A proposed ballot initiative for this November seeks to implement a sprawling 25-page overhaul of elections processes, accruing over $7.6 million so far from the national network of Democratic dark money. Namely, the Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections initiative would eliminate voter ID and proof of citizenship for voter registration, allow same-day voter registration, bar election audits like the one authorized by the state senate for the 2020 election, raise small business taxes to increase political campaign funding, and restore private funding in election administration.
Additionally, the ballot initiative would also require universal vote centers, extend in-person early voting through the day before Election Day; require a court order to rule someone too incapacitated to vote; implement automatic voter registration for driver’s license and state ID recipients, as well as of-age high schoolers; allow curbside voting; allow “nontraditional residential addresses” such as mile markers or “geographic or other identifying features” when registering to vote; restore the permanent early voting list; restore inactive voters to active status; permit “signature-only” voter registration; allow third parties to register voters; and reduce contribution limits.
The ballot initiative is the effort of a Democratic coalition of major players in state and national politics filtered through the Arizona Democracy Resource Center (ADRC) as “ADRC Action.” Although the initiative appears to be a local effort at first glance, there are glimpses into the source of its millions in funds: the massive, national Democratic network of dark money. Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections actually sources back to a national donor network called “Way to Win,” which launched as a direct response to former President Donald Trump’s 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton. They asserted that their over $110 million funneled to states in 2019 flipped Arizona and George blue in the 2020 presidential election.
Way to Win’s major funding comes from the likes of globalist billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations and his family, Stryker Corporation heiress Patricia Stryker, and the prominent dark money D.C. consulting firm Arabella Advisors’ Sixteen Thirty (1630) Fund.
The Soros family has invested personally in Arizona’s elections as well. To date, the family has invested $10,000 in former Maricopa County Recorder and secretary of state candidate Adrian Fontes’ campaign, $10,000 to Democratic attorney general candidate Kris Mayes’ campaign, and $10,600 to Secretary of State Katie Hobbs’ gubernatorial campaign.
According to the latest campaign finance filings, ADRC Action has accumulated well over $7.6 million from in-kind contributions, over $5.5 million of which were from ADRC itself, and expended only $50,000. The second-largest donation came from the Tides Foundation-backed One Arizona, which donated $925,000.
Activate 48 donated $600,000 — they partner with Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), who donated $500,000 themselves and receives support from the Arabella Advisors 1630 Fund and the National Education Association (NEA); Mi Familia Vota; secretary of state candidate Reginald Bolding’s scandal-ridden, dark money-linked Our Voice Our Vote; and Chispa Arizona. The Education Foundation of America also donated $50,000.
All of the $50,000 expenditures went to counsel from Barton Mendez Soto, an election and employment law firm.
The firm’s co-founder, Jim Barton, has a number of high-profile and controversial clients under his belt, including the ballot initiative predecessor to Prop 208, the Arizona Democratic Party, and LUCHA. Barton was previously a partner at Torres Law Group: a firm whose partner is linked to a Democratic political action committee (PAC) that’s invested over $120,200 into a Republican state representative’s re-election campaign.
The Secretary of State’s office is processing the signatures. Arizonans For Free and Fair Elections will need over 237,600 valid signatures to qualify. They submitted over 475,000.
Coalition leadership includes ADRC Co-Executive Director Alison Marciniak, serving as the coalition’s chairwoman, and ADRC Communications Co-Director Joel Edman, serving as the coalition’s treasurer. Marciniak previously worked as a regional field director and organizer for the Arizona Democratic Party, as well as a field director and organizer for Central Arizonans for a Sustainable Economy (CASE): a nonprofit that advocates for immigration law and voting reforms. Edman clerked with the Arizona District Court and Arizona Supreme Court, as well as interned with the ACLU.
Another one of the coalition members, Eric Kramer, ran a similar ballot initiative last year. The initiative encompassed one of the goals of the coalition’s initiative by repealing HB2569: a bill signed into law last year which bars election officials from using private funds to run elections. HB2569 was prompted by the swell of funds provided by the likes of Mark Zuckerberg, who funneled $5 million to Arizona election officials. That initiative didn’t file signatures when the deadline rolled around.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
President Joe Biden’s Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals nominee, Phoenix-based attorney Roopali Desai, spurred Republican criticisms that her progressive activism throughout her career would result in judicial activism.
As AZ Free News reported, Desai has long defended and advanced Democratic Party interests. In addition to the nature of the cases she’s taken on over the years, Desai serves on a number of boards advancing progressive causes: Just Communities Arizona (JCA), which advocates for abolishing prisons; Save Our Schools Arizona (SOSAZ), which advocates for an end to school choice; National Cannabis Roundtable, which advocates for federal marijuana legalization; and Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, which litigates to advance progressive initiatives. In the past, she served on the boards of New Pathways for Youth, ACLU of Arizona, and Arizona Family Health Partnership.
During the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing earlier this month, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) cited Desai’s decades of championing progressive causes. He asked if her personal views would bleed into her judiciary rulings. Desai said there was a distinction in roles between lawyers and judges.
“No matter what matter I have in front of me, and no matter what my personal or political views may be, they will not play a role in any case or decision that comes before me,” insisted Desai.
Desai rejected characterization by Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) that the bulk of her clients were Democrat-affiliated. She asserted that she’s represented corporations, small business owners, and even the government in a range of issues from business to constitutional law disputes.
“My work as a litigator for almost 20 years spans a much broader range of clients and matters than just the ones you’ve referenced,” said Desai.
At the opening of the hearing, Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) offered a lengthy opening statement in favor of Desai. Sinema characterized Desai as a balanced arbitrator of the law. In the past, Desai served as legal counsel for Sinema’s campaign. Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) also issued support for Desai’s nomination.
I’ve known Roopali for over 10 years. She's a trusted legal expert highly regarded across the political spectrum in Arizona, known for her integrity and fairness. Glad to see the President nominate her to serve as a U.S. Judge. https://t.co/SdOl4u1VUL
Like both of Arizona’s senators, the other Democratic senators didn’t venture an in-depth exploration of Desai’s views. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) used his time to heap praise and gratitude on Desai. His remarks echoed the remarks he issued during the confirmation hearings of now-Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Senator Amy Klobuchar (DFL-MN) remarked repeatedly that Desai received bipartisan support among the likes of politicians, lawyers, and law enforcement. Desai explained that support for her nomination was rooted in her equal and fair application of the law.
“I would point to my respect for the rule of law. Our system of justice demands judges to apply the law objectively, fair-mindedly, and to honor the precedent of our courts,” replied Desai.
By contrast, the Republican senators were more direct about discerning the nature of Desai’s legal career and how it would relate to her appointment in the Ninth Circuit. Desai didn’t elaborate on the impetus of her legal work, instead recounting the basic facts of the cases in question and repeating that she would stand by higher court precedent.
Concerning elections, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked Desai to explain why she opposed Arizona laws banning ballot harvesting. Desai explained that she believed in her case, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, that the two Arizona laws banning out-of-precinct voting and ballot harvesting, respectively, violated the Voting Rights Act (VRA). She added that, although the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) didn’t agree with her argument, it did impose a test reviewing laws for discriminatory effects or results — guideposts that Desai pledged to follow if confirmed to the court.
Grassley then asked Desai whether she believed that Christians refusing services to same-sex couples such as wedding invitations constituted religious discrimination, citing her arguments in the case Brush & NIB Studio, LC v. City of Phoenix. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the city of Phoenix couldn’t compel businessowners to violate their religious beliefs by serving same-sex couples.
Desai didn’t answer Grassley directly, but said that she would uphold SCOTUS precedent on the matter.
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) asked Desai about her involvement in a 2016 case, John Doe, et al. v. Heritage Academy Incorporated, et al., which argued that the Heritage Academy charter schools were imposing a religious education. Desai represented the plaintiff in the case, which was ultimately instigated by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization seeking to eradicate Christian religion from the public sector. Lee asked Desai to explain the legal standard supporting her argument in her case brief, which proposed that SCOTUS precedent in Sherbert v. Verner supported that the charter schools’ teachings imposed a burden on students who didn’t share the same beliefs.
Lee countered that the SCOTUS ruling didn’t contain any of the arguments she proposed in her brief. Desai said she couldn’t recall the details of the case, but insisted she would follow SCOTUS precedent.
“It does cause me some concern because the source of authority is one you can’t identify, I believe because it doesn’t exist,” said Lee.
There were several other legal endeavors of Desai’s not addressed at length in the Senate confirmation hearing.
Desai attempted to stop the State Senate’s Cyber Ninjas-led audit on behalf of the Arizona Democratic Party. Desai also intervened to help defeat the Arizona Republican Party’s challenge to the state’s mail-in early voting system, echoing Democratic Party sentiments that issues with mail-in voting were an infringement on voter rights.
Concerning schools, Desai served as counsel for the Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA). With her help, ASBA defeated the state’s mask mandate ban last November and overturned a number of laws tied to the state budget — including a ban on Critical Race Theory in K-12 classrooms. Desai also defended a challenge to Prop 305, a ballot initiative from SOSAZ. Shortly after, Desai joined their board of directors, where she remains at present.
Desai also served as counsel for Prop 208 and authored its summary: a ballot initiative to increase teacher funding through an additional income tax. If approved, that measure would’ve rendered Arizona the tenth-highest tax rate in the nation.
Additionally, Desai authored Prop 207’s summary: the ballot initiative that legalized marijuana for adults over 21 years old. Afterwards, the National Cannabis Roundtable appointed her to their advisory board.
Desai has also worked with the likes of pro-abortion organization Planned Parenthood, open borders advocates La Raza, globalist billionaire George Soros, and Russiagate hoax and longtime DNC lawyer Marc Elias.
In the wake of the latest confirmation hearing, Republicans have issued public criticisms of Desai. Mike Davis, founder of an organization that advocates for constitutional judiciaries called Article III Project (A3P), insisted to Fox News host Laura Ingraham that Desai was a “left-wing radical” and one of the worst Biden nominees.
“She also thinks that our criminal justice system is racist. She’s going to have a hard time doing her job,” claimed Davis.
Thanks to @IngrahamAngle for having me on to discuss Roopali Desai, President Biden's 9th Circuit nominee.
She wants to abolish prisons, defund the police, mask kids, & pollute their minds with CRT.
The University of Arizona (UArizona) denied a reporter’s public records request concerning complaints received by its bias complaint system for students.
The reporter, Christian Schneider with The College Fix, submitted the records request last August. UArizona had no issue fulfilling a similar 2019 request for its bias complaint system. Overseeing the reporting system is the Bias Education & Support Team (BEST), which falls under the Dean of Students’ jurisdiction.
The Goldwater Institute, Phoenix-based public policy research and litigation organization, took up Schneider’s case. Last week, the organization requested that UArizona fulfill the records request.
UArizona Public Records Coordinator Kim Fassl claimed to Schneider that they denied his latest request based on the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) as well as Arizona court precedents upholding record denials to ensure individual privacy and the state’s best interests.
“The production of these records could cause a chilling effect among future complainants and the University,” wrote Fassl.
The previous public records coordinator that fulfilled Schneider’s 2019 request, Teri Bentson, raised none of the objections issued by Fassl. The change in perspective may have to do with the connection between Fassl and one of the six women in charge of BEST: the “Core Team.”
Prior to handling public records requests, Fassl was the associate director of residential education for student behavioral education. One of BEST’s Core Team, Nina Pereira, serves as the director of residential education, which oversees behavioral education. It appears that Fassl was Pereira’s subordinate. Neither Pereira and Fassl responded to a request for comment.
Fassl has also served as a member of the UArizona Behavioral Intervention Team (BIT). Similarly to BEST, BIT has a referral form to report concerning student behaviors.
In their letter petitioning for the fulfillment of Schneider’s request, the Goldwater Institute contended that both Arizona and federal court precedent determined redaction of identifying information was sufficient for FERPA adherence. The organization added that Schneider allowed for redactions in his initial request, too.
UArizona launched BEST in October 2020 amid the racialized protests and riots initiated by George Floyd’s death less than five months before.
BEST’s Core Team has remained the same since its launch. In addition to Pereira, there’s Veda Kowalski, assistant dean of students; Beverly Perez-Mercado, organizational development specialist within the Office of Learning & Organizational Development; Judy Marquez Kiyama, associate vice provost; Whitney Mohr, civil rights investigator within the Office of Institutional Equity; and Jane Pizzolato, director of the Office of Diversity & Inclusion.
Kiyama also serves as an equity consultant for the Ada Center and Strong Start to Finish. She’s also involved with the Culturally Responsive Curriculum Development Institute (CRCDI), which represents eight colleges. Culturally Responsive Education (CRE), also known as Culturally Responsive Teaching (CRT), is synonymous with Critical Race Theory (CRT).
Meet the faculty & advisory team involved w/the Culturally Responsive Curriculum Development Institute. Faculty from 8 different colleges are represented. They are redesigning 18 different courses, which ultimately will reach over 3000 enrolled students! @uarizonahsi@uazfacultypic.twitter.com/mzeBLE4yWc
Last Tuesday, a federal judge dismissed Governor Doug Ducey’s lawsuit against the Biden administration’s attempt to recoup COVID-19 relief funds given to mask mandate-free K-12 schools. Arizona District Court Judge Steve Logan dismissed for failure to state a claim.
Last August, Ducey applied the American Rescue Plan Act’s (ARPA) Arizona cut of the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) to two programs: a $10 million one that would cover $7,000 of tuition or other educational costs at schools without mask mandates, and a $163 million one that made only mask mandate-free schools eligible for funds.
In the Ducey v. Yellen, et al. ruling handed down last week, Logan, an Obama appointee, rejected Ducey’s claim that his application of SLFRF funds were a valid use of addressing the COVID-19 pandemic’s negative economic impacts. Logan insisted that Ducey’s reading of the statute was “too narrow” and thereby neglected its greater context. The judge opined that Ducey’s encouragement of noncompliance with public health guidance worsened, not mitigated, COVID-19’s negative economic impacts.
“In line with the explicit purpose of the SLFRF […] the statute at least carries the possibility that SLFRF funding may not be used for programs with conditions that undermine public health guidance, as such programs would exacerbate rather than mitigate the pandemic’s fiscal effects,” wrote Logan. “This proposition is axiomatic: a program that addresses fiscal effects of the pandemic but contains a condition that would promulgate the spread of the virus prolongs the pandemic and its resulting fiscal effects — thereby failing to provide mitigation of either.”
Logan did agree with Ducey’s argument that the state has authority to decide how to use its SLFRF funds. However, Logan determined that Ducey’s application ran afoul of ARPA’s restrictions. Logan rejected Ducey’s argument that the USDF was too ambiguous when describing permissible uses of SLFRF funds. Rather, the federal judge agreed that the U.S. Department of Treasury’s (USDT) enumeration of permissible usage was sufficient.
In addition to USDT Secretary Janet Yellen, the named defendants in the case were USDT Acting Inspector General Richard Delmar and the USDT itself.
Ducey first filed the lawsuit in January.
In response to an October letter from the USDT informing the governor that Arizona’s usage of SLFRF funds weren’t permissible, Ducey accused the Biden administration of government overreach.
“Here in Arizona, we trust families to make decisions that are best for our children. It’s clear that President Bident doesn’t feel the same,” wrote Ducey. “He’s focused on taking power away from American families by issuing restrictive and dictatorial mandates for his own political gain.”
Here in Arizona, we trust families to make decisions that are best for their children. It’s clear that President Biden doesn’t feel the same. He’s focused on taking power away from American families by issuing restrictive and dictatorial mandates for his own political gain. 1/ https://t.co/oeoNIzgOtq
USDT began investigating Ducey’s two programs following a mid-August request from Congressman Greg Stanton (D-AZ-09), issued hours after Ducey first announced the two programs at the heart of this case.
The governor filed an appeal to Logan’s ruling last Friday.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) psychology teacher instructed high schoolers on controversial, challenged, and, in some cases, debunked claims concerning sexual orientation. According to records obtained by AZ Free News, SUSD didn’t give the teacher permission for what she taught.
Much of what SUSD Advanced Placement (AP) psychology teacher Mackenzie Onofry taught on the subject to the Desert Mountain High School students came from Alfred Kinsey: the late Indiana University sexologist credited as the “Father of the Sexual Revolution” whose research included adults sexually violating infants and children to prove the inherent sexual nature of mankind, even in minors. Kinsey is revered in many LGBTQ+ circles, and IU established an institute in his honor.
The following includes what Onofry taught the students, according to slideshows obtained by AZ Free News: only 4 percent of men and 2 percent of women are exclusively heterosexual, sexuality is a continuum, homosexuality spans human history and is a natural part of the animal world, sexual orientation isn’t a choice and is immutable, conversion therapy doesn’t work, women have more erotic plasticity (sexual interests) than men, that homosexuality is a gene location on the X chromosome, fetal testosterone exposure causes attraction to women, and male homosexuality increases by one-third with each son born.
Dr. Miriam Grossman, the psychiatrist interviewed at length in The Daily Wire documentary “What Is a Woman,” interviewed with AZ Free News about this incident. Grossman affirmed the fact that Kinsey’s research was fraudulent and even criminal. She said Onofry’s teachings were “shameful,” especially considering that the SUSD teacher didn’t tell the full story of Kinsey.
“There’s no question here that this teacher is coming into the classroom with her own agenda of influencing the students and imposing her value system and ideas on these students. I think parents should be outraged that this is happening right under their noses,” said Grossman.
Grossman explained further that Kinsey attempted to normalize deviant sexual behaviors through his “Kinsey Scale,” which declared that human sexuality exists on a continuum but was based on research interviews that included sex crime felons and prostitutes.
“Kinsey was a social reformer. He wanted to rid society of Judeo-Christian values. He wanted an any-age, anything-goes type of sexual behaviors between people. We know that he lived that kind of lifestyle and he wanted to promote that kind of lifestyle in society,” explained Grossman. “He came up with his scale through research that was done in prisons with felons that had people who had committed sexual crimes and research with prostitutes. He took their responses to his questions about sexual behavior and he applied that to middle America. He implied that the deviant behaviors of the group that he was studying, and in which he fit by the way, applied to everybody.”
Grossman suggested that parents read the works of Dr. Judith Reisman, a researcher who dedicated her life to challenging Kinsey’s work and legacy, systematically exposing fraud in Kinsey’s work. Reisman reiterated that Onofry had a duty to teach the whole truth about Kinsey, if she were to mention him at all.
“If Kinsey should be mentioned at all in a psychology class to high schoolers, and I highly question whether that should be mentioned at all, it should only be mentioned how fraudulent his research was,” said Grossman. “What parents and schools need to be asking here is, what is motivating this teacher? Psychology is a huge field with many different areas and important things that teenagers would benefit from knowing. Clearly she’s picking and choosing these areas. I’m wondering how this is more important than other areas.”
Onofry also taught AP psychology at the Flagstaff BASIS, a prestigious charter school chain. While a graduate student, Northern Arizona University (NAU) named Onofry their Outstanding Graduate Teaching Assistant of the Year.
Onofry’s sister, Samantha Onofry, is legal counsel to Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT).
Onofry’s curriculum was only available to the public through an open records request. Access to curriculum online through SUSD requires a parental or student login.
The issue of transparent school curriculums was nearly solved this year.
The state legislature came close to requiring all K-12 schools to make their curriculum accessible to the public online — until one Republican voted with Democrats to kill the legislation. Following the initial report of the SUSD sexuality curriculum from the Arizona Daily Independent, State Senator Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix) lamented the one Republican’s vote against transparency.
Though Barto didn’t mention the representative by name, she was referring to her colleague Joel John (R-Buckeye). John has sided with Democrats on other critical bills advanced by his fellow Republicans, such as HB2656.
“The radical push continues. AZ parents won’t know if CRT and sexual grooming is even happening in their schools [without] transparency aka SB1211 which failed this year because one Republican voted with every single Dem,” tweeted Barto.
The radical push continues. AZ parents won't know if CRT and sexual grooming is even happening in their schools w/o transparency aka SB 1211 which failed this year because one Republican voted with every single Dem. Vote in the primary! @AZSenateGOP@AZHouseGOPhttps://t.co/JUaBQx9vjs
Barto’s bill, SB1211, would’ve required schools to offer curriculum online in a searchable manner, organized by subject, grade, and teacher. Any education materials concerning nondiscrimination, diversity, equity, inclusion, race, ethnicity, sex, gender, bias, action-oriented civics, service learning, or social and emotional competencies were to be published online within 72 hours of their implementation. All other materials were required to be published within the week of their implementation. All materials would remain accessible on the school’s website for at least two years.
In explanation of his “no” vote in April, John argued that the bill was too burdensome for teachers. He said that, as a former teacher, the curriculum posting would burden an already “low-paying, thankless job.”
“I think this bill frankly goes too far and puts too many extra burdens [on teachers], as some of our colleagues have already pointed out,” stated John.
In his argument, John echoed a talking point among Democrats: that SB1211 was an “unfunded mandate” by the state.
Barto issued her condemnation in response to the testimony of Rhode Island parent Nicole Solas, who was sued by the nation’s largest teachers union for filing public records requests.
In the committee hearings preceding SB1211’s failure in April, Democrats stated that parents dissatisfied with their school’s transparency should just transfer. They made the argument as part of an indirect insult to the state’s school choice system.
Teachers on the popular podcast, “Teachers Off Duty,” argued that it was “against best practice” to require them to publish their curriculum in advance of the school year. One of the teachers, Bri Richardson, said that she couldn’t adhere to such a requirement because she didn’t know what she’d be teaching. The other three podcaster-teachers concurred with her.
“Is that a joke? Bro, I don’t know what I’m teaching,” said Richardson.
SB1211 earned the approval of Governor Doug Ducey’s office, who celebrated the bill’s progression out of the Senate in March.
ON TO THE HOUSE: #SB1211 passed the Senate today, which would require curriculum and academic materials be put online for parents and families to know what’s being taught in their children’s school.
