What can $75 buy? A tank of gas, a pair of shoes — or how about political sway? 

When Arizona voters open their phonebook-style voter publicity pamphlet this fall, they’ll find ballot measures, fiscal impact summaries of those measures, and an impartial analysis of each referral from the state’s Legislative Council. They’ll also find pages of arguments for and against each proposal, written and submitted by private individuals.

Those arguments may look like a chorus of independent voices. But a LOOKOUT review of nearly 600 submissions for the 2026 voter guide found that many of those voices trace back to a relatively small network of political committees, lobbying groups, consultants, and advocacy organizations.

Just four individuals handled over 200 of those submissions across conservative and progressive groups. More than half of all submissions came from people who submitted five or more arguments across multiple ballot referrals involving elections, transgender athletes, labor unions and DEI policies — often in concert with a politically motivated group, sometimes even from groups outside the state, including Colorado. 

One submitter associated with the Arizona Free Enterprise Club alone filed 108 arguments — about 18% of all submissions reviewed. 

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club and its affiliated PAC have long shaped conservative politics in the state, supporting stricter voter ID laws and challenging campaign finance reforms. The organization was a plaintiff in a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court case that dismantled part of Arizona’s public financing system for candidates running under the state’s Clean Elections program. It has also claimed court victories protecting Arizona’s 2.5% flat tax and other tax cuts benefiting the state’s highest earners.

The concentration of submissions is not, by itself, evidence of wrongdoing. Arizona law allows individuals and organizations to pay the $75 submission fee and coordinate arguments.

But the system raises concerns about what voters read when they open the state’s official voter guide, and how much weight to give an argument that appears to come from an individual voter when a political organization wrote, financed, and coordinated it.

Other states have developed different safeguards for presenting arguments to voters: Colorado has legislative staff summarize major arguments in an impartial analysis; California selects one argument per side; Montana relies on designated committees and requires documentation to support factual claims in individual arguments.

Arizona’s system offers no comparable process for independently verifying the claims submitted by individuals or organizations.

In fact, in a 2024 press release, the office encouraged voters to seek out and verify information from trusted sources since arguments are “printed exactly as entered.” The 2022 voter pamphlet explicitly states that submitted arguments “are not fact-checked or edited.” 

In an email statement to LOOKOUT, the Secretary of State’s office confirmed there is no fact-checking process for argument submissions. 

That warning is not insignificant. The 2024 pamphlet contained numerous factual errors about abortion access, tipped workers, undocumented immigrants and elections. In two instances, arguments were submitted under the wrong proposition entirely. The result is a voter guide that carries the authority of an official state publication while containing political arguments that are privately written, paid for and coordinated — and that Arizona does not independently fact-check.

How it works

Arizona starts collecting political arguments months before voters ever see them.

This year, the Secretary of State’s online portal opened May 22 and closed June 24, giving individuals, political committees and organizations a little more than a month to submit their cases for or against ballot measures. State law requires submissions to be made no later than 27 days before the primary election, which was moved this year to July 21.

The requirements are that arguments must be submitted electronically and cannot exceed 300 words. Someone other than the person named in an argument can also foot the bill and be listed as its sponsor. Those arguments must include a sworn statement from the sponsor — two from an organization’s executives or one from the chair or treasurer if the argument is sponsored by a political action committee.

And there’s a $75 fee, which is a deposit intended to cover the cost of printing and mailing the pamphlet. If an individual or organization pays the $75 on someone else’s behalf — or reimburses the person who paid it — the argument is considered sponsored.

That distinction is important, because the name attached to an argument is not necessarily the person or organization that paid to get it into the pamphlet.

Once published, the arguments sit alongside the official ballot language and its corresponding nonpartisan analysis. Supporters get their turn first, followed by opponents. If the legislator or filer behind an initiative submitted an argument, they get the first spot on their respective side.

Beyond that, there are few limits.  The law does not cap how many arguments a single person or organization can submit, meaning a person or organization can invest an unlimited amount of money as political clout. This year, one person was able to submit more than 100 arguments on behalf of an organization. 

Only a few truly independent submissions

The most recognizable fights in this year’s voter guide centers on school vouchers, transgender students’ participation in sports, election rules, diversity programs, and teachers’ unions. Though many of those arguments will not eventually get in front of voters’ eyes. 

For example, most submissions centered on Arizona’s controversial Empowerment Scholarship Accounts. The records reviewed included 204 submissions connected to Proposition 212, known as the Protect Education Act, which was struck down by the court this week for an insufficient number of signatures. Eighty-one submissions related to Proposition 145, a competing legislative referral combining protections for military families’ school-voucher accounts with a sweeping provision that could invalidate an entire future law, was also struck down by the court. 

That money paid by submitters to get arguments in front of voters does not get refunded. 

Who Is Robert Wallace? Inside His Political Rise

The openly gay Republican has built his political career opposing LGBTQ+ inclusion — particularly transgender rights. He’s reposted antisemitic conspiracy theories and claimed to be a reincarnated “Black gangbanger.” Still, he’s been endorsed by sitting and past lawmakers.

LOOKOUTSreejita Patra (she/her)

Even with those ballot initiatives struck down, the use of the publicity pamphlet shows how connected political groups on both sides use the system to sway voters. 

On the conservative side, arguments were driven largely by established pro-voucher organizations and a newly created political committee formed to defend Arizona’s universal school-voucher program.

Many of the people and groups involved trace back to former Gov. Doug Ducey, who made universal vouchers a central part of his education agenda. The network includes organizations Ducey now leads, former members of his administration and political consultants working for several of the committees opposing ESA reform.

The campaign also drew substantial funding. One recently created organization in Delaware connected to Ducey contributed $250,000 to the pro-voucher committee AZ Loves ESAs. 

AZ Loves ESAs told LOOKOUT that it encouraged parents, educators and other supporters to submit arguments defending the program. According to finance reports, the committee paid the Secretary of State’s office over $4,000, including multiple $75 deposits.

Organizations supporting ESA reform constructed a similar operation. A committee backed by Arizona’s largest teachers’ union and the national teachers’ union received nearly $7.5 million to promote the Protect Education Act.

The result on both sides was a collection of seemingly independent arguments supported by a much smaller infrastructure of well-funded committees, professional consultants, and established advocacy groups.

In an interview with Eric Chalmers, a consultant for Will of the People and Protect Education, he said the political committees he represents budget money to cover the fees and submit arguments on behalf of supporters. He views the pamphlet as a rare opportunity to reach voters outside the usual stream of campaign mailers, television spots, and digital advertisements competing for their attention.

The arguments arrive inside an official state-labeled publication mailed to every eligible voter across Arizona, potentially lending them more attention and credibility than the ordinary political ad.

“The media environment is so loud and covered in ads,” Chalmers said. “This is the one thing that’s like, ‘Okay, this comes from the Secretary of State’s Office.’”

Beyond education funding and school vouchers, transgender students were once again turned into a political battleground of campaign talking points. Proposition 318, a legislative referral restricting transgender students’ participation in school athletics and access to certain athletic facilities, was the second-most debated topic.

The 55 submitted arguments came from a wide range of perspectives: parents, athletes, educators, advocates and faith leaders. However, submission data once again showed many of them were recruited or financed through a smaller network of individuals and organizations. 

Some of the arguments in support of restricting transgender students came from a right-wing political consultant working on similar ballot efforts in Colorado, Maine, and Nevada. Others came from conservative lobbying organizations and activist groups specifically focused on anti-trans legislation.

The opposing side also coordinated nearly 40 arguments, with Will of the People again leading the charge.

Chalmers said the volume of submissions measured organizing strength. He noted that his network generated the most arguments across the six referrals it targeted.

“So, I guess, just scoreboard?” Chalmers joked.

Overstated facts and exaggerated claims

When it comes to accuracy, some submissions exaggerated potential consequences or made claims that do not match the ballot measure’s language.

Proposition 318, which is currently being challenged in court over whether it violates the state’s single-subject requirement for ballot measures, would require K-12 schools and athletic associations to designate sports teams based on the sex listed on an athlete’s original birth certificate. It would bar transgender girls from female sports teams and restrict students from using school restrooms, locker rooms and showers that do not correspond with their sex as listed on their original birth certificate.

Election Distrust is Not Just a Republican Thing

New LOOKOUT survey found fewer than 30% of Democrats and Independents fully trust U.S. elections. Instead of the right’s fraud claims, they blame gerrymandering, voter suppression, money in politics and fears of federal interference.

LOOKOUTSreejita Patra (she/her)

Supporters argued that the proposition would ensure every student gets to participate in sports. The proposal neither guarantees students a place on a team nor requires schools to offer transgender students an opportunity to compete. 

Other supporters claimed it will keep males from being inside female private spaces. But the bill is actually much narrower and applies only to schools, athletic associations, and private spaces connected to athletics — not every public restroom in Arizona. 

Opponents also overstated its effects.

Some warned that the proposal would authorize physical examinations before using the restroom or lawsuits against teachers and coaches whenever someone thought a girl looked too tall or strong. The statements are not categorically false, but rather unsupported predictions. The measure contains no physical inspection or medical examination requirement, and it does not give any person a general right to sue an individual teacher based on suspicions about an athlete’s appearance.

Submission data for school voucher reform show similar patterns. Opponents of ESA reform repeatedly say the measure would remove 20,000 students with disabilities, even though the proposal explicitly exempts students with disabilities from restrictions. One submission claimed that ESA reform advocates want to “gender transition” students behind their parents’ backs. 

Supporters, meanwhile, claim the current ESA program has no requirement that funds be spent on education, despite existing rules limiting allowable expenses. 

Unverified, exaggerated claims are only one facet of what makes Arizona’s General Election Publicity Pamphlet peculiar. Under the authority of the state seal, Arizona provides campaigns and political networks an unusually direct avenue into voters’ mailboxes. Behind the pages of arguments Arizonans will see later this year, a network of money, organizing and infrastructure is working to win an election.