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.
Both Arizona Senators voted down an amendment to prohibit discrimination against Asian Americans in higher education.
The amendment was introduced by U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and John Kennedy (R-LA) under Senate bill 937, the “COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act.”
Specifically, the amendment would prohibit federal funding for any college or university that discriminates against Asian-Americans during recruitment, applicant review, or admissions. The act itself seeks to prosecute hate crimes against Asians motivated by COVID-19. It proposes to implement an online hate crime reporting database and expand “culturally competent” education campaigns.
A study on universities and colleges from the 1990s to 2015 found that those who banned affirmative action programs saw their numbers of Black, Hispanic, and Native American minorities decline significantly. The findings implied that race heavily impacted admissions.
On the U.S. Senate floor, Cruz asserted that universities are actively discriminating against Asian Americans currently. He explained that the DOJ’s decision to drop the lawsuit against Yale University for discrimination against Asian Americans spurred this amendment.
“[T]his amendment is straightforward. It targets the ongoing discrimination that is being directed against Asian Americans by colleges and universities across the country, including preeminent institutions such as Yale and Harvard, which are denying admission to qualified Asian-American applicants in favor of underrepresented minority groups,” said Cruz. “The U.S. Department of Justice was suing Yale for its discrimination against Asian Americans until the Biden Administration dismissed that lawsuit.”
In follow-up remarks, Kennedy concurred with Cruz’s assessment. He said this was one baby step in the right direction, but that Congress needs to go further.
“Now, I know [these major universities] think they know how to discriminate in the right way, but discrimination is discrimination,” asserted Kennedy. “At one of these universities in 2013, Harvard admitted that if it admitted Asian Americans purely on the basis of academic achievement, it would have doubled the number of Asian Americans. Now, this is wrong; it is contemptible, it is odious.”
In opposition to the amendment, the sponsor of the bill – Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) – claimed that federal law already prohibits discrimination. She said that turning away Asian American applicants based on the number of Asian American students already at an institution of higher education was a longstanding, integral component of diversity initiatives within admissions policies.
“This amendment is a transparent and cynical attack on longstanding admission policies that serve to increase diversity and provide opportunity to students of color in our institutions of higher learning,” said Hirono. “This amendment also threatens colleges and universities with the loss of federal funding for pursuing or using policies that our courts have upheld repeatedly.”
The amendment to the bill failed, with 49 yeas and 48 yeas – 11 under the required minimum of 60 yeas for adoption.
Both Kelly and Sinema are in support of the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act as a whole.
Kelly condemned the surge in hate crimes against Asian Americans, or Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI), in February.
“As folks virtually gather to celebrate the #ChineseNewYear, let’s remember that, for some, this joyous celebration for Chinese Americans is being marred by the rise in hate crimes against our AAPI communities. We can’t let it go unanswered,” wrote Kelly.
As folks virtually gather to celebrate the #ChineseNewYear, let’s remember that, for some, this joyous celebration for Chinese Americans is being marred by the rise in hate crimes against our AAPI communities. We can’t let it go unanswered.https://t.co/HOjk9PNzHj
Sinema hasn’t addressed the Asian hate crimes on her accounts.
The COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act passed the Senate earlier this week. It now heads to the House for consideration.
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 Supreme Court convened on Tuesday to hear arguements in the case, Karen Fann, et al v State of Arizona, et al. In making their decision, the court will consider two main questions:
Can Proposition 208 a statutory initiative, exempt itself from the expenditure limitations for school districts imposed by article IX, section 21 of the Arizona Constitution, and, if it cannot, would rational voters have adopted the Proposition’s tax knowing that its revenues could not be spent?
Can the Proposition impose a new tax without a supermajority vote of both houses of the legislature, as required by article IX, section 22 of the Arizona Constitution?
Prop 208 was a statutory initiative that sought to become a constitutional amendment. The voter referendum proposed a new income tax of 3.5% on anyone who makes over $250,000 individually or anyone making $500,000 jointly in order to fund public education. The referendum passed on Election Day last year.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Dominic Draye with Greenberg Traurig asserted that the proposition has problems squaring up with the Arizona Constitution. Specifically, regarding its proposed spending patterns.
“It’s attempted to declare itself exempt from a portion of the constitution fails out of the gate. So its backers turn to the grant gift exemption,” stated Dray.
Attorney for the state Andy Gaona argued that the bill didn’t have problematic spending patterns. He said that the intent of Prop 208’s drafters was to provide “a permanent, dedicated funding source” for schools. Additionally, Gaona likened Prop 208 to other state funding.
“[It’s not unconstitutional in] the same way that there’s nothing inherently unconstitutional about state aid and state appropriations that may go towards the expenditure cap, that may ultimately cause the expenditure cap to be exceeded,” said Gaona. “In the same way there was nothing inherently unconstitutional about the fact that Prop 208 spending in a particular year may cause the expenditure cap to be exceeded. The truth is that, if there’s a conclusion that not only does the grant exception not apply [… then] there’s a process that’s in place already, and has been in place for years, that dictates how the expenditure cap will be dealt with.”
On behalf of the state, a spokesperson for the Arizona Department of Revenue explained to the judges that the anti-injunction act hasn’t ever been used in the contest of a personal income tax.
“Our research hasn’t revealed that the anti-injunction act hasn’t applied directly to a personal income tax issue, nor has there been any sort of ruling that the statute has been ineligible for application,” stated Bergen. “There is a bit of vacuum there. All instances of the law that we’ve seen have been applied to the context of property taxes.”
In closing, Draye reiterated that Prop 208 would be unconstitutional – partly for the expenditure limits outlined in the Arizona Constitution, but mainly for the reason that it imposes a new tax without legislative approval.
“The offending act is not the expenditure of funds in violation of the cap – I want to be clear about that. The thing that’s unconstitutional about this statute – well there are two things – there’s a section 22 part we haven’t talked about, which I think is fairly straightforward,” stated Draye. “The problem there is [that] a portion of the Arizona Constitution doesn’t apply to Prop 208. That has happened already – that is not true and will never be true.”
Draye said that Prop 208 invited taxes to be created by mob rule in the state.
“This is not a case where you have the legislature versus the people, or something like that. This is the people acting in their capacity as amenders of the Constitution to bind themselves so that bare majorities can’t grow the size of government and impose new taxes,” added Draye.
Immediately following the election, private citizens requested a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to stop the tax. Groups including the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Goldwater Institute joined the suit.
The court promised to issue its ruling at a later date.
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.
Representative Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04) claims that the media fabricated his involvement in an “America First Caucus.” A document purportedly linked to the proposed caucus was released over the weekend, causing controversy over certain aspects of its outlined objectives.
One of those objectives was to uphold and preserve Anglo-Saxon political traditions.
Gosar issued a press release afterward clarifying that he didn’t author the document, but would continue to work on “America First” issues within an already-existent caucus, the House Freedom Caucus:
The liberal media have recklessly claimed I am the author of a document. Let me be perfectly clear, I did not author this paper. In fact, I first became aware of it by reading about it in the news yesterday, like everyone else. Imagine my surprise to read I ‘wrote it.’ I will continue to work on America First issues in the House Freedom Caucus. Once again, I am the subject of a false media story. I will not let the lying media deter me from the America First work I have been championing for years in the House Freedom Caucus and with President Trump.
Gosar’s Chief of Staff, Tom Van Flein denied to reporters that Gosar ever attempted to form a new caucus. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA-14) was also identified as a chief leader in creating the America First Caucus.
The claims that Gosar and Greene were leading this caucus came from Punchbowl News, a newer political news site launched earlier this year by longtime Politico reporters. They published a document purportedly from representatives putting together the America First Caucus.
“A new American First Caucus – led by @mtgreenee and @RepGosar – is recruiting people to join based on ‘Anglo-Saxon political traditions’ architectural style that ‘befits the progeny of European architecture[,]’” wrote Punchbowl News. “Some of the most nativist stuff we’ve seen.”
A new America First Caucus — led by @mtgreenee and @RepGosar — is recruiting people to join based on “Anglo-Saxon political traditions” architectural style that “befits the progeny of European architecture”
Critics immediately likened the aspects of the document referencing Anglo-Saxon traditions with white nationalism and racism.
It is unclear how Punchbowl News obtained the document.
Following the backlash over the document outlining the caucus focuses, Greene abandoned efforts to pull it together. She stated that the document was a draft proposal by another group, which she hadn’t read prior to Punchbowl News publishing it.
“On Friday, sick and evil POS in the media attacked me with phrases I never said or wrote. They released a staff level draft proposal from an outside group that I hadn’t read,” wrote Greene. “The scum and liars in the media are calling me a racist by taking something out of context.”
On Friday, sick and evil POS in the media attacked me with phrases I never said or wrote.
They released a staff level draft proposal from an outside group that I hadn’t read.
The scum and liars in the media are calling me a racist by taking something out of context.
Like Gosar, Greene claimed that media outlets had fabricated details of her knowledge of the caucus.
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 legislature has voted to allow schools to feed teachers during school events – but only if they use Arizona Department of Education (ADE) nutritional guidelines. That means that teacher meals will be constrained to the five food group components of meat/meat based alternatives, grains, vegetables, fruit, and fluid milk.
One of the nutritional standards is zero grams of trans fat. That would nix out fried foods, like doughnuts, and certain baked goods like biscuits or crackers. Further, there are limits on the types of desserts made available. Any grain-based desserts can only be offered at a rate of 2.0 oz/eq of grain a week.
More leeway exists with the USDA guidelines for “Smart Snacks” – those food or drink items sold elsewhere, like through vending machines. It is unclear if the bill will allow schools to provide meals to teachers with foods or drinks that would qualify as “smart snack” items – such as candy or sodas. The “smart snacks” are technically considered “competitive” foods to meals provided through the school.
No analysis of the estimated fiscal impact accompanied the bill.
The Senate passed the bill enabling school boards to provide food and drinks during district events on Tuesday. The bill also clarified that boards acting under this legal authority would be subject to the Arizona Gift Clause.
State Representative Daniel Hernandez (D-Tucson) is the sponsor on the bill. The House Education Committee recommended the bill for passage quickly.
“Statutes don’t explicitly allow school districts to be able to provide food for teacher trainings, board meetings, [etcetera,]” explained Hernandez, in brief.
No further questions were asked of the bill.
Only six House members voted against the bill, all Republican. State Representatives Walter Blackman (R-Snowflake), John Fillmore (R-Apache Junction), Gail Griffin (R-Hereford), Jacqueline Parker (R-Mesa), Judy Burges (R-Prescott), Travis Grantham (R-Gilbert), Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek), Bret Roberts (R-Maricopa), and Joseph Chaplik (R-Scottsdale) voted no.
An amendment to the bill, introduced by Hernandez in February, deleted the provision that would’ve enabled school boards to provide food and drinks via a cafe open to the public. Another amendment to the bill was what added the stipulation that these food and drink provisions would be subject to the Arizona Gift Clause, added by the Senate Education Committee.
The Senate passed along the bill quickly without discussion. Six senators voted against the bill, all Republicans again – State Senators Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix), David Livingston (R-Peoria), Kelly Townsend (R-Mesa), Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-Scottsdale), Sine Kerr (R-Buckeye), and Warren Petersen (R-Gilbert).
The bill will now head to the governor’s desk for approval.
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.
