The Arizona Supreme Court granted sanctions against 2022 Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, declaring that her lawyer issued false statements to the court.
Chief Justice Robert Brutinel issued the sanctions on Thursday in Lake v. Hobbs, totaling $2,000 for that improper conduct. Brutinel rejected Gov. Katie Hobbs and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ request for attorneys fees sanctions. He also remanded the unresolved issue of faulty signature verification to the trial court.
Lake alleged that Maricopa County violated A.R.S. § 16-550(A); she claimed that a material number of early ballots were transmitted in envelopes containing an affidavit signature that election officials accepted despite determining that it didn’t match the signature on that voter’s registration record.
This $2,000 in sanctions narrowly concerned the conduct of Lake’s attorney, specifically the claim that additional ballots were added into the final vote count.
The court called Lake’s claims of ballot chain-of-custody claims “colorable,” remarking that Lake continued to promote these claims despite the court’s rejection of them.
Brutinel noted that there was leeway for political rhetoric, but that upholding attorney ethics remained necessary. Brutinel noted that he was careful to approve punitive measures that would appear politically vindictive.
“Sometimes campaigns and their attendant hyperbole spill over into legal challenges. But once a contest enters the judicial arena, rules of attorney ethics apply,” wrote Brutinel. “Although we must ensure that legal sanctions are never wielded against candidates or their attorneys for asserting their legal rights in good faith, we also must diligently enforce the rules of ethics in which public confidence in our judicial system depends and where the truth-seeking function of our adjudicative process is unjustifiably hindered.”
In an April fundraising email, Fontes had called for Lake to be punished in such a way as others wouldn’t file similar legal challenges in the future.
“This [lawsuit] justifies the imposition of sanctions, or some kind of admonishment, so others will not follow suit,” stated the response. “If this Court sits silent in the face of what has occurred, then those who would due [sic] our union harm will continue to malign and erode the foundations upon which our great state stands.”
Fontes celebrated the $2,000 sanctions against Lake, though they fell far short of the initial ask by his and Hobbs’ teams.
Lake’s team has continued to claim as an “undisputed” fact that over 35,500 ballots were added or “injected” at Runbeck Election Services’ processing, the third-party vendor. The court stated that this wasn’t true because election officials have disputed her claims.
“Not only is that allegation strongly disputed by the other parties, this Court concluded and expressly stated that the assertion was unsupported by the record, and nothing in Lake’s Motion for Leave to file a motion for reconsideration provides reason to revisit that issue,” stated the court. “Although Lake may have permissibly argued that an inference could be made that some ballots were added, there is no evidence that 35,563 ballots were, and more to the point here, this was certainly disputed by the Respondents. The representation that this was an ‘undisputed fact’ is therefore unequivocally false.”
Lake championed Tuesday’s ruling as an overall win, focusing on the court’s order to review her claims of faulty signature verification processes.
Here's the latest on our court case!
"AZ Supreme Court orders hearing on Kari Lake's signature verification issue, denies attorney fees."https://t.co/lNMWgQp11P
Attorney General Kris Mayes has issued another challenge to keep accessibility of the controversial abortion drug mifepristone.
In a press release issued Tuesday, Mayes announced that she’d joined an amicus brief against the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruling blocking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of mifepristone. Mayes accused Texas federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of being an “extremist” opposing medical consensus.
“We cannot allow anti-abortion activists and an extremist judge to undo over two decades of medical consensus. Mifepristone is safe and effective and has been used by millions of Americans over the past two decades,” said Mayes.
The efficacy and safety of mifepristone remains dubious. In the ruling challenged by Mayes, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, Kacsmaryk noted the hundreds of known cases of infections and deaths arising from the drug’s usage. Kacsmaryk cited a 2006 hearing and report by the U.S. House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, which noted at least 8 women’s deaths, 9 life-threatening illnesses, 232 hospitalizations, 116 blood transfusions, and 88 cases of infection; overall, over 950 adverse event cases from the drug out of 575,000 prescriptions.
Kacsmaryk also noted that the FDA took nearly 14 years to reject a petition from multiple medical professional coalitions challenging their approval of the drug. The judge further noted that, on the same day of their rejection of the petition, the FDA expanded allowed usage for the abortion drug, changed the dosage, reduced the number of required in-person office visits, allowed non-doctors to prescribe and administer the drug, and eliminated the requirement for prescribers to report non-fatal adverse events from the drug.
In the ruling, Kacsmaryk shared that there are likely far more than the known 4,200 adverse events from chemical abortion drugs due to the FDA’s rule change eliminating non-fatal adverse reporting requirements and emergency rooms miscoding over 60 percent of women’s emergency room visits for adverse abortion drug reactions as miscarriages.
What’s more, Kacsmaryk rejected the main justification for the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug: reclassifying pregnancy as a “serious or life-threatening illness” and therefore justifying mifepristone as a “meaningful therapeutic benefit.”
“Pregnancy is a normal physiological state most women experience one or more times during their childbearing years — a natural process essential to perpetuating life,” stated Kacsmaryk. “Nothing in the [FDA] Final Rule supports the interpretation that pregnancy is a serious or life-threatening illness.”
Kacsmaryk also pointed out that the FDA had neglected to apply its logic to expedited treatments for other, less politicized ailments.
“[C]ategorizing complications or negative psychological experiences arising from pregnancy as ‘illnesses’ is materially different than classifying pregnancy itself as a serious or life-threatening illness,” stated Kascmaryk. “Tellingly, [the] FDA never explains how or why a ‘condition’ would not qualify as a ‘serious or life-threatening illness.’ Suppose that a woman experiences depression because of lower back pain that inhibits her mobility. Under FDA’s reading, a new drug used to treat lower back pain — which can cause depression, just like unplanned pregnancy — could obtain accelerated approval [per the FDA’s rationale].”
The FDA approval took place during the Clinton administration. Similar to Kacsmaryk, the Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) noted in 2008 that medical professionals critical of the abortion drug’s approval questioned the reclassification of the abortion drug as warranted.
“Critics have argued that unwanted pregnancy should not be considered a serious or life-threatening illness.”
The Texas federal court ruling doesn’t impact Arizona at present; it may later on, based on pending future rulings in higher courts.
SCOTUS agreed to an application for a stay by the FDA of the Texas district court ruling, filed early last month. SCOTUS issued the stay late last month, allowing mifepristone to be made widely available while the appeals process plays out in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Joining Mayes in the amicus brief are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) voted Tuesday to halve its public meetings for the upcoming school year, reducing special meetings to every other month. The reduction results in a five-meeting difference from this year to the next.
Superintendent Scott Menzel said that the changes arose after several board members had indicated that their meetings required more work than the board should have to handle, and that public meetings ran too long. Menzel said he initially opposed proposed reductions to the calendar. However, Menzel said he countered with the currently-adopted calendar: a “hybrid” solution that took away five public meetings.
“I didn’t think it would be possible to go to one meeting a month, for multiple reasons. One reason is that there are statutory deadlines that we would miss if we only had one meeting a month,” said Menzel.
Vice President Carine Werner opposed the measure. She said it saddened her that there were complaints from her fellow members about the amount of work they had to do, and that the proposed changes hurt transparency. Werner pointed out that they haven’t even discussed all of the work they needed to do under the current schedule with more meetings.
“I understand it’s a lot of work, but it’s also part of everyone’s jobs, just like it’s our jobs to be here to do the work that our governing board does,” said Werner.
Transparency has been a hot-button issue for the SUSD community over the last few years. Just last summer, the district opted to publish the names of those who file public records requests, but redact educators’ names. The push for greater transparency has come in the wake of discoveries that SUSD allowed and defended educators promoting sexualized and race-focused agendas in the classroom.
Werner added that she found it interesting that fellow board members wanted to reduce meetings, yet was willing to add meetings for the academy attended by administrators.
“I can only imagine the amount of work that’s gone into creating the academy and then fulfilling the work for the 40 applicants that get elected to participate in the program,” said Werner.
Werner also noted that parents and community members had expressed grievances over the proposed calendar change.
— Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity (@ScottsdaleUnite) May 3, 2023
Board member Amy Carney pointed out that, by that point in Tuesday’s meeting, they’d been there two hours discussing key issues — an opportunity not possible in the adopted schedule with fewer meetings.
“We’ve got a lot of work to do. I can’t understand how we can cut meetings,” said Carney. “One of the critical places for school boards to work, to retain informed trust of the communities is the conduct of meetings.”
Carney asked whether SUSD had ever cut meetings this drastically. Menzel said he wasn’t aware, deferring to Board President Julie Cieniawski. Cieniawski said that, in the past, the board had held more non-public meetings.
Cieniawski also claimed that the addition of town halls were sufficient for the reduction of public meetings.
“This isn’t anyone’s voice being limited or taken away,” said Cieniawski.
Cieniawski contended with Carney’s insistence that the changes would erode community trust, and claimed that community trust came from engagement with local schools, not the board.
Carney attempted to respond to Cieniawski, who ignored and spoke over her and filed a motion to vote on the calendar. Board member Libby Hart-Wells, who appeared remotely for the meeting, seconded Cieniawski’s motion.
Menzel said that regular meetings should concern core business of the district, and that this calendar would free up the board to voluntarily call special meetings with at least 24-hour notice to focus on specific issues as needed. Menzel noted that he didn’t believe special meetings should take place every month, either.
“I don’t see the calendar as taking away from being able to conduct the work of the district, I think it actually enhances and keeps us focused in a way that the current calendar drifted away from, with the way the schedule is at the present time,” said Menzel.
Hart-Wells said she hadn’t heard any concerns from the community about the meeting restructuring.
Arizona law only requires school boards to have a minimum of one meeting per month.
Watch discussion of the board meeting reduction here:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Last Friday, the Maricopa County Superior Court denied the city of Phoenix’s motion to extend the deadline imposed to clean up The Zone.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney apparently rejected the city’s insistence that they’d begun taking sufficient action.
“The Court interprets this argument as meaning the injunction is unnecessary because the City is already taking steps to abate the horrible conditions in the Zone,” wrote Blaney. “But the Court issued the Preliminary Injunction based, in part, upon the City’s past failure to address the issues in The Zone, as well as the City’s apparent lack of intent to do so until faced with possible judicial intervention.
In their motion to stay the court’s preliminary injunction, the city said it didn’t dispute the current conditions of the homeless encampments, but opposed the actions they were required to take, namely the court’s suggestion of campgrounds. The city took issue with the required deadline of July 10.
“[D]eciding how to spend taxpayers’ money, deliver services, and create new infrastructure for public housing is a legislative, not judicial function,” stated the city. “[T]he order intrudes into local law enforcement and prosecutorial discretion in what appears to be an order to take mandatory enforcement action — ignoring any analysis of the facts on the ground and ordering sweeping relief in its stead.”
The city further claimed that Blaney violated the constitutional separation of powers. It also seemed to question the judge’s description of homeless individuals’ conduct as a “nuisance.” Blaney’s ruling outlined the many ways that The Zone qualified as a public nuisance. The city said it couldn’t guarantee cleaning up The Zone.
“While the City seeks to maintain a clean and crime-free environment for its residents, those are outcomes that the City simply cannot guarantee, even with the expenditure of significant resources,” stated the city.
The city also claimed that Blaney’s order didn’t reflect public interest or the true desires of the Phoenix community. That contradicts the numerous business owners and residents of The Zone and elsewhere in the city that have complained about the homeless crisis.
“The City’s policies are the product of community meetings with policymakers, the gathering of information from all relevant stakeholders, and the advice of experts at the City and throughout the community,” wrote the city. “To circumvent this process and supplant the City’s plans with the Court’s own judgment is against public interest.”
🧵INBOX: Welcome to The Zone, the epicenter of the homeless crisis that @CityofPhoenixAZ refuses to solve. This man is one of many that will likely live and die on these streets under the city's current approach to homelessness. I investigated & uncovered shocking details… pic.twitter.com/snb8QkvjsA
The homeless crisis spiraled following the election of Mayor Kate Gallego, a Democrat, in 2019.
The Maricopa County Superior Court ruled in late March that the city of Phoenix was at fault for the current state of The Zone, and imposed a cleanup deadline this summer. The ruling came days after city officials promised to meet to discuss solutions for The Zone, in the wake of back-to-back murders.
Details of a settlement in a separate, federal case haven’t been publicized yet.
Democratic leadership has generally downplayed the urgency of the public nuisances and dangers presented by The Zone.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Monday, the University of Arizona (UArizona) chief of police stepped down in apparent relation to the professor slaying last year. UArizona President Robert Robbins issued the announcement.
Now-former University of Arizona Police Department (UAPD) Chief Paula Balafas has grappled with a sect of the university community advocating for stronger safety protocols on campus following the murder of Professor Thomas Meixner.
Balafas criticized a report from an independent committee formed by faculty members, the General Faculty Committee on University Safety For All Informed Faculty, stating that the university leaders were “stronger than their critics.”
The committee’s 30-page interim report, issued in January, claimed that UArizona was endangered by a “glaring institutional failure” concerning disregard for employee and student safety concerns.
Meixner was shot fatally by a former UArizona graduate student.
The independent faculty committee disbanded in March, expressing fears of retaliation from university officials. Around that time, the university released its own external safety report. The report by the PAX Group detailed three systemic issues: understanding and managing threats, providing a consistent and compassionate response, and the decentralization of communications.
The PAX Group reported finding a steady increase in violent crime and criminal activity beginning in 2018, with a peak in violent activity last year. The group further noted that UArizona measures handling crime were comparable to those employed by Arizona State University (ASU), despite ASU having 15,000 more students. Yet last year, UArizona suffered nearly 20 more incidents of aggravated assault and violent crime combined than ASU.
“Although the campus is relatively safe, the data on violent crime and related activity is heading in the wrong direction; so, as a community, the University of Arizona must address this,” stated the report.
In all, the report issued 33 recommendations to improve campus safety.
Robbins announced at the time of the external report’s issuance that Steve Patterson, a 25-year FBI veteran, would take over as the interim chief safety officer. Patterson was scheduled to begin on Monday. Robbins also announced the creation of a Campus Safety Advisory Commission made up of university and community members to advise Patterson, and the inclusion of the PAX Group in crafting a campus-wide master facility safety plan.
Replacing Balafas in the interim will be Oro Valley Police Department commander Chris Olson. He formerly served as a UAPD officer.
Balafas joined UArizona just over a year ago, in February 2022. UArizona noted that she represented the first female chief of police in university history. Balafas explained in an interview shortly after her hire, and several months before Meixner’s death, that she was drawn to UArizona’s focus on a progressive approach to policing.
“[T]he way the job description for UAPD had been presented was that they were looking for someone who is really good at building community within the police department but also outside of the police department, someone who is open to change who’d been in a progressive environment,” said Balafas.
Balafas also advocated for the implementation of diversity, equity, and inclusivity training. She lamented that officers weren’t as welcome in certain areas on campus, namely multicultural centers.
Balafas wasn’t the only faculty member to depart. Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost Liesl Folks also stepped down, though she won’t depart until the end of this semester.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
