The Senate Health and Human Services Committee received a welcome surprise from 10-year-old Adam Fraleigh, when the little boy with Down syndrome thanked them for hearing his family’s testimony by hugging each senator present.
Adam’s father, John Fraleigh, brought Adam to address a bill that would include Down syndrome among the developmental disabilities recognized by the Department of Economic Security (DES) for its programs, services, and facilities. The pair matched in their attire: gray vests, light purple dress shirts, and purple ties.
Fraleigh gave a brief medical explanation of what makes Down syndrome a developmental disability. He cited the many medical procedures Adam has undergone in his 10 short years, and the likely many more ahead for the rest of his life.
“Requiring paperwork to consistently prove the effects of Down syndrome is wrong. Please pass this bill to demonstrate the understanding that Down syndrome is a disability, a cognitive disability,” said Fraleigh. “My son will require additional resources forever. With that, I’m open for questions, he’s open for hugs.”
Adam rushed over after his father’s testimony to hug each committee member, pulling them close and patting everyone vigorously on the back. He brought a welcome break from a long, packed legislative season, inspiring smiles and laughter from all in the room.
State Senator Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix) thanked Fraleigh for bringing Adam, noting that he brightened their day.
“Thank you; he brightens my day every day,” responded Fraleigh.
The bill passed the House unanimously last month.
Currently, the list of developmental disabilities under DES doesn’t include Down syndrome, but does include autism, cerebral palsy, intellectual disability diagnosis, epilepsy, or diagnosed as at-risk for developing these disabilities.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) announced earlier this month that it would consider the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), federal law that determines when states can rescue abused or neglected Indian children, as well as foster rules. This law applies to tribal children and those eligible to live on a tribe but living off of a reservation. Essentially, ICWA does all it can to keep Native American children within their own families or with other Native Americans, and requires state officials to apply a higher degree of scrutiny over abuse to determine whether abuse exists. While other children’s cases need only present “clear and convincing evidence” of abuse, Native American children’s cases would need to present “without a reasonable doubt.” ICWA was enacted to prevent the government from taking Native American children from their families.
Phoenix’s nationally-acclaimed public policy research and litigation organization, the Goldwater Institute, requested SCOTUS to review ICWA; they’ve challenged the federal law for years. In light of the SCOTUS announcement, Goldwater Institute Vice President of Litigation Timothy Sandefur discussed ICWA on the “Andy Caldwell Show.”
Sandefur described the law as unconstitutional and depriving children of fair treatment. He noted that Native American children are at greater risk for molestation, abuse, gang membership, and suicide, arguing that already-vulnerable children were only hurt more by ICWA.
“The rules that [ICWA] sets for child protection are actually less protective for a child than the laws that apply for every other racial group,” said Sandefur.
TUNE IN today at 4:30 PM MT/6:30 ET!
Goldwater's @TimothySandefur will be on the @ACaldwell_Show to analyze SCOTUS' decision to hear a challenge of the unconstitutional federal law that discriminates against Native American kids.
— Goldwater Institute (@GoldwaterInst) March 1, 2022
The case SCOTUS will consider, Brackeen v. Haaland, comes from a culmination of different cases brought by several parents desiring to adopt Native American children but were denied due to not being Native American themselves.
Sandefur described one case that the Goldwater Institute worked on, in which a mother wanted to terminate the rights of her abusive husband so that her new husband could legally adopt her son. If the child had been any other race, the rights could’ve been terminated. However, ICWA applied. Under ICWA, it was “prohibitively difficult” to terminate an abusive parent’s right, even in the case of a mother requesting that action.
In a press release, Sandefur also noted that ICWA also violates the separation of the federal and state governments by requiring states to enforce federal law and interpret their own laws differently.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A bill to tighten up mail-in voting, SB1260, passed the House Government and Elections Committee along a party-line vote on Wednesday, 7-6.
SB1260, introduced by State Senator J.D. Mesnard (R-Chandler), would make it a class 5 felony for someone to knowingly help another to vote who’s registered in another state. If made law, people would be required to write “not at this address” on an early ballot sent to their home but not addressed to them. There’s no penalty for not writing the phrase on the ballot. In return, county recorders would have to cancel that individual’s registration and remove their name from the Active Early Voting List (AEVL).
Mesnard explained during the committee hearing that Arizona law doesn’t currently have standards for handling those who’ve moved, such as duplicate registrations.
Minority Leader Reginald Bolding (D-Laveen) inquired how a prosecutor would determine that an individual knew they were helping another vote fraudulently, giving an example of a parent forwarding an absentee ballot to their college student who’d established residency and registered to vote in another state. Mesnard admitted that determining that someone “knowingly” facilitated fraudulent voting was difficult to prove, emphasizing that the burden to prove that would fall on the prosecutor.
“I don’t think it should be someone caught up in an innocent mistake,” said Mesnard.
State Representative Kevin Payne (R-Peoria) pointed out that the college student given in Bolding’s example would have to vote on the ballot for the parent’s mistake to be made apparent, and that the college student would be knowingly submitting a fraudulent vote.
State Representative Sarah Liguori (D-Phoenix) asked whether this was a real issue that occurred. Mesnard confirmed that he’d received reports of people submitting ballots to others registered in other counties.
“What does the statute say? Is the statute silent on it or does it address that? And it was silent on the issue,” said Mesnard.
Constituents in favor of the bill included Arizona Free Enterprise Club Deputy Director Greg Blackie, agreeing with Mesnard that current statute doesn’t address this problem that mailed ballots present.
Bolding claimed that counties already have a mechanism in place to address ballots sent to the wrong address, and he argued that the ignorant might be punished for unintentionally committing a crime.
“If they are somehow convicted by a rogue prosecutor, whether they’re at the local level or state level who’s looking to make a political point or score points,” said Bolding. “In this political environment right now, I think we need to be judicious in the laws that we’re making. We need to make sure we’re taking the politics out of it, especially when it comes to the electoral process.”
Liguori concurred with Bolding’s assessment, arguing that the legislation addressed a nonexistent problem.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The city of Tucson will require proof of vaccination for individuals wishing to serve as election workers for the upcoming special election in May. According to emails obtained by AZ Free News, individuals are required to bring their COVID-19 vaccination cards along with their social security cards and contact information if they would like to be a paid election worker.
Multiple studies on the demographics of the vaccinated show that the majority of vaccinated individuals self-identify as Democrats. As of press time, the FDA has authorized three booster shot brands for the COVID-19 vaccine: Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen-Johnson & Johnson. According to Johns Hopkins Medicine, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines’ protection wanes after five months, while the Johnson & Johnson version wanes after two months.
In less than a year after the FDA initially approved the first emergency use authorization (EUA) for the COVID-19 vaccine, some have received as many as three additional boosters on top of their initial shot. On Tuesday, Pfizer-BioNTech petitioned the FDA to approve a fourth booster. Full FDA approval of one of the vaccine brands, Pfizer-BioNTech, came at the end of August — about seven months ago.
The May 22 special election will have voters determine whether to approve Proposition 411, introduced by Mayor Regina Romero and the city council, to authorize a 10-year extension of a half-cent sales tax for travel infrastructure.
AZ Free News reached out to the city of Tucson for comment, and to ask whether they would grant exemptions to individuals who can’t get the COVID-19 vaccine. They didn’t respond by press time.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Arizona chapter of the ACLU spoke out against a bill to ban hazing, HB2322, during its consideration in the Senate Education Committee on Tuesday. ACLU campaign strategist K.M. Bell said that the ACLU was against the bill because they believe it criminalizes “light hazing.”
HB2322 would make hazing a class 1 misdemeanor, and a class 4 felony for hazing that results in death. The bill sponsor, State Representative John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills), explained to the Senate Education Committee that the bill wouldn’t prevent “light hazing,” which the 71-year-old representative compared to his own experience as a new Boy Scout asked to stand with other new scouts at a certain spot in the woods on their first camping trip while the older boys caught “snipes,” which Kavanagh recalled he found humorous upon finding out no such creature existed. Kavanagh drew a distinction between that and dangerous hazing — that which results in injury or death — citing an Arizona State University (ASU) student made to drink a large amount of liquor in a short amount of time.
“There is light hazing, and there is dangerous hazing. This bill does nothing to prevent light hazing. I think light hazing has a sociological purpose. You’ve all probably been exposed to it as some point in your lives,” said Kavanagh. “That’s just part of life: it’s whimsical, it’s harmless, it forms some kind of sort of sociological, organizational bonding, so everyone’s good with that.”
Kavanagh noted that he’d received no pushback on the bill from any fraternities, sororities, colleges, or universities. The only contention came from the ACLU.
One issue the ACLU took with the bill specifically was that they believed the term “calisthenics” was too broad. Bell argued that there should be some nuance to differentiate harmful versus harmless calisthenics. She said that it would criminalize people who made others do jumping jacks in order to join the high school chess club. Bell added that language addressing hazing that results in embarrassment wasn’t suited for criminal law. She argued that other laws addressing crimes like reckless endangerment could better cover hazing crimes.
“That is why our suggestion was that the calisthenics and things like that that aren’t necessarily harmful only be criminalized in situations where they could potentially cause serious injury,” said Bell. “That would address those situations where somebody is forced to do 10,000 jumping jacks versus five. Obviously those are very different situations.”
Further, Bell argued conspiracy law is so broad that someone in the room could report another for intent to haze. Majority Leader Rick Gray (R-Peoria) questioned whether people would report someone for entertaining an idea or vocalizing a whim of hazing.
“I would just be shocked if someone were to take a situation like that and try to prosecute,” said Gray.
A spokesperson of one victim of hazing spoke out. Alex Morris, an attorney at Beus Gilbert McGroder, discussed the 2012 death of Jack Culolias during a party hosted by Arizona State University’s (ASU) Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) chapter, of which he was a member. Morris alleged that Culolias drowned due to hazing that resulted in his intoxication, and read a statement from Culolias’ mother, Grace.
“Over the years, so much harm has been done to young people because of hazing. Students pass along the traditions. What one student can endure the other person cannot do,” said Culolias’ mother. “Kids are administering pain to other kids. It keeps happening. Something has to change. The way it will change is at the individual level. The students who haze have to be penalized and it has to be on their record. This will make people aware and conscious. No other parent should go through what I went through.”
Culolias’ death, along with the incident five months later of a 20-year-old member dumped in front of an emergency room with a blood alcohol level at five times the legal limit, earned the ASU SAE the number-one ranking on the Rolling Stone report of most “Most Out-of-Control Fraternities in America.” University of Arizona (UArizona) also made the list with its lengthy record of hazing and alcohol-related hospitalizations at its Pi Kappa Phi chapter.
State Press reported that Culolias’ lifelong best friend, Dante Jaramillo, believed SAE members pushed Culolias to his limits and, ultimately, his death. Culolias reportedly chose ASU because his father died from lung cancer earlier that summer, and he wanted a party school where he could leave his worries behind.
“Like the pastor at his memorial said, he died trying to fit in,” said Jaramillo. “And it kills me to think that was what led to his demise.”
Only one senator voted against the bill: State Senator Sally Ann Gonzales (D-Tucson). She explained that she was concerned the legislation language would “hurt” people, though she didn’t expand on what she meant by that.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
