courts | Arizona Capitol Times
Your Inside Source for Arizona Government, Politics and Business
Sun, 20 Sep 2026 20:49:25 +0000
en-US
hourly
1
/files/2023/05/az17.jpg
courts | Arizona Capitol Times
32
32
43761567
AZ Supreme Court strengthens legal recourse for those seeking public records
/news/2026/09/20/az-supreme-court-strengthens-legal-recourse-for-those-seeking-public-records/
Sun, 20 Sep 2026 20:49:25 +0000
/?p=500134
Government entities can be held liable if they destroy records they know have been requested, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled.
The post AZ Supreme Court strengthens legal recourse for those seeking public records first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
PHOENIX — Government entities can be held liable if they destroy records they know have been requested, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled.
In a wide-ranging decision, the state’s high court also gave new rights to those whose record requests have been met with administrative delays and denials, including, in some cases, getting their legal fees paid.
And, possibly most important, the justices concluded that trial judges should give no deference to a public agency’s determination that a particular document is not subject to disclosure.
Instead, Justice Clint Bolick, writing for the unanimous court, said it is up to judges to make their own determinations if any of the exceptions to the state’s Public Records Law apply. And he said judges can do that by conducting a private “in camera” inspection in chambers of the documents before reaching a decision.
But the high court also dealt a blow of sorts to some who pursue public records.
The justices said Arizona law allows those who prevail to get their legal fees paid only if they actually file suit — even if they actually have had to hire an attorney to convince the agency to surrender the documents. It’s only when a case goes to court that the agency can be forced to pay the challenger’s costs.
Bolick conceded that may not be fair — or even within the spirit of the public records law and its presumption in favor of disclosure.
“Public entities lack a financial incentive to fully and promptly comply with public records requests about the threat of attorney fees for incorrectly denying the request,” he wrote.
“Members of the public who cannot afford to file a lawsuit may be denied their right to inspect public records,” Bolick continued. “But these concerns are for the Legislature to address, not the court.”
Friday’s ruling is a partial victory for Matthew Abraham, who was rejected for certain program positions at the University of Arizona. It sends the case back to a trial judge who denied his access to some documents to take another look — using the guidelines the justices outlined — to determine if they are public.
Abraham had questioned whether the university was complying with Proposition 107, a 2010 voter-approved amendment to the Arizona Constitution which prohibits the state from granting preferential treatment or discriminating against any individual or the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education or contracting. That measure also covers the state university system.
That led to his filing a series of public records requests related to hiring and appointment practices, as well as documents related to the search and selection process.
Friday’s ruling concludes that the decision of the university to destroy an audio recording amounted to an illegal denial of records.
The justices also opened the door for Abraham to collect his legal fees, not only for the records that were denied after he eventually filed suit but also for those that were withheld before he went to court.
But the ruling sends the entire case back to the trial court to determine — independent of any claim by the university — whether the records he sought are, in fact, public. And all that will determine if Abraham “substantially prevailed” in his litigation and is entitled to have the university pay all of his costs.
It also still leaves unresolved Abraham’s separate claims against the university about whether he was improperly denied promotions and, ultimately, the legality of his firing in April. A hearing is set for Nov. 20 in Pima County Superior Court.
All that, however, is only tangential to Friday’s ruling about the records Abraham sought.
According to the court, the university produced some records in full, some with partial redactions. But some were withheld outright, claiming concerns of confidentiality, privacy or “the best interests of the state.” That last category is a catch-all that agencies can use by claiming there would be specific, material harm that outweighs the public’s right to know.
But it is not absolute, with the burden on the state agency to show what harm might result. That ultimately results in judges having to do a balancing test after hearing arguments and personally reviewing the withheld materials.
In this case, the university also denied Abraham’s request for the audio recording of an Oct. 19, 2019 meeting of the Committee of Eleven, an independent and elected body composed of faculty members to research and advise on university issues.
Instead, the university indicated it would use the recording for “transcription purposes only” to create minutes of the meeting and that it would be “deleted shortly after.” It also offered to let Abraham listen to the recording, but without obtaining a copy, an offer he rejected.
Bolick, writing Friday’s decision, said courts have to be bound by the fact that, in Arizona, there is a “strong presumption in favor of disclosure.”
“The obligation of the public body is to promptly furnish public records that are eligible for production,” he wrote. And all that, he said, goes to why judges can’t simply accept the claims by a government entity that a record is not subject to disclosure.
“A standard of review that defers to agency determinations, especially over whether a nondisclosure or redaction serves the best interests of the state would defeat the strong presumption of transparency and public access embodied in our public records statutes,” Bolick wrote. And that, he said, requires a judge to do what was not done in this case: review the actual records in making a decision of whether they are public.
Bolick also specifically rejected the argument by the university that Abraham wasn’t denied a copy of the audio recording because it no longer existed.
“Post-request destruction of a document is the ultimate denial,” Bolick said, noting that Abraham had requested the recording, was told he could only listen to it, and, when that was rejected, the university destroyed it “ostensibly pursuant to its retention policy.”
“The destruction of the recording seems an obvious violation of statutes,” Bolick wrote. He said once Abraham requested it the university “had an obligation to maintain it.”
And the justice sniffed at the excuse that the school destroyed the tape in accordance with its own rules on how long certain materials must be kept.
“An agency’s retention policy must yield to the statute,” Bolick said.The post AZ Supreme Court strengthens legal recourse for those seeking public records first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
500134
Arizona asks Supreme Court to block prison health takeover
/news/2026/09/17/arizona-asks-supreme-court-to-block-prison-health-takeover/
Thu, 17 Sep 2026 23:21:02 +0000
/?p=500118
U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver ordered an overhaul in 2023 to correct what she determined were constitutional deficiencies.
The post Arizona asks Supreme Court to block prison health takeover first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
PHOENIX — State officials are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block a court-appointed receiver from taking over Arizona’s prison health system.
In a filing on Wednesday, attorneys for Ryan Thornell, director of the Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry, said the prison system has made “tangible progress” in improving physical and mental healthcare for inmates.
U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver ordered an overhaul in 2023 to correct what she determined were constitutional deficiencies. The changes include doubling spending on inmate health care, adding staff, improving facilities and expanding access to substance-use disorder treatment.
Silver later tapped Annette Chambers-Smith to take control of the system, giving her the authority to hire and fire staffers, terminate contracts, and, with court permission, order the state to spend more money. After the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to block the takeover, Silver last week set Oct. 19 as the date Chambers-Smith assumes control.
The nation’s high court is now the only entity that can reverse the order.
Much of Wednesday’s filing repeats what state attorneys have already argued, first to Silver and, more recently, to the 9th Circuit, including its claim that conditions have improved over the last three years.
Silver, however, has questioned the rate of progress. She noted that the case dates to 2012 and that state officials have repeatedly promised to do better.
The state’s lawyers don’t dispute that Arizona prisons still fail to meet the legal standards for care. But they argue that Silver should impose some sanction short of the court-ordered takeover of the prison system.
In seeking high court intervention, they also urged the justices to consider the implications of giving a private receiver control of a critical state function while the state continues to appeal Silver’s underlying order.
Justice Elena Kagan, who handles such special requests on the court’s “shadow docket,” will decide whether to seek a response from the inmates’ attorneys or refer the matter to the full court.
In this last-ditch effort, state attorneys retained Paul Clement, a specialist known for handling cases before the Supreme Court — and who, according to Reuters, bills at $2,650 per hour.
Clement urged the justices to consider the breadth of Silver’s order.
He said it is “far from clear” that precedent allows a federal judge to appoint a receiver over the objections of a state agency, particularly one responsible for “a state correctional agency operating at the apex of state sovereign authority.”
Clement told the court that the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act requires judges to use the “least-intrusive mandates” to ensure compliance with the law and that receivership is “a remedy of last resort.”
He said Silver did not meet that standard when she gave Chambers-Smith control of the prison health care system, allowing the receiver to wrest it from Thornell, whom Gov. Katie Hobbs appointed and the Arizona Senate confirmed.
Clement also argued the takeover could be overturned within months if the 9th Circuit rules for that state. That, he argued, could create “chaos” by putting Chambers-Smith in charge in October, then returning control to Thornell afterward.
The Supreme Court has not yet set a date for further action on the state’s petition. The post Arizona asks Supreme Court to block prison health takeover first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
500118
Appeals court rejects LUCHA’s challenge of immigration measure
/news/2026/09/10/appeals-court-rejects-luchas-challenge-of-immigration-measure/
Fri, 11 Sep 2026 03:23:10 +0000
/?p=500035
The state Court of Appeals has rejected efforts to void a 2024 voter-approved immigration measure.
The post Appeals court rejects LUCHA’s challenge of immigration measure first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
PHOENIX — The state Court of Appeals has rejected efforts to void a 2024 voter-approved immigration measure.
In a new ruling Thursday, the judges upheld Proposition 314, which allows police to arrest those who cross the border at other than a port of entry and charge them with committing a state crime.
In 2025, Living United for Change in Arizona sued, charging that the law has provisions that violate federal and state constitutional protections, ranging from possible discriminatory enforcement to whether the measure failed to provide for a new source of revenues for enforcement.
But Judge David Weinzweig, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, said that, in the end, all that is irrelevant. He said that the challenge fails if for no other reason than LUCHA lacks standing to sue in the first place.
The ruling drew an angry reaction from Alejandra Gomez, the executive director of the community organizing group.
“We are appalled that the Court of Appeals has allowed Proposition 314 to stand at a moment when immigrant communities are already being terrorized by an increasingly aggressive federal immigration enforcement apparatus,” she said.
Gomez said no decision has been made whether to seek Arizona Supreme Court review.
Prop. 314 is crafted in a way designed not so much to incarcerate the border crossers but instead convince them to agree to be deported. That, in turn, means all charges against them would be dropped.
LUCHA argued that the provision is worded in a way that it is more likely to affect its members who share the “race, ethnicity or national origin of the immigrants who enter Arizona from the southern border” and they are more “vulnerable to misapplication” than the public at large.
Weinzweig, however, said the possibility that the law may be misapplied in the future — and to someone who shares the same ethnic background as LUCHA members — doesn’t allow them to try to ask courts to halt enforcement of the law.
“Declaratory relief should be based on an existing set of facts, not those which may or may not arise in the future,” he wrote.
That conclusion parallels a similar ruling in July by U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi. He tossed a challenge to Prop. 314 brought by the Florence Immigrant Rights and Refugee Project noting that the organization had failed to show anyone had actually been affected by the new law.
In Thursday’s state appellate court ruling, Weinzweig also rejected the claim that the standards that allow police to arrest border crossers ignore constitutional requirements.
The law provides three options: the officer’s own observation, a recording, or “any other constitutionally sufficient indicia of probable cause.” While that last provision is not defined in Prop. 314, Weinzweig said those are the same standards already required for arrest under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against illegal search and seizure.
LUCHA fared no better with a parallel attack on how Prop. 314 would be funded.
The challengers pointed out that the Arizona Constitution says any ballot measure that proposes the mandatory spending of state revenues must also provide a new source for those dollars.
Put another way, a ballot measure is invalid if it simply says that any required costs will be picked up from already existing taxes or other sources. And it applies regardless of whether the proposal was referred to voters by lawmakers themselves — as is the case here — or was put on the ballot through an initiative petition of Arizona voters.
In this case, the challengers noted, Prop. 314 requires the state Department of Corrections to transport those who agree to leave the country to the border. And that, the challengers said, is an obligation to spend state resources without a commensurate increase in new dollars.
Weinzweig wasn’t buying it.
He said the measure is crafted so the mandatory obligation to transport people to the border actually falls on local law enforcement agencies whose anticipated new expenses are not covered by the state constitutional requirement. Weinzweig said the only time costs are borne by the state is if the local agency does not have the capacity to hold someone.
“This is a contingency, not a mandate,” the judge wrote.
Gomez, in her statement, said the ruling comes as the Trump administration “continues expanding the reach of immigration enforcement into more parts of everyday life.”
“Proposition 314 threatens to pour gasoline on that fire,” she said.
“It gives Arizona another vehicle to target immigrant communities, drag state and local institutions deeper into immigration enforcement, and force taxpayers to bankroll a reckless law with no clear way to pay for it,” Gomez said.The post Appeals court rejects LUCHA’s challenge of immigration measure first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
500035
Kalshi’s general counsel looks to Supreme Court after New Jersey appeal
/news/2026/09/07/kalshis-general-counsel-looks-to-supreme-court-after-new-jersey-appeal/
Tue, 08 Sep 2026 03:20:22 +0000
/?p=499988
The chief regulatory officer for the nation’s largest prediction market may soon have to convince the U.S. Supreme Court that the emerging industry is fundamentally different from sportsbooks in a high-stakes legal battle between the states and the federal government.
The post Kalshi’s general counsel looks to Supreme Court after New Jersey appeal first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
KEY POINTS Kalshi’s chief regulatory officer spoke with State Affairs a day after the petition was filed The company has sued 15 states and is involved in litigation in 20...
Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals
Subscribe
Already a subscriber?
Login
The post Kalshi’s general counsel looks to Supreme Court after New Jersey appeal first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
499988
DHS says environmental review of Surprise ICE facility is progressing
/news/2026/09/06/dhs-says-its-working-on-environmental-review-for-surprise-ice-facility/
Mon, 07 Sep 2026 00:49:54 +0000
/?p=499983
Federal officials have apparently chosen a company with no experience conducting environmental reviews to perform one for a proposed Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Surprise.
The post DHS says environmental review of Surprise ICE facility is progressing first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
PHOENIX — Federal officials have apparently chosen a company with no experience conducting environmental reviews to perform one for a proposed Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Surprise.
In a Friday court filing, the Department of Homeland Security said it has retained a contractor to assist in the review, part of a deal with the state Attorney General’s Office to forestall a lawsuit. That deal prevents ICE from detaining people in the warehouse until DHS can prove it can house up to 1,500 people.
That filing does not list who will be conducting the review. But the city of Surprise, in a web post, said its staffers met with a GardaWorld representative who is seeking information for the assessment.
GardaWord has already signed a $313.4 million contract with DHS to renovate andoperate the facility. The agreement even provides for a possible extension through early 2029, making it worth more than $700 million.
GardaWorld, mostly known for things like providing security guards and operating a fleet of armored cars, referred all questions to Homeland Security.
That agency provided only a prepared statement about its focus on removing “the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens from the United States and is always evaluation the best methods to do so.”
As to the status of the Surprise facility, the statement effectively acknowledges that a federal court agreement with Attorney General Kris Mayes prevents anyone from being housed there until the agreed-to assessment is complete.
“DHS is moving swiftly to utilize EXISTING detention space with our state and county partners,” the statement reads. There was no answer to the question of GardaWorld’s experience — or even confirmation that company is doing the assessment.
Mayes filed suit in April after ICE purchased the facility. That federal ownership stripped city officials of any power to use their own zoning and other laws to restrict its operation.
But the attorney general is instead using the National Environmental Policy Act to require an assessment — if not a full-blown environmental impact statement. And Mayes has made it clear she believes that such an assessment will conclude that the site is inappropriate for such a facility.
That environmental impact is not just about the impact of the facility, like how its operation would affect the city’s sewage. The warehouse itself also sits across the street from a hazardous materials storage warehouse where chemical leaks or explosions are possible.
It is true, Mayes conceded in April, that there already are nearby homes where residents also would be affected by such an occurrence.
“But the major distinction is the sheer number of people who will be housed in this facility and can’t get out,” the attorney general said. “If this thing blows up, they will be locked in that facility with no way of getting out.”
That, she said, will create additional pressures on local fire departments and emergency responders.
And Mayes said the warehouse, if allowed to be used to house ICE detainees, will use so much water that it could leave firefighters without what they need to battle an explosion or blaze at the chemical facility.
The lawsuit initially drew derision from a representative from ICE.
“Let’s be hones about what is happening,” the statement read.
“This isn’t about the environment,” it said. “It’s about trying to stop President Trump from making America safe.”
And the representative dismissed the need for formal environmental studies.
“Prior to purchasing this site, ICE carefully evaluated the use of existing facilities to help minimize environmental impacts,” the statement said.
But facing a possible federal court order delaying — or even halting — the project, Homeland Security said it would provide the assessment. It also agreed not to open the facility until the assessment was completed. And the agency promised to provide regular updates to the court.
That latest update, filed Friday, is where Homeland Security said it had retained a contractor “and has begun working with the contractor.”
“The environmental review remains ongoing,” Julian Kurtz, an attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice, told Judge Susan Brnovich.The post DHS says environmental review of Surprise ICE facility is progressing first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
499983
Appeals court limits what homebuilding constitutes a ‘nuisance’
/news/2026/08/30/appeals-court-limits-what-homebuilding-constitutes-a-nuisance/
Mon, 31 Aug 2026 00:45:43 +0000
/?p=499893
Just because a new home might look into a neighbor’s backyard or block a scenic view doesn’t mean it violates state law, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled.
The post Appeals court limits what homebuilding constitutes a ‘nuisance’ first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
PHOENIX — Just because a new home might look into a neighbor’s backyard or block a scenic view doesn’t mean it violates state law, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled....
Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals
Subscribe
Already a subscriber?
Login
The post Appeals court limits what homebuilding constitutes a ‘nuisance’ first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
499893
Meta settlement won’t stop legislative push
/news/2026/08/30/meta-settlement-wont-stop-legislative-push/
Mon, 31 Aug 2026 00:07:18 +0000
/?p=499888
State lawmakers and youth advocates are calling for further social media regulations after the blockbuster, multi-billion-dollar settlement announced this week between state attorneys general and Meta.
The post Meta settlement won’t stop legislative push first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
State lawmakers and youth advocates are calling for further social media regulations after the blockbuster, multi-billion-dollar settlement announced this week between state attorneys general and Meta. The sweeping agreement is...
Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals
Subscribe
Already a subscriber?
Login
The post Meta settlement won’t stop legislative push first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
499888
Supreme Court ruling on mail-in ballot order impacts little, Arizona officials say
/news/2026/08/24/supreme-court-ruling-on-mail-in-ballot-order-impacts-little-arizona-officials-say/
Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:33:17 +0000
/?p=499836
Arizona state officials said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Monday to remove a procedural hurdle to President Donald Trump’s new mail-in voting rules changes nothing, even though it comes weeks before ballots are to be sent to voters.
The post Supreme Court ruling on mail-in ballot order impacts little, Arizona officials say first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
Key points:
The Supreme Court invalidated a lower court injunction against the Trump administration enacting mail-in voting rules
Arizona was among the states that sued to stop the implementation of the directives
Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said the ruling changes nothing about Arizona’s mail-in voting system
Arizona state officials said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Monday to remove a procedural hurdle to President Donald Trump’s new mail-in voting rules changes nothing, even though it comes weeks before ballots are to be sent to voters.
The Supreme Court invalidated a lower court ruling Monday that placed an injunction on Trump’s proposed mail-in voting rules that would compel Arizona’s election administrators to hand over mail-in voters’ information.
According to the court’s unsigned order from the 6-3 conservative majority, a Massachusetts District Court judge incorrectly ruled in late June against a Trump executive order signed in March directing the U.S. Postal Service to develop new mail-in ballot rules. Under those rules, the Secretary of Homeland Security must compile a list of U.S. citizens above the age of 18 living in each state and send it to the states’ chief election officials.
While the Supreme Court concluded that the order may not be lawful once carried out, “the Order itself does not harm the States, so the District Court lacked jurisdiction to bar the Government from trying to implement it.”
In a written statement, Attorney General Mayes characterized the ruling as a procedural, rather than substantive, decision and vowed to continue challenging the USPS rule.
“Make no mistake: this fight is far from over,” Mayes stated. “States run their own elections. Not the Postal Service. Not the President.”
Arizona’s early ballots will be mailed on Oct. 7, according to the Secretary of State’s office.
Arizona was among the 23 states that sued the Trump administration in April over the order.
In a filing joined by Mayes, the states urged the Supreme Court to uphold the lower court ruling, arguing that the proposed USPS rules would increase the likelihood of mistakes and amount to federal interference in state election procedures.
The justices disagreed, determining that the executive order only proposes rules rather than final policy. Therefore, it couldn’t harm the states suing the White House.
Votebeat reported Aug. 17 that Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes told federal election officials he didn’t trust them over concerns about interference in state election administration.
In a news release on Monday, Fontes emphasized that the ruling does not settle the issue.
“The most important thing for Arizona voters to know today is simple: nothing has changed,” Fontes said.
Further obstacles remain for the Trump administration to implement new rules for USPS and mail-in voting.
The same Massachusetts federal judge ruled against implementing the executive order nationwide in August, not just in the states that sued the Trump administration. Monday’s Supreme Court ruling does not impact that injunction.
The executive order must also undergo the full rulemaking process before it becomes official policy. As the Supreme Court noted, future lawsuits may be more successful once the order’s directives are actually implemented.The post Supreme Court ruling on mail-in ballot order impacts little, Arizona officials say first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
499836
Court OKs ballot language on election law initiative
/news/2026/08/19/court-oks-ballot-language-on-election-law-initiative/
Wed, 19 Aug 2026 23:52:34 +0000
/?p=499778
The Arizona Supreme Court won't order Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to recraft his description of a ballot measure that, if approved, would make some major changes in state election practices.
The post Court OKs ballot language on election law initiative first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
PHOENIX — The Arizona Supreme Court won’t order Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to recraft his description of a ballot measure that, if approved, would make some major changes in state election practices.
In a divided opinion Wednesday, Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer said the language prepared by Fontes, which will go on every ballot, “is not false or clearly misleading.” Plus, Timmer said the supporters of Proposition 144 who filed suit are not personally and immediately harmed by the secretary’s decision.
Not everyone on the high court agreed.
“Petitioners, who are Arizona citizens and voters, have shown a sufficient beneficial interest to establish standing to seek mandamus relief for compliance,” wrote William Montgomery and Kathryn King.
More to the point, they said Fontes was wrong not to mention two provisions of Prop. 144. Those would add language to the state constitution saying only citizens may vote in Arizona elections, and that elections “shall be decided solely by the votes of eligible citizen voters.” Montgomery and King said they would have directed the secretary to recraft what he had written.
The ruling comes a day after the Supreme Court rejected a separate legal argument that Prop. 144 should not even be allowed on the ballot at all. The majority rejected arguments by Tempe City Councilman Randy Keating that there are too many unrelated proposed changes in election laws to be given to voters on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
As approved by the Republican-controlled Legislature, Prop. 144 seeks to put several new provisions in the Arizona Constitution.
Aside from the ones about only citizens voting, it would require that those who get their ballots in the mail have the option not just to drop them off at polling places on Election Day — something already in law — but to have the ballots tallied at that time by presenting proof of identification.
That is designed to prevent delays in getting final results.
Part of what provoked the lawsuit was that Fontes said Prop. 144 “may make it harder to challenge election laws.”
Attorneys for the challengers, represented by the conservative organization America First Legal, argued that Fontes was predicting what might — or might not — happen, something they said he is not allowed to do.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Adele Ponce rejected that argument, saying that the secretary is entitled to describe the potential impact of the ballot measure.
“The description can reasonably be regarded as an attempt to provide necessary and appropriate information to the voting public,” she wrote.
The Supreme Court upheld that decision unanimously.
King and Montgomery parted ways with the other justices over Fontes’s failure, in crafting a title for the measure that will appear on the ballot, to mention the two sections of Prop. 144 that would put the citizenship requirement into the state constitution.
Fontes, for his part, said that’s not necessary in the 50 words he’s given to craft a title. He argued that, in a measure with multiple provisions, these were not “principal provisions” that had to be pointed out to voters.
Timmer and the majority did not specifically address that issue. Instead, they concluded that the argument about what’s a “principal provision” is legally irrelevant because the challengers had no right to sue in the first place.
“[The law] leaves to the secretary’s discretion the specific wording used to convey the measure’s principal provisions,” they wrote, with the attorney general given the same discretion to approve or reject the language.The post Court OKs ballot language on election law initiative first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
499778
Protect Education Act fails to qualify for November ballot
/news/2026/08/18/protect-education-act-fails-to-qualify-for-november-ballot/
Tue, 18 Aug 2026 23:56:50 +0000
/?p=499758
Arizona voters won’t get a chance to weigh in on proposed reforms to the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program this November.
The post Protect Education Act fails to qualify for November ballot first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
Key points:
A citizen’s initiative that would reform the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program appears not to have enough valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot
The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed a ruling that will likely keep the measure off the ballot
ESAs continue to be a major issue for Republicans and Democrats this election
Arizona voters won’t get a chance to weigh in on proposed reforms to the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program this November after a state Supreme Court ruling that would likely invalidate enough signatures to disqualify the Protect Education Act citizens’ initiative.
The decision, which upholds a ruling from the Maricopa County Superior Court, is a win for the conservative Goldwater Institute, the Free Enterprise Club and ESA advocates who have contended that signature gatherers fell short. The state Supreme Court’s ruling disqualified about 24,000 signatures that proponents argued had been improperly subtracted twice — leaving the measure 10,000 short of the needed 255,949 signatures.
Goldwater celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling and described the Protect Education Act as an “attack” on school choice for more than 100,000 students who are enrolled in the program.
“Despite spending an unprecedented amount of money in an effort to deceive voters into restricting school choice, the unions could not convince even a small fraction of Arizonans to sign their petition,” said Victor Riches, President and CEO of the Goldwater Institute. “Instead, they had to resort to unlawfully collecting thousands of signatures to try to game the system and dupe their way onto the ballot.”
The court rejected Protect Education Act Accountability Now Committee’s argument that removing duplicate signatures during multiple reviews could result in double counting.
The Secretary of State’s Office identified duplicate signatures in a random sample it prepared for further review from Arizona’s 15 counties to determine a county signature validity rate. According to the committee, duplicate signatures were subtracted twice by both the Secretary of State and the counties, thus resulting in a higher effective signature threshold to qualify for the ballot than the constitutionally required 15% of statewide votes in the previous gubernatorial election.
But Chief Justice Ann Timmer wrote in the decision that the committee found no specific evidence that signatures were subtracted twice from the valid count and the court could not rule on a theoretical possibility.
The Supreme Court sent the case back to the superior court to make the final determination of the measure’s ballot status. That decision was not filed by Tuesday afternoon, but proponents of the Protect Education Act began conceding the measure’s defeat before the trial court’s ruling.
“Today is a victory for the powerful and a loss for the people,” Protect Education Committee spokeswoman Olivia Fierro said in a written statement following the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The committee initially submitted more than 421,000 signatures in July. Fierro blamed “anti-public education lawmakers” and “wealthy” allies for keeping the measure off the ballot.
“They knew Arizonans were ready to vote for accountability for a billion-dollar voucher program that is draining resources from public schools and putting children at risk, so they stopped at nothing to keep this issue off the ballot and out of the hands of the voters,” Fierro said.
Lawmakers also put forth a competing ballot measure, Proposition 145. Republicans designed that measure on the final day of the legislative session to protect ESAs for military families and prevent Prop. 212 from taking effect if both measures passed.
The Supreme Court also affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Prop. 145 is unconstitutional. The court ruled its provisions that would keep other measures like Prop. 212 from taking effect don’t form a “single, workable proposition” that can stand or fall on its own.
Leaders of both political parties signaled the fight over ESAs is not over. The future of the ESA program will be heavily influenced by which party has control of the Legislature and the governor’s office in 2027.
House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos, D-Laveen, and House Minority Assistant Leader Nancy Gutierrez, D-Tucson, said in a joint statement that they hope a new legislative majority will continue their efforts to reform the ESA program.
“School choice opponents have spent years trying to roll back educational freedom in Arizona, and they will keep trying,” said House Speaker Steve Montenegro, R-Goodyear. “Arizona House Republicans will keep standing with parents. We will defend ESAs, protect school choice, and make sure parents, not unions, bureaucrats, or politicians, remain in charge of their children’s education.”The post Protect Education Act fails to qualify for November ballot first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.]]>
499758