Andrew Costanzo, a Republican candidate for the 7th legislative district, still believes public education is key to Arizona’s future. But Costanzo says Arizona has serious need for reform — and that’s why public schools continue to decline.
Costanzo has proposed remedying low student proficiency rates by increasing school choice competition, mirroring Mississippi law, and implementing merit-based bonuses for educators.
He has also proposed growing the state’s universal school choice program by allowing property taxes to follow the child rather than according to the geographical predeterminations that fund school districts.
Costanzo is also very much against the proposed ballot initiative to end universal school choice. He said opportunity for educational freedom should be afforded to all, regardless of economic status. He also said educators would benefit from greater competition because they would be marketable on merit.
“How will these children reach their full potential as adults if they can’t read? We’re causing them a lifetime of pain,” said Costanzo in an interview last month. “The schools need something that benefits all businesses, and that’s competition.”
Costanzo also proposed enacting legislation similar to Mississippi’s Literacy-Based Promotion Act in Arizona, which policy experts have credited with a dramatic turnaround in student outcomes.
The lifelong Republican, who operates a family business near Payson, views freedom as the result of individuals taking on personal responsibilities and risks.
“Security, which is typically imagined, requires minimal personal responsibility and risk,” stated Costanzo’s website. “The alleged security is always provided at the loss of freedom.”
Beyond those philosophical takes on political matters, Costanzo presented a platform heavy on reducing government regulations through serious bureaucratic downsizing and greater deference to local governments, while increasing election security measures, resisting increased gun restrictions and abortion freedoms, retaining protections for law enforcement, and rolling back renewable energies.
Costanzo said in an interview last month that the legislature must “economically strangle” cartels and further scrutinize state agencies to recover what he says are sizable amounts of taxpayer funds being lost.
“It is so evident that there is waste, fraud, and abuse [in Arizona],” said Costanzo.
Costanzo’s platform also addressed at length the ongoing consequences of mass illegal immigration.
He described opposition to the present government handling of the illegal immigration crisis. According to Costanzo, the status quo victimizes both the illegal aliens and Americans. Illegal aliens face exploitation due to their vulnerable status as noncitizens, while Americans face the burdens of increased crime and strained public resources.
“Illegal aliens are often exploited financially, physically, or sexually. These people become part of an underclass of humans, a new form of slavery,” said Costanzo. “Whomever the victim, law enforcement resources must be implemented, the legal system is burdened, and incarcerations are applied. All paid for by the American taxpayer. […] [And t]he children of illegal aliens only put more pressure on an already failing [public school] system. Children who do not speak English must receive additional attention and resources, depriving the same from American students.”
Costanzo has been involved with the Arizona Republican Party, Gila County Republican Committee, Maricopa County Republican Committee, and Arizona Law Enforcement Emerald Society. He served as a precinct committeeman as well as a chairman, first vice chairman, and secretary for his legislative district.
This year marks Costanzo’s second time running for this office. He failed to secure the nomination in the 2024 Republican primary, which proved to be more crowded than this year’s primary: six candidates fought for two seats.
The 7th legislative district has fewer contenders in the Republican primary this time around.
State Rep. Walt Blackman is running to retain his seat, the other vacated by the April resignation of former lawmaker David Marshall. Three candidates are fighting for that spot vacated by a would-be incumbent: Costanzo and fellow 2024 primary candidate, Barby Ingle, and former state representative David Cook.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ02) announced this week that language from his legislation aimed at restoring veterans’ Second Amendment rights has been incorporated into a bipartisan bill advancing through Congress.
According to a statement from Crane’s office, language from H.R. 496 was added to H.R. 1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives this week and now heads to the Senate.
The legislation would prohibit the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from reporting veterans to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) solely because they receive assistance managing their VA benefits through a fiduciary program.
Crane’s provision incorporated into H.R. 1041 would restore Second Amendment rights to veterans previously reported to NICS solely due to fiduciary participation.
The measure would require a judicial determination that a veteran poses a danger to themselves or others before Second Amendment rights could be restricted through NICS reporting.
Crane said the addition of his bill language strengthens the legislation by addressing veterans already affected by the prior reporting policy.
“I’m pleased to see the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs add my language from H.R. 496 to the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act,” Crane said. “This addition strengthens the bill, ensuring the retroactive removal of veterans who were wrongly added to the FBI’s NICS list.”
House Veterans’ Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Mike Bost (R-IL) said the legislation is intended to protect veterans receiving financial assistance services from losing constitutional rights without court involvement.
“The men and women who have served and defended Constitutional rights for generations of Americans should not have to worry that they will be reported to NICS and lose their rights simply because they need help managing their books,” Bost said. “Veterans should never be treated like second-class citizens.”
Rep. Morgan Luttrell (R-TX), chairman of the Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee, also supported the measure, stating that only courts—not agency officials—should determine whether constitutional rights are restricted.
The legislation follows policy changes announced earlier this year by the Department of Veterans Affairs. In February, the VA announced it would stop reporting veterans enrolled in the fiduciary program to NICS solely because they receive assistance managing benefits. The department stated it was also working with the FBI to remove prior VA-related NICS submissions connected only to fiduciary participation.
VA Secretary Doug Collins said at the time that veterans had been deprived of Second Amendment rights without sufficient due process protections.
Today, the House passed the bipartisan Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.
This bill codifies @POTUS’ directive stopping the VA from reporting veterans to the FBI’s NICS list for using a fiduciary.
Following House passage, Crane praised the legislation and urged Senate approval.
“If the federal government is willing to strip the God‑given, unalienable rights of those who served in uniform, there is no telling where they will draw the line. H.R. 1041 codifies the termination of this un‑American practice and prevents future administrations from unilaterally reversing this wise decision.”
He added, “I’m grateful to President Trump for protecting the rights of our nation’s heroes, and I appreciate Chairman Bost for adopting my language into his bill. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to quickly pass these necessary reforms.”
Over the past three years, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes has been executing a political agenda.
She has refused to defend state laws—while going out of her way to attack common-sense federal policies—simply on the grounds that she personally disagrees.
She’s failed to uphold our values. She’s destroyed common sense. And she has pursued an extreme political agenda to appease her party leadership—all the while undermining President Trump’s efforts to make America great again.
Principled, hard-working Arizonans have paid the price for her politically motivated dereliction of duty.
I’m running for Attorney General because Arizona desperately needs a top law enforcement officer who will uphold our laws and fairly represent Arizona families.
As Senate President, I’ve taken part in over 110 lawsuits to ensure Arizona’s laws and interests are defended when the Attorney General wouldn’t act. We have led an unprecedented campaign to protect Arizonans, and our action has provided unparalleled experience.
I’ve defended Arizona’s sex offender registration laws. The case in question, Doe v. Sheridan, argues whether our state can mandate convicted sex offenders to keep law enforcement informed, including reporting online identifiers used on social media and other platforms, so officers can investigate crimes and prevent future harms. The Arizona Legislature stepped up and successfully defended the sex offender registration laws in court after the Arizona attorney general failed to carry out her responsibility to do so.
I’ve defended the integrity of girls’ sports. As Senate President, I’ve led the defense of Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act in federal court against special interests seeking to allow boys to play in girls’ sports. We’ve taken this case all the way to the Supreme Court, and we’re waiting on a major ruling from the nation’s high court on similar cases that could affect Arizona’s law.
I’ve defended laws dealing with the First Amendment. One of those cases was Chiles v. Salazar, where the Arizona Legislature joined a challenge to Colorado’s conversion therapy ban. Another was in NRA v. Vullo, where we challenged whether the State of New York could threaten banks with adverse regulatory actions if they provided services to the National Rifle Association.
I’ve defended laws related to the Second Amendment. One of those cases was Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, defending American firearms manufacturers from being held liable from frivolous lawsuits from foreign entities. Another was Miller v. Bonta, challenging California’s ban on the manufacture, distribution, importation, and possession of various firearms.
I’ve defended laws related to the Eighth Amendment. Under my leadership, the Arizona Senate filed briefs to allow cities to disband homelessness encampments, winning at the Supreme Court.
I’ve defended the state’s right to carry out justice regarding capital punishment.
I’ve defended election integrity. We intervened to defend Arizona’s ability to make sure only citizens are voting in our elections.
I’ve defended our state against radical environmentalists. In Petersen v. EPA, we sued the Biden-led EPA to overturn unattainable environmental standards that punished job creators, and detrimentally impacted America’s power grid. We joined a lawsuit to block a California rule forcing trucking drivers to use less efficient battery-powered vehicles, which would have further increased the costs of everyday items.
I’ve defended our state against unconstitutional executive overreach. We challenged then-President Biden’s executive order forcing federal contractors and their employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
And I’ve defended our state against rampant government encroachment on our lands.
Thanks to my involvement in these—and dozens of other legal efforts—I’ve been called Arizona’s de facto Attorney General, stepping in where our liberal Attorney General has shamefully abdicated her role. Our engagement in these matters has allowed me to serve our great citizens and provide leadership where none existed. It’s time for Arizona to once again have an Attorney General committed to serving all the people—not just partisan special interests.
When I was young, my parents always told us they met in college. Given that they went to different colleges for very different majors, that always seemed odd to me. When I was older, I learned the full story. They had actually met in an underground bunker during the Lebanese Civil War. They were both serving in the Lebanese Forces defending their Christian faith and families—my mother choosing to step up after losing her 19-year-old brother to the war.
This war was about their very right to live their Christian faith free from violent threats and governmental oppression. Unfortunately, the Christian forces did not prevail, and my parents ultimately immigrated legally to the United States to forge a new life for their family. They wanted to secure our freedom to live our faith and create a prosperous future.
They had put their lives on the line to secure that freedom in Lebanon. They knew all too well that you could not put your faith in the government to defend you. All too often, the government was the danger. So, from a young age, the importance of the Second Amendment was instilled in me, along with respect for all the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. For a people to remain free, they must have the right and ability to defend themselves. That was true in 1776, and it’s perhaps even more true today.
When I speak to voters, I hear concerns about safety echoing frequently. Many of my friends and neighbors are gun owners for just that reason. They want to know they can defend themselves against dangerous people who could try to harm them or their family. In blue cities that have adopted soft-on-crime policies, it is the government that has created these conditions. But furthermore, many of us understand gun ownership in broader terms: that as Americans, the responsibility to defend our freedom has always and ultimately resided with us. Our faith is not in government to grant our rights, but rather to uphold rights that have already been granted by God. And if and when it fails on a grand scale to do so, we must be ready.
Many Americans are unaware how quickly their Second Amendment rights can vanish with just one election. And not just a Presidential election. In Virginia, a change in Governor and a number of legislative seats led to sweeping anti-gun legislation criminalizing the sale and transfer of the most common household firearm in the country. This bill (HB217/SB749) was sent to their new-Governor Abigail Spanberger along with 25 other anti-Second Amendment bills.
Arizona’s own Governor Hobbs is equally as radical as Governor Spanberger. The difference? Arizona’s Legislature, where pro-Second Amendment legislators hold a slight majority, would never send her such bills to sign. Were the balance of power in the Arizona House and Senate to shift by a few seats, a slew of similar bills would be promptly sent to her desk by Arizona Democrats and signed.
I’m proud that Arizona’s constitutional defense of gun ownership outpaces the Second Amendment, using the strong verbiage “the right to bear arms shall not be impaired,” and offering some of the strongest constitutional carry protections. We must defend our place as a leading Second Amendment state.
I urge voters concerned about defending this vital freedom to consider the consequences of elections. Vote all the way down your ballot and talk to every candidate about their position on the issue. It’s not just about party, but about commitment to the Constitution, regardless of political winds or the ways in which anti-Second Amendment activists leverage tragedy for political gain. That’s the kind of commitment I’ll always have to the Second Amendment. Freedom can be lost in a generation, but on my watch, I won’t allow it.
George Khalaf is a candidate for the Arizona House in Legislative District 3. You can follow him on X here.
U.S. Representative Eli Crane (R-AZ02) issued a statement Wednesday praising the Trump administration for what he described as action to protect veterans’ Second Amendment rights.
According to a press release from Crane’s office, the administration clarified federal policy to ensure veterans who have a fiduciary appointed to manage their VA benefits are not automatically reported to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as “prohibited persons.”
Under prior policy, veterans assigned a fiduciary to manage benefits could be reported to NICS, potentially preventing them from purchasing or possessing firearms under federal law. The change announced by the administration reverses that reporting practice, according to Crane’s statement.
“For nearly three decades, unelected bureaucrats violated the constitutional rights of hundreds of thousands of our nation’s heroes. If the federal government is willing to strip fundamental liberties from those who served in uniform, there’s no telling where they will draw the line,” Crane said. “I’m grateful to President Trump and Secretary Collins for correcting this injustice and protecting the freedoms that our veterans fought to defend. Congress must now codify this directive so no future administration can reimplement this disgraceful protocol.”
The press release states that the policy clarification impacts enforcement of federal firearm restrictions under the Gun Control Act of 1968, which prohibits firearm possession by individuals adjudicated as mentally defective or committed to a mental institution.
In a statement posted to X, VA Secretary Doug Collins wrote:
“Effective immediately, VA is halting enforcement of the interim final rule, Evaluative Rating: Impact of Medication. VA issued the rule to clarify existing policy and protect Veterans’ benefits in the wake of an ongoing court action. But many interpreted the rule as something that could result in adverse consequences.
While VA does not agree with the way this rule has been characterized, the department always takes Veterans’ concerns seriously. To alleviate these concerns, VA will continue to collect public comments regarding the rule, but it will not be enforced at any time in the future.”
Effective immediately, VA is halting enforcement of the interim final rule, Evaluative Rating: Impact of Medication.
VA issued the rule to clarify existing policy and protect Veterans’ benefits in the wake of an ongoing court action. But many interpreted the rule as something…
Crane has previously pursued legislative efforts addressing the issue. In the 118th Congress, he introduced H.R. 9053 and H.R. 9054, which would have nullified prior VA submissions to NICS and prohibited the VA from participating in certain state-level firearm confiscation proceedings. He reintroduced similar legislation in the current Congress as H.R. 496 on January 16.
The bill has been referred to the House Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs under the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. Arizona Representatives Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ08) and Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ06) serve on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, which, along with the Judiciary Committee, will consider the bill before it goes to the floor.
During the Fiscal Year 2025 appropriations process, Crane also sponsored an amendment to the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill stating that veterans reported to NICS by a VA fiduciary were unlawfully submitted and directing the VA Secretary to instruct the Attorney General to remove those names from the system. The amendment passed the House, but the underlying appropriations measure did not advance in the U.S. Senate.
The Trump administration has not yet released detailed regulatory language publicly outlining the changes referenced in Crane’s statement.
Crane has called on Congress to pursue legislative action to codify protections for veterans’ firearm rights in federal statute.
