Arizona Supreme Court Allows Donor Privacy Challenge to Proceed
Arizona Supreme Court Allows Donor Privacy Challenge to Proceed
Publish Date: 2026-06-29 16:02:00
Source Domain: www.goldwaterinstitute.org
The Arizona Supreme Court today issued a landmark decision recognizing that the Arizona Constitution provides an independent source of protection for free speech and allowing a constitutional challenge to Arizona’s donor disclosure law to proceed. In doing so, the court recognized that the nonprofit and donor plaintiffs do not surrender their privacy rights simply because they contribute money to causes they believe in.
Although the court rejected a broad facial challenge to Proposition 211, it held that the plaintiffs—the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and anonymous donors—had sufficiently alleged that the law violates Arizona’s constitutional guarantee of free speech as applied to them. Proposition 211 forces nonprofits that speak about a ballot measure or mention an incumbent lawmaker near an election to disclose to the government their donors’ names, addresses, employers, and donation amounts.
The case now returns to the trial court, where the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to prove that compelled disclosure chills speech in violation of the Arizona Constitution.
In doing so, the court made clear that the Arizona Constitution is not merely a mirror of the First Amendment. Instead, it emphasized that Arizona courts must independently interpret the protections guaranteed by the Speak Freely Clause, explaining that “[t]he Speak Freely Clause tolerates no censorship or restraint…for speech that falls within the Clause’s protective scope.”
The court also recognized that donating to organizations for the purpose of funding policy speech constitutes protected expressive conduct under the Arizona Constitution and reaffirmed that the Speak Freely Clause broadly protects against laws that chill protected speech.
Justice Kathryn Hackett King’s dissent—joined by Vice Chief Justice John Lopez and Justice Clint Bolick – underscored the fundamental constitutional interests at stake, explaining…
