As the State Senate’s audit of Maricopa County’s 2020 General Election results and procedures continues, the majority of House Republicans signed a letter last week proclaiming their support of Senate President Karen Fann’s efforts.
“Each of us remains steadfast and focused on working to safeguard against potential ballot tampering, voter fraud and other voting irregularities,” the April 29 letter states. “We firmly believe our elections must be lawfully conducted under the Constitution, as well as with federal and state election law.”
The signees include Reps. Brenda Barton, Leo Biasucci, Walt Blackman, Shawna Bolick, Judy Burges, Frank Carroll, Joseph Chaplik, David Cook, Timothy Dunn, John Filmore, Mark Finchem, Travis Grantham, Jake Hoffman, Steve Kaiser, John Kavanagh, Quang Nguyen, Joanne Osborne, Jacqueline Parker, Beverly Pingerelli, Jeff Weninger, and Justin Wilmeth.
According to the letter, the representatives are “fully committed to sorting through the verified evidence” once the Senate Audit is done and the auditors’ reports are available. Then they will work “to remedy verified irregularities” with the intent to increase voter trust.
In the meantime, the signers told Fann it “is paramount” to pass other pending election integrity legislation such as SB1485, which would require all 15 counties to remove voters from the early ballot mailing list if those voters fail to utilize early voting for two full election cycles. About 207,000 voters could drop off the early ballot list, a process which does not impact a voter’s registration status.
Cleaning up the list will save counties money on printing and postage, according to SB1485 supporters, while also reducing opportunities for election misconduct by ensuring early ballots are only being sent to voters who intend to use them.
SB1485 has already cleared the House but is held up in the Senate due to a revolt in the Republican caucus by Sen. Kelly Townsend, who alleges bill sponsor Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita was responsible for “killing” more than a dozen of Townsend’s election-related bills.
The representatives’ April 29 letter was issued the same day the House voted 31 to 29 along party lines to approve SB1003, another bill sponsored by Ugenti-Rita, which will ensure counties follow the same process -and same deadline of 7 p.m. on election day- for curing early ballots received without the statutorily required signature on the voter affidavit.
Most counties reported a very small number of unsigned early ballot affidavits in the 2020 General Election, but the bill is one of several that Republicans say are necessary to promote consistency and voter confidence in election procedures used statewide.
They’re at it again. You would think that public school districts would learn their lesson at some point. After all, many of them turned their backs on students and parents in the wake of COVID-19. And now, those school districts are paying the price.
But apparently, they’re too committed to their agenda.
Some school districts are ignoring the science and keeping their beloved mask mandates. Some would rather keep parents in the dark about classroom curriculum. While others are trying to adopt Marxist Critical Race Theory programs in their schools.
The latest culprit is Litchfield Elementary School District, where the school board recently published an “equity statement” along with a set of “equity goals.” The goals were presented at the school board meeting in March and crafted by, you guessed it, a “district diversity committee.”
If you’re unfamiliar with Critical Race Theory, it’s a movement that combines Marxist theories of class conflict within the lens of race. And it teaches that racism is present in every interaction. Races that have been “minoritized” are considered oppressed while those who are “racially privileged” are called “exploiters.” Proponents of the movement are good at disguising it. As Christopher Rufo from the Manhattan Institute points out, you’ll often find Critical Race Theory is present when you hear terms like “social justice,” “diversity,” “inclusion,” and “equity.”
A group of conservative students at Arizona State University was smeared in an online social media campaign, targeted with doctored images and false claims.
According to documents obtained exclusively through YAF’s Campus Bias Tip Line, a current representative in ASU’s student government, Daniel Lopez, reportedly helped create an Instagram page titled “Don’t Vote For These-USG!” intended to intimidate conservative students running for USG positions, and sway the results of the election.
Arizona is one of twenty-one states that filed a comment letter opposing the use of “Social Cost of Carbon” analysis by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in certification decisions related to interstate natural gas pipeline construction.
The executive order has potentially devastating impacts, according to Alaska’s Attorney General Treg Taylor, who said it would allow “the federal government to assign vague and arbitrary costs to everyday regulatory and business activity.”
The comment letter, which was filed this week, argues that neither the Natural Gas Act (NGA) or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) authorize FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) to use the “Social Cost of Carbon” in consideration of certification applications, that the “Social Cost of Carbon” analysis is speculative and scientifically flawed, and that FERC should adhere to its previous position that “Social Cost of Carbon” analysis is not appropriate for NEPA analysis.
FERC is charged by Congress with reviewing and certifying applications for interstate natural gas pipeline projects proposed by private companies.
The letter argues that FERC applying “Social Cost of Carbon” analysis to certifications is not authorized by the NGA. The letter states, “Congress’s subsequent actions further show that the ‘public interest’ in the NGA is concerned with keeping natural gas widely available and affordable.” To that point, the letter says, “In the NGA, Congress did not vest FERC with the authority of an international commission to mitigate global climate change, and certainly no statute contains a ‘clear’ statement of such an extraordinary delegation of authority. Utilizing the SCC or SCM is not authorized under the NGA because it would only serve to increase costs (whether regulatory burdens or other costs) based on speculation about future global damages, instead of rendering natural gas abundant and affordable.”
Similarly, as it relates to NEPA, the letter contends, “Likewise, NEPA does not mandate or permit FERC to use the SCC for pipeline certifications. Like the NGA, NEPA does not contain any clear statement of Congress delegating authority to FERC to anticipate and mitigate global climate change under the aegis of promoting abundant and affordable natural gas,” and states later, “NEPA does not authorize the Commission to use the SCC values because NEPA’s hard look requirement and proximate cause standard does not permit agencies to rely on speculative conclusions or conclusions that the agency knows reflect substandard and outdated science.
Additionally, the letter states that “Social Cost of Carbon” analysis is speculative and not based on science, specifically because the letter contends that:
Global damages are not reasonably foreseeable and do not have a close causal relationship to any project
Damages from the year 2300 are too speculative, attenuated, and arbitrary to survive hard-look review under NEPA
The SCC’s choice of discount rates is arbitrary and lacks a scientific basis
The SCC is based on outdated scenarios and ignores science without justification
Arizona is leading a coalition of 13 states to defend the Public Charge Rule, a federal immigration policy that ensures noncitizens can financially support themselves to become U.S. citizens or obtain green cards. Joining Arizona are attorneys general from the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia.
In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) created a rule that expanded the definition of “public charges” to include anyone who received certain government benefits (like Medicaid or food stamps) for more than 12 months over a three-year period. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) stopped applying the Public Charge Final Rule to all pending applications and petitions on March 9, 2021. USCIS removed content related to the vacated 2019 Public Charge Final Rule from the affected USCIS forms and has posted updated versions of affected forms.
The states are asking the Supreme Court of the United States to allow them to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the policy after the Biden Administration abandoned defense of the rule earlier this year. Arizona led a coalition of 13 states in March at the Ninth Circuit to intervene in the lawsuit but was denied.
Arizona and the other states are also asking Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to grant review of a Ninth Circuit decision that invalidated the Public Charge Rule. Previously, SCOTUS granted review of a case involving the same issues. But, after SCOTUS agreed to hear the case, the Biden Administration abruptly shifted course. Without any notice or warning—and breaking established norms—it sprung an unprecedented, coordinated, and multi-court gambit to dismiss all pending cases pursuant to a settlement. Attorney General Brnovich believes that the validity of the Public Charge Rule should be decided on its legal merits, not pervasive strategic surrenders by the Biden Administration.
Congress has had a Public Charge requirement in one form or another for over a century according to the Attorney General’s Office. Under existing federal immigration law, noncitizens are not eligible to receive a green card if they are reliant upon government assistance, otherwise known as a “public charge.”
Arizona and the other states claim to have a significant interest in upholding the Public Charge Rule because it reduces demand on already over-stretched government assistance programs. The federal government only pays a portion of the costs involved in many of the programs at issue, therefore increasing the strain on over-stretched state assistance programs. It is estimated the rule will save the states $1.01 billion annually in direct payments. For example:
In 2019 Arizona spent $3,059,000,000 on Medicaid benefits. Increasing the number of Medicaid participants would increase the State’s spending on Medicaid (the costs of which typically exceed State general fund growth) and would require the State to make budget adjustments elsewhere.
Arizona paid $85 million in maintenance-of-effort costs for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) programs in 2019. TANF resources are limited. In 2016, less than a quarter of eligible impoverished families received this assistance.
States incur administrative costs for each Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipient. For FY 2016, Arizona paid $77,730,088 in administrative costs for administering SNAP. By admitting aliens who are unlikely to depend on this resource, the State will save money that would have otherwise gone to fund administrative costs for aliens who would depend on the program.
