Doug Ducey served as Arizona’s 23rd governor from 2015 to 2023, after four years as State Treasurer. As governor, Ducey signed the 2022 expansion of Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program, which made every student in the state eligible for public funds to spend on private school tuition, homeschooling, and other educational expenses, the first universal school choice program in the nation. He also negotiated the incentive package that brought Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) to the Phoenix area. Ducey drew national attention in 2020 when he certified Arizona’s presidential election results over President Trump’s objections. After leaving office, he founded and led Citizens for Free Enterprise, an advocacy organization focused on economic freedom, deregulation, and small business resources, from 2023 until February of this year.
The Harvard Political Review sat down with Ducey this September to discuss the controversies over the school choice program, the reduction in Arizona’s Colorado River allotment, the state’s semiconductor boom, and the direction of the Republican Party.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Harvard Political Review: You have been very politically active recently on the ESA program and the recent Protect Education Act, and you and your allies fought successfully to keep it off the ballot. Now that the threat is gone, do you still think the program needs reform, or does the court ruling settle the question?
Doug Ducey: Well, educational school choice was one of the biggest accomplishments of my administration. It took all eight years to get it done. Arizona was the first state in the nation to pass universal school choice. I think 14 or 15 other states have followed suit. I do believe we have the best policy, and I am thrilled that this will continue to grow in the state of Arizona. There are 100,000-plus families today taking advantage of it, and I think it is projected to have 200,000 taking advantage of it in the next 24 months.
Any law that you pass is often in need of adjustments or reforms, and there are some things that I believe were suggested and talked about with the opposition on this. They chose not to engage in the legislative activity, but instead wanted to go to the ballot, and they were not able to get the signatures to accomplish that. There is no reason that the conversation could not be revisited on what improvements could be worked through on the program.
HPR: The most common criticism, especially from supporters of the Protect Education Act, is the $654 million being processed under the $2,000 threshold. The auditor general found that only 30% of that spending is audited at all, and that the audits are random rather than risk-based. How much of that report do you think holds up? And if there are real problems, how would you fix them?
DD: I have not reviewed the report, and I know from the parents I have talked to anecdotally who have taken advantage of the program that they are forever grateful for it. I think some of the issues can be solved rather easily. I think we have more of a vendor problem than we do a policy problem. The policy is school choice, putting parents in charge of their children’s education, and I think we have been able to observe some vendors in other parts of the country that do a better job in terms of accuracy and transparency. So I would open up the bidding and let the best vendor win.
HPR: What would that look like in practice? Cleaner transaction statements, to make auditing easier for the state?
DD: Yeah. Cleaner, more transparent, and easily verifiable.
HPR: So the fix comes from the vendors rather than from the Arizona Department of Education?
DD: Well, I think step one is having the best possible vendor, so that this is clear and easy to understand in the public’s eye, in the taxpayer watchdog’s eye. I think that is worthy work and a desire on the part of many people. And then whatever adjustments need to be made to the program, let us have that conversation.
The issue has been that one side wants to kill this program, does not want to see school choice, is not in favor of charter schools like BASIS or Great Hearts, and that is not a discussion that we are willing to have. We want to have universal school choice. We want to see our public schools thrive, and we want to see these other schools where parents choose to send their children thrive as well.
HPR: Arizona’s Colorado River allotment was recently cut by more than 700,000 acre-feet, triple what California absorbed, because Arizona sits low on the priority ladder. Governor Hobbs has said she is committed to negotiating rather than litigating. How do you see her approach, and would you do it differently?
DD: This is the responsibility of the sitting governor, the sitting senators, and the congressional delegation. I think we are late to the discussion, but I wish them godspeed in getting into the room late and making the case for Arizona that we should be treated fairly and equitably, along with the other lower basin states.
Arizona is the best state in the nation on water. We have got the fifth-largest metropolitan area, and the fastest-growing, in the middle of a desert. And generational plans like the Hoover Dam, the Roosevelt Dam, the Central Arizona Project, and the Groundwater Management Act have all done things to fortify and solidify that plan. We did a number of things like the Drought Contingency Act when I was in office, and I left a memorandum of understanding on how we could access desalination from the Sea of Cortez that would have taken care of Arizona’s water needs for the next 100 years. So this is a solvable issue, but it is going to require leadership, diligence, and discussion.
HPR: In her shoes, what would your next step be? Pressing Arizona’s economic position harder in the negotiations? Litigation?
DD: I think the first step is always to get in the room where it happens, and that is in Washington, D.C., with Secretary Burgum and members of the Trump administration.
The other leadership option — and it is not an “or”; this is an “and” — is augmentation, and that is desalination. This is a technology that has existed from biblical times, but today it is much more affordable and accessible. And countries like Israel, which have a very similar climate to the state of Arizona, have 50 desalination plants, and 400 of these installations have been done around the world by companies like Israel Desalination Engineers, better known as IDE. Arizona only needs one desalination plant because we have the Central Arizona Project. With that kind of forethought and investment, we would have an abundance of water and would actually be selling water to places like California and Mexico.
HPR: Where would Arizona find the capital for a plant like that?
DD: This is a perfect opportunity for a public-private partnership, and the outlines of a deal were left on Governor Hobbs’s desk when I left office in 2023. I think that should be investigated, as well as going out to market and seeing if you can find a better deal. But this requires action.
HPR: You founded Citizens for Free Enterprise and ran it for three years before rolling off in February. How do you balance the free enterprise principles that organization advocates for with having been a big proponent of subsidies to develop Arizona’s semiconductor industry?
DD: Citizens for Free Enterprise was an extension of the Ducey administration and the work that we had done in Arizona by having a more limited government with a lower tax rate, lighter regulations, and creating opportunity for all. Inside the state, any incentive that we have in Arizona is in statute. So that is something that allows us to be competitive with places like Texas, Florida, Utah, and Tennessee, and Arizona won consistently. So I think those free market, free enterprise principles were alive and well from 2014 to 2023, and there is no reason to change course now. We went from a state that was known for call centers and construction to semiconductors and advanced manufacturing.
HPR: In an ideal world, would you rather Texas and Florida were not offering these incentives, so Arizona did not have to either? Or is there real benefit in Arizona competing for these manufacturers, particularly the ones from overseas?
DD: In an ideal world, there would be no subsidies, no incentives. But I am a federalist. I believe that states have that opportunity. I also believe that Arizona should be competitive.
I will tell you, we won projects like Taiwan Semiconductor, Infosys, and Lucid on the strength of our climate and environment. If it were just about a spreadsheet, companies would be going elsewhere. But Arizona can offer the full package: the economic and business climate, quality of life, low taxes, light regulation, good labor force, excellent education, affordable and reliable energy, and ample water. No other state can touch that menu or portfolio.
HPR: There is a national security case for domestic semiconductor manufacturing that goes beyond Arizona’s economic growth. If no other state were offering subsidies, but a subsidy was the difference between TSMC building here and staying in Taiwan, should it be on the table? Or do the principles rule it out?
DD: Well, best practice is to not deal in hypotheticals. But embracing the one that you present: Taiwan is our friend. It is our ally. It is a democracy that believes in freedom. They also happen to be the best in the world at semiconductors. So I think it is an easy yes to work with someone like Taiwan Semiconductor, especially given the investment and job creation, along with the transformation that they will provide to the Valley of the Sun, and to all of Arizona and its universities. My answer would be much different if we were talking about a Chinese company, or an Iranian company, or a North Korean corporation.
HPR: Do you have a view on doing something similar with Intel, which is an American company?
DD: Well, we are big Intel fans. Intel has a huge presence and has really transformed much of the East Valley. They are a great American company, and we want them not only to stay in Arizona, but to grow and continue to invest. I say that as a voter now and not a governor, but I would be surprised if somebody wanted to make the other side of that case.
HPR: In 2020, you certified Arizona’s election results, and you dealt with attacks for it. Since then the Republican Party has moved closer to Trump, which you embraced when you endorsed him in 2024. Is there still room in the party for someone who can support Trump but push back when he deems it necessary? And could a poor midterm change that?
DD: Well, the answer is yes. I am a Republican. I like to say I am a conservative; I am just not angry about it. I will continue to participate in Republican Party politics going forward, and I do think there is a place for the traditional conservative wing that believes in limited government, lower taxes, a strong military, and an American presence where necessary around the globe. I still see America as the leader of the free world.
HPR: When Attorney General Ken Paxton beat sitting Senator John Cornyn in Texas, did that concern you about where the party is headed?
DD: I certainly think that Senator John Cornyn had earned and deserved renomination and reelection. In terms of the midterms coming up here in November, it is all to be determined. Let us let that play out.
But either way, we have a two-party system in the United States. Right now, it is the Republicans who traditionally have been the ones that have been the spokespeople for more individual freedom, entrepreneurial activity, and free market economics, and the Democratic Party, which has seen a lot more opportunities to use government to accomplish its means and sees the nation from more of a top-down, one-size-fits-all approach. I think the battle will continue in those lanes.
HPR: Affordability is dominating midterm discourse in both parties. What should Republicans advocate for, and act on, to convince Americans they can bring costs back down?
DD: I think that affordability is a real issue. All you have to do is talk to any young person, or go fill your Yukon up at the local QT [gas station], or go do some of your own grocery shopping.
I think that the Republicans should come at this first from a monetary standpoint, and should be advocating to get inflation in check. Inflation has been a huge component of this. There have been billions, if not trillions, of dollars printed and borrowed in the last five years since COVID, and we have got too many dollars chasing too few goods, and we are seeing that rise in prices.
Also, affordable housing. We need to get back to building houses in Arizona. It is something we are rather good at. We were known for this before we were known for advanced manufacturing, and this is a real supply and demand issue for our state. I am proud that we have people moving to Arizona from all over the country. They are experiencing the quality of life that you and I both know we have in abundance. But we need places for them to live, and we need to get on the supply side of this issue.
Associate U.S. Editor
