Independent voters are now the largest voting group in Arizona, toppling the Republican Party for the first time in years.
Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ office advised ABC 15 of this change earlier this month, pending the upcoming publication of their quarterly voter registration report. Independent voters last outranked both the Republican and Democratic parties in 2016.
The most current data available on the secretary of state’s website, from April, registered over 1.43 million independent voters.
In two months, that number grew to surpass the leading number of Republican voters at the time, which was just over 1.44 million. Democratic voters totaled over 1.26 million. The “No Labels” party at the time had 17 voters total; the secretary of state’s office also disclosed that the party had grown to around 6,000.
Libertarian voters registered at over 33,300 in April.
Last year, the number of registered independent voters decreased from over 1.44 million in April to just over 1.4 million in the general election. Republican voters decreased from over 1.47 million to over 1.43 million; Democratic voters decreased from 1.33 million to 1.27 million.
At the time of the 2020 election, which had more registered voters than in April, there were over 1.35 million independent voters. Republicans had over 1.5 million registered voters, while Democrats had over 1.37 million.
The 2016 general election — which had over 815,600 less voters registered than the most recent registration counts — had over 1.21 million independent voters compared to over 1.23 million Republican voters and just over 1 million Democratic voters. Although the number of registered independent voters increased from May to November 2016, there were more to register as Republican during the same time frame.
The 2016 general election broke a two-year streak in which more voters registered as independents than anything else. Midway through former President Barack Obama’s second term, more registered as independents than Republicans. There were around 900,000 less registered voters at the time.
Ahead of last year’s midterm election, some candidates sought to appeal to the growing base of independents.
In this century, independents first outranked Democrats after the 2010 midterm election. In July 2011, registered independent voters (over 1 million) surpassed registered Democratic voters (over 999,000).
Independent voters have maintained that lead on Democratic voters since then — 12 years.
The shift in 2011 also marked the first session in which Republicans enjoyed their largest majority in the state legislature since 1981: 21 Republicans to 9 Democrats in the Senate, and 40 Republicans to 20 Democrats in the House. Since then, the majority has dwindled. This session, there’s a slim majority: 15 Republicans to 14 Democrats in the Senate, and 31 Republicans to 29 Democrats in the House.
Independent voters may vote in all primaries except presidential.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Former Gov. Doug Ducey enacted the birth control deregulation that took effect earlier this month, but Gov. Katie Hobbs is taking the credit.
In a press release, Hobbs framed the deregulation as timely on her part considering that “extremists across the country” have been threatening access to contraceptives.
“Reproductive freedom is critical to the individuals and families working hard to create a life for themselves in Arizona,” said Hobbs. “We are building an Arizona for everyone, which means ensuring people across the state have what they need to live a free and healthy life. I will never stop fighting to protect freedoms for Arizonans and standing up to the extremists who threaten access to the basic healthcare our families rely on.”
However, Ducey signed the deregulation into law through SB1082 in 2021. Former State Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, a Republican, introduced the legislation.
Considering the highly politically divided environment we live in and grappling with controversial topics like contraceptives, abortion and prescription authority it was no small feat getting this bill passed and signed into law and doing it with broad bipartisan support to boot.… https://t.co/3DkwlLY3Zr
— Michelle Ugenti Rita (@MichelleUgenti) July 1, 2023
It took several years for Arizona’s regulatory agencies to secure final approval for the deregulation, mainly due to delay on the part of the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy (ASBP). SB1082 directed the Arizona State Board of Pharmacy (ASBP) to work with the Arizona Department of Health Services (AZDHS) to adopt procedural rules for pharmacies to distribute the contraceptives.
During ASBP’s final discussion of rulemaking on the deregulation last month, ASBP Executive Director Kam Gandhi explained that they prioritized other issues.
“We’re just now getting to it, but obviously over the last two, three years, we’ve had other challenges and that was more pressing than hormonal contraceptives,” said Gandhi.
The Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) issued the final approval.
Under the deregulation, Arizonans over 18 years old no longer need to secure a prescription in order to buy hormonal birth control or contraceptives. Instead, those seeking the contraceptives will need to receive a blood pressure test and annual screening at the pharmacy. Pharmacists retain the right to refuse to dispense contraceptives if they believe the drug would pose a harm to the patient, or if contraceptives violate their religious or moral beliefs.
Pharmacists are also required to tell the patient when and how to use the contraceptive, the risks associated with the contraceptive, and when to seek medical assistance while taking the contraceptive.
As part of the deregulation, ASBP expanded pharmacists’ continuing education requirements to mandate three hours minimum on hormonal contraceptives prior to receiving a license renewal every two years.
The ASBP discussed implementing the legislation during a Task Force Rule Writing Work Group meeting last September that included Lisa Villarroel with AZDHS and Laura Mercer with the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
In drafting the procedural rules, ASBP relied on precedent established by the 21 other states that allow pharmacists to distribute birth control without a prescription. Those states are Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Hawai’i, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia (in their documentation, ASBP recognized the District of Columbia as a state, which made their total 22 states).
The ASBP task force again discussed the rulemaking for the deregulation in February, followed by public comment on the proposed procedural rules in May, and final approval last month.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The special advisor to the president for Arizona State University (ASU) said that universities can achieve their diversity goals despite the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling against affirmative action last month.
The special advisor, Jeffrey Selingo, said in an interview with KJZZ last week that the SCOTUS ruling meant that universities would have to get creative with achieving diversity in admissions.
“Now the question is how to achieve that [diversity], and during the admissions process previous to this decision, they could use race as a factor — so there was a little thumb on the scale, per say,” said Selingo. “But now they won’t be able to do that. So now they’re going to have to look at other parts of the process that they still have control over where, maybe, race doesn’t come into being, but where they could control the ultimate outcome.”
Selingo then clarified that this process would likely involve manipulating the applicant pool to yield better diversity picks. He gave one example as universities partnering with high schools in minority communities.
“If you focus on and target schools in certain areas and certain communities, you’re more likely to have students of color applying,” said Selingo.
Selingo added that the COVID-19 pandemic practice of waiving of standardized testing — namely the SAT and ACT — during the admissions process enhanced diversity quotas. He predicted that universities wouldn’t require these tests in the future for that reason. ASU, along with UArizona and NAU, were among those universities that ceased requiring the ACT and SAT for admission.
“Many of [the universities] saw much more diverse applicant pools as a result. So it’s very unlikely that schools will go back to requiring the tests as a result,” said Selingo.
The avoidance of test scores as a factor would also mean that aggrieved individuals would have a harder time proving discrimination.
“Without test scores now, it’s going to be more difficult for plaintiffs to prove discrimination. They’ve used test scores in the past cases because they could say, ‘You denied somebody with a 1550 [SAT score] and accepted someone with a 1200,” said Selingo. “I’m not saying colleges won’t comply with the law, but there’s a lot of ambiguity, let’s say, in the admissions process, and I don’t think this is going to make it any clearer.”
As special advisor for innovation, Selingo works directly with President Michael Crow on new product design and initiatives in online education, lifelong learning, and partnerships with private companies and universities.
Selingo’s confidence that universities can achieve diversity in admissions despite the SCOTUS ruling contradicted his prediction in his 2020 bestseller “Who Gets In & Why: A Year Inside College Admissions,” in which he expressed the belief that a SCOTUS decision striking down affirmative action would hinder holistic admissions and require greater transparency.
“Giving students the opportunity to learn from peers is a major benefit of a college education, one that will be even more important to students once they graduate and enter a diverse workforce. That’s why Fortune 500 CEOs largely back race-conscious admissions policies as an economic necessity,” wrote Selingo. “Any future court decision that strikes down affirmative action could also put limits on holistic admissions. That likely would force schools, for the first time in more than a century, to move to a more transparent set of academic measures in admitting students.”
At the time, Selingo did note that universities precluded from using race in admissions, citing the University of Washington specifically, rely on holistic “personal score” factors to ensure diversity, like socioeconomic status, hardships, income, and whether or not the applicant is the first in their family to attend college.
Selingo cited the research presented in “The Chosen” by Jerome Kabel, which revealed how colleges first developed holistic admissions as a means of countering academic merit and thereby limiting the admission of Jewish students.
Although Selingo is based out of Washington, D.C, he’s also a professor of practice and leads ASU’s Academy for Innovative Higher Education Leadership, a partnership with Georgetown University. Selingo is also a contributor to The Atlantic and co-host to the podcast “FutureU.”
In response to the SCOTUS ruling, the Arizona Board of Regents said in a statement from its chair, Lyndel Manson, that they didn’t believe Arizona universities’ admissions would be impacted.
“The admission standards set by the Arizona Board of Regents for Arizona’s public universities are based solely on academic performance,” said Manson. “The board is proud that each of Arizona’s public universities are Hispanic Serving Institutions and student enrollment continues to grow in diversity. We are reviewing the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court but do not anticipate any impact at our universities.”
ASU said that the decision wouldn’t impact the diversity of its student body or its commitment to having its student body reflect the population of the state.
“Because ASU admits all students who meet the university’s admission requirements and does not artificially cap enrollment for students from Arizona, ASU will continue to have one of the most diverse student bodies in the country,” said ASU.
In 2010, Arizona voters approved the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, or Prop 107, which prohibited discrimination and preferential treatment based on race, sex, and skin color.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The town of Gilbert is offering up to $800 to residents and up to $3,000 to non-residential customers who swap their lawns for desert landscaping that uses less water.
The financial incentive in the Grass Removal Rebate programs isn’t cash: it’s applied as credit on the recipient’s water bills, and may take up to two bill cycles to appear. A Gilbert spokesperson told AZ Free News that they have a total of $120,000 per year to issue on their rebate programs, and that the allocated funding within that budget may change from year to year based on the popularity of each program.
Those who don’t qualify include those who have removed or are currently removing their lawns, those living in non-single family residential properties, and those with grass areas watered by flood or well water.
The grass must also be healthy and growing at 50 percent density, as well as routinely and permanently irrigated by a landscape irrigation system.
Gilbert residents may now be eligible to receive up to $800 for replacing their lawns with low-water-use landscaping.
The rebate requires an inspection of the resident’s grass landscape. The amount received by residents for the lawn removal also depends on the lawn’s size. On the low end, properties with 200 to 399 square feet of grass are worth $100; on the high end, those with over 1,000 square feet of grass are worth $500.
The additional $300 from the town comes as a reward for planting new shade trees or low water-use plants. Residents with a rebate area with at least 50 percent low-water-use or drought-tolerate plant coverage may receive an additional $200. Residents may also receive up to a $100 rebate for planting two trees from the Arizona Department of Water Resources’ Low-Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List.
As for non-residential customers, like HOAs and businesses, grass removal comes at $1 per square footage of grass, with a $3,000 cap.
Anyone who receives $600 or more in water bill credits must complete a W9 for the Gilbert Water Conservation, as per the Biden administration IRS reporting requirement enacted last year.
Those aren’t the only water conservation financial incentives that Gilbert has offered. The town introduced rebates up to $250 for residential, $400 for non-residential properties to install smart irrigation controllers.
Another municipality, Tucson, opted for involuntary compliance with water conservation. Last month, the city of Tucson prohibited new builds from installing lawns and reduced their water flow; in May, they increased water rates by reclassifying several winter months — billed at a lower rate — into summer months. The city of Phoenix cut water allowance, as well as raised its water usage fees.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Tuesday, a joint committee of the Arizona legislature launched an investigation into allegations of censorship at Arizona State University (ASU). Lawmakers issued a 60-day deadline to conduct the investigation.
The directive arose from the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Freedom of Expression at Arizona’s Public Universities hearing concerning the T.W. Lewis Center, shuttered this year after the revocation of $400,000 in annual funding from its namesake, Tom Lewis, who cited “left-wing hostility and activism” as his reason for defunding the program.
Lewis’ contention arose from the efforts of 37 Barrett Honors College faculty members, who launched a coordinated campaign to prevent an event featuring prominent conservative speakers Dennis Prager and Charlie Kirk. Prager testified at Tuesday’s hearing; he also published an opinion piece on the event ahead of the hearing.
.@DennisPrager says Arizona State University Barrett Honors College faculty are intellectual & moral lightweights: "They fear any conservative coming for 90 minutes, because in 90 minutes I can undo the 4 years of the indoctrination that these leftists give their students." pic.twitter.com/tmXn56rFih
State Sens. Anthony Kern, co-chair (R-LD27), Frank Carroll (R-LD28), Sally Ann Gonzales (D-LD20), Christine Marsh (D-LD04), and J.D. Mesnard (R-LD13) served on the committee, as did State Reps. Quang Nguyen (R-LD01), Lorena Austin (D-LD09), Analise Ortiz (D-LD24), Beverly Pingerelli (R-LD28), and Austin Smith (R-LD29). Kern and Nguyen served as co-chairs.
“This is to get to the bottom of a state-funded university that is not meeting its obligation to freedom of expression and freedom of speech,” said Kern.
The center relied on an annual budget of around $1 million; ASU representatives explained that the center would live on through the classes taught, though the actual center itself and the executive director at its helm, Ann Atkinson, would be gone.
ASU Vice President of Legal Affairs Kim Demarchi explained that Lewis’ funding provided for career development and education. Demarchi testified that ASU considered what programs it could continue without Lewis’ funding, and declared that they could only sustain the faculty without Lewis’ funding. Demarchi also shared that the Barrett Honors faculty weren’t punished in any way for the letter or allegations of intimidation.
“It is possible it [their letter] has a chilling effect,” said Demarchi.
However, Demarchi clarified that a professor would have to explicitly threaten a student’s grade in order to be in violation of university policy.
Atkinson went public with the closure of the Lewis Center last month. (See the response from ASU). She toldAZ Free News that the university turned down alternative funding sources that would make up for the loss of Lewis’ funding necessary to keep the Lewis Center running.
Nguyen opened up the hearing by recounting his survival of Vietnam’s communist regime as a child, and comparing that regime’s hostility to free speech to the actions of Barrett Honors College faculty.
“My understanding is that there is an effort to prevent conservative voices from being heard,” said Nguyen. “I crossed 12,000 miles to look for freedom, to seek freedom.”
Nguyen expressed disappointment that none of the 37 faculty members that signed onto the letter showed up to testify in the hearing. He said if he accused someone, he would show up to testify.
Democratic members of the committee contended that the event occurred and therefore censorship hadn’t taken place. Kern said the occurrence of the event doesn’t resolve whether freedom of speech was truly permitted, citing the closure of the Lewis Center.
ASU Executive Vice Provost Pat Kenney emphasized the importance of freedom of expression as critical to a free nation. Nguyen asked whether Kenney read the Barrett letter, and agreed to it. Kenney said the letter was freedom of expression. He claimed the letter didn’t seek cancellation of the event.
“When faculty speak out on their own like that, they’re covered on the same topic we’re here about, which is free speech,” said Kenney.
ASU representatives claimed near the beginning of the hearing that Lewis and ASU President Michael Crow had discussed the withdrawal of funding. However, toward the end of the hearing Kern announced that he’d received information from a Lewis representative that the pair hadn’t discussed the funding, and accused ASU representatives of lying.
Ortiz called the anonymous complaints from students hypotheticals because no formal complaints were lodged. She also claimed that the hearing was merely an attempt to delegitimize public and higher education. Marsh claimed that lawmakers shouldn’t consider the claims of student fears of retaliation because the students should’ve gone to ASU directly.
Nguyen asked whether ASU would defend guest speakers, such as himself, if ASU faculty were to lodge claims of white nationalism. Kenney said that, in a personal capacity, ASU faculty were free to make their claims, but not if they spoke out on ASU’s behalf.
Atkinson contested with the characterization that the Barrett faculty spoke out in their personal capacity. She pointed out that Barrett faculty signed the letter in their capacity as ASU faculty, emailed her using their ASU emails, and sent communications to students about opposing the event using ASU technology.
Ortiz announced receipt of a letter from the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) on the outcome of the requested investigation into the incident, the results of which Kern and the rest of the committee appeared to not have been made aware, determining that no free speech violations took place at ASU.
✅FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE✅ State Representative @azaustinsmith Calls on Board of Regents to Investigate & Report on Free Speech Concerns at Arizona State University
“Free speech is paramount to the future of our Republic. Higher education taxpayer-funded universities must be held… pic.twitter.com/GllgAZhLiq
— Arizona House Republicans (@AZHouseGOP) June 21, 2023
Marsh speculated that the professors didn’t show up because they faced death threats, citing media attention and conservative speaker Charlie Kirk’s Professor Watchlist. Kern said that would be a “lame excuse.” He also pointed out that the professors launched a national campaign and initialized bringing themselves into a bigger spotlight.
“You’re making excuses where we don’t know that’s the case,” said Kern.
Atkinson said that she could provide “dozens, if not hundreds” of students that could testify to experiencing faculty intimidation. She also claimed that Williams told her to avoid booking speakers that were political.
“We allow the speaker but you have to take the consequences,” said Atkinson, reportedly quoting Williams.
Atkinson testified that TV screen ads were removed and flyers were torn down following the Barrett Honors faculty letter. She also said she shared the information for the person responsible on June 13, yet it appears ASU took no action. ASU said they weren’t aware of any advertising for the event pulled.
Additionally, Atkinson testified that Williams pressured her to postpone the event “indefinitely.” She noted that Williams interpreted ASU’s policy of not promoting political campaigns as not allowing political speech at all.
“We were in an environment telling us that this was ‘hate speech,’” said Atkinson.
Atkinson said she was directed by leadership ahead of the event to issue a preliminary warning that the event contained potentially dangerous speech.
Gonzales told Atkinson that hate speech doesn’t qualify as constitutionally protected speech. However, the rules attorney corrected her that the Supreme Court ruled hate speech as protected.
Arizona Senate Democrats had tweeted that "hate speech" doesn't qualify as free speech. Sen. Mesnard reminds Democrats present of the Supreme Court 8-1 ruling for Westboro Baptist Church that the First Amendment protects "hate speech." pic.twitter.com/tJT3laTbv7
ASU professor Owen Anderson also testified. He said that he’s previously had to get the free speech rights organization Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIR) involved twice due to faculty attempts to suppress free speech. Anderson also said that faculty have attempted to restrict speech by adding anti-racism and DEI to policy on class content and annual reviews of professors.
“Insults abound, but rational dialogue is rare. What we need are administrators that call these faculty to higher conduct,” said Anderson.
In closing, Kern said he doesn’t trust ASU, the University of Arizona, or ABOR. He argued that ABOR hadn’t issued a real investigation and called their report “typical government fluff [and] garbage.” Kern also called for the firing of Barrett Honors College Dean Tara Williams.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
