When Arizona resident Mark Reed planned to vote while wearing a “Tea Party” t-shirt, government officials wanted to keep him out of the polls. The Goldwater Institute argued that Tea Party shirts were constitutionally protected free speech, no different than shirts promoting unions or other advocacy groups. The courts agreed, requiring election officials to use uniform, objective standards without violating the constitution.
- Press Releases
- In the News
- OpEds & Blogs
Arizona Supreme Court in Mesa case: 1st Amendment protects tattoosPosted on September 07, 2012 | Type: In the News
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Friday that tattooing is a form of free speech with full protection under the U.S. and state constitutions -- the first such decision by any state high court in the country.
Arizona Supreme Court chooses freedom for two entrepreneursPosted on September 07, 2012 | Type: Blog
Does the government have the right to deny business permits because neighbors complain? Today the Arizona Supreme Court said no.
It's Time to Give our First Freedom as Much Respect as the SecondPosted on May 30, 2012 | Type: Blog | Author: Nick Dranias
Arizonans have the right to bear arms nearly everywhere in this state without having to register anyone or anything with the government. Likewise, as mighty as the pen might be, no one should be forced to register themselves (or their pen) before communicating with elected officials about legislative reform. Yet, Arizona has done just that through its overreaching lobbying laws.
Time to give our first freedom as much respect as the secondPosted on May 11, 2012 | Type: In the News | Author: Nick Dranias
A handful of elected officials in the Arizona Legislature have repeatedly tried to intimidate and silence Goldwater Institute analysts out of giving testimony in support of or in opposition to legislation this year.
A Pound of Cure: How Academic Detailing Could Limit Access to PharmaceuticalsPosted on March 27, 2012 | Type: Policy Report | Author: Byron Schlomach
Pharmaceutical sales are coming under criticism based on what appear to be legitimate but rare abuses of pharmaceutical salespeople promising more from a drug than they should and doctors allowing themselves to be pressured into prescribing. Unfortunately, these isolated incidents are being held up as evidence of the need for vast new government intrusion and regulation of the pharmaceutical industry’s marketing practices. While certainly well intentioned, these efforts are likely to negatively affect doctors and patients.