opportunities for abuse during the signature review process. It’s time for the courts to bring this illegal EPM practice to a halt.”
The case has had a turbulent procedural history. In 2023, Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper initially ruled that the EPM violated state law, stating that the definition of “registration record” is neither vague nor ambiguous. Napper rejected the Secretary of State’s argument that the term could include any number of election-related documents. However, in a surprising reversal later in the proceedings, Napper ruled in favor of the state—prompting the plaintiffs to appeal.
The outcome of this case could have major consequences for how Arizona handles the verification of early ballots in future elections. Arizona is a state with widespread early and mail-in voting, and signature matching is often the sole method for confirming voter identity on ballots returned by mail. Early ballot voters are not required to provide other identifying information, such as a driver’s license number, date of birth, or the last four digits of a Social Security number.
After months of delays—including a stay prompted by a separate ruling that invalidated the 2023 EPM for procedural reasons—the Court of Appeals has agreed to resume the case. All parties have urged the court to issue a ruling on the merits, regardless of the Arizona Supreme Court’s handling of a related challenge filed by the Republican National Committee.
The court’s decision will help clarify the balance of power between Arizona’s elected officials and its election laws, especially in the increasingly scrutinized area of early voting.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Ethan Faverino | Jul 30, 2025 | Economy, News
By Ethan Faverino |
The Trump administration recently unveiled a proposal to repeal the 2009 “Endangerment Finding,” a controversial U.S. climate policy that declared carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases a threat to public health and welfare.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule, if finalized, would dismantle the legal foundation for numerous climate regulations under the Clean Air Act, repealing all resulting greenhouse gas emissions regulations for motor vehicles and engines.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin described the move as “the largest deregulatory action in the history of America,” arguing that the Endangerment Finding has been misused to impose costly regulations.
“There are people who, in the name of climate change, are willing to bankrupt the country,” Zeldin said. “They created this endangerment finding, and then they are able to put all these regulations on vehicles, on airplanes, on stationary sources, to basically regulate out of existence, in many cases, a lot of segments of our economy. And it cost Americans a lot of money.”
The proposal, which follows an executive order from President Trump, directs the EPA to review the findings’ legality. It is part of a broader push to roll back 31 environmental regulations.
Zeldin criticized the Obama and Biden administrations, saying they “twisted the law, ignored precedent, and warped science to achieve their preferred ends and stick American families with hundreds of billions of dollars in hidden taxes every single year.”
In states like Arizona, the Endangerment Finding has been used to enforce mandates and shut down energy sources that Arizona relies on.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club celebrated the EPA’s proposal, viewing it as a critical step toward alleviating economic burdens imposed on Arizona families and businesses from overreaching environmental mandates.
The Club argues that the Endangerment Finding has forced the closure of reliable energy facilities and imposed costly environmental policies that have led to soaring utility costs and raised concerns about the reliability of the state’s energy grid.
Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, reacted to the Trump administration’s proposal, saying, “[The Endangerment Finding] has always been junk science used to shut down Arizona’s economy, close down our coal plants, and force our state into California-style green mandates. Repealing the Endangerment Finding is a necessary step to restore energy independence, protect ratepayers, and stop the unelected bureaucrats at the EPA from hijacking our economy in the name of climate alarmism.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Page 3 of 10«12345678910»
