by Staff Reporter | Mar 22, 2025 | Education, News
By Staff Reporter |
After 45 years of existence, the Department of Education (ED) is coming to an end.
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday dismantling ED: “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities.” The historic order stops short of total abolition of the agency, since law dictates that Congress must be the one to close it.
The order cited historic lows of reading and math scores among children as proof of ED’s decades-long failures, and contrasted the poor educational outcomes with ED’s high budget and massive staffing.
“While the Department of Education does not educate anyone, it maintains a public relations office that includes over 80 staffers at a cost of more than $10 million per year,” said the order. “Closing the Department of Education would provide children and their families the opportunity to escape a system that is failing them.”
The order further accused ED of operating like an inefficient bank with its management of over $1.6 trillion in student loan debt.
Trump directed Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to undertake measures to close ED and return authority to the states, as well as terminate funding to programs and activities engaged in progressive ideologies including diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and gender theory.
Reactions among Arizona leadership fell largely along party lines.
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI), Tom Horne, praised the executive order, calling the agency an “unnecessary” entity dedicated to heaping more bureaucracy on the states.
“The Federal Department of Education was unnecessary and added bureaucracy for states,” said Horne. “Thank you President Trump for bringing education back to the states where it belongs.”
Congressional efforts to codify the executive order are also underway. South Dakota Senator Mike Rounds revealed to Fox News that he’s been in discussions with Trump to do just that.
“I am working on legislation that would return education decisions to states and local school districts while maintaining important programs like special education and Title I,” said Rounds. “We are discussing this legislation with Secretary McMahon, and we believe there is a very good path forward.”
Earlier this month, the Trump administration slashed ED’s workforce by nearly half (over 1,300 staffers). Thursday’s executive order will further reduce the remaining 2,200 employees.
Although Trump’s order does not close ED totally, Mayes claimed the executive order was “illegal.”
“The Department of Education cannot be dismantled via executive order,” said Mayes. “This chaos is not about efficiency — it’s destruction.”
Governor Katie Hobbs said Arizona stands to lose $1 billion in federal funds for certain programs, like special education, with the dismantling of ED.
Senator Mark Kelly rejected Republican predictions of ED’s abolition leading to better schools and student outcomes.
“It will further undermine public schools, making it harder for kids from working families like mine or who need a little extra help to get a good education,” said Kelly.
Senator Ruben Gallego claimed Trump was abolishing ED to enrich “his billionaire friends” and reduce school funding.
“He wants fewer resources for teachers and fewer opportunities for our kids — just so his billionaire friends can get richer,” said Gallego.
Rep. Eli Crane called the continuance of ED an “insanity,” referencing the decades-long decline of student outcomes.
“Thank you to President Trump for having the courage to do this,” said Crane.
Rep. Andy Biggs also touched on the disparity of high funding and low outcomes. Biggs said Trump was right to be “returning power” to Arizona and its parents.
“Taxpayer funding for public schools is at an all-time high, but test scores are at an all-time low,” said Biggs. “The radical Biden-Harris regime weaponized the Department of Education against their opponents.”
Rep. Yassamin Ansari predicted that children would be forced out of schools, teachers would be fired, and special education services would cease.
“This reckless and irrational move will devastate our future — all to give tax breaks to billionaires at the expense of our kids,” said Ansari. “We’re going to fight this illegal EO with every tool we have.”
Rep. Greg Stanton called the order “a direct attack on Arizona kids,” and asserted it was illegal.
Senate President Warren Petersen reposted remarks made by Secretary McMahon to Fox News. McMahon echoed Trump’s questioning why federal education spending only continues to increase while outcomes have decreased.
“We have to let teachers teach. I have such respect for teachers. I think it is the most noble profession in the world, and I have seen what can happen when teachers are allowed to teach and be innovative and creative in our classrooms,” said McMahon. “For every dollar that goes into the school system, it’s been reported to me that almost 47 cents of that dollar is spent on regulatory compliance. Teachers they don’t want to stay, they’re leaving the profession, because they’re bogged down by regulation. Let’s lift that burden and let them do what they do best, which is teach.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Mar 19, 2025 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Every time the Republican-controlled legislature considers cutting taxes, the biggest obstacle is the taxpayer-funded lobbyists representing cities, towns, and counties. They come down to the legislature year after year accusing lawmakers of “defunding” local government. And, of course, it is always police, fire, and public safety on the chopping block and never DEI programs, art projects, or other unessential and unnecessary spending projects.
The problem with this narrative is that it is completely false. Cities and towns are flush with cash and have actually received enormous windfalls, not cuts, from the legislature. The result has been hundreds of millions in new revenue for the cities in just the last 6 years. Most of it from two sources—online sales and enhanced state shared revenue.
Online Sales Tax Windfall
In 2019, the legislature passed legislation responding to the Wayfair decision, allowing the state and local governments to tax online sales from sellers outside of this state. At the time, it was sold as a “meager” $85-million-a-year tax increase. But now, five years since the legislation was enshrined into law, taxpayers are doling out over one billion dollars in total collections each year to state and local government…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Jonathan Eberle | Mar 19, 2025 | Economy, News
By Jonathan Eberle |
A proposed amendment to Arizona’s tax laws could make it significantly harder for cities and counties to raise taxes and fees. Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 1008, sponsored by Senate President Warren Petersen, proposes requiring a two-thirds majority vote from municipal and county governing bodies before they can increase assessments, taxes, or fees.
SCR 1008 builds upon Arizona’s existing tax-related voting requirements. In 1992, Proposition 108 established that any net increase in state revenue—including tax hikes or new fees—requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of the state legislature. More recently, Proposition 132, passed in 2022, mandated that any tax-related ballot initiative or referendum must receive at least 60% voter approval to become law.
Currently, municipal and county governments must provide a 60-day public notice before imposing new business taxes or fees. However, SCR 1008 would go further by requiring a supermajority vote at the local level before such increases could be enacted.
Key provisions of SCR 1008 include:
- A two-thirds vote by a city’s common council would be required to increase any assessment, tax, or fee.
- A two-thirds vote by a county’s board of supervisors would be required for similar increases.
- The measure declares tax and fee regulation a statewide concern, limiting the ability of local governments to adopt different rules.
- The proposal must be approved by voters in the next general election before becoming law.
If approved by the legislature, the measure would head to the ballot for voters to decide its ultimate fate.
SCR 1008 reflects ongoing efforts by Arizona lawmakers to place additional restrictions on tax increases at both the state and local levels. Supporters argue that requiring a supermajority vote will protect taxpayers from excessive government fees, while opponents contend it could limit the ability of local governments to fund critical services such as infrastructure, public safety, and education.
The bill narrowly passed the Senate Government Committee with a 4-3 vote and now awaits further legislative consideration.
If approved by voters, SCR 1008 would significantly change the way local governments in Arizona raise revenue, ensuring that any tax or fee increase has broad political support before becoming law.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Mar 9, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled against the Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) produced by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.
Judge Lacey Gard reversed and remanded a lower court decision dismissing the case, Republican National Committee, et al. vs. Adrian Fontes, et al., last summer. Gard ruled the EPM fell under the Arizona Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a “plain reading” of the statute contrary to what the lower court ruled. Gard also dismissed Fontes’ arguments for his right to not comply with the APA because the APA and EPM statutes conflict.
“[The APA] unambiguously states that all agencies are subject to the APA’s rulemaking procedures unless ‘expressly exempted,’” stated Gard. “The APA and EPM statutes impose duties on the Secretary that may require him to begin promulgating the EPM earlier, but they are not inconsistent, do not directly conflict, and do not create impossible barriers to complying with both.”
Gard further ruled Fontes violated the APA by not allowing public comment on the proposed EPM for the full 30 days, instead only opening up review for 15 days.
Gard noted at the end of her ruling that she wouldn’t address other claims by the Republican National Committee challenging eight specific provisions of the EPM, since she arrived at the conclusion that Fontes’ promulgation of the 2023 EPM failed to “substantially comply” with requirements set forth by the APA for the rulemaking process.
The Republican Party of Arizona (AZGOP) sued Fontes over the EPM last February, along with the Arizona legislature leadership at the time (Senate President Warren Petersen and then-House Speaker Ben Toma) and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. In a statement on Thursday’s ruling, the AZGOP claimed the appeals court found the EPM to be unconstitutional.
AZGOP Chair Gina Swoboda said the ruling confirmed the extent of the unlawfulness of Fontes’ EPM in the Thursday statement. Swoboda characterized Fontes and his EPM as an attempt “from the radical left to illegally assume control” of Arizona elections.
“This opinion from the court shows just how much Secretary Fontes and his allies in the Governor’s and Attorney General’s offices overreached in their partisan efforts to hijack our elections through this blatantly political manual,” said Swoboda. “As we have highlighted to the court, the most-recent elections manual contained many provisions that ran utterly contrary to Arizona law, giving the Democrat machine a clear advantage at the ballot box for years to come.”
Beyond the lack of compliance with APA, GOP leaders’ objections to the Fontes EPM concerned conflicts with state election law: accepting voters who declared themselves noncitizens on juror questionnaires; allowing voters who failed to submit or couldn’t achieve verification of their Documentary Proof of Citizenship (DPOC); allowing first-time, federal-only voters to provide only an ID and not DPOC for mail-in voting; not requiring county recorders to check federal databases for citizenship reviews; restricting public review of voter signatures on mail ballots; allowing Active Early Voting List voters to receive ballots outside the state for certain elections; requiring denial of early ballot challenges received prior to the return of an early ballot; and allowing out-of-precinct voters to cast provisional ballots.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Jonathan Eberle | Mar 7, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
A contentious legal battle over Arizona’s voter identification laws has once again found itself under the scrutiny of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen has vowed to bring the case back before the U.S. Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling that undermines a decision previously made by the nation’s highest court.
The case centers on a 2022 law passed by the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature, which requires proof of citizenship for individuals to vote in state and federal elections. This law is designed to prevent non-citizens from casting ballots and aims at ensuring the integrity of Arizona’s elections after a long-standing debate over voter fraud and concerns about election security. The law, however, has faced resistance from various groups, including activists arguing that such requirements disproportionately disenfranchise certain voter groups.
Petersen, who has been a staunch advocate for the law, expressed frustration after the Ninth Circuit panel’s decision last week. “It’s a new year, but we have the same, old Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, playing familiar games of judicial activism,” said Petersen in response to the ruling. “This radicalism undermines confidence in our judicial system, and it has negative consequences for the fabric of our Republic. Legislative Republicans are already working to return to the Supreme Court in defense of Arizona election integrity, and we intend to win.”
The issue came to a head last August when a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit vacated an emergency stay decision that had been issued by another Ninth Circuit panel. This earlier ruling allowed Arizona to enforce the proof of citizenship requirement when voters registered for federal elections, such as those for the U.S. Presidency and Congress.
The Ninth Circuit’s latest decision represents an ongoing point of contention, as it effectively permits voters to register using the state form without submitting proof of citizenship. This ruling creates a situation where voters can register without confirming their citizenship status, a move that proponents of the Arizona law argue goes against state sovereignty and undermines federal election integrity.
After the Ninth Circuit’s initial ruling, Petersen took the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking an emergency stay to ensure Arizona’s proof-of-citizenship requirement was upheld. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Arizona, affirming that the state had the right to reject registration forms that did not provide evidence of citizenship. This ruling marked a significant victory for Arizona Republicans who had been pushing for stronger election integrity laws.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
