Center Square News

(The Center Square) - A new poll showed U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, increasing his lead in the Arizona Republican gubernatorial primary race.

Noble Predictive Insights released a poll showing that Biggs was up 21 points over U.S. Rep. David Schweikert, R-Scottsdale.

In December 2025, Biggs led the race by only 4 points, but saw his lead increase after Karrin Taylor Robson left the contest last month.

Mike Noble, NPI’s CEO, told The Center Square that Biggs jumping ahead in the poll “surprised a lot of people,” especially people in Arizona who are watching the race.

However, Noble said this should not come as a surprise because Biggs announced his candidacy in January 2025 and Schweikert waited until October 2025.

President Donald Trump previously endorsed both Taylor Robson and Biggs for the Arizona governor’s race.

The NPI poll found Biggs has a 21-point advantage over Schweikert in backing from Trump supporters.

Noble pointed out that Biggs is “not very far from the coveted 50% threshold.”

Even with Bigg’s leading Schweikert, 41% of Arizona registered Republicans still have not made up their mind on who they will vote for, the poll found.

According to the NPI poll, Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, is in the lead over Biggs and Schweikert in hypothetical gubernatorial matchups.

In a race against Biggs, Hobbs leads him by 5 points. Against Schweikert, the governor is up 9 points.

Both hypothetical matchups show 16% of Arizona registered voters are undecided and third-party candidates are taking 5% of the vote.

“Hobbs is running away with this contest, although with no competitive primary to speak of – she has to feel good about the position she is currently in,” Noble said.

He told The Center Square that Hobbs’ support numbers have not changed much, unlike the Republican Party’s.

“The Republican brand is suffering a little with the cost-of living-issues and a lot of the economic uncertainty right now,” he said.

According to Noble, the candidate who receives the support of undecided voters will have communicated best on economic and immigration issues.

Pocketbook issues will be the topic that pushes those undecided voters “one way or another,” he said.

The poll found a gender gap among the candidates.

Women supported Hobbs 45% to 30% while men backed Biggs 44% to 39%, the poll said.

The gender gap shows a “deep polarization” with women supporting Democrats and men backing Republicans, the CEO stated.

According to Noble, he expects the gender gap to continue to widen as the race goes on.

Noble noted in Arizona, women vote more often than men. He added that they tend to have a “2 to 4 point edge” over males.

Hobbs is a better-known candidate than Biggs or Schweikert, he said.

“They still have some ground to make up [in] introducing themselves and the electorate learning about them,” Noble stated.

The CEO said Republicans are doing better with older voters in Arizona, while Democrats are doing better with younger voters.

Middle-aged voters are where “the battle’s going to take place,” he noted.

Noble added the Arizona governor’s race will be “very competitive.”

NPI’s poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.06%.

(The Center Square) - The Arizona Senate passed a bill that punishes people who unlawfully help others avoid arrest.

Senators last week voted 17 to 13, along party lines, in favor of Senate Bill 1635.

SB 1635 creates a criminal penalty for people who warn others that police will arrest them. They could face a Class 1 misdemeanor charge, which could result in up to six months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

Senate Majority Leader John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said the “lawless chaos” seen in places like Minneapolis, where “people were harassing” U.S. Immigration Customs and Enforcement agents who were “enforcing the law,” inspired him to introduce the bill.

"If someone is actively helping a suspect dodge arrest, that is not free speech. That is obstruction," Kavanagh told The Center Square.

"This bill makes it clear that intentionally tipping off criminals during an ongoing arrest effort has consequences," he added. "We stand with law enforcement, not with those trying to undermine them."

Kavanagh said he found Arizona laws previously did not cover incidents in which a person warns another person of “an impending arrest.”

SB 1635 states a person commits a crime if he or she “knowingly communicates” to a specific person that law enforcement is coming to make an arrest of that individual, solely to help the person avoid arrest.

The bill defines “communicates” as an electronic communication, gesture, verbal statement, bells, whistles or written message.

SB 1635 does not apply to an attorney giving legal advice, a person providing information in response to a lawful request from police, a person lacking knowledge about the situation or a person not intending to obstruct law enforcement.

According to Kavanagh, this law would apply when a person notifies another individual that he or she is about to be arrested by law enforcement before police take the person into custody.

He said this does not apply to someone who calls an individual on the phone to give a warning. Rather, it would apply to someone running into a house before the police arrive to notify a person.

The senator said his bill does not apply to people who yell outside on a public street that law enforcement is here. He added that it does not apply to people who post about law enforcement being in their neighborhood. He said both these examples are protected under the First Amendment.

“People are allowed to yell and announce general police activity outside. The key being it’s general, and it’s outside and not specifically directed at a particular person,” he explained.

Kavanagh told The Center Square that “people are purposely misrepresenting” the bill by saying the bill applies to “general warnings.” He noted general warnings are safeguarded by the U.S. Constitution.

(The Center Square) – Many states are considering new policies affecting teachers’ ability to strike or participate in protests, and education officials and labor advocates continue to debate the legality of teacher strikes.

The strikes are banned or heavily restricted in roughly 38 states and Washington, D.C. In states such as Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, legislation explicitly prevents teachers from striking.

Twelve states explicitly allow teacher strikes, including Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Vermont. In a few states, such as South Carolina, Utah and Wyoming, the legality of strikes is not clearly defined in statutes or case law.

In Arizona, the proposed House Bill 2313 would prohibit public school teachers from striking or participating in organized work stoppages. It has drawn criticism from union officials.

Geneva Fuentes, communications director for the Arizona Education Association, the state’s largest teachers’ union, warned that the bill could have unintended consequences for school districts.

“HB 2313 is a badly drafted bill that would withhold funding from school districts if educators speak to each other about illness and other legitimate absences from work,” Fuentes told The Center Square in an email. “In reality, the broader effect of this bill would be to strip much-needed funding from our students and prevent educators from communicating with each other about basic issues that affect student learning.”

Fuentes added that the bill does nothing to address Arizona’s teacher recruitment and retention challenges.

“Proposals like HB 2313 only add to existing pressures and do nothing to address the real challenges facing Arizona schools,” Fuentes said. “Strong public schools require collaboration between policymakers and educators. Protecting students means protecting stable funding for their schools, and retaining educators starts with respecting their profession."

Because taxpayer dollars fund schools and teacher salaries, education officials argue that strikes could disrupt classroom instruction.

In an exclusive interview with The Center Square, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne said teachers have the right to protest but should not do so during school hours.

“They have a First Amendment right to protest, but they can do it after school,” Horne said. “They don’t have to use it as a reason not to do the work that the taxpayers are paying them for.”

Horne said he supports HB 2313, arguing that schools exist to educate students using taxpayer funds.

“The taxpayers are paying money, and the money goes into salaries for these teachers to teach the kids,” he added. “So if they walk out during school hours to protest, they're stealing from the taxpayers. They're getting money without doing the work.”

The debate comes as educators’ political activity has raised concerns in other states.

The Texas Education Agency issued guidance after hundreds of students in several major cities joined national walkouts protesting federal immigration enforcement earlier this year.

The TEA warned that teachers who aid or encourage students to leave class for such protests could face investigation or potential sanctions, including licensure revocation.

The Center Square reached out to the TEA for a comment but has not received a response.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton later opened investigations into several school districts for facilitating and failing to keep students safe and accountable during various student protests against lawful immigration enforcement.

“I will not allow Texas schools to become breeding grounds for the radical Left’s open borders agenda,” the Republican attorney general said in a statement. “Let this serve as a warning to any public school official or employee who unlawfully facilitates student participation in protests targeting our heroic law enforcement officers: my office will use every legal tool available to hold you accountable.”

Meanwhile, lawmakers in Maryland are considering legislation that would expand teachers’ labor rights. House Bill 1492, introduced by more than 20 Democratic lawmakers, would repeal the state’s ban on teachers’ union strikes and allow public school employees, such as teachers and librarians, to strike without retaliation.

Teacher strikes are illegal in Washington state, but the law does not specify penalties, and strikes continue to occur across the state, The Center Square reported.

In 2025, state Democrats approved Senate Bill 5041, allowing striking workers to receive unemployment benefits for up to six weeks.

However, a 2006 formal opinion by then Attorney General Rob McKenna stated that “state and local public employees, including teachers, have no legally protected right to strike.”

The Center Square reported in January that federal officials recently arrested three people in connection with a protest that disrupted a Sunday church service in St. Paul, Minnesota. One of those arrested, Chauntyll Louisa Allen, serves as clerk of the St. Paul Board of Education.

(The Center Square) - The area along the Arizona and Utah border is continuing to see the measles outbreak that started in August, and California and Colorado have seen a number of cases.

Nevada hasn't seen any, but is monitoring the national trend.

Meanwhile, the Arizona Department of Health Services is concerned about the outbreak and is closely monitoring it, said Dr. Joel Terriquez, the department's medical director of the bureau of infectious diseases services. He urges people to get vaccinated.

Terriquez told The Center Square that Mojave County is the state's most affected county.

“The number of measles cases in that area has been significantly higher than any other area of the state,” he noted.

Measles cases that have not been in Mohave County are not associated with an outbreak, but rather “independent clusters of cases,” Terriquez said.

Since the outbreak that started in August, Arizona has a total of 261 cases, he noted, including 56 cases so far this year.

He told The Center Square that 67% of people who have gotten measles have been younger than 18.

On top of this, Terriquez said 97% of people who have gotten measles have been unvaccinated.

He added that despite the concerns of some people, the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine is “very safe and effective.” He said that conclusion is based on decades of research.

“It only takes one vaccine to potentially prevent an outbreak. It takes one vaccine to protect a kid from getting measles and potentially protecting them from complications,” Terriquez said.

Measles among an unvaccinated population is “gonna spread like wildfire,” Terriquez said, noting the disease is "extremely contagious."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said nearly 89% of people in Arizona are vaccinated against measles.

One dose of the MMR vaccine protects a person against 93% of potential measles cases, while two doses can protect a person up to 97% of potential measles cases, according to Terriquez.

Terriquez noted no one in Arizona who has contracted measles has died from it.

CDC data, which was updated Thursday, shows 1,281 people have contracted measles in 2026. Last year, 2,281 people contracted measles.

In total, 300 people have been hospitalized due to measles. This means that 9% of all measles cases in America in 2025 and in 2026 have resulted in hospitalization.

Terriquez said America last year experienced three measles-related deaths, which is 0.09% of all cases.

According to the CDC, no one has died from measles this year.

Terriquez said the “vast majority of individuals” who get measles “will not develop any complications.” However, if people do develop complications from measles, Terriquez pointed out, it “can be very severe.”

Complications from measles, such as pneumonia, measles encephalitis and meningitis, could potentially kill someone, he explained.

“Long-term complications can come years after the initial measles infection,” with them being “very unpredictable with high mortality," Terriquez said.

In Arizona’s neighboring state, Utah, there is a measles outbreak.

Dr. Leisha Nolen held a press conference on Thursday to address the spread of measles throughout Utah.

The state has had 358 people diagnosed with measles since June 2025, Nolen told reporters.

According to Nolen, 120 people have gone to the emergency room, with 31 requiring hospitalization overnight. She added that three people have gone to the intensive care unit.

No one in Utah has died from measles, she said.

Nolen said measles is spreading across Utah. She noted the measles cases were initially limited to the southern part of Utah, but have now expanded to every part of the state, largely through school events.

She encouraged people to get vaccinated against measles. The CDC said 89% of people in Utah are vaccinated against measles.

Colorado, meanwhile, has seen fewer measles cases than Arizona and Utah.

Colorado has had eight measles cases in 2026, compared with 36 last year.

Hope Shuler, interim communications director for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s division of disease control and public health response, said the state has collaborated closely with its local partners.

She told The Center Square this collaboration is meant to “ensure rapid response to any potential transmission.”

Shuler added that they have “conducted thorough case investigations in order to alert the public to potential exposures and provide the steps they can take to protect themselves from further spread.”

Due to the state’s media campaign, website updates and provider webinars, Shuler said Colorado and its partners “successfully drove a 30.55% increase in MMR vaccine doses given compared to 2024.”

“We have also performed direct outreach to families whose children are overdue for their MMR vaccines. In 2025 and 2026, six rounds of outreach to families of children overdue for their MMR vaccines led to 48% of those contacted becoming up-to-date,” she explained.

Colorado’s measles vaccination rate is 88%, the CDC said.

Another state with some measles cases is California. The Golden State has seen 26 confirmed cases in 2026. This amount exceeds the total for all of 2025, which reported 25 measles cases.

Sacramento and Placer counties have reported recent measles incidents. The California Department of Public Health said it was working with those counties to alert people who may have been exposed to measles.

Dr. Erica Pan, CDPH director, urged people to get the MMR vaccine.

“Measles, one of the most contagious infections, can lead to severe life-long consequences including permanent brain damage and can also be fatal, especially for children,” he said.

The CDC noted California’s measles vaccination rate is 96%.

Unlike all these other states, Nevada has not had any measles cases so far this year.

The state actively monitors the nationwide measles situation, said Daniel Vezmar, public information officer for the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services’ division of public and behavioral health.

Nevada does this by reviewing regular updates from the CDC and “by working with other states to understand the risks of travel-associated cases coming to Nevada,” Vezmar told The Center Square.

“In 2025, there were more measles cases nationally than in any one year since 1992, and so far in 2026 there have been 10 outbreaks in the United States,” he said.

“As transmission continues throughout the country, there is a risk of measles cases occurring in Nevada, highlighting the importance of vaccination and staying away from others during illness to prevent the spread,” Vezmar noted.

Even with no confirmed cases of the measles, Nevada “continuously reviews case data and wastewater testing results to identify potential cases and initiate early response measures,” he said.

Nevada has a vaccination rate of 91%, the CDC said.

(The Center Square) – Democratic attorneys general across the U.S. sued the Trump administration Thursday to stop the implementation of a new 15% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The lawsuit comes on the heel of the 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Feb. 20 that struck down Republican President Donald Trump’s previous tariffs.

“The Supreme Court struck down those tariffs as unlawful. Today we’re back for round 2,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta told reporters during a virtual news conference Thursday morning with Attorneys General Letitia James of New York, Dan Rayfield of Oregon and Kris Mayes of Arizona. The four states are leading the suit, which includes 20 other states as plaintiffs.

The lawsuit, which is the State of Oregon, et. al., v. Trump, et. al., was filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade and requests a three-judge panel to review it. The suit named Trump, former Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and Rodney S. Scott, commissioner for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, as defendants. Trump announced Thursday that he fired Noem and would nominate U.S. Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Oklahoma, to replace her.

The lawsuit noted the U.S. Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power to collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.

"Congress has delegated limited authority to the President to impose tariffs only in carefully defined circumstances," the suit said. It contended Section 122 was relevant for a fixed-rate currency exchange system, which ended in 1976.

"The President has no authority to impose tariffs under Section 122 as he has done here," the lawsuit said. "The text and history of Section 122 confirm that the President has not met the statutory prerequisites for its use."

The White House sees the law differently.

“The President is using his authority granted by Congress to address fundamental international payments problems and to deal with our country’s large and serious balance-of-payments deficits," White House spokesman Kush Desai told The Center Square Thursday afternoon, answering questions by email. "The Administration will vigorously defend the President’s action in court."

During the news conference, Mayes noted Trump's previous tariffs cost Arizona $1.6 billion.

"After being rebuked by the Supreme Court for illegally taxing the American people, Donald Trump threw a temper tantrum and announced another round of illegal tariffs that will hurt Arizonans," Mayes told reporters. "Make no mistakes. These tariffs are just another unlawful attempt to tax Arizona families and businesses without the consent of their elected representatives, and they will drive up prices for every Arizonan.”

Attorneys general called Section 122 of Trade Act of 1974 an archaic law that has never been used.

“No president has used this statute to implement tariffs,” Rayfield said.

Bonta said Trump is using an obscure law to impose a high global tariff. “The law doesn’t allow this. We will not stand aside while it’s broken.”

“At its core, this lawsuit is about protecting everyday Americans from the harmful effects of unlawful tariffs,” Bonta told reporters. “They raise the cost of goods and make it harder for businesses to operate.

“California proudly is home to the fourth largest economy in the world. We’re the nation’s largest importer and the second largest exporter,” he continued. “Millions of families and businesses, large and small, and manufacturers right here in California feel the ripple effects of tariffs immediately: higher prices in our grocery stores, higher supply costs for local manufacturers and disruption for businesses that rely on global trade.

“All 39 million Californians depend on an affordable, predictable economy, and these illegal tariffs undermine all of that,” Bonta said.

The lawsuit is California’s 60th since Trump started his second term in January 2025.

James said the new tariff is an illegal tax, regardless of how “the administration is trying to dress it up.”

In addition to California, New York, Oregon and Arizona, those filing the suit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

(The Center Square) - Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap and the county Board of Supervisors are continuing to battle over what an early voting plan will look like.

Ever since Heap took office last year, he and the board in Arizona's most populous county have been at odds.

The Phoenix-based board passed a new draft of a Shared Services Agreement last April, a formal contract detailing how the Recorder’s Office and the board will perform election administrative duties under Arizona law.

After receiving the SSA agreement, Heap made 170 different changes to it and sent it back to the board, calling it his “final offer,” according to a Maricopa County news release.

However, Heap and the board could not come to an agreement on the SSA, so he filed a lawsuit against the board two months later.

Heap said the lawsuit sought to “reclaim the legal authority afforded to the County Recorder under Arizona law and ensure that [his] office is not further deprived of the resources necessary to perform those duties to the fullest extent possible.”

On Feb. 17, the board passed a new SSA.

The new SSA permitted Heap to have full control over early-voting plans, while the board kept control over funding, staffing, contracts and Election Day operations.

“Since Mr. Heap has not provided a serious response to our latest SSA offer, we felt it was important to state publicly and transparently how we will go about navigating some of most contentious issues between our respective offices so that we can ensure elections run smoothly and securely for Maricopa County voters,” Board Chair Kate Brophy McGee said.

The following week, board members sent a letter to Heap with their proposed early-voting plan despite giving him full control over it.

“The Board of Supervisors strongly supports maintaining a comprehensive early in-person program consistent with prior practices,” the letter said.

Heap responded to the letter, saying that he had “serious concerns” about the board’s early voting plan. He said the proposal “makes voting inconvenient and inaccessible for a large number of Maricopa County voters.”

He told board members that he rejected their proposal because Arizona law “expressly authorizes the Recorder to establish early voting locations.”

“The Board’s proposed early voting locations demonstrate a highly uneven distribution," Heap added.

“That kind of imbalance makes voting more difficult in large portions of the county and risks leaving a substantial percentage of county voters without reasonable access to early voting,” the recorder said. “Elections should be fair and accessible for everyone, regardless of where they live."

Jason Berry, a spokesperson for Maricopa County, told The Center Square this week by email that Heap's claim “seems based on a misreading or misunderstanding of the spreadsheet” provided by Maricopa County Elections Director Scott Jarrett.

As an example, in Heap’s letter, he said Tempe, with a population of around 180,000, has only three assigned early-voting sites, whereas Mesa, a city with approximately 500,000, has only one.

However, a fact sheet provided by Berry to The Center Square states that the spreadsheet sent to Heap showed that Tempe had three confirmed sites and two pending, while Mesa had one confirmed site and eight pending.

Berry said the board “is focused on delivering successful elections.”

“Recorder Heap has been given control of early in-person voting," Berry told The Center Square, answering questions by email. "Board members look forward to hearing his plan. The Chair and Vice Chair have stated their strong preference that Mr. Heap provide the same level of service that Maricopa County voters have come to expect in past years."

This week, Heap told The Center Square that his office is still “trying to get accurate information from the board.”

Heap said he appreciated board members “finally acknowledging” that they will follow the law, but he said this “hasn’t been matched with anything in terms of action.”

The board has not given the Recorder’s Office the “resources, staff or contracting authority” to carry out the early vote plan, according to Heap.

The recorder said he is “attempting to work with the board’s staff take over this project." However, he said the board has only given him a “spreadsheet of proposed locations.”

If the board “truly” wanted to give back the proposed early voting plan to his office, it should have started working with him “months ago,” Heap stated.

“If the board is not going to provide all of the resources, at very least, they need to instruct their staff to follow the recorder's lead and provide us with the information that we need to run this,” he said.

Going forward, Heap said he is optimistic about the early voting plan, stating he has secured additional voting sites.

“ As long as the board actually does what they have promised the voters they're going to do and support the plan that we put forward, then I think we can expect a smooth transition,” Heap explained.

Heap told The Center Square that his working relationship with the board has “certainly been a struggle.”

“ I remain committed to cooperating because ultimately we wanna make sure we have a smooth transition, that elections run smoothly, that we move from early voting over to Election Day,” he said

“Only now, when we’re about to get a ruling from the court, is suddenly the board wanting to reach some sort of agreement or settlement,” Heap noted.

From the board’s perspective, Berry said, “Behind the scenes, staff is working well together and making substantial progress to secure early voting sites, as we've done in past elections.”

“The Board has attempted to work in good faith with Recorder Heap,” he added.

Heap told The Center Square that he feels “very confident” that his office will see a “positive ruling” from the court.

”Ultimately, what we're really fighting for is just a clarification from the court on which duties correspond to each office,” he explained.

Heap said his position is that “if the law assigns something to the recorder,” then it is the recorder’s responsibility to enact that law. But if the law assigns something to the board, the board must enforce that law.

In areas where the recorder’s and board’s duties overlap, Heap said they can “work together.”

However, Heap said the board’s position has been that it can “take over any duty in elections” it chooses.

“ The board believes it is fully in control to determine what elected officers can and cannot do. I think we need clarification from the court,” he explained.

According to Berry, the board’s elections department and Heap’s office “are working closely together as they have in previous successful elections.”

“Currently they are making substantial progress to select and secure early voting sites. That work will continue. From the Board's perspective, voters come first and their experience must be prioritized,” he explained.

(The Center Square) - The Arizona Senate passed a bill that aims to lower housing costs by limiting design standard requirements.

Along party lines, state senators passed Senate Bill 1431 this week by a 17-12 vote, with one member not voting.

SB 1431 prevents Arizona municipalities from interfering with a homebuyer’s right to choose design features of their home, including the floor plan, interior design and exterior design.

The bill also prevents cities from implementing aesthetic design requirements. SB 1431 says they can’t adopt design requirements for colors, roofs, driveways, patios, garages, building materials and other items.

Sen. Shawnna Bolick, R-Deer Valley, who sponsored SB 1431, said Arizonans “should be able to build their dream house without worrying about a low level municipal bureaucrat who wants to dictate their preferred design standards.”

Bolick added that the “state should step in knowing we have been living through a housing crisis and the cities have been trampling all over our private property rights.”

“The cities haven’t done a particular good job over the last few decades to address the housing shortage," Bolick said, answering The Center Square's questions by email. "Throwing up unnecessary roadblocks further hurts approving affordable housing units for the first time homebuyer."

She noted the government “needs to stop erecting barriers and forcing new housing developments into HOAs [homeowners' associations] by requiring shared amenities.”

“HOA fees can add another few hundred dollars on to a first-time homebuyer’s monthly mortgage,” Bolick explained.

To help speed up the permitting process, the bill prohibits state municipalities from delaying, denying or conditionally approving a building permit because of design requirements that are banned under SB 1431.

SB 1431 still allows municipalities to enforce fire codes, building codes, minimum parking standards, dark sky ordinances, and public health and safety regulations.

The bill says its restrictions on municipalities do not apply to homes in historic districts, tribal land, homes designated as historic on the National Register of Historic Places or high noise or potential accident zones near military bases.

Bolick told The Center Square that “over the past several sessions, historic districts and certain military bases have been pushing back against some of the legislature’s housing bills.”

“We believe this would be the best approach to try to get something passed and signed,” she added.

(The Center Square) - The U.S. and Israeli war with Iran has already inflated prices at the gas pump for people across the Southwest and the rest of America.

But experts say the biggest hikes could be yet to come.

The war, which started this past weekend and reportedly has killed over 1,000 people (including six U.S. service members), has pushed gas prices up by an average of 21 cents across the U.S. since last week.

“The last time we saw something similar to this was when Russia invaded Ukraine," AAA Mountain West Group Spokesperson John Treanor told The Center Square.

Another spokesperson stressed the war's impact at the pumps.

“This war in Iran has definitely caused oil prices to go up quite a bit in the last week,” AAA Mountain West Group Spokesperson Julian Paredes told The Center Square. “ Twenty cents going up in a week is pretty extreme.”

While minor gas price increases are typical in the spring, AAA experts said the difference over the past week can't be accounted for by this seasonal difference.

“It's typical to see gas prices go up a little bit because people are driving more as the weather gets nicer, and we switch over to what's called the summer-blend gasoline, which is a more expensive form of gasoline,” Treanor said.

Oil refineries make summer-blend gas that has more expensive additives to prevent evaporation during the heat, according to AAA.

“What does not typically happen are large jumps like this due to extenuating circumstances, historical events,” Treanor said. He added that seasonal changes normally account for a couple of cents per gallon.

As of Wednesday, the U.S. average price for a gallon of regular gas was $3.20, up 22 cents from last week’s $2.98, AAA reported.

In Arizona, the average price for a regular gallon on Wednesday was $3.49, up from last week’s $3.27. California, with the most expensive gas in the country, was up to $4.74 from $4.63. Colorado was at $3.11 from $2.90, and Nevadans were seeing an average of $3.83 at the pumps, up from $3.70 last week.

“This war with Iran impacts us in Arizona,” said Paredes.

Elsewhere in the U.S., average gas prices on Wednesday were $4.41 a gallon in Washington state, up from $4.36 a week ago; $3.32 in Illinois, which is an increase from $3.03 one week ago; and $2.817 in one of the states with the lowest prices, Texas, up from $2.61 a week ago.

The U.S. does not buy oil or gas from Iran, but experts say the sharp price increases over the past week have come from market speculation and the expected tightened global supply.

At the same time, the war in Iran could stretch on longer, with President Donald Trump on Sunday saying it could last four to five weeks.

“We haven't yet seen the limits in supply affect the market, but it will if there's a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz,” said Auto Club Group Spokesperson Skyler McKinley in Colorado. “I think we're still about a week out from the increase in the per-barrel cost affecting what consumers are paying at the pump.”

The strait is a narrow stretch of sea alongside Iran before the Persian Gulf, which saw around 20% of global petroleum liquids pass through in 2024, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Parades noted the war and its impact are unpredictable. “It really depends on how long it lasts and how far it escalates, and the scary thing is we don't know."

The AAA experts offered a variety of tips on how to minimize wallet damage as consumers.

“There's a world where we're paying north of $3.50 during the summer – we could be paying north of $4 – but it's impossible to speculate when that’s going to happen, or if it's going to happen, because it's not really up to the market,” said McKinley, who stressed the need to budget for potential price increases. “It's up to all of these broader questions. There's such a temptation to say, ‘This is going on; therefore, this will happen at the pump,’ but it's just way more complicated than that.”

The little details that impact mileage are worth noting as well, according to Paredes in Arizona.

“Keeping it [your car] properly maintained, sticking to the speed limit, even just making sure your tires are properly inflated,” he said. “Flat tires or under-inflated tires can really hurt your fuel economy. You can't really control gas prices, but you can make sure you're getting the most for what you're paying for.”

In Nevada, Treanor reminded drivers that sharp price increases at the pump were unfortunately nothing new.

“When Russia invaded Ukraine, demand went up, supply went down, and we became very smart consumers,” said Treanor. “You started using apps that told you where the cheaper gas was in your area. You carpooled. You changed the way you drove. You became more efficient drivers. Those kinds of things should still ring true. You can find ways to stretch that so you don't have to fill up as much.”

(The Center Square) - The Arizona Auditor General’s office recently released data showing that one-third of the state's school districts face “increased financial risk” due to reduced birth rates and associated funding.

The data showed that 69 of 207 Arizona school districts face financial difficulties due to lower birth rates. School district funding is tied to student enrollment.

In fiscal year 2025, data showed Arizona saw a net increase of two schools, with six schools opening and four closing.

A district that closed three schools last year, Phoenix-based Paradise Valley Unified School District, saw its enrollment decline 15% between fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2025.

Another Phoenix district, the Murphy Elementary School District, closed one school after its enrollment took a 31% dive over the same period.

Overall, the state's public school enrollment has declined by 55,054 students since fiscal year 2020. Expanding out to 2008, Arizona public schools saw their enrollment drop by almost 93,000 students.

Katie Ratlief, executive director of Common Sense Institute Arizona, said it doesn't surprise her to see Arizona school districts facing financial difficulties because they overbuilt classrooms and school buildings while enrollment declined.

“They’re just not going to be able to continue to operate if they don’t close and divest themselves of some of these properties,” Ratlief told The Center Square.

Ratlief said school districts need to reduce their costs and “focus on providing services and the highest quality education they can for their students.”

She cited a 2025 CSI report showing that Arizona's declining school districts nearly doubled their capital expenditures. That's a bigger hike than the spending increases at school districts that are growing.

Growing school districts have increased their capital expenditure by 58% since 2019, while declining school districts have increased it by 99%, Ratlief said.

She noted school districts have “too much real estate that is very expensive to maintain.”

Ratlief added that they have around “$12 billion worth of real estate,” which costs them “$1 billion a year to maintain.”

Geneva Fuentes, communications director for the Arizona Education Association, said the state's schools are “spending more money on facilities maintenance because school buildings across the state are crumbling and school districts are trying to do their best to keep up with the cost of repairs.”

“When the state doesn't make sufficient investments on the front end to make sure students are learning in modern facilities, school districts have to spend a lot more money to keep those buildings safe and healthy for the students that attend,” Fuentes told The Center Square.

Fuentes said school districts have pursued “creative ways to repurpose buildings,” such as seeking voter approval for land sales to fund buildings they no longer use. She added school districts have worked to consolidate facilities.

“School districts have not just sat on their laurels and let empty buildings remain empty,” Fuentes said. “They've looked at really proactive solutions to make sure that buildings or the value of land that they sit on are being properly utilized in service.”

According to Matt Beienburg, director of education policy at the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, another factor affecting school districts is the competition among public schools.

He told The Center Square that ”far more students have left their local public school district for a different public school system than the ESA program.”

ESA is Arizona's Empowerment Scholarship Account, under which tax dollars paying for a student's education follows the student to a school of the parents' choice. That includes home schooling.

“The ESA program is a drop in the bucket compared to the enrollment pressures that these districts are facing from competition between public schools,” Beienburg explained.

Auditor data showed that in fiscal year 2025, approximately 106,000 students went to a school outside their home district.

Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne said kids have left certain public schools for other schools because their needs were not being met. In such cases, Horne told The Center Square, parents have the right to send their children to another school.

Horne said he hopes districts with low academic performance will improve their schools.

Ratlief noted in 2010, 79% of Arizona families with an incoming kindergartner chose a public school. However, 13 years later, this number decreased to 62%.

Despite the decrease in Arizona families choosing to send their kids to public schools and a decline in school enrollment, state public schools “still have 50% more seats available in district schools” than it has “students to fill them,” Ratlief noted.

She said nearly half of the students in Arizona use a type of school choice.

Arizona public schools are the only school choice option that gets public money from the state to fund their facilities. So when school districts are unable to compete in academics, culture and environment, “they try to compete by building new buildings,” according to Ratlief.

This may account for why Arizonans have seen a “dramatic increase in capital expenditures by shrinking school districts because they’re trying to just build and bring in new things to attract families,” she added.

“Clearly, that's not working. That's not what families want. Families want high-performing schools and an outstanding school culture,” Ratlief noted.

According to Fuentes, 70% of students who use the ESA program don’t attend public schools.

“Public schools are not necessarily competing for those kids on a year-to-year basis. Those are students whose parents have already decided to opt them out of the public school system,” she added.

“ Public schools in every neighborhood do their best to serve students who have diverse needs. We need to make sure lawmakers are carefully considering whether the funding that they're providing to school districts is equitable,” she said.

An additional factor affecting Arizona public schools' enrollment is the decline in the birth rate, Fuentes noted.

Beienburg previously told The Center Square that the state has seen a 36% drop in its birth rate since 2007, resulting in 10,000 to 20,000 fewer births annually in Arizona.

As Arizona school districts face financial difficulties due to declining enrollment and capital expenditures, the state has increased its spending on K-12 education.

The auditor general's data showed that Arizona spent $13.4 billion on K-12 education in fiscal year 2025, with $10.5 billion on operational costs and $2.9 billion on non-operational spending.

Beienburg said Arizona has increased its school spending per student. But he added the state is “seeing a lower percentage of funding making it to the classroom.”

Arizona public school funding has increased “nearly 50% in inflation adjusted terms per student since about 1980,” he said.

Beienburg said the Arizona auditor general found last month that only 52% of the state’s operating spending goes into the classroom.

“ That strongly suggests that it's not so much a resource problem as it is an allocation problem,” he explained.

Fuentes told The Center Square that educators “have been raising concerns about the state’s underfunding of public schools for years.”

Per pupil spending, Arizona “ranks 46th in K-12 education funding and 48th in spending,” according to educationdata.org.

The AEA’s position is Arizona’s public school funding has “not been increased sufficiently to deal with the rising costs that school districts are facing and to keep salaries competitive for Arizona teachers,” Fuentes explained. The AEA is the state's largest union of public school employees.

She said the way Arizona “calculates instructional spending versus non-instructional spending tends to not account for the way that students move through a school throughout the day.”

As examples, Fuentes cited social workers, school counselors or paraprofessionals may not be “counted as instructional spending, even though they play a critical role in helping students learn on a day-to-day basis.”

She said AEA would push back against “specific numbers that people use to make those points because a lot of educators are being counted in the non-instructional bracket when they actually play a very important role in school instruction.”

(The Center Square) - Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes joined her fellow Democratic attorneys general from 22 other states and the District of Columbia in filing an amicus brief in support of birthright citizenship.

The brief was filed in the Trump v. Barbara case the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing. President Donald Trump signed an executive order last year that banned birthright citizenship, which allows kids born in America to become citizens regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

“The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ ” the executive order said.

According to Mayes, the 14th Amendment is “crystal clear: If you are born in the United States, you are an American citizen.

“President Trump does not have the power to change that with the stroke of a pen — no matter what he thinks," she said.

"I will always fight to protect the constitutional rights of every child born in Arizona, and I'm proud to stand with my fellow attorneys general in defense of the constitutional principles our nation has upheld for over 150 years," the attorney general added.

In the brief, the attorneys general noted birthright citizenship dates back centuries and that the Supreme Court has upheld it in previous cases.

They also worried about how children would be affected if the Supreme Court ruled in Trump’s favor.

"It is difficult to overstate the devastating impacts of the Order," the amicus brief said about the president's executive order. "It profoundly harms the States, and it threatens to create a new and vulnerable underclass of children across the country. It does so by flagrantly violating the Citizenship Clause and INA [the Immigration and Nationality Act] alike."

In addition to Arizona, the brief was filed by attorneys general from New Jersey, Washington state, Massachusetts and California, who co-led the amicus brief, as well as attorneys general from Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Wisconsin. City Attorney David Chiu of San Francisco is also among those filing the amicus brief.

Jeremy Beck, co-president of the immigration nonprofit NumbersUSA, told The Center Square this week that the Supreme Court has “never ruled directly” on the birthright citizenship question, noting the closest the court came to doing that was in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Beck said the Supreme Court ruled a child born to Chinese parents who were lawful permanent residents was a citizen at birth.

He noted the 14th Amendment was not supposed to be “a universal policy.”

Birthright citizenship has nothing to do with “protecting the enfranchisement of foundational Black Americans,” Beck explained.

Birthright citizenship is a “subversion of the system, and it doesn’t honor the letter of the intent of the 14th Amendment,” according to Beck.

Beck said the 14th Amendment was not meant to apply to “anyone standing on U.S. soil.”

As an example, Beck said the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to the children of foreign diplomats.

Beck stated NumbersUSA thinks birthright citizenship is a “matter of federal statute” rather than the 14th Amendment.

Birthright citizenship has turned into an “international industry where people pay sometimes big money to come and take a vacation to America and then get a green card for their child who can then one day vote in U.S. elections and sponsor extended family members to come and join them here,” Beck noted.

He highlighted that America and Canada are the only “developed nations in the world” that allow birthright citizenship.

“It’s a rare policy. It's really not compatible with modern travel or society,” Beck explained.

The Center for Immigration Studies released a report last year showing that an estimated 225,000 to 250,000 babies were born to illegal immigrants in 2023, which accounted for almost 7% of all American births.

Furthermore, CIS found that in 2023, an estimated 70,000 people on temporary visas in America gave birth.

CIS also estimated that another 33,000 women who are on a tourist visa give birth in America annually.

According to Beck, NumbersUSA supported Trump’s executive order banning birthright citizenship and “expects a positive ruling from the Supreme Court.

He said if the court rules against the executive orders, NumbersUSA believes “it’s Congress’ responsibility to set the record straight.”

(The Center Square) - Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, pushed back against a judge’s decision to provide federal oversight of health care at the state's prisons.Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver ruled in Jensen v. Thornell that the state’s prison health care system will be placed under a federal receiver, who directly answers to the court.The Phoenix-based judge found Arizona had failed to comply with numerous court orders issued throughout the nearly 14-year legal battle. Arizona prisoners sued the state in 2012, alleging the Arizona Department of Corrections violated their Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishments and failed to provide sufficient medical and health care services. Silver cited a 2022 court-issued order that found “overarching failures in the delivery of health care as seriously insufficient staffing [and] inappropriate use of nurses beyond the scope of their licensure.”She also found Arizona failed “to manage complex patients or employ a differential diagnosis approach" and that conditions included "substantially inadequate mental health treatment and a deficient electronic health care record system.”Over 100 health care positions remain unfilled throughout Arizona’s 10 prisons, the judge noted in her ruling.“All these critical deficiencies were found to exist at every one of Defendants’ complexes, rendering the healthcare delivery systemically unconstitutional,” Silver wrote.Petersen said, “Arizona’s prison health care system has faced real challenges, and the state has acknowledged that.”However, he pointed out that the state has made “significant progress” in recent years “through increased staffing, expanded mental health services, and more than $1.3 billion invested to improve care.” “The care being provided meets constitutional standards and, in many cases, meets or exceeds what many law-abiding Arizonans are able to access themselves,” Petersen said, answering The Center Square's questions by email.“It is unreasonable for a federal judge to suggest the state must provide a higher level of care than what taxpayers can obtain on the outside,” he added.Petersen noted these improvements should be overseen by “accountable state leadership rather than federal control.”

According to the Senate president, federal receiverships eliminate elected officials’ “decision-making authority and hands it to an unelected court appointee with broad power and no clear end date.”“That means less transparency, less accountability and major policy decisions being made outside Arizona’s democratic process,” he explained.Petersen said putting a federal receiver in charge of the health care system “creates the risk of significantly higher, uncapped spending, especially if the court mandates enhancements that exceed what many working families can afford for themselves.”This federal receivership draws comparisons to the federal oversight the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department was put under in 2013 after a lawsuit found the department violated Hispanics' constitutional rights by racially profiling them.The department remains under federal oversight, which has cost Maricopa County taxpayers $353 million.Besides Petersen, Gov. Katie Hobbs also pushed back against the court ruling. The Democrat said she disagreed with Silver’s decision, which she described as overlooking “significant progress” the state has made in “recent years.”“This system was in crisis for a decade, and we’ve worked tirelessly to turn things around. While progress is not achieved overnight, the improvements we’ve made in a short amount of time are undeniable,” the governor said.Hobbs said the court decision implements “unrealistic demands and timelines that fail to account for the complexity of these challenges.”“The best path forward is continued state investment, not federal overreach,” she noted.The Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry announced in February it would appeal the judge’s ruling. Department Director Ryan Thornell said if the court’s decision stands, an “exorbitantly expensive, unnecessary receiver risks disrupting the significant progress we have made in our prisons, all with no time clock on its authority.”Petersen told The Center Square that he is “focused on supporting the current appeal and ensuring Arizona’s position is fully defended.”

When asked if he would be willing to take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Petersen said, “Decisions about further appeals will be evaluated at that time.”“We believe the state has strong legal arguments and should continue pursuing every appropriate legal option to restore state authority,” the Senate president explained.

(The Center Square) – Politicians and others in the Southwest remain divided over U.S. airstrikes in Iran.

The Operation Epic Fury strikes began over the weekend and were in coordination with Israel. Many Iranian weapons were destroyed, and dozens of top Iranian officials were killed, including longtime Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Within hours of his death, people took to the streets of U.S. cities, including San Francisco, Los Angeles and Phoenix. Some were opposed. Others supported the strikes.

“We do understand democracy,” said Kamyar Majlan, an Iranian native who is in favor of the U.S. attacks and attended a San Francisco demonstration supporting America's efforts. “We [Iranians] are not just people hiding in a cave, and suddenly now they kill the supreme leader, we are happy. No, we’ve been fighting this fight for more than 50 years.”

Majilan – who fled Iran in the early 2000s and studied in Texas and is now a U.S. citizen living in San Ramon, a city near San Francisco – said Iranians appreciate the U.S. efforts.

“Everything we have right now, we owe it to the U.S. government, to U.S. citizens,” Majilan told The Center Square. “We will become better citizens from today until our future.”

Majilan envisioned a future Iran where people help rebuild and make the nation a vibrant one.

Because of the “47 years of suppression” and “47 years of dictatorship,” Majilan said that all some people know about Iran is "Persian cat, Persian rug, and caviar."

There's a lot more to Iran than that, he said.

“No, we have many scientists, physicists, educated people,” said Majilan.

Others voiced opposition to the strikes.

Actress and anti-war activist Jane Fonda spoke at a demonstration in Los Angeles that “this dangerous and insane war” violates international law and the U.S. Constitution. Fonda also warned that it risks igniting a larger war.

“It is yet again another war based on false information,” said Fonda.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is also opposed to the strikes. Speaking at an Alameda County press conference about homelessness, Newsom told an inquiring reporter that Americans did not want this to happen.

"We’ve had to have conversations over the last few days that we haven’t had to have prior to this, as it relates to emergency preparedness and planning and unintended consequences, the uncertainty that Donald Trump has unleashed around the world,” the Democratic governor said. “Four service members died today, and Donald Trump spent more time talking about his ballroom than he did about the loss of those lives.”

The number of American service members killed in action had risen to six by mid-Monday afternoon, as reported by The Center Square.

"He still has not articulated a clear vision of what the endgame is," Newsom said. "There's no War Powers Act that has been exercised."

Newsom said oil prices are rising because of the war with Iran and noted every $10 increase in barrel prices will mean paying 24 cents more per gallon at the pump. He criticized Trump for an unfunded war during a time when the president has cut money for food stamps and Medicaid while cutting taxes for those who are well off.

But Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said on X that his state “stands with President Trump.”

According to the Republican governor, Trump’s message to Iran is clear: 'Aggression toward America and our allies will no longer be tolerated.”

The mixed feelings are also along party lines on Capitol Hill.

Republicans such as U.S. Rep. Juan Ciscomani, R-Arizona, responded positively to the strikes.

In an X post, Ciscomani wrote that the action from President Trump “sends a clear message” to the leaders of Iran.

“The Iranian regime’s aggression and destabilizing threats will not go unanswered,” wrote Ciscomani. “For decades, the Iranian regime has funded terror, attacked our allies, and threatened American service members.”

Ciscomani added that President Trump and his administration have continually been seeking peace, but Iran chose escalation.

U.S. Rep. Abe Hamadeh, R-Arizona, also agreed with the U.S. operations. Hamadeh, a veteran, said that the Iranian regime has for years chanted "Death to America" while having “the blood of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans on its hands through terror proxies and direct attacks” on our forces.

“President Trump has been absolutely clear: America does not seek war, but we will never apologize for defending our nation, our allies and our interests,” Hamadeh told The Center Square. “Peace comes through projecting maximum strength. When our adversaries know the United States is serious and prepared to act, that is what prevents conflict in the first place.”

Hamadeh added that when Americans are forced into combat, it will be fast, decisive and overwhelming. He said there would be no endless half-measures, no drawn-out nation-building experiments.

“Every decision is grounded in one simple principle: Does this advance American security?” said Hamadeh. “If it does, we will act with overwhelming force, and we act to win. America First does not mean America Alone.”

U.S. Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Arizona, said he views the war as “dumb.” A veteran of the Iraq War of the early 2000s, Gallego also downplayed the pro-strikes demonstrations. Gallego said on X that “this happened after Saddam was toppled,” and it did not stop Iraqi insurgents from shooting rocket-propelled grenades at him years later.

“We’re going to send a bunch of working-class kids to go down for a bunch of rich countries, a bunch of rich men here, and it’s not a good feeling,” said Gallego in a video he posted on social media. “Congress needs to get back in session, we need to get control, we need to stop this war, we need to hear from the president why we should be going to war in the first place.”

U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff, D-California, also pushed for Congress to return to Washington, D.C.

“Americans do not want another forever war in the Middle East,” said Schiff in a video post.

U.S. Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nevada, voiced her concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and how the regime has treated citizens. Rosen also spoke of being “grateful for our brave men and women who are conducting Operation Epic Fury” and even mentioned that she is “praying for those service members who are under attack” in the region. Still, Rosen wants more information from the Trump administration.

“I am concerned that the president’s approach to armed conflict over the past year and his administration’s history of repeatedly withholding information and misleading Congress could lead us into another protracted Middle East conflict, without authorization from Congress,” said Rosen. “The American people are wary of prolonged military engagements abroad, especially when the objectives are unclear.”

That, said Rosen, is why “the Constitution is clear that only Congress has the ability to declare war and authorize the use of military force.”

California native and television personality Alyssa Farah Griffin, who's on ABC's "The View," said on X that Congress has only itself to blame.

“It has ceded its war-making powers to the Executive Branch for decades,” said Griffin, who worked in government before television.

(The Center Square) - The Arizona Supreme Court will hear a case seeking to determine who qualifies as an engineer in the state.

On March 10, the state Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case of Greg Mills, et al. v. State of Arizona.

Mills has over 30 years of engineering experience and started his own engineering consulting firm, Southwest Engineering Concepts LLC, in 2008.

After Mills operated his company for more than a decade, the Arizona Board of Technical Registration began an investigation into Mills and his company following a customer complaint, court documents said.

According to its website, the board regulates applicants to determine who qualifies as an engineer and other professions.

In May 2019, the ABTR said Mills and his company violated Arizona law by “engaging in ‘engineering practices’ and by advertising their services as ‘engineers’ without first registering” with ABTR, court documents noted.

In an attempt to resolve the conflict, ABTR sent Mills a proposed consent agreement three months later that would have required Mills to pay a “$3,000 fine, assessed investigation costs” and stop his work until he registered with ABTR, court documents stated.

Mills said he and his company did not need to register with the board, so he did not sign the consent agreement, according to court documents.

In October 2019, Mills chose not to meet with ABTR to review the investigation. Thus, ABTR voted to offer Mills another consent agreement with the same terms, except that the fine was doubled to $6,000, court documents noted. Again, Mills refused to sign the consent agreement.

Two months later, Mills, being represented by the Institute for Justice, sued the ABTR, alleging the board’s ruling violated his right to “earn an honest living free from unreasonable, arbitrary, oppressive or monopolistic regulations” guaranteed by the Arizona Constitution.

Mills’ lawsuit reached the state Supreme Court in 2022, which ruled that three of the four constitutional challenges he raised were legally determinable by a court.

Mills refiled the lawsuit and switched the defendant from the ABTR to the state of Arizona.

An Arizona superior court granted the state’s motion to dismiss Mills’ lawsuit, which was then appealed. The Arizona Court of Appeals also ruled against Mills.

After losing at the appeals court level, Mills and his legal team filed an appeal with the state Supreme Court.

The Goldwater Institute filed an amicus brief in support of Mills.

Tim Sandefur, the vice president for the conservative Phoenix think tank’s legal affairs, said Mills’ case is important because the court has indicated it is “thinking about reconsidering old precedents and declaring economic freedom is as important a constitutional right as the freedom of speech or freedom of religion.”

If the Arizona Supreme Court did this, it would “make a big difference because that would mean that wealth creators in our society would have the ability to defend themselves in court,” Sandefur told The Center Square.

Sandefur said the Goldwater Institute's brief argued the “right to earn a living is a very old right that traces back hundreds of years.”

“There are cases from the 1600s on this exact issue of whether the government can use licensing laws to take away your economic freedom,” Sandefur said.

“ The founding fathers, both of the United States and of Arizona, believed that everybody has this fundamental right to earn a living without unreasonable interference from the government,” he added.

Up until recently, Sandefur said courts have “forgotten about that fact.”

The Goldwater Institute is “urging the justices to remember that and to enforce this as a matter of Arizona state constitutional law,” he said. “Economic liberty is an essential part, if not the definitive part, of what we call the American dream."

According to the vice president of legal affairs, the issue is that America’s legal system “tends to ignore the rights of business owners and entrepreneurs and people who are trying to earn a living.”

Thus, business owners have a hard time defending themselves in court “when government bureaucracy goes off the rails,” Sandefur told The Center Square.

If a government infringes on people’s First Amendment rights, the court system takes that “very seriously," Sandefur said. But he added the court tends to look the other way on economic rights.

In America, people should have the “ability to start whatever business” their skills enable, Sandefur said.

“It’s really none of the government’s business to tell people who is and isn’t allowed to practice this trade," he said. "That should be up to consumers to decide."

(The Center Square) – A winery in Santa Barbara County is challenging what it calls an illegal government mandate.

In February 2025, the county Board of Supervisors approved the creation of a Wine Business Improvement District or Wine BID. It requires wineries to pay a 1% fee on all their sales to fund regional marketing efforts. Wineries must also become members of the Santa Barbara County Vintners Association, which controls how the money is spent.

Flying Goat Cellars, a Lompoc winery, is challenging the mandate with help from attorneys at Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute.

“There’s no opt-out,” Goldwater senior staff attorney Adam Shelton told The Center Square. “They have to join, and they have to pay the 1% fee.”

When asked for a dollar amount for 1% of her business' sales, Flying Goat Cellars co-owner Kate Griffith said the amount is not the issue. The issue is that they were forced to pay something and be members.

“If we do not want to be associated or affiliated with this organization, we should not have to be, so anything is too much as far as I’m concerned,” Griffith told The Center Square. “We’re talking about our First Amendment right, and we’re talking with the right to affiliate or not. And we’re talking about our Fifth Amendment right with the taking of our personal property, which is our money in this case.”

Griffith’s husband, Flying Goat Cellars co-owner Norm Yost, said the Santa Barbara County Vintners’ Association has been around for decades and has “always had funding issues.”

Both Griffith and Yost have served on the board. And while Griffith said they “appreciated its methods and approaches in years ago by,” the couple has not agreed with the association's actions in recent years.

“We feel like the organization has been shanghaied by the wealthier, deeper pockets in the county - the wineries that have more resources, and it’s catering to this group,” said Griffith. “There’s like 480-something wineries in Santa Barbara County, and a very small amount are dominating. And some wineries that are owned by billionaires are driving this thing, and it’s just absurd that we are having to opt-in without a choice.”

Goldwater Institute sent a demand letter to Bob Nelson, chair of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, to say this violates the U.S. Constitution.

No deadline for response was given. Shelton said the Goldwater Institute is “willing to work with them.” If the Board of Supervisors does not respond or these issues are not adequately resolved to his client’s satisfaction, Shelter said all avenues are on the table, including litigation.

“This is compelled speech,” said Shelton. “The Supreme Court has long held that organizations and businesses cannot be required to subsidize the speech of a private organization, and that’s exactly what’s happening here,”

Shelton also described it as compelled association insofar as the wineries are effectively now members of this association, one that he said “advocated for the creation of this Wine BID.”

After being asked for comment, the Santa Barbara County government told The Center Square that it has received correspondence regarding the Santa Barbara County Wine Improvement District, which was formed in February 2025 pursuant to California law.

“At this time, we are not aware that a lawsuit has been filed, but are reviewing the received correspondence,” said the county.

The Santa Barbara County Wine Improvement District said it was established by the county through a public process and approved by the Board of Supervisors in accordance with California law.

“Benefit assessment frameworks like this have been used statewide for decades to support regional economic development,” CEO Alison Laslett of Santa Barbara Vintners told The Center Square. "Santa Barbara Vintners" is another name for the Santa Barbara County Vintners Association.

Griffith, who has lived in other states, including Indiana, warned requirements such as those in Santa Barbara County could happen to any business owner or industry.

“If the wine industry is allowed to make an assessment, every industry can,” said Griffith. “If this is allowed to continue, you’re going to see more and more industries get their industry organizations out there and get an assessment so that they can market their product, shoes, clothes, beer, soft drinks, whatever.”

(The Center Square) - A new bill seeking to require an English proficiency test for people applying for a commercial driver license would “likely have minimal direct impact” on Arizona’s trucking industry, according to Tony Bradley, the CEO of the Arizona Trucking Association.

He added that as currently written, House Bill 2443 “may conflict with existing federal CDL standards, which could create compliance concerns or risk federal funding in the future.”

“Arizona must remain in conformity with federal commercial driver license (CDL) standards to avoid jeopardizing federal highway funding or program certification,” Bradley said, answering The Center Square's questions by email.

HB 2443 would require CDL applicants to take an English proficiency exam in reading, speaking, writing and listening.

Bradley said the bill “addresses an area already covered under existing federal law.”

“English language proficiency has long been a federal driver qualification requirement,” the CEO added.

And Arizona “already operates under the federal CDL framework,” Bradley explained.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said nearly 10,000 CDL drivers were taken off the road last year after failing English proficiency checks.

Bradley said Arizona saw 663 violations of federal law that require a “driver be able to read and speak English sufficiently to converse with the general public, understand highway traffic signs and signals, respond to official inquiries, and make entries on reports and records.”

The CEO noted this represented “approximately 1.21% of all violations and 4.68% of out-of-service violations.”

Bradley said another 686 violations of the federal law occurred in the border commercial zone, which represented 1.26% of violations. The border commercial zone extends up to 75 miles into Arizona from the southern border.

In 2026, there have been 56 violations and 33 in the border commercial zone, Bradley noted.

“While not widespread, the issue is measurable and documented. To the best of my knowledge, we do not know how many of these violations were from Arizona drivers,” he explained.

Last week, the Department of Transportation announced that CDL tests will be conducted in English.

The Arizona Trucking Association supports “the concept of a standardized English language proficiency assessment” at the federal level, Bradley said.

He added that “English language proficiency requirements have existed in federal motor carrier regulations since the 1930s.”

“The purpose is straightforward: Drivers operating large commercial vehicles must be able to understand traffic control devices, emergency instructions, roadside inspections and safety communications,” Bradley explained.

Rather than Arizona creating new standards at the state level, the CEO told The Center Square that the most effective approach is to create a “uniform federal proficiency assessment at the time a CDL is issued.”

“Ensuring that drivers demonstrate English proficiency before licensure would provide clarity, consistency and fairness nationwide,” Bradley said.

At the federal level, Bradley said his organization supports standards that include “proficiency requirements for the written exam, English comprehension testing during the skills exam, road sign recognition and understanding and verbal communication assessment.”

(The Center Square) - Thousands of people are expected Saturday for the Arizona March for Life in Phoenix.

The pro-life march will begin at noon, following pre-march events at 10 a.m. The rally's primary sponsor and organizer is the Arizona Life Coalition.

The rally will feature speeches by Center for Arizona Policy President Peter Gentala and Dr. William Lile, a pro-life physician. The event will also include a musical performance by McKenna Faith, who was a contestant on "American Idol."

Garrett Riley, part-time executive director of Arizona Life Coalition, estimated the rally will have between 4,000 and 5,000 people, a similar crowd size to previous years.

Riley told The Center Square that the informative event will feature 25 exhibitors, including some from pregnancy health centers and foster care, as well as adoption and social agencies.

“It's gonna be very entertaining, uplifting and encouraging for anyone who is pro-life,” he explained.

Riley also recommended that people who may not consider themselves pro-life come to the rally with an “open mind and open heart” and talk with people there.

He added that his organization is “focused on influencing the hearts and minds of the culture.”

Riley said his organization sees abortion from a “moral and religious perspective” rather than a political perspective.

The Arizona March for Life is not a political rally, he said. He also noted his organization has been preparing for the event for the last six months.

The March for Life comes as debates continue over abortion laws. In 2024, Arizona voters passed Proposition 139, which guaranteed a right to abortion in the state Constitution.

Based on this new constitutional guarantee, an Arizona judge earlier this month ruled several state abortion laws were unconstitutional, such as Arizona’s reason ban, two-trip requirement law and telemedicine ban.

“The state’s interest in protecting potential life is not a legitimate justification for a law that interferes with a woman’s right to seek a pre-viability abortion,” Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gregory Como wrote in his decision.

Dr. Misha Pangasa, an OB/GYN at Planned Parenthood Arizona, said the organization believes “everyone deserves compassionate, judgement-free care. It’s the center of our ethos.”

She added that “Arizonans have a right to comprehensive reproductive health care and education.”

“While sometimes voices of opposition filled with rage and judgement can feel loud, we must center ourselves in the truth: In Arizona, we are actively expanding access to reproductive care,” Pangasa said, answering The Center Square's questions by email.

“From voters overwhelmingly passing Prop. 139 and enshrining the right to abortion in our state constitution, to a state court earlier this month striking down several harmful, burdensome, and medically-unnecessary abortion restrictions, Arizona is moving health care forward,” she noted.

According to Riley, Arizona’s pro-life community is “undeterred by these political and legal outcomes.”

“The movement is even more dedicated and determined than ever to promote and defend innocent life and the rights of unborn children,” Riley said.

“No matter what the laws are, we believe abortion is always wrong,” he added.

Riley said his organization believes “pro-life is pro-family.”

“We have to double down on that because the law and the politics are not in our favor,” he said.

Sue Liebel, director of state affairs for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told The Center Square that nearly 13,000 babies were aborted in Arizona in 2024.

Other states have passed constitutional amendments similar to Arizona's. Liebel said legislators in such states will attempt to remove health and safety regulations surrounding abortion.

Liebel added that Arizona may see in the future an attempt to start paying for abortion with state taxpayer money.

“People need to get out and say even though this unfortunate amendment passed, we still expect that in Arizona we’ll try to save as many lives as possible,” Liebel stated.

Pro-life supporters in Arizona can continue to “petition the courts, legislature, governor [and] health department to maintain the medical safeguards [and] standards we expect in today’s modern medical marketplace,” she said.

Liebel also noted Arizona pro-life supporters can launch campaigns to inform women that the “abortion industry does not have their back.”

She encouraged pro-life Arizonans to come out and support the March for Life.

“This may not be over,” Liebel said, adding that the pro-life movement “needs to be ready” when the opportunity presents itself, especially when women need medical care after failed or incomplete abortions.

(The Center Square) - Republican candidate Karrin Taylor Robson dropping out of the Arizona gubernatorial race benefits U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, more than U.S. Rep. David Schweikert, R-Scottsdale, according to Mike Noble, CEO of Noble Predictive Insights.

Earlier this month, Taylor Robson announced she would suspend her gubernatorial campaign.

She called the decision “not an easy one” and said she “would do anything to protect [Arizona] from the growing radicalism of the left.”

“We cannot afford a divisive Republican primary that drains resources and turns into months of intraparty attacks. It only weakens our conservative cause and gives the left exactly what they want: a fractured Republican Party heading into November,” Taylor Robson stated.

“With so much on the line in 2026, I am not willing to contribute to that outcome,” she added.

The Republican and Democratic primaries for the gubernatorial race will take place July 21. Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs is running unopposed in the primary. The winner of the GOP primary will face Hobbs in the Nov. 3 general election.

As to why Biggs is in a better position than Schweikert, Noble noted Biggs has the endorsement of President Donald Trump.

Trump had previously endorsed both Taylor Robson and Biggs for the Arizona gubernatorial race.

Noble noted Trump’s brand is “very popular” with the Arizona Republican Party.

When Taylor Robson was still in the race, there was “no statistical difference” among the three candidates in going up against Hobbs in a general election, Noble said.

However, based on polling data, Noble said Hobbs is in a “pretty good spot.”

“She has the advantage right now,” Noble told The Center Square.

Hobbs has the upper hand over the Republican gubernatorial candidates because she doesn’t have to face any primary challengers, Noble said.

The governor announced in January that she had raised nearly $15 million for her gubernatorial campaign.

Noble said there is a “huge enthusiasm gap between Democrats and Republicans” nationwide, citing special elections in which Democrats have been outperforming their 2024 numbers by about 13 points.

“The momentum is definitely behind Democrats right now, “ he explained.

In Taylor Robson’s announcement, she told her supporters to “stay engaged, stay involved, and stay focused on the mission ahead.”

“Arizona is worth fighting for, and this election will determine the direction of our state for years to come,” she explained.

Noble told The Center Square that it “was too early to tell” which candidate would receive the most support from Taylor Robson supporters, but he said it is “more likely” that Schweikert would receive their support rather than Biggs.

The last time a Republican faced Hobbs in a general election was Kari Lake in 2022, who lost the election by 17,117 votes.

Noble said Lake was popular among Arizona GOP voters but not among independent voters.

(The Center Square) – Agel Chan Ring, 19, and Nathan Da Ron James, 20, received prison sentences for the murder of a 17-year-old male in Phoenix.

Ring was sentenced to 22 years and James to 13 years.

Both pleaded guilty to one count of second-degree murder in the shooting death of the 17-year-old, who met with them to sell the defendants marijuana, according to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. At the time of the shooting, Ring was a prohibited possessor.

The office, which prosecuted the case, announced the sentences Thursday morning in a news release emailed to The Center Square.

Ring and James persuaded the victim to meet them for a marijuana purchase in July 2024 near 7th Avenue and Buckeye Road, according to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. When the victim retrieved the marijuana from his car, Ring shot him twice in the chest, the office said.

Ring and James went on to steal the marijuana, the victim’s phone and a gun, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office said.

Police arrested Ring near the crime scene. James fled to Kansas City, Mo. Months later, he was arrested there and extradited back to Arizona.

“We see cases like this far too often. Teenagers planning armed robberies over marijuana or vape products and senselessly murdering someone in the process,” said Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell. “Thanks to the dedicated work of the Phoenix Police Department and Drug Trafficking Prosecutor Sarah Lundstedt, these two individuals have been held accountable.”

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office said Ring and James were connected to the shooting through witness statements, cellphone records, social media videos and DNA evidence.

King County and Seattle were placed on a 2025 list of 500 “sanctuary jurisdictions” by the federal government for allegedly obstructing immigration enforcement.

Editor's note: This story has been updated since its original publication.

(The Center Square) - A new Arizona bill would require state and local police to notify federal law enforcement once an illegal immigrant is arrested.

Senate Bill 1055 is heading to the state House for consideration after the Senate passed it Tuesday by a vote of 16 to 11. The Republican majority backed the bill. No Democrats voted for it.

SB 1055 would also prevent state and local officials from limiting federal immigration law enforcement to “less than the full extent allowed by federal law.”

The bill allows an Arizona resident to bring legal action against a state or local jurisdiction that is hindering federal immigration law enforcement.

If a judge finds that a jurisdiction violates SB 1055, the court can impose a penalty of $500 to $5,000 per day until the violation ceases.

Also, the fine can be for the number of days the policy remains effective after a person files a lawsuit.

Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, the sponsor of SB 1055, said the legislation “strengthens cooperation with federal authorities, gives law enforcement the tools they need, and ensures Arizona is not a sanctuary for cartel activity, fentanyl trafficking or human smuggling.”

“Border security is not a partisan issue," she said, answering The Center Square's questions by email. "It's a public safety responsibility, and this bill reflects that."

In Arizona, nine law enforcement agencies participate in the federal 287(g) program, which allows local law enforcement to carry out specific immigration enforcement duties.

According to Rogers, SB 1055 will strengthen “existing partnerships.”

“This is about coordination, transparency and clarity - not extra work,” Rogers said.

Under President Donald Trump, the number of illegal immigrants coming into Arizona have fallen dramatically from the number during former President Joe Biden’s tenure.

In fiscal year 2024, Arizona experienced 564,495 illegal immigrant encounters. Compared to fiscal year 2025, the state saw 66,452 illegal immigrant encounters. This represents an 88% decrease in encounters.

But Rogers expects Hobbs will likely oppose SB 1055 if it reaches her desk. Republicans hold majorities in both Arizona houses, but lack enough seats to override the Democratic governor's vetoes. In that case, the Republicans would need some Democratic votes to reach the two-thirds threshold. But as mentioned previously, no Democrats voted for SB 1055 in the Senate.

"The real question shouldn't be whether the Arizona legislature can override a veto or pursue a ballot referendum," Rogers said, answering The Center Square's question Thursday about procedures by email. "The question deserving an answer is this: WHY would the governor consider vetoing a bill that directly protects Arizona families from fentanyl, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, and dangerous criminals residing illegally in our state? THAT is the conversation Arizonans deserve; not a debate over procedural mechanics, but why commonsense public safety protections would be opposed at all."

“Border security should never be held hostage to political ideology," Rogers told The Center Square earlier this week. "The people of Arizona expect leadership, not obstruction. If the governor won't partner with federal authorities to protect our communities, the legislature will."

In addition to SB 1055, the state Senate passed two Rogers-sponsored bills aimed at increasing immigration enforcement.

SB 1520 mandates Arizona state agencies share immigration-related information when requested by the federal government.

SB 1421 prevents certain Arizona financial institutions from accepting specific forms of identification issued to illegal immigrants. Also, the bill says a person must confirm their lawful status before making certain foreign money transfers.

The Center Square reached out this week to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for comment, but did not get a response as of press time.

(The Center Square) - Members of Congress from the Southwest reacted along party lines to this year’s State of the Union.

President Donald Trump spent much of his Tuesday night speech talking about the economy, immigration, Iran, voter ID and crime. According to the president, America is safer today than it was when Joe Biden was in office.

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colorado, disagreed with Trump's comments on various issues before the joint session of Congress.

“At the State of the Union, President Trump once again tried to convince us that what we have seen with our own eyes is not the truth,” Bennet told The Center Square Wednesday. “Coloradans have witnessed the reality: American citizens shot and killed in U.S. cities, families living in fear and struggling to afford health care and groceries, and small businesses fighting for survival under the weight of Trump's tariffs.”

As a result, Bennet said that he will continue to fight for truth and protect Colorado communities suffering under Trump’s “lawlessness.”

U.S. Rep Judy Chu, D-California, said on X that the State of the Union is meant to be unifying, not divisive.

“His speech was a disgraceful partisan spectacle, full of lies and non-stop attacks on his political enemies,” said Chu, whose district includes Pasadena.

U.S. Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nevada, disagreed with Trump’s statements that Americans are better off today than before he re-entered office. In a post on X, Rosen said life got more expensive for Nevada families during Trump’s first year back.

“Trump has weakened the state of our Union, and Nevadans need to hear him outline a real plan to actually address the affordability crisis,” said Rosen.

Some Democrats skipped the event, including U.S. Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Arizona.

Gallego instead went to an alternate event known as The People’s State Of The Union.

“Trump has made us sicker, poorer and less secure,” said Gallego in a speech at the alternate event.

Arizona's other U.S. senator - Mark Kelly - attended the president’s State of the Union. While the Democrat said in a press release that “Donald Trump mentioned a few things I agreed with, banning stock trading in Congress and stopping hedge funds from buying single-family homes,” Kelly criticized Trump for “handing a giant tax cut to rich people.”

U.S. Rep. Abe Hamadeh, R-Arizona, liked the address, especially the moments where Trump recognized military service members.

“As a member of the Armed Services committee in the U.S. House, I fought for E. Royce Williams to receive the Medal of Honor, so that was a particular highlight for me,” Hamadeh told The Center Square Wednesday.

Williams, a 100-year-old South Dakota native who lives today in San Diego, was honored for his actions as a Korean War fighter pilot.

As Hamadeh described it, the president's speech focused on America's victories and celebrated greatness and true heroism.

“From a mom waiting tables to some of the greatest athletes on earth, to warriors recovering from service to our country, American greatness was on full display and celebrated,” said Hamadeh.

Trump asked lawmakers to stand if they agreed government should protect Americans before illegal aliens. Democrats didn't stand, and Hamadeh said it will be long time, if ever, that Democrats will recover from that fact.

“I make every effort to work in a bipartisan way, but last night the Democrats made it very clear why that is almost impossible,” said Hamadeh. “I have to agree with President Trump. Most of them are crazy.”

U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Arizona, considered the State of the Union to be an incredible speech.

“The best ever,” said Biggs while shaking hands with Trump after the address ended.