Tom Horne (Arizona)
2023 - Present
2027
1
Thomas C. Horne (Republican Party) is the Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction. He assumed office on January 2, 2023. His current term ends on January 4, 2027.
Horne (Republican Party) ran for election for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction. He won in the general election on November 8, 2022.
Horne has served in all three branches of government. Immediately before becoming attorney general, Horne served as Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction from 2003 to 2011. Prior to that, he was a two term member of the Arizona House of Representatives.[1] Horne's legal experience includes over 30 years working in private practice as a litigating attorney. Over that period of time, he earned his judicial branch credits, holding the positions of Special Assistant Attorney General, Superior Court Judge Pro Tem and Court of Appeals Judge Pro Tem.
Horne switched his registration from Democratic to Republican in 1996 before his first election to the Arizona State Legislature.[2]
Beginning in February 2012, Horne went under FBI investigation for alleged campaign finance violations. The investigation stemmed from a complaint filed with then-Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett in which a volunteer from his 2010 attorney general campaign accused Horne of illegally coordinating with the group Business Leaders for Arizona, a supposedly independent contributor to Horne's campaign run by former Horne staffer Kathleen Winn.[3][4] The charges against Horne were dismissed in May 2013 by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Rea. Nevertheless, the allegations were not only largely the impetus behind fellow-Republican Mark Brnovich's primary challenge.[5]
Biography
After graduating with honors from Harvard University Law School in 1970, Horne entered into private legal practice. He remained a practicing litigating attorney for the next 30 years. Horne's resume contains service credits from every branch of government, as well as a publishing credit for authoring a legal text for the Arizona State Bar.[6] Other roles Horne occupies or has previously occupied include:
- Member, Arizona Bar (1972-present)
- Former Chair, Arizona Air Pollution Hearing
- Former Chair, Phoenix Library Advisory Board
- Board Member, Phoenix Symphony
Education
- Bachelor's degree, Harvard College (1967)
- J.D., Harvard University Law School (1970)
Political career
Arizona Attorney General (2011-2015)
Horne announced his candidacy for the statewide office of attorney general, the seat being vacated by Democrat Terry Goddard, in February 2010. Goddard chose to campaign for the governorship rather than seek re-election.[7] After a lengthy and bitter primary campaign in which both candidates routinely exchanged scathing criticisms of one another, the results for the election were so close that the ultimate outcome would not be known for some time after the polls closed. Despite speculation to the contrary, Andrew Thomas refused to concede the primary nomination to Horne until every single vote was counted, a process that continued for a nearly a week after Arizona voters went to the polls on Tuesday, August 24, 2010.[8][9][10] Finally, on Tuesday, September 1, he conceded the nomination to his primary opponent when, after all the votes had been recounted, it was determined that Horne had maintained a 899 vote lead over the former attorney.[11]
Mortgage settlement transfer
Arizona was awarded a $1.6 billion share - the third greatest, after California and Florida - of the $26 billion settlement from the 49 state lawsuit brought against 5 major mortgage institutions over nefarious lending practices. When the settlement was reached in February, 2012, the terms of how the pot would be distributed among, and within, the lawsuit's member states were laid out; Arizona was to direct $1.3 billion of its share to homeowners whose mortgage debts exceeded their homes' value, $110 million in payments for those who already lost their homes to lender misconduct, $85 million for interest rate reductions, and, finally, $97.7 million to go straight to the attorney general's office.[12] The $97.7 million, according to the language of the settlement, was reserved for the purposes of avoiding preventable foreclosures, easing the strain imposed on individuals and the economy by the foreclosure crisis, as well as prosecuting further related incidents of fraud.
Months later, Arizona lawmakers devised a plan to balance the budget via a governor-approved absorption of roughly half of that money into the state government's checking account.[13] Horne lobbied against the decision, calling it "bad public policy"[13]. Despite informing the legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer that the money was intended for the victims of the crisis, not for general government purposes, he pledged to voluntarily comply with the $50 million transfer. "It would be suicidal for me to get into a war with [them] over a matter that is clearly constitutionally within their area of responsibility, namely the budget,"[12] Horne confessed- a statement with which Tim Hogan, an attorney for the Center for Law in the Public Interest, disagreed. In a letter to the attorney general, Hogan wrote that neither the Legislature nor Horne, as the fund's Trustee, has the right to voluntarily give half of the court-ordered trust fund to the state General Fund.[14]
To legally justify the transfer, the bodies responsible for drawing up the budget invoked language from the settlement which permit a state to distill internally from the fund on the specific, necessary condition of compensating "for costs resulting from the alleged unlawful conduct of the defendants."[12] They reasoned the state was covered under this contingency because, "general tax collections plummeted when the housing bubble burst and brought on a recession."[14] Indeed, the crisis wreaked havoc on the state economy, but Hogan contended that provision was not broad enough to include the general costs of government and sought to block the transfer. Horne said he would oppose efforts like Hogan's, and, barring an injunction, intended to proceed with turning over the $50 million to the treasurer on July, 1, 2012, which began the next fiscal year. The money was putatively destined for prison construction.[14]
FBI investigation of 2010 campaign-finance complaint
On February 11, 2012, a former Horne campaign volunteer and lawyer from the attorney general's Tucson office named Don Dybus filed a complaint with Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett alleging that Horne violated state campaign laws during his election campaign for attorney general in 2010.[3] The FBI was charged with investigating the complaint, which contended that Horne flouted the state's law prohibiting coordination between campaigns and independent expenditure committees, and accused Horne of making a felonious deal with campaign supporter Kathleen Winn, promising her a post-election job in exchange for her alleged services as a coordinator of several of the cited illicit arrangements.[15]
In his complaint, Dybus said Horne collaborated with manager Nathan Sproul of the firm Lincoln Strategy, independent committee Business Leaders for Arizona, and Winn, who was the committee's Chairwoman, to arrange a $115,000 contribution to Business Leaders for Arizona from Horne's brother-in-law in Santa Monica, California. Dybus also accused Lincoln Strategy of facilitating a $350,000 contribution to the independent committee from the Republican State Leadership Committee in Virginia. The independent committee implicated by Dybus reportedly spent roughly $500,000[16] on a series of advertisements smearing Horne's general election opponent Felecia Rotellini (D), whom Horne narrowly defeated in November 2011.[3]
After Horne took office as attorney general, he hired Winn to serve as his Director of Community Outreach, a high-paid position within the office. As revealed in the Arizona Capitol Times, Dybus called for Winn to be removed from the payroll, and urged Gov. Jan Brewer to replace Horne: “This is a matter of grave concern to all citizens of Arizona who should not tolerate a law-breaking attorney general."[16]
A spokeswoman from his office relayed Horne's explicit denial of any wrongdoing, insisting "the fact is that extraordinary care was exercised to avoid coordination,"[16] and referring to Dybus as "disgruntled."[3]
On July 6, 2017, Cochise County Attorney Brian McIntyre cleared Horne of all remaining charges related to his 2010 campaign. As a result, Horne was no longer responsible for the $400,000 in repayment and $1.2 million in fines that he had been charged with paying.[17]
Healthcare reform
In mid-September 2010, Horne, who, at the time, was in the midst of his campaign for state attorney general, announced his endorsement of Proposition 106 - The Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment, which would amend the State Constitution by barring any rules or regulations that would force state residents to participate in a health-care system.[18] In addition to this, the amendment would also ensure that individuals would have the right to pay for private health insurance.[19] On Tuesday, November 2nd, 2010, Arizona Proposition 106 passed with slightly over fifty-five percent of the public who voted on the measure approving it.
As part of his campaign, Horne promised to join the twenty-plus other state attorneys general in challenging the constitutionality of the newly enacted federal health care reform measures, in particular the "individual mandate" that requires all citizens to purchase health insurance.[20]
Superintendent of Public Instruction (2003-2011)
Horne was first elected Superintendent of Public Instruction in 2002. He was re-elected to a second term in 2006.
Ethics Studies
Horne spoke strongly before the Arizona State Legislature in favor of the passage of Senate Bill 1069, which would ban ethnic-studies courses from the state's high schools. Under the law, "a district or charter school that allows such courses would lose 10 percent of its state funds each month;" the money, however, would be returned once the programs had been shuttered. The State Superintendent argued that it is the responsibility of the public schools "to develop the student's identity as Americans and as strong individuals" rather then to "promote ethnic chauvinism."[21]
On Thursday, April 29, 2010, the Arizona House of Representatives passed the ban on ethnic studies programs in the state by a vote of 32 - 26. The measure made it "illegal for a school district to teach any courses that promote the overthrow of the U.S. government, promote resentment of a particular race or class of people, are designed primarily for students of a particular ethnic group or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals."[22]
Illegal immigration
As State Superintendent, Horne was cited on record for supporting the use of $1.2 billion annually from Arizona taxpayers to pay for educating the children of illegal immigrants. Additionally, he called for a plan in which high school graduates who are in the United States illegally would be granted citizenship upon passing a simple standardized test.[23] Critics argued, however, that this would only serve as an incentive for immigrants to break the law.
In April 2009, Horne opposed a bill "that would have Arizona schools ask students whether they were in the country legally."[24][25] The legislation was designed specifically to serve as a legal challenge to the 1982 Supreme Court case, Plyler vs. Doe, that prohibited public schools from denying illegal immigrant students access to a public education.[26]
State Legislature (1996-2000)
Horne was first elected to the Arizona House of Representatives in 1996 and ultimately served two terms in office. During his tenure, he served as both the chairman of the Academic Accountability Committee and vice chairman of the Education Committee.
Abortion
Near the end of his tenure as a member of the Arizona House of Representatives, Horne voted against House Bill 2708, which closed a legislative loophole by banning "taxpayer funding for abortion."[27]
School Choice
While serving in the state legislature, Horne opposed Arizona House Bill 2074 (HB 2074), also known as the Arizona Tuition Tax Credit Law.[28] The measure, passed by the Arizona House of Representatives in 1997, allowed state taxpayers up to a $500.00 tax credit if they chose to donate to a private school scholarship fund. In addition to reducing state tax liability of private citizens, it facilitated parents more flexibility when choosing educational options for their children.
Notable endorsements
This section displays endorsements this organization made in elections within Ballotpedia's coverage scope. Know of one we missed? Click here to let us know.
Elections
2022
See also: Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction election, 2022
General election
General election for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction
Thomas C. Horne defeated incumbent Kathy Hoffman and Patrick Finerd in the general election for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction on November 8, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Thomas C. Horne (R) | 50.2 | 1,255,977 |
 | Kathy Hoffman (D) | 49.8 | 1,247,010 | |
 | Patrick Finerd (R) (Write-in) | 0.0 | 213 | |
| Total votes: 2,503,200 | |||
 = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
Democratic primary election
Democratic primary for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction
Incumbent Kathy Hoffman advanced from the Democratic primary for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction on August 2, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Kathy Hoffman | 100.0 | 564,099 |
| Total votes: 564,099 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Republican primary election
Republican primary for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction
Thomas C. Horne defeated Shiry Sapir, Michelle Udall, Kara Woods, and Tiffany Asch in the Republican primary for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction on August 2, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ | | Thomas C. Horne | 41.9 | 321,208 |
 | Shiry Sapir | 33.5 | 256,286 | |
 | Michelle Udall | 24.6 | 188,401 | |
 | Kara Woods (Write-in) | 0.0 | 201 | |
| Tiffany Asch (Write-in) | 0.0 | 57 | |
| Total votes: 766,153 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Withdrawn or disqualified candidates
Libertarian primary election
Libertarian primary for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction
Sheila Reid-Shaver advanced from the Libertarian primary for Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction on August 2, 2022.
Candidate | % | Votes | ||
| ✔ |  | Sheila Reid-Shaver (Write-in) | 100.0 | 557 |
| Total votes: 557 | |||
| = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey. | ||||
| If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey. | ||||
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team. | ||||
Campaign finance
2014
- See also: Arizona attorney general election, 2014
Horne ran unsuccessfully for re-election as Attorney General of Arizona in 2014.[29][30] He failed to secure the Republican nomination in the primary on August 26, 2014, losing to challenger Mark Brnovich. The general election took place on November 4, 2014.
Results
Primary election
| Arizona Attorney General, Republican Primary, 2014 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate | Vote % | Votes | ||
 Mark Brnovich |
53.7% | 279,855 | ||
| Tom Horne Incumbent | 46.3% | 240,858 | ||
| Total Votes | 520,713 | |||
| Election results via Arizona Secretary of State. | ||||
Race background
Incumbent Tom Horne, a Republican first elected in 2010, lost his bid for renomination in the August 26 Republican primary, creating an open seat race for the general election.[31]
Midway through his first term as attorney general, Horne was the subject of an ongoing FBI investigation stemming from an alleged hit-and-run incident. This investigation led Horne to forgo his long-anticipated gubernatorial campaign in favor of seeking another term in his current post.[32] These scandals led Governing to rate Arizona's attorney general seat as "vulnerable" to partisan switch in the 2014 elections.
Horne lost to Republican challenger Mark Brnovich by six points in the party's primary. Brnovich, the former director of the Arizona Department of Gaming, faced 2010 gubernatorial candidate and Assistant Attorney General Felecia Rotellini in the general election.[31]
Although Arizona tended to vote Republican, especially at the state level, Democrats placed hopes in Rotellini early on in the election season. Rotellini's background as superintendent of the state Department of Financial Institutions signaled to party leaders that she had strong potential as a fundraiser and thus a chance in the race to succeed Horne as Arizona's chief legal official.[32] She was ultimately defeated by Brnovich, ensuring the attorney general's office would remain under Republican control.
Polls
General election polls
| Arizona Attorney General, General election | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Mark Brnovich (R) | Felecia Rotellini (D) | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
| American Encore October 20-22, 2014 | 41% | 38% | 17% | +/-4 | 601 | ||||||||||||||
| Arizona Free Enterprise Club October 13-16, 2014 | 48% | 39% | 13% | +/-4.5 | 500 | ||||||||||||||
| Moore Information October 7-8, 2014 | 39% | 42% | 19% | +/-4.9 | 400 | ||||||||||||||
| AVERAGES | 42.67% | 39.67% | 16.33% | +/-4.47 | 500.33 | ||||||||||||||
| Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to [email protected]. | |||||||||||||||||||
Primary polls
| Arizona Attorney General, Republican primary | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Mark Brnovich | Tom Horne* | Undecided | Margin of error | Sample size | ||||||||||||||
| Harper Polling August 19-20, 2014 | 40% | 37% | 24% | +/-3.44 | 812 | ||||||||||||||
| Gravis Marketing July 14, 2014 | 44% | 29% | 27% | +/-4.0 | 691 | ||||||||||||||
| Magellan Strategies July 9-10, 2014 | 39% | 25% | 36% | +/-4.02 | 593 | ||||||||||||||
| AVERAGES | 41% | 30.33% | 29% | +/-3.82 | 698.67 | ||||||||||||||
| Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to [email protected]. | |||||||||||||||||||
Note: An asterisk (*) denotes incumbent status.
2010
- See also: Arizona Attorney General election, 2010
| 2010 Race for Attorney General - Republican Primary[33] | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Candidate | Vote Percentage | |
| Republican Party |  Tom Horne
|
50.1% | |
| Republican Party | Andrew Thomas | 49.9% | |
| Total Votes | 552,623 | ||
| 2010 Race for Attorney General - General Election[34] | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Candidate | Vote Percentage | |
| Republican Party | Tom Horne
|
51.9% | |
| Democratic Party | Felecia Rotellini | 48.1% | |
| Total Votes | 1,677,668 | ||
2006
- 2006 Race for Superintendent of Public Instruction - Republican Primary[35]
- Tom Horne ran unopposed in this contest
| 2006 Race for Superintendent of Public Instruction - General Election[36] | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Candidate | Vote Percentage | |
| Republican Party | Tom Horne
|
53.7% | |
| Democratic Party | Jason Williams | 46.3% | |
| Total Votes | 1,454,587 | ||
2002
| 2002 Race for Superintendent of Public Instruction - Republican Primary[37] | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Candidate | Vote Percentage | |
| Republican Party | Tom Horne
|
41.2% | |
| Republican Party | Jaime Molera | 30.3% | |
| Republican Party | Keith Bee | 28.5% | |
| Total Votes | 293,444 | ||
| 2002 Race for Superintendent of Public Instruction - General Election[38] | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Candidate | Vote Percentage | |
| Republican Party | Tom Horne
|
50.1% | |
| Democratic Party | Jay Blanchard | 46.3% | |
| Libertarian Party | John C. Zajac | 3.6% | |
| Total Votes | 1,166,849 | ||
1998
| 1998 Race for Arizona House of Representatives, District 24 - Republican Primary[39] | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Candidate | Vote Percentage | |
| Republican Party | Tom Horne
|
58.7% | |
| Republican Party | Barbara Leff
|
41.3% | |
| Total Votes | 9,601 | ||
| 1998 Race for Arizona House of Representatives, District 24 - General Election[40] | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Candidate | Vote Percentage | |
| Republican Party | Tom Horne
|
34.9% | |
| Republican Party | Barbara Leff
|
32.1% | |
| Democratic Party | Jacqueline Gasser | 16.7% | |
| Democratic Party | Chris Klein | 16.3% | |
| Total Votes | 59,564 | ||
1996
| 1996 Race for Arizona House of Representatives, District 24 - Republican Primary[41] | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Candidate | Vote Percentage | |
| Republican Party | Tom Horne
|
24.9% | |
| Republican Party | Barbara Leff
|
22.4% | |
| Republican Party | Lindy Funkhouser | 22.0% | |
| Republican Party | Kathryn Bailue | 15.3% | |
| Republican Party | Howard Sprague | 10.1% | |
| Republican Party | C. Rosenstock | 3.2% | |
| Republican Party | Angelo DeSimone | 2.1% | |
| Total Votes | 18,141 | ||
| 1996 Race for Arizona House of Representatives, District 24 - General Election[42] | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Party | Candidate | Vote Percentage | |
| Republican Party | Tom Horne
|
31.3% | |
| Republican Party | Barbara Leff
|
30.5% | |
| Democratic Party | Lynne Sisson | 18.2% | |
| Democratic Party | Chris Alter | 15.8% | |
| Libertarian Party | Jim Hamilton | 4.3% | |
| Total Votes | 88,999 | ||
Campaign themes
2022
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Thomas C. Horne did not complete Ballotpedia's 2022 Candidate Connection survey.
Campaign website
Horne’s campaign website stated the following:
| “ |
Conservative Republican Tom Horne will:
Liberals are trying to indoctrinate our school children to hate America. They want our children to believe that America is a racist country. Tom Horne WILL stop them.
Liberals in Arizona are breaking down the pillars to a good education. They want to coddle students, not teach them. They promote liberal ideology like critical race theory which is a bunch of nonsense. And instead of Spanish-speaking students being forced to learn English, they want to return to bilingual education which leaves most students unable to be fluent in English, which means they cannot succeed in this country. I want to bring conservative values back to education. Promote academic achievement, not mediocrity. Keep our schools open. Our children deserve a brighter future. When I was superintendent of public instruction, my focus was on academic achievement; I was a crusader against mediocrity, laziness, and political indoctrination as a substitute for academic teaching. Since I left office, much of my work has been undone. Political agendas have taken the place of a focus on academics, and this is damaging to the students. I feel compelled to bring the focus back to academic achievement.
Critical race theory propagandizes students with false history. It has been spreading in our schools. It is unprofessional for teachers to use their classrooms to force-feed this kind of propaganda to young, impressionable students. We have licensing laws that should be used to prevent this kind of abuse of the classroom. Critical theory leads to mediocrity, as academics are sacrificed to propaganda. [Click here for some relevant articles]
Ethnic Studies in Tucson divided students by race: African American students to Classroom 1, Mexican American students to Classroom 2, etc., just like in the old South. The students were taught “critical race theory.” This is their quote: “Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundation of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.” Teachers should not be teaching our students to be opposed to Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law. Ethnic Studies had a table that promulgates racial stereotypes by detailing the differences between “white individualism” (e.g. “white people interrupt a lot”) and “colored collectivism.” I wrote a bill that the legislature passed, prohibiting this kind of ethnic chauvinism in our schools. First as Superintendent, and then as Attorney General, I pursued the legal process under the statute, and this toxic program was eliminated. After I was no longer attorney general, a liberal ninth circuit judge cancelled the specific enforcement of the statute, but did not declare it unconstitutional on its fact. There needs to be another effort to enforce it, and if elected I will do that.
The current Superintendent of Schools is pushing for a return to bilingual education instead of English immersion. This is not reasonable: The landmark study showed that students in English immersion out performed students in bilingual in college admission, average income, and admission to high-status occupations (by almost 2 to 1). A pathetic 4% of students in bilingual became proficient in English in a year. At that rate, almost none of the students would ever become proficient in English. After I began enforcing the requirement for structured English immersion, the percentage increased to 29%, which meant almost all students would become proficient in English within 3 to 4 years.
Students should be in school when it is safe. The current Superintendent was unreasonable in arguing that all schools should be shut down. The science is that it depends on local circumstances. The issue is now overcome, but the demand of the current superintendent to close all schools illustrates a kind of thinking that denies science and is not reasonable. It shows a priority on ideology and the interests of groups that do not include students and parents.
Before I became Superintendent social promotion was resulting in functionally illiterate students receiving high school diplomas. Employers were no longer trusting high school diplomas as indicating competence. So the legislature passed a requirement that students pass a standardized test to graduate from high school. My predecessors did not enforce this requirement. I was the first to enforce it. For the first time, a high school diploma in Arizona really meant something. But my successors have worked with the legislature to eliminate this requirement. Now we are back to the cycle of mediocrity. If elected again, one of my first priorities would be to persuade the legislature to reinstate this graduation requirement, which would result in a high school diploma providing an assurance of some level of proficiency.
I used this process to motivate the leadership of failing school districts to improve performance for students, This process has been absent with my successors (other than for financial mismanagement). It needs to be re-instituted so that students are entitled to a first-rate education regardless of their ZIP Code.
My belief is that we are all individuals, not exemplars of whatever particular ethnic group we were born into. What counts is what an individual knows and can do, not what ethnic group he/she happens to have been born into. Knowing someone’s ethnicity tells you absolutely nothing meaningful about that person. It is his or her individual qualities that matter. This puts me at odds with identity politics, which elevates the accident of ethnicity to centrality in one’s identity.
When I was in the legislature, I sponsored a bill to give full scholarships at state universities to students who not only passed the state test but who exceeded it. This country puts too much emphasis on mere proficiency, and not enough on excellence. While I was in the legislature, the establishment ignored the bill. But as Superintendent, I was a member of the Board of Regents and I worked hard and made it happen. As an objective measure, it was the perfect motivator. Subjective scholarships motivate no one because no one knows what the criteria are. But with an objective scholarship like this, students, and their parents, were highly motivated to see to it that they exceeded on the state-wide test, so that college would be paid for. The program was eventually canceled. If I am elected superintendent, I will again be a member of the Board of Regents, and I will fight to restore it. We must motivate students to excellence, not just to proficiency.
The problem described above has become much worse. Critical race theory has expanded from the Tucson school district to the rest of the state. (See discussion of 1619 Project below.) An example is the New York Times 1619 project. The Baltz district in Arizona was in the first district in the nation to adopt it. It is now in 2400 schools nationwide and in a number of Arizona districts. This program teaches that the founding of our country was not in 1776 but in 1619 when slaves were first introduced into Virginia. It has five themes with which it propagandizes students: 1. The American revolution was not fought for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but because American slave owners feared a threat of abolition by the British authorities. 2. Lincoln was a racist. 3. For the most part, black Americans fought back alone. 4. Plantation slavery was the foundation of American capitalism, and the cruelty of capitalism is a reflection of the cruelty of the plantation. 5. American history is best understood (to exclusion of everything else) as a struggle by American blacks against white supremacy. Numerous American historians, who specialize in these areas, have written refutations, showing that each one of these contentions is false. [Please skip to end of this platform for more detailed refutations of why each of these theories false.] The founder of this program, a New York Times’ staffer named Nicole Hannah-Jones, has declared openly that her purpose was to propagandize students to support a political program of reparations. It is unprofessional for teachers to use their classrooms to force-feed this kind of propaganda to young, impressionable students. We have licensing laws that should be used to prevent this kind of abuse of the classroom. I was recently in a meeting of parents upset over this use of the schools for identity politics. According to the parents, the focus on identity politics is displacing the academics that should be the focus of the schools. A Mother of two gifted students broke into tears in front of the group, describing how her younger child was not nearly getting the quality of education that her older child had gotten. Critical theory leads to mediocrity, as academics are sacrificed to propaganda. [Please click “News” for some relevant articles] 2. Killing “ethnic studies” Ethnic Studies in Tucson divided students by race. African American students to Classroom 1, Mexican American students to Classroom 2, etc., just like in the old South. The students were taught “critical race theory.” This is their quote: “Unlike traditional civil rights, which embraces incrementalism and step-by-step progress, critical race theory questions the very foundation of the liberal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism, and neutral principles of constitutional law.” Teachers should not be teaching our students to be opposed to Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law. Teachers who do that should not be teaching. They referred to the states taken from Mexico in 1848 as Aztlan. Their materials stated, “we are slowly taking back Aztlan as our numbers multiply.” Ethnic studies had a table that promulgates racial stereotypes by detailing the differences between “white individualism” (e.g. “white people interrupt a lot”) and “colored collectivism.” The founders of the program described themselves as “neo Marxists.” Marxism taught that all history is about class struggle, to the exclusion of everything else. Neo Marxists substitute race struggle for class struggle as the only thing worth studying. One of the textbooks was Occupied America. It sings the praises of a leader named Jose Angel Gutiérrez, one of whose speeches is described in the textbook as follows: “Gutiérrez … called upon Chicanos to ‘kill the gringo’, which meant to end white control over Mexicans.” The textbook’s translation of what Gutiérrez meant “kill the Gringo” contradicts his clear language. Another textbook gloated about the trouble the U.S. is having controlling the border: “Apparently the U.S. is having as little success in keeping the Mexicans out of Aztlan [US states taken from Mexico in 1848] as Mexico had when they tried to keep the North Americans out of Texas in 1830. … the Latinos are now realizing that the power to control Aztlan may once again be in their hands” (page 107). My main source was other teachers in the schools, a number of them Latinos, who were profoundly shocked at what they saw. Hector Ayala, who was born in Mexico and an excellent English teacher at Cholla High School in Tucson, told me that the director of La Raza Studies accused him of being the “white man’s agent” and that when this director was a teacher, he taught a separatist political agenda. His students told Ayala that they were taught in Raza Studies to “not fall for the white man’s traps.” One teacher wrote me that he heard students being told they need to go to college so they can gain power to take back the stolen land and return it to Mexico. Another reported to me that Latino students told him that the land is not part of the U.S. but "occupied Mexico." This teaching was a betrayal of the students’ parents. They came to this country as the land of opportunity. They expected their children to be taught that this is the land of opportunity, not that they are oppressed so it is all hopeless, or to hate the country their parents chose to come to. I wrote a bill that the legislature passed, prohibiting this kind of ethnic chauvinism in our schools. First as Superintendent, and then as Attorney General, I pursued the legal process under the statute, and this toxic program was eliminated. After I was no longer attorney general, a liberal ninth circuit judge declared our statute unconstitutional. Now that we have a more conservative US Supreme Court we should try again. We should appeal to the US Supreme Court from the liberal Ninth Circuit, so that our schools will focus on academics, and not on propagandizing students with what the teachers themselves describe as a neo-Marxist philosophy. 3. Bilingual education: Bilingual education is a disaster for students who do not yet speak English. Many of them never learned English properly. This hampers them in succeeding in higher education and in the American economy. They first need to be in structured English immersion, and only after they have become proficient in English, should dual language or bilingual education be allowed. Once students are proficient in English, dual language is educationally sound. It is an advantage to speak two languages. But first, they must become proficient in English. A study in Educationnext.com (by Joseph Guzman, Professor, of Chicano/Latino Studies), a publication of Harvard and Stanford, compared students who had been in structured English immersion with those who had been in bilingual education, in three areas: college admission, average income, and participation in high-status professions. The students who had been instructed in English immersion outperformed the students in bilingual education in every single topic studied: college admissions, salaries, and in admission to professions (by almost 2 to 1). Prior to my becoming superintendent, an initiative had passed requiring structured English immersion for students not yet proficient in English. But it was not enforced until I took office. In a report by then Superintendent Lisa Graham Keegan to the legislature, the percentage of students in bilingual education who became proficient in English in a given year was a pathetic 4%. At that rate, almost none of the students would ever become proficient in English. I began to enforce the requirement for standard English immersion. I recruited a team of highly trained experts to teach teachers how to bring students to English fluency quickly. A number of teachers arrived at the training with a hostile attitude to the program and ended up giving a standing ovation to the trainers. After I began enforcing the requirement for structured English immersion, the percentage increased to 29%, which meant almost all students became proficient in English within 3 to 4 years. The current Superintendent of Schools is pushing for a return to bilingual education instead of English immersion. This is not reasonable. To succeed in the American economy, students must become proficient in English. 4. Students in school Students need to be in school. Keeping them at home leaves them behind in their academics, which can have long lasting negative consequences for their life. This is true both educationally and emotionally. Closing schools has increased rates of suicide, anxiety, and depression. It has also forced Mothers to leave their jobs, to take care of children not in school. When district schools closed, private schools and charter schools somehow found a way to stay open. The science said that whether schools are safe places for students and teachers depended on local circumstances, such as how prevalent was Covid 19 in that community, ventilation at the schools, etc. Governor Ducey wisely left a decision on re-opening to local districts. The current Superintendent called on the Governor to close all schools in the State. (Az. Republic. 1/2/21.) He declined. The issue is now overcome, but the demand of the current superintendent to close all schools illustrates a kind of thinking that denies science and is not reasonable. It shows a priority on radical ideology and the interests of groups that do not include students and parents. 5. Graduation requirements The smartest superintendent I knew from another state was from Ohio. She taught me that quality education depends on three pillars: the quality of teacher and teacher leaders, the quality of the curriculum, and the motivation of the students. Often, the importance of the motivation of the students is overlooked in education reform. Before I became Superintendent, social promotion was a serious problem in Arizona. It resulted in functionally illiterate students receiving high school diplomas. Employers were no longer trusting high school diplomas as indicating competence. So the legislature passed a requirement that students pass a standardized test to graduate from high school. My predecessors did not enforce this requirement. I was the first to enforce it. For the first time a high school diploma in Arizona really meant something. Some students are intrinsically motivated, and some teachers are very dedicated. But there are other students who, given the choice, would watch television rather than do their homework. There are some teachers (hopefully few) who would rather do as little as possible. In those cases, the students and teachers develop a mutually reinforcing cycle of mediocrity. External motivators are needed. In the case of the teachers, statewide testing and school accountability provide this external motivation. For the less motivated type of students, passing the state test to graduate was what was needed. A teacher told me that when a student was not doing his homework, she could tell the students’ parents “the student has to pass the state test to graduate”. That was a good motivator. But my successors have worked with the legislature to eliminate this requirement. Now, we are back to the cycle of mediocrity. If elected again, one of my first priorities would be to persuade the legislature to reinstate this graduation requirement, which resulted in a high school diploma providing an assurance of some level of proficiency. 6. State takeover of failing schools When test scores show that schools are failing, the state needs to help them. But if that shows no results, the state needs to take them over. Showing a willingness to use this process can motivate district leadership, who otherwise may have a focus on factors other than academics, to intensify their academic focus. When I was Superintendent, we used this process with the Roosevelt School District right up to a final hearing. This is a very large school district, which, at the time, had pathetically low test scores. Principals and other key personnel were hired not based on merits, but on a spoils system and competition between the Hispanic and the African-American factions to get jobs for their respective groups. I brought the process of state takeover almost to completion. This was a great motivator. Their academic focus intensified, and the test scores improved. This process has been absent with my successors (other than for financial mismanagement). It needs to be re-instituted. Students are entitled to a first-rate education regardless of their ZIP Code. 7. My Philosophy Of Civil Rights My belief is that we are all individuals, not exemplars of whatever particular ethnic group we were born into. What counts is what an individual knows and can do, not what ethnic group he/she happens to have been born into. Knowing someone’s ethnicity tells you absolutely nothing meaningful about that person. It is his or her individual qualities that matter. This puts me at odds with identity politics, which elevates the accident of ethnicity to centrality in one’s identity. In the summer of 1963, having just graduated from high school, I attended the march on Washington in which Martin Luther King gave his famous speech. His philosophy was that we are entitled to be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. This has been my philosophy my entire life. As Superintendent of Schools, I put great amounts of energy into helping schools in poor neighborhoods, believing that each student is entitled to a quality education, regardless of ZIP Code. As Attorney General, I had over 30 lawyers doing nothing but civil rights. As a lawyer in private practice, I obtained $1/2 million for the family of Dravon Ames and Iesha Harper, who were abused by a police officer. This officer, to the credit of the Phoenix Police Department, was fired from the police force. That was not my only civil rights case. But I am in general a very firm supporter of police, without whom life degenerates into a war of all against all. And I am an adamant opponent of identity politics. What counts is the individual, not the ethnic group. 8. Scholarships for high achieving pupils I have never forgotten a quotation from a Chinese exchange student at ASU. He said: “We put 90% of our effort into the top 10% of students; you put 90% of your effort into your bottom 10% of students. Who do you think is going to win that contest?” When I was in the legislature, I sponsored a bill to give full scholarships at state universities to students who not only passed the state test but who exceeded it. This country puts too much emphasis on mere proficiency, and not enough on excellence. While I was in the legislature, the establishment ignored the bill. But as Superintendent, I was a member of the Board of Regents. I worked hard and made it happen. I had to continually lobby other members of the Board of Regents. This was because the presidents of the universities wanted all scholarships at their discretion, even though this new scholarship was only 13% of the total. They could not control that 13% of scholarships, because it was an objective measure. As an objective measure, it was the perfect motivator. Subjective scholarships motivate no one, because no one knows what the criteria are. But with an objective scholarship like this, students, and their parents, were highly motivated to see to it that they exceeded on the statewide test, so that college would be paid for. During my last year as Superintendent, the university presidents finally persuaded a Board of Regents to cancel the program. If I am elected superintendent, I will again be a member of the Board of Regents, and I will fight to restore it. We must motivate students to excellence, not just to proficiency.
REFERENCE: Refutation of the 1619 Project: 1. The American revolution was not fought for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but to protect the British authorities abolishing slavery. Rebuttal: There is no evidence for this except one irrelevant incident. Some slaveowners reacted negatively to the fact that the British governor of Virginia announced that any slaves leaving the plantations and fighting for the British would receive their freedom. But historians of the period point out that this occurred after the revolution was well on its way. So we can still look to the declaration of independence for the reasons for the American revolution. 2. Lincoln was a racist Rebuttal: The alleged evidence for this is that Lincoln met with black leaders to explore the idea of colonization by free blacks outside the country. Lincoln knew that many American whites were prejudiced, and was dealing with the problem of what relations would be like between freed slaves and prejudiced whites. Nicolle Hannah-Jones, the principal author of the 1619 project, wrote that there was a heavy silence in the room as what Lincoln was saying “stole the breath of these five black men”. Historians tell us that is not what happened at all. Black leaders were debating the issue amongst themselves, and they knew in advance what was to be discussed. They said no, and Lincoln moved on. Lincoln had stated in 1854: “if the Negro is a man, why my ancient faith teaches me that all men are created equal; and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another.“ In 1863 he issued, by himself, based on his own individual power, the emancipation proclamation, which freed the slaves in the south. In 1865, he put all of his political power behind passing the 13th amendment. This included almost unlimited giving away of patronage jobs, and even rumors of bribery, to get Congress to vote for the 13th amendment. Once ratified, it freed all slaves throughout the country. In doing these things, Lincoln did more for humanity than any other individual in the entire history of the United States. To teach impressionable children that Lincoln was a villain is outrageous. 3. For the most part, black Americans fought back alone. Rebuttal: This ignores: the abolition movement, created and sustained for centuries by white Americans; the deaths of 700,000 in a Civil War that ended slavery; the role of white Americans in the post Civil War constitutional amendments that ended slavery and gave equal rights and the vote to the freed men; and the role of whites in the civil rights movement. 4. Plantation slavery was the foundation of American capitalism, and the cruelty of American capitalism stems from the cruelty of the plantation. Rebuttal: Proponents of this claim that in the early 19th century, cotton was 50% of the American economy and converted in a small, poor group of colonies into a world economic power. Historians and economists who studied the subject say it was more like 5%, so the 1619 project is only off by one zero. Interestingly, the 1619 project shares this view with the Confederates, who thought the North could not exist without “king cotton.” They thought the North’s factories would collapse. In fact, the North did fine without cotton and the North won the war. Only a fanatic Marxist would claim that the essence of capitalism is “cruelty”. In fact, capitalism has produced more prosperity for more people than any other system. Germany and Korea were divided in half after World War II. One can compare the two systems within the context of the same people, same culture, etc. South Korea’s prosperity per person is an almost unbelievable 100 times greater than that of North Korea, and West Germany had a similar advantage over East Germany. Capitalism is not “cruelty”. It brings prosperity. 5. The nation’s history is best understood as a struggle by American blacks against white oppression. Rebuttal: This is a form of neo-Marxism that I discussed in the section on ethnic studies. Marx taught that class struggle was the only explanation of history. This is a distortion that makes it impossible to understand historical events. Neo-Marxism is the same theory, but substituting race struggle for class struggle. This is according to the developers of ethnic studies, themselves. Obviously, the struggle against racial oppression should be studied. But it is not the whole picture of the history of this great country by a long shot.[43] |
” |
| —Tom Horne’s campaign website (2022)[44] | ||
Campaign finance summary
Note: The finance data shown here comes from the disclosures required of candidates and parties. Depending on the election or state, this may represent only a portion of all the funds spent on their behalf. Satellite spending groups may or may not have expended funds related to the candidate or politician on whose page you are reading this disclaimer. Campaign finance data from elections may be incomplete. For elections to federal offices, complete data can be found at the FEC website. Click here for more on federal campaign finance law and here for more on state campaign finance law.
Noteworthy events
Speeding tickets
In addition to receiving six speeding tickets from law enforcement officials over an eighteen month period, including one in a school zone, Horne was issued a criminal citation for violating A.R.S. 28-701.02 A2 on Sunday, October 21, 2007 by the Scottsdale Police Department.[45][46] The charge came with a maximum possible sentence of six months in jail, three years probation, and a $2,500 fine. Three months later, Horne's lawyer was able to negotiate a plea bargain with the Scottsdale prosecutor, who agreed to drop the criminal traffic offense charge in exchange for Horne pleading guilty to a civil offense for violating A.R.S. 28-701A, a charge that normally applies to drivers going 16 to 20 miles per hour above the speed limit; Horne was cited for going 27 miles per hour over the 45 mph speed limit.
Bankruptcy
In annual reports filed between 1997 and 2000 on behalf of his private law firm, Horne denied ever having been a partner in a business that went bankrupt. The truth of the matter, however, was that Horne was the president of T.C. Horne & Co., an investment firm created in the late-1960s that went bankrupt in 1970. Three years later, the future attorney general was sanctioned by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charging that he had "willfully aided and abetted" his firm in violating securities laws by submitting false balance sheets and misrepresenting his firm's assets. He was eventually barred for life from associating with brokers, dealers, investment advisers, and investment companies. Horne's Republican primary challenger, Andrew Thomas, contended that "the circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy should disqualify Horne from holding the state's top law-enforcement job."[47]
Personal
Note: Please contact us if the personal information below requires an update.
Horne has resided in Phoenix, Arizona with his wife, Martha. The couple has had four children together.[6]
See also
| Arizona | State Executive Elections | News and Analysis |
|---|---|---|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
External links
|
Candidate Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction |
Officeholder Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction |
Personal |
Footnotes
- ↑ Office of the Arizona Attorney General, "AG Horne's Biography," accessed June 6, 2011
- ↑ AZcentral.com, "Attorney General Candidate Tom Horne," accessed October 16, 2012
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 The Daily Courier, "Arizona Attorney General accused of breaking laws in 2010 campaign," April 2, 2012
- ↑ The Business Journal, "FBI investigating Arizona attorney general Tom Horne," April 2, 2012
- ↑ Arizona Daily Sun, "Judge throws out charges against AG Tom Horne," May 3, 2013
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Arizona Attorney General, "AG Horne's Bio," accessed February 6, 2012 (dead link)
- ↑ Seeing Red Arizona, "AZ’s Attorney General’s race: Tom Horne makes intentions official" 19 Feb. 2010
- ↑ Phoenix New Times, "Andrew Thomas Set To Concede, Sources Claim; Will Make Statement This Afternoon" 27 Aug. 2010
- ↑ Tucson Citizen, "Andrew Thomas prepares to concede to Tom Horne" 27 Aug. 2010
- ↑ The Arizona Republic, "Horne's lead over Thomas in AG race down to 536 votes" 27 Aug. 2010
- ↑ Arizona Daily Star, "Thomas concedes, backs Horne for AG" 1 Sept. 2010
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 The Arizona Star, "AG Horne to defend state's raiding of mortgage-relief funds," May 9, 2012
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 CBS News, "AG urged to disobey law on housing cash," May 9, 2012 (dead link)
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 AZ Central, "Horne ignores lawsuit threat over mortgage funds," May 9, 2012
- ↑ The Business Journal, "FBI investigating Arizona attorney general Tom Horne," April 2, 2012
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 Arizona Capitol Times, "FBI investigating Horne for campaign violations," April 2, 2012
- ↑ KJZZ, "Former Attorney General Tom Horne Cleared Of 2010 Campaign Violations," July 6, 2017
- ↑ Tom Horne for Attorney General, "Horne Endorses Proposition 106 - Healthcare Freedom Act" 16 Sept. 2010
- ↑ Arizona Republic, "Arizona ballot measure sought on health care choices" 27 May, 2009
- ↑ KGUN9 "Judge rules against key part of health care reform" 13 Dec. 2010 (dead link)
- ↑ AZ Central, "Arizona schools superintendent pushes ban on ethnic studies" 12 June, 2009
- ↑ FOX News, "Arizona Legislature Passes Bill to Curb 'Chauvanism' in Ethnic Studies Programs" 30 April, 2010
- ↑ East Valley Tribune, "Arizona taxpayers spend up to $1.2 billion annually to educate children of illegal immigrants" 17 Feb. 2007
- ↑ Arizona Daily Star, "Sheriffs: Are you in school legally?" 28 April, 2009
- ↑ Sonoran Alliance, "Tom Horne Runs From Amnesty But Can’t Hide Support" 11 June, 2010
- ↑ Oyez - Plyler v. Doe summary
- ↑ Lighthouse Blog, "Why hasn't Tom Horne for AG caught on with Republicans?" 9 March, 2009
- ↑ Sonoran Alliance, "Thomas Will Defend AZ School Choice Issue Now Before U.S. Supreme Court Horne Opposed" 25 May, 2010
- ↑ Arizona Republic, "Rotellini to run for Arizona AG in ‘14," February 25, 2013
- ↑ Arizona Republic, "All eyes on 2014 race for governor," November 11, 2012
- ↑ 31.0 31.1 abc15.com, "Arizona Election Results," accessed August 27, 2014 (dead link)
- ↑ 32.0 32.1 Governing, "The 2013-2014 Attorneys General Races: Who's Vulnerable?" March 25, 2013
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State - Official Results of 2010 Primary Election
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State - 2010 General Election Results
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State - Official Results of 2006 Primary Election
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State - Official Results of 2006 General Election
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State - Official Results of 2002 Primary Election
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State - Official Results of 2002 General Election
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State - Official Results of 1998 Primary Election
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State - Official Results of 1998 General Election
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State - Official Results of 1996 Primary Election
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State - Official Results of 1996 General Election
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Tom Horne’s campaign website, “Tom's Plan,” accessed October 31, 2022
- ↑ The Arizona Republic, "Horne has gotten 6 speeding tickets in past 1 1/2 years" 21 Aug. 2009
- ↑ Sonoran Alliance, "Andrew Thomas Reduced Plea Bargains; Tom Horne Agreed To One" 8 June, 2010
- ↑ The Arizona Republic, "Attorney-general candidate Tom Horne denied 1970 bankruptcy" 20 June, 2010
| Political offices | ||
|---|---|---|
| Preceded by Kathy Hoffman (D) |
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 2023-Present |
Succeeded by - |
| Preceded by Terry Goddard |
Attorney General of Arizona 2011-2015 |
Succeeded by Mark Brnovich (R) |
| Preceded by - |
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction 2003-2011 |
Succeeded by John Huppenthal (R) |
| Preceded by - |
Arizona House of Representatives 1997-2000 |
Succeeded by - |
| ||||||||||||||
