Arizona law enforcement wanted to make sure this year’s Christmas was special for all the children in their communities; as always, they did so through “Shop With a Cop” programs. These annual events allow children from underprivileged or struggling families to shop alongside cops for Christmas presents. Local businesses and community members donate or volunteer time to make these events possible.
During a Shop With a Cop event, an officer will serve as a chaperone and shopping buddy for a child as they shop; sometimes, the events also incorporate a meal, activity like a movie, or even a visit from Santa. The intent of these events is to boost children’s morale while facilitating trust and confidence in police officers. Shop With a Cop also helps children practice good decision-making with their budget as they shop for themselves and their loved ones.
#FBIPhoenix joined our law enforcement partners the last few weekends for the AZ Law Enforcement Outreach and Support "2021 Shop with a Cop" event. Children were taken shopping and got to meet law enforcement personnel. We are thrilled to have been part of this amazing event! pic.twitter.com/E09Ig2H1Jp
Big smiles all around! ⛄️ On December 11th, detectives with the AZDPS Gang & Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) helped spread holiday cheer during the AZLEOS Shop With A Cop event at the Mesa Riverview Walmart. ? #AZTrooperspic.twitter.com/oFBOEcNslR
We are grateful to have been apart of this wonderful day which was was full of smiles and laughter!! AZLEOS Shop with a Cop! #azleospic.twitter.com/kXFbQrDE4a
This past weekend, MCSO participated in our final "Shop With a Cop" of the year. Within the month of December, we have provided toys for 115 children. That is 115 children who will now have #Christmas gifts under their tree.
Law enforcement agencies that participated in a Shop With a Cop event this year included the Arizona Rangers, FBI Arizona, Arizona Department of Public Safety, Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office, Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, Gila County Sheriff’s Office, Prescott Police Department, Prescott Valley Police Department, Chino Valley Police Department, Phoenix Police Department, Mesa Police Department, Goodyear Police Department, Surprise Police Department, Lake Havasu Police Department, Cottonwood Police Department, Tempe Police Department, Chandler Police Department, and Benson Police Department.
The Arizona Law Enforcement Outreach and Support (AZLEOS) helped coordinate the participation of various police departments in Shop With a Cop events.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
In 1952, Dwight Eisenhower announced he was a Republican 10 months before the general election. In June, he resigned his military office to devote full time to his presidential campaign.
Adlai Stevenson was already a Democrat by 1952 but resisted multiple efforts by Democrat partisans to nominate him as their candidate. After his stirring speech at the convention that summer, they did so anyway. Three months later, a president (Eisenhower) was duly elected.
Modest candidates and brief campaigns are now in our receding past. The 2020 presidential race lasted 1,194 days after the first candidate declared. The 2024 election, for practical purposes, started immediately after the previous election. Fully three years out, news and opinion outlets are brimming with the latest poll numbers, candidate statements, and expert speculation.
No other nation subjects itself to such an exhausting ordeal. Elections in Canada, the UK, and Australia all last about six weeks. In Japan, they get it done in 12 days.
Admittedly, these are parliamentary systems where elections are triggered by political events, but France gives candidates just six months to qualify for the second-tier ballot, then two weeks to campaign in the finals.
American campaigns weren’t always ultramarathons. Warren Harding, for example, announced his candidacy 321 days before the 1920 election. Most American presidential candidates operated under a similar timeline.
The “modern” era began with the contentious 1968 Democrat convention when the party rank-and-file wrested control from the smoke-filled rooms, and the popular primary system was established. In 1976, the obscure Jimmy Carter was able to build momentum in the primaries by campaigning early. Ambitious politicians ever since have taken note.
But super-long campaigns have consequences, most of them undesirable. The most obvious is that length favors deep pockets, the ability to finance a years-long, money draining effort.
Few candidates can self-fund. Instead, they have to spend immense amounts of time and do a lot of promising to raise the many millions required for the campaign. Many political leaders are distracted from their duties by the minutiae of campaigning.
Never-ending campaigns simultaneously exhaust and entrance voters. Competitions are naturally interesting and easy to understand. It’s simple and inexpensive for the media to churn out horse-race stories, so NATO, supply chains, and housing policy get short shrift while mountains of articles are written about the prospects of the candidates far in the future.
It has long been a truism that more challenging, risky issues are harder to tackle in an election year. But if every year is effectively an election year, then it’s never the right time for heavy lifting.
Instead, governing in the midst of a campaign creates constant pressure to “do something,” so that politicians appear active and effective. Populist policies and handouts which favor the growth of government are thought to attract voters. Moderation and fiscal restraint don’t sell well, so they are kicked to the curb.
The Build Back Better bill was the perfect campaign legislation, something for everyone. No wonder Democrats are panicked over the electoral consequences of its possible failure.
But long campaign seasons also have their clear winners. Potential candidates are already dropping by Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, which happen to be crucial early primary states just to, you know, see how the folks are doing.
These states fiercely protect their primary position and with good reason. Iowa particularly has successfully exploited the candidates’ need to ingratiate themselves into the long-term protection of ethanol mandates, regulations and subsidies. It’s foolish policy with no environmental or other benefit except to corn farmers and producers, another result of our long and complicated presidential elections.
Compared with other countries, the U.S. has a short presidential term and an unusually long election process. This near constant turnover lengthens the period in which we are vulnerable to foreign actors exploiting us for their benefit.
Other democracies have laws which limit elections. Exactly nobody is clamoring for longer elections in those countries. Still, politicians are unlikely to reform their own system.
In the absence of other options to rid ourselves of these expensive, dysfunctional election campaigns, maybe we should take a look.
The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) adopted two maps on Wednesday that will define the state’s 9 Congressional and 30 Legislative districts for the next decade starting with 2022 elections.
But getting to that final vote involved some of the most contentious negotiations in the months-long redistricting process, and sent the commissioners into an executive session with their legal counsel. It was also marked by the AIRC’s two Democrats voting against ensuring the district numbering system follows state law.
Every decade the state’s congressional and legislative districts have to be redrawn based on the latest census population data and several goals, such as district shape, geographical features, respect for communities of interest, compliance with the federal Voting Rights Act, and potential competitiveness.
The fact Arizona has more registered Republicans than Democrats (and more registered non-party “Independent” voters than Democrats) also comes into play.
Wednesday’s approval of Arizona’s new Congressional District (CD) map -officially known as version 13.9- went smoothly enough in the morning. The map was unanimously approved by the commission’s two Republicans -David Mehl and Douglas York- and the two Democrats -Derrick Watchman and Shereen Lerner -along with Independent Chairwoman Erika Neuberg.
Under Arizona’s current CD map, five districts are represented by Democrats. But historical voting data shows the newly drawn CDs will give Democrats a partisan advantage in only three districts.
Republicans will now have a partisan advantage in four of the new districts and a negligible advantage in a fifth. The other CD is considered a toss-up.
However, once that vote was taken discord took over as the AIRC considered the makeup of the final Legislative District (LD) map.
The census data works out to approximately 238,000 residents for each of the 30 LDs, although state law allows a little give and take. All of the commissioners have proposed various revisions to draft maps since the process started in the spring, and it has not been uncommon for small changes to be proposed to a district boundary.
For example, Mehl and York were willing Wednesday to approve a tweak to the district boundaries of the Flagstaff – White Mountain area at the suggestion of Watchman and the Navajo Nation. Meanwhile, Lerner sought to change LD2, which represents a small portion of Maricopa County.
Lerner, who wanted to reduce the Republican advantage in the LD2, appeared to get frustrated with the lack of progress she was making. At one point she questioned the motives behind her colleagues’ consent to the Flagstaff – White Mountains change, suggesting the Republicans agreed to the revision due to improper partisan interest –to benefit a current lawmaker.
A closed door meeting was called with the AIRC’s attorney, after which the commissioners continued debating Lerner’s various changes for LD2. Then Mehl and York told Neuberg that if LD2 was changed, they wanted to revisit the boundaries of LD13, another district in Maricopa County.
The posturing did not set well with Neuberg. “I don’t have an appetite to go back and reopen each and every deliberative process we’ve done on each side,” the chairwoman said.
Neuberg eventually voted with the two Republicans to approve LD map version 16.1 once she recognized the Democrat commissioners were not going to change their position.
But the disharmony continued, carrying over into what should have been an obvious unanimous vote – to renumber LD5 on the final map to LD1 to comply with a state law which requires the LD representing Prescott to be LD1. Lerner and Watchman inexplicably voted against the motion.
The maps must still be formally certified by Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs. There is also the possibility of legal challenges to one or more of the AIRC maps, particularly the Voting Rights Act considerations for Hispanic / Latinos and Native Americans.
Another concern is whether the various districts adequately match Citizen Voting Age Population by Race and Ethnicity data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Previous legal challenges have led to the narrowing of what a court can consider. A court review can determine whether the AIRC followed the constitutionally mandated procedure and whether the AIRC adopted a final plan that satisfies substantive constitutional requirements.
If a judge were to order any changes to the process or a specific map, such a change could require tweaks to one or more other maps.
If you have been listening to the left and their friends in the media over the last several years, you might be under the impression that conservatives in the legislature have chronically underfunded K-12 education. But this couldn’t be further from the truth, and the truly historic levels of education funding actually threatens their soak the rich tax hike (Prop 208).
The reason we know K-12 is funded at historic levels is because there is a constitutional expenditure limit. Next year, we’re on track to blast above it. By billions.
Their pivot has been to attack the expenditure limit, as opposed to acknowledging how much the state is spending. But taxpayers should be thankful for this constitutional protection. It isn’t outdated, and it isn’t holding our schools back.
Arizona law affords students forced to quarantine by their schools for COVID-19 the right to court-appointed counsel at the expense of the state, according to Attorney General Mark Brnovich. In an opinion issued last Friday, Brnovich responded to an inquiry from State Senator Kelly Townsend (R-Mesa) on the issue.
The attorney general explained that schools relying on county health department quarantine or isolation protocol must also adhere to the requirement of counsel outlined in the same law:
“The court shall appoint counsel at state expense to represent a person or group of persons who is subject to isolation or quarantine pursuant to this article and who is not otherwise represented by counsel,” reads the law. “Representation by appointed counsel continues throughout the duration of the isolation or quarantine of the person or group of persons. The department or local health authority must provide adequate means of communication between the isolated or quarantined persons and their counsel.”
The law also stipulates that legal counsel must be acquired at state expense and last the duration of the isolation or quarantine.
In reference to mandatory quarantines for students exposed to COVID-19, Brnovich referenced the authority cited by the Maricopa County Department of Public Health (MCDPH) in their letter to communities in August. The letter cited MCDPH authority for student quarantines came from a statute which, in turn, cited the two statutes outlined by Brnovich granting legal counsel.
“When a county health department or public health services district is apprised that infectious or contagious disease exists within its jurisdiction, it shall immediately make an investigation. If the investigation discloses that the disease does exist, the county health department or public health services district may adopt quarantine and sanitary measures consistent with department rules and sections 36-788 and 36-789 to prevent the spread of the disease. The county health department or public health services district shall immediately notify the department of health services of the existence and nature of the disease and measures taken concerning it.”
Brnovich concluded that parents may seek a court order to lift the quarantine immediately, which would initiate the appointment of state-provided legal counsel to the student. A court would have 24 hours to hear the case, and 48 hours to submit its ruling. Counsel would also be available for parents petitioning to change quarantine conditions. In that case, a court would have 10 days to hold a hearing.
“[U]nder MCDPH’s quarantine requirements, which appear to be issued pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-788, MCDPH, through public schools, is mandating student quarantines without a court order. Once a parent or guardian receives the MCDPH letter requiring quarantine, the parent or guardian is entitled […] to immediately seek a court order lifting the quarantine,” wrote Brnovich. “And once a parent or guardian requests court review, A.R.S. § 36-789(M) requires the court to appoint counsel for the student at state expense. Similarly, if a parent or guardian files an action on behalf of the student challenging the conditions of a quarantine, the court is required to appoint counsel for the student at state expense.”
The attorney general noted that Arizona law doesn’t necessarily define “state expense.” He opined that the cost of counsel could fall on county health departments.
I wish to thank @GeneralBrnovich for this opinion regarding the quarantine of non-vaccinated students in school, which is exactly as I suspected. Parents, read this immediately and demand compliance! pic.twitter.com/djIEqbY5Ma
That wasn’t Kelly’s only request for Brnovich’s legal opinion as of late. The state senator requested Brnovich’s opinion on religious tests and denial of religious exemptions by employers.
