Fans of the western rodeo will have a new way to express their interest now that Gov. Doug Ducey has signed a bill which creates a license plate supporting the popular sport.
But the governor’s approval of the legislation does more than add another designer license plate to ADOT’s stock. It also provides funding to help support a rodeo museum which highlights Arizona’s rich history in the sport.
And that, according to supporters, will provide Arizonans as well as domestic and international tourists another source of entertainment.
The oldest organized professional rodeo in Arizona pre-dates statehood, with the July 1888 event in Prescott. And every February, southern Arizonans turn their attention to the Tucson Rodeo Parade.
The special rodeo plates can be issued for $25 plus the normal vehicle registration fees. Of that amount, $17 is considered an annual donation to the Rodeo Special Plate Fund administered by ADOT.
But before ADOT can formally begin issuing the special rodeo plates, someone has to pony up $32,000 to ADOT before Dec. 31 of this year to implement the program. And that person is responsible for designing the plate, subject to ADOT rules and approval.
ADOT can annually hold back 10 percent of the Rodeo Plate Fund as an administration fee, but the rest must be allocated each year to an Arizona-based 501(c)(3) charitable organization which awards collegiate scholarships and supports a museum in Arizona that has rodeo artifacts.
The new statute specifically requires that the museum’s artifacts must date back to at least 1953. And the museum must include saddles ridden by “famous rodeo champions” among its artifacts.
A review of museums across Arizona reveals that the Scottsdale Rodeo Museum website boasts “rodeo artifacts going back to at least 1953, including saddles ridden by famous rodeo champions such as Jake Barns.” It is unclear whether the more well-known Tucson Rodeo Parade Museum would meet the specific funding criteria.
The bill cleared the House in February on a 39 to 20 vote, then passed out of the Senate on April 13 on a 27 to 3 vote. Ducey signed the bill sponsored by Rep. Joseph Chaplik (R-LD23) last week.
Co-sponsors of HB2129 were Representatives Frank Carroll, Tim Dunn, Gail Griffin, Joel John, Steve Kaiser, Joanne Osborne, Justin Wilmeth, and Majority Whip Leo Biasiucci.
Public records show the legislation for the special rodeo plate and funding for an Arizona rodeo museum was opposed by the Arizona Sheriffs Association and the Association of Counties.
Since shortly after Nov. 3, 2020, some of the most serious allegations about Maricopa County’s handling of the General Election has included not only fake ballots and switched voter counts, but also that some employees did not follow proper protocols when verifying voter signatures on the 1.9 million early ballot affidavits.
There was even testimony in at least one election challenge lawsuit about the amount of discretion employees of the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office had in deciding which of the early ballots to accept during the signature verification phase.
Since then, one selling point for the Senate’s current audit of Maricopa County’s election process has been the chance for a “full forensic audit” that would include comparing affidavit signatures to the voters’ registration files. AZ Free News has verified that the Senate subpoenas commanded county officials to turn over images of the early ballot envelopes.
“I can confirm that we complied and the Senate is in possession of those images,” said Megan Gilbertson, Communications Director for the Maricopa County Elections Department.
But questions are now being raised about whether Senate President Karen Fann included an audit of Maricopa County’s early ballot signature verification process in her deal with audit contractor Cyber Ninjas or its three subcontractors.
Last Thursday, the Senate’s audit liaison, Ken Bennett, said the plan is to audit at least “some” of the early ballot signatures. However, others close to the audit contend that looking at those signatures is beyond the scope of what the contractors have been asked to do.
Which raises the question of who has the 1.9 million envelope images which Maricopa County turned over in compliance with the subpoena. And who else has access to those images in light of signature confidentiality requirements in state law and the fact those signatures are quite valuable to identity thieves.
Even if Bennett ensures a sampling of signatures are audited, he will be under a time crunch, as an attorney for Cyber Ninjas told a judge last week that audit operations must be done at Veterans Memorial Coliseum on May 14.
Another problem for Bennett and the auditors is figuring out a sufficient sample size to provide a reliable result. Previous testimony about the signature verification process noted that it is important to look at ballot envelopes received by the recorder’s office on various days and to have envelopes which were verified by a variety of employees.
Bennett is currently in a self-imposed media blackout with local journalists, although he did find time Monday to record an interview for the Arizona Republican Party.
A lawsuit filed last week by the Arizona Democratic Party and Maricopa County Supervisor Steve Gallardo (in his personal capacity as a registered voter) will go before Judge Daniel Martin of the Maricopa County Superior Court on Tuesday. The lawsuit seeks to stop the audit until the Senate promises its contractors will comply with state law and the Arizona Elections Procedures Manual.
Meanwhile, a petition for special action filed with the Arizona Supreme Court by Fann and the other defendants is a second track for their attempts to have the Dems’ legal challenge dismissed.
Arizona Democrats opposed a bill allowing judges the option to order community service in lieu of court fines for low-income individuals. Their contention was that the legislation took money away from the Arizona Clean Elections Commission. The commission derives its money from speeding tickets.
Under the bill, the community service would be credited per hour at minimum wage rates to make up for the fine, and rounded up to the nearest dollar. This would extend to any monetary obligations sentenced by the court, including civil penalties, surcharges, or any assessments or fees. Time payment fees would be exempted from this bill.
On Thursday, the Arizona House passed the bill 32-27. Only one Democrat voted in favor of the bill: State Representative Alma Hernandez (D-Tucson). No Republicans voted against it. It took over 10 minutes to complete the vote, and no discussions took place.
Likewise, all Democrats except for one voted against the bill in the Senate. Assistant Minority Leader Lupe Contreras (D-Avondale) voted for the bill.
The bill was introduced by Majority Whip Leo Biasiucci (R-Lake Havasu City). He explained during the House Transportation Committee that the idea for the legislation was borne out of his difficulties with a traffic citation. He learned that individuals must fork over more to set up a payment plan in the first place.
That’s not to mention any other fees, like those required for an appeal.
Biasiucci said that people shouldn’t be punished for not being able to afford a ticket. He described it as a “win-win” for the community and for individuals facing the fines.
State Representative Richard Andrade (D-Glendale) asked why the bill didn’t include Prop 105 language to exempt the clean elections commission.
Biasiucci responded that there are just under twenty other government agencies that also derive their money from speeding tickets. He also reminded Andrade that those who would qualify to do community service rather than pay the fine under this bill would be low-income individuals – not all individuals.
“[T]his is going to be such a small window of people – I mean, you’re talking about people who can’t afford it. And the judge has to approve it,” said Biasiucci. “This is not something that’s just going to impact other areas so much, and I firmly believe you shouldn’t be picking an agency over trying to help the people who can’t afford this. That’s why I decided I’m not going to pick one to exempt.”
According to Biasiucci, the clean elections commission has around $30 million in their account. They only spent $4 million last year. He noted that the idea that this commission would be hurt by this, when they’re rolling over nearly $27 million every year, doesn’t make sense.
“Bottom line is: this is good for the people that are needing it the most,” said Biasiucci. “I don’t care what agency’s being impacted – I support the border protection, I support a lot of things speeding tickets go to. I don’t like the fact that you have organizations that are being funded solely from tickets – I mean, that to me is ridiculous that we’re banking on speeding tickets to fund these groups, whether it’s approved by the voters or not.”
Currently, the commission gets 10 percent of each ticket.
The bill is timely. The legislature recently passed a bill that will increase speeding ticket fines for certain infractions.
For failing to yield right-of-way to emergency vehicles or slow down before stationary vehicles, the current maximum fines sit at $250. The newly-proposed fines come at three levels: $275 for the first violation, $500 the second, and $1,000 for all subsequent violations.
The bill allowing community service in lieu of speeding tickets was transmitted to the governor on Thursday.
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
The Arizona state General Fund is flooded with revenue. Latest projections show the state with $1.2 billion in ongoing revenue and a cash balance upwards of $6.5 billion in FY2024. This is by far the largest budget surplus in state history and doesn’t even include the $1 Billion stashed away in the rainy day fund.
When the state is sitting on a pile of cash this big, it means one thing: they are taking too much of your money. And the answer is simple: give it back to taxpayers.
With Republicans at the Legislature and Governor Ducey planning to provide a large and comprehensive tax cut, one special interest group is already lobbying hard behind the scenes to kill that plan: local cities.
The fight of course is over money. 15 percent of income tax revenues are shared with cities. In Phoenix, that accounts for just over $241 million this year, or roughly 4.8 percent of their $5 billion operating budget. Phoenix is arguing that the proposed income tax cut would result in a $65 million reduction in shared revenues; or 1.3 percent of their operating budget.
Of course, this estimated “cut” in revenue is seriously flawed. It fails to take into account that shared revenues from the income tax are based on collections from two years prior. Considering the tax package wouldn’t be fully implemented for another 4-5 years, any potential decrease in shared revenues would not be fully realized for at least 6-7.
Additionally, complaints about static reductions in revenue fail to include any dynamic analysis of economic growth and the corresponding increases in tax revenues, both from income and TPT collections, promulgated by tax cuts.
The passage of Prop 208 made Arizona the 9th highest income tax rate in the nation. It has already begun pushing small businesses to relocate to lower tax states, taking their jobs and income, property, and TPT tax revenues with them. Make no mistake, the loss in revenue for cities such as Phoenix will be much larger if no action is taken to address Arizona’s uncompetitive income tax climate. In fact, a study by the Goldwater Institute found that the Prop 208 price tag to state and local revenues will amount to a $2.4 billion loss.
Knowing that a debate over a potential 1.3% reduction in revenues 7 years from now won’t generate much sympathy to stop the tax package, the city of Phoenix has decided to tell lawmakers that if the legislature cuts your income taxes, cities will be forced to cut police officers on the street. In other words, legislative tax cuts would be responsible for “defunding the police.”
This rhetoric can’t be described as anything other than complete hogwash.
Here is the real bottom line: The City of Phoenix is downright reckless with taxpayer money. The city spends like drunken sailors. They’ve never seen a tax increase they don’t like. And they don’t think twice about fleecing the taxpayer every opportunity they get.
In 2017, Phoenix’s spending appetite was so colossal they extended the amortization of their pension debt, to free up a few million dollars for one time spending at the cost of billions to taxpayers down the road.
For years Phoenix ran a hotel that never managed to make a profit. In 2017 they finally shed the asset, but not before a staggering $200 Million loss to taxpayers.
All this reckless spending has forced the city to constantly raise taxes and fees. Just last month, Phoenix approved raising their water rates for the 5th time in 6 years on top of rate increases for trash and recycling.
On top of these tax and rate increases, research done by the Arizona Tax Research Association shows the city has also received over $24.6 million year to date in FY2021 (with four additional months of collections to go) from remote sellers. This is new revenue to the city due to the passage of 2019 Wayfair legislation. If these new monies were scored, that 1.3 percent revenue loss would actually be a potential 0.8% reduction realized in 6-7 years, a fraction of the money Phoenix has wasted in just the past couple years.
With tax increase after tax increase and revenue windfalls from the state, the city of Phoenix does not have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. The legislature providing relief to taxpayers (who will surely be more responsible with their own money than Phoenix will be) will not cause any city to “defund the police.”
Two judges, one from Maricopa County and the other an Associate Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, agreed Friday that the Senate Audit of Maricopa County’s 2020 General Election can move ahead for now. Both judges also ordered the parties to submit several court filings in the coming days.
Several hundred of the nearly 2.1 million ballots cast by Maricopa County voters were audited Friday and Saturday. The volunteer counters are looking only at the race for U.S. President and the contest between Mark Kelly and then-Sen. Martha McSally.
For a short time Friday it looked like no audit activities would take place after Judge Christopher Coury of the Maricopa Superior Court agreed to issue a stay requested by the Arizona Democratic Party and Steve Gallardo, the only Democrat on Maricopa County’s five-member Board of Supervisors.
But the stay order was contingent on the plaintiffs posting a $1 million bond in the event they lost their case. AZ Dems chair Raquel Teran announced Friday afternoon that no bond would be posted, meaning the audit can continue unimpeded, for now.
Two other orders issued by Coury are currently in force: that the Senate and its contracted audit team comply with state law and that no blue or black pens can be on the floor of the Veterans Memorial Coliseum where the audit is being conducted.
Coury will be a key player in the audit this coming week, as he ordered the parties back to court Monday morning for an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the lawsuit. The judge set several deadlines for the attorneys, including an order for the audit’s written policies and procedures to be filed by the Senate and general contractor Cyber Ninjas on Sunday.
Teran and Gallardo -who says he joined the lawsuit in his personal capacity as a Maricopa County voter- must decide how far they want to push their allegations about the audit operations, given the fact Senate President Karen Fann and the other defendants have petitioned to the Arizona Supreme Court, which has also ordered a series of legal briefings in the case.
Fann and Sen. Warren Petersen of the Senate Judiciary Committee are named as defendants along with former Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett who is serving as the Senate’s audit liaison. The other defendant is Cyber Ninjas, the company Fann contracted with to conduct the audit with help from three subcontractor.
The Senate defendants are represented by Kory Langhofer and Thomas Bastille, who have been involved in several of the election-related lawsuits filed since Nov. 3. Florida-based Cyber Ninjas and its owner Doug Logan have retained Phoenix attorney Alex Kolodin as their Arizona legal counsel.
Another key player is Associate Justice Clink Bolick of the Arizona Supreme Court, who affirmed Coury’s earlier orders during an emergency conference Friday afternoon. Bolick set separate deadlines for the Senate’s challenge to the legality of the lawsuit, with all those filings needing to be in by the end of business April 29.
Participating in the emergency conference with the justice was attorneys for Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, who has pushed back on Fann’s previous assurances that the Senate’s audit would be “independent” and “transparent.”
Hobbs has pointed to Rep. Mark Finchem’s admitted role with the audit in light of his repeated insistence that President Joe Biden really did not win the popular vote in Arizona, and thus was not entitled to the state’s electoral votes. She also wrote to Attorney General Mark Brnovich with concerns that auditors may not be complying with Arizona’s Elections Procedures Manual (EPM).
For his part, Brnovich was the first prominent Republican to insist after the general election that there was no fraud involved in Biden’s victory. He replied to Hobbs on Friday, suggesting she notify his office when she has “credible facts and not conjecture or politics” for him to investigate.
Another player who could impact next week’s audit operations is First Amendment attorney David Bodney, who warned Fann and Bennett that the audit team’s current refusal to allow journalists to report on audit activities from the main floor of the Veterans Memorial Coliseum.
Bennett, as the audit liaison, is requiring media representatives to sign up for a six-hour shift as an observer. However, observers are prohibited from having cellphones or even pen and paper on the floor.
“Requiring journalists to become active participants in the events on which they seek to report is as unprecedented as it is untenable in a representative democracy,” Bodney wrote. “It also violates the First Amendment, which compels that members of the press be allowed access to report on these public proceedings. “
Bodney also warned that legal action could be forthcoming.
“By making the proceedings accessible to some journalists, you cannot arbitrarily deny access to others or require that others satisfy peculiar conditions not imposed upon those whom you favor,” he wrote. “In the event the audit proceeds while barring the press, we are committed to pursuing all legal remedies we deem appropriate to secure our clients’ rights under the First Amendment,” Bodney said
