Congressional candidate Kirsten Engel took a picture with failed Soros-backed district attorney candidate Julie Gunnigle about two weeks before her campaign launch.
The pair were attending the 18th International State of the State hosted by the Phoenix Committee on Foreign Relations (PCFR). Gunnigle ran on a campaign of major police defunding, a concept which Engel supported vocally following the 2020 BLM riots. Her police defunding proposals were echoed by her controversial campaign manager as well.
“What we need to do is shift where the money [for police] is going,” stated Engel.
Engel also encouraged her supporters to donate to the controversial Minnesota Freedom Fund, which earned national media attention for its practice of bailing out violent criminals. She also encouraged donations for Showing Up For Racial Justice, a group that published a toolkit on how communities could defund their local police.
Those past actions from Engel aligned with Gunnigle’s platform last year. Engel then spent time with Gunnigle on the campaign trail last year, despite Democratic leadership and advisors advising that candidates distance themselves from Gunnigle.
Gunnigle pledged to expunge marijuana-related criminal records; decriminalize hard drugs like heroin, crack, and meth; reduce incarceration rates; end cash bail; oppose the death penalty; fight elongated sentences for gang and weapons-related charges; establish mental health response services; and refuse prosecution for abortion offenses.
Gunnigle also campaigned alongside two public figures that mocked Blue Alerts: safety communications for countering law enforcement murders. The individuals were Chris Love, Planned Parenthood of Arizona board member, and Brianna Westbrook, Arizona Democratic Party vice chair.
National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) spokesman Ben Petersen said in a statement that Engel’s decision to keep company with Gunnigle was “terrifying,” adding that it revealed a disregard for public safety.
“Voters defeated Kirsten Engel and Julie Gunnigle’s extremely dangerous agenda of defunding the police and releasing violent criminals just five months ago, yet Engel is still palling around with Gunnigle,” said Petersen.
Democrats began distancing themselves from Gunnigle as Election Day neared. Attorney General Kris Mayes told voters during campaign debate last year that she disagreed with some of Gunnigle’s positions and wouldn’t endorse her. That marked a complete flip from two years ago, when Mayes endorsed Gunnigle’s first run for Maricopa County attorney.
Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone, a Democrat, said at the time that Gunnigle’s platform concerned him.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego is urging the Biden administration to declare Arizona’s heat a federal emergency in an effort to unlock more federal funding and resources.
Gallego disclosed this effort during her city of the state address on Wednesday, “The Future of Phoenix.” Gallego called on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to include “extreme heat” into its national emergency declarations categorization, which would qualify Arizona summers as a disaster.
“We need to meet the moment to support our most vulnerable. We need national action,” said Gallego. “I’m calling on FEMA to revise their declared disasters list to include extreme heat. Resources from pop-up shelters, to additional outreach to our vulnerable residents could help us successfully navigate unforgiving summers.”
If Phoenix is successful in its petition, federal assistance would likely come through something like a funding pathway established by the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018. That measure allowed six percent of federal disaster grants’ annual aggregate amount to go to pre-disaster hazard mitigation.
Phoenix has already rolled out projects designed to mitigate heat-related illnesses and deaths, such as “cool corridors,” areas with manufactured shade and drinking water access,” and “cool pavement,” which reflects rather than absorbs sunlight to keep the ground and air cool.
Gallego also urged state lawmakers to support Proposition 400, a county regional transportation tax to expand infrastructure. Gallego also urged voter approval of a general obligation bond: $500 million for public developments like parks and fire stations. Gallego said that the bond funding would allow the establishment of semiconductor and medical device development centers.
Gallego explained that the city’s main focuses included water conservation and restoration; federal funding to support infrastructure development, specifically public transit expansion; and investment into semiconductor facilities.
Gallego insisted that the city was handling the homeless crisis well, despite what the Maricopa County Superior Court said in a preliminary injunction handed down last month.
The mayor insisted that homelessness isn’t unique to Phoenix, but that Phoenix is unique in that it has a better approach for managing its homeless. Gallego talked at length about the city’s affordable housing initiatives, a focal point of their “housing first” approach that, in part, earned them the unfavorable court ruling last month.
“Homelessness is not unique to Phoenix,” said Gallego. “What is unique to Phoenix is that our city is putting every solution on the table to lift people out of homelessness.”
Gallego said it was her desire to create a city where her son would choose to live as an adult.
“Raising a six-year-old and running a city have more in common than you might expect,” said Gallego.
Welcome to #PHXSOTC23! Today’s theme is the #FutureIsPHX…because it’s true! During my speech, I’ll share updates on climate action, housing, and how we are embracing technology to make progress. Follow along!
Common themes of Gallego’s address were sustainability and equity efforts.
Gallego said that Phoenix surpassed its “zero waste” goal when it hosted the Super Bowl earlier this year. Gallego highlighted technology advancements in travel, such as Apple Watch check-ins at Phoenix Sky Harbor airport and driverless electric cars roaming the downtown.
Gallego highlighted the city’s free tuition program, “Route to Relief,” similar to what later launched last September — both using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding.
Gallego said that they would develop 50,000 affordable housing units, noting that they’ve already built or preserved 26,000 units. The mayor cited “critical, systemic inequities” as the root of housing issues. The city has also established a community land trust program with NewTown.
The mayor also cited their “eco-friendly” shipping containers turned into affordable housing. The city will also establish a housing complex of shipping container housing units. Gallego said that the city plans to issue 7,000 housing vouchers and managing over 5,000 housing units.
Phoenix also invested $10 million into mental health treatment for the underinsured and uninsured. In the first seven months of a newly launched pilot, behavioral health engagement teams to address the opioid crisis contacted 200 individuals and connected 57 individuals.
Gallego then said that stronger law enforcement and progressive ideals weren’t mutually exclusive.
“To those who say it is not possible: we can and will be both progressive and practical on policing,” said Gallego.
Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego: "It's possible to be both progressive and practical on policing." pic.twitter.com/2wECwoEbdG
On Wednesday, the Arizona House voted to expel State Rep. Liz Harris (R-LD13) over findings that she lied to the Ethics Committee. Harris’ seat is now vacant; her district’s Republican precinct committee members have five days to nominate three candidates to replace her.
House Speaker Ben Toma (R-LD27) introduced the resolution, HR 2003, to expel Harris.
The resolution passed 46 to 13. The 13 members who opposed Harris’ expulsion, including Harris herself, were Reps. Neal Carter (R-LD15), Joseph Chaplik (R-LD03), David Cook (R-LD07), Gail Griffin (R-LD19), Justin Heap (R-LD10), Rachel Jones (R-LD17), Alex Kolodin (R-LD03), Cory McGarr (R-LD17), Barbara Parker (R-LD10), Jacqueline Parker (R-LD15), Kevin Payne (R-LD27), and Austin Smith (R-LD29).
Seven of the 12 Arizona Freedom Caucus members voted against Harris’ expulsion.
Smith said that he felt that the voters should decide on how to handle Harris, not lawmakers.
I voted no on HR2003 expelling Liz Harris from the Arizona House of Representatives. I took an oath to defend the Constitution and do not take it lightly. It is up to the voters of LD13 to decide how they feel about Liz Harris’ actions, not politicians.
Amid a swarm of reporters on her way out of the capitol, Harris called the report “a lie,” and insisted that God knew the truth.
Issues with Harris arose after a February joint hearing on election integrity. Harris invited a woman to testify named Jacqueline Breger, who alleged a number of individuals engaged in criminal conduct including money laundering, drug trafficking and sales, public corruption, and public official bribery in addition to election fraud. Breger testified that these alleged crimes were overseen by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, most commonly referred to as the Mormon church, which included current Arizona legislators.
Following the joint hearing, State Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton (D-LD21) filed a complaint against Harris. Stahl Hamilton alleged that Harris embarrassed the House and put it in disrepute, as well as violated House Rule 1, which prohibits impugning other members.
The House Ethics Committee convened twice last month to review the accusations against Harris. According to their report issued earlier this week, Breger inappropriately levied criminal allegations; Harris failed to comply with internal House deadlines on presentation material disclosure ahead of the joint hearing; and that Harris engaged in disorderly behavior in violation of House Rule 1.
“By her own admission, Representative Harris had obvious influence and significant control over the Joint Hearing as its organizer and facilitator,” stated the report. “[T]he totality of the evidence shows that Representative Harris used her elected position to provide Breger with a legislative platform as a substitute for criminal court.”
According to the committee report, Harris indicated in a text to Breger after the joint hearing that the hearing had played out according to their plan.
“It was all how it was intended to be,” wrote Harris.
The Ethics Committee also determined that Harris didn’t disavow Breger’s testimony and had eroded public trust with her actions. Harris also claimed to not have known Breger’s allegations ahead of the joint hearing; the committee report rejected that claim.
“Representative Harris violated the inherent obligation to protect the integrity of the House of Representatives and used her elected position to provide Ms. Breger with a legislative platform as a substitute for a criminal court,” stated the resolution.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Upset parents and community members who showed up to voice their opposition to Catalina Foothills School District’s (CFSD) secretive gender identity policies during the governing board meeting on Tuesday were prevented from doing so.
CFSD parents and community members organized in protest following revelation of CFSD’s longstanding unwritten policy that doesn’t require parental notification if boys are entering girls’ restrooms and locker rooms. CFSD declared it wouldn’t reconsider this policy.
The parents and community members were also in protest of another secretive practice dating back several years, in which district staff would acknowledge students using a different gender identity without informing parents. In a September 2021 email, CFSD Principal Mark Rubin-Toles shared a confidential list of the pronouns and preferred names of his students at Orange Grove Middle School.
“If you are like me, you may have been challenged recently to keep some of our kids’ pronouns and preferred names straight — and to remember what can and can’t be shared with families,” stated Rubin-Toles. “It is our responsibility to protect student privacy in these matters.”
At Tuesday’s meeting, CFSD warned that it had reduced its public comment time, prioritized district parents and local community members, and deprioritized those who spoke on the same subject at previous meetings.
“Lack of discussion does not mean we haven’t heard you. I assure you, we have,” stated Board President Eileen Jackson.
CFSD has indicated in past emails and recent board comments that student privacy and the relationship between educators and their students takes precedence over parental rights. That caused an uproar among some within the Tucson community, but their voices weren’t heard on Tuesday. CFSD indicated during the meeting that those upset with their administration had spoken out enough on the subject.
CFSD had 11 pro-LGBTQ+ students defending their policies speaking first. The students emphasized that they had a right to privacy, and that the district should be able to keep student information secret from parents.
After the students, CFSD parents and community members had their turn to speak. However, the only ones allowed to speak were 17 individuals who were also supportive of CFSD’s policies.
Following an earlier meeting this month, CFSD asked KGUN 9 to correct their reporting to say that many of the upset speakers at that last meeting weren’t CFSD parents or community members.
In response, an organized group of CFSD citizens accused CFSD of lying. The group, CFSD Concerned Citizens, cited the district’s unwillingness to improve policy or allow public discussion on their concerns as the reason for their organization.
Last weeks media coverage and board’s response lied saying majority of speakers were activists from a church and non-district affiliated. This is not the case. Attendees included CFSD families, residents and community members who want transparency and items to be put on the (1/4) pic.twitter.com/zOav23A9uc
— Cfsd ConcernedCitizens (@Concerned4CFSD) April 10, 2023
CFSD Concerned Citizens partners include School Board Watchlist, Protect Arizona Schools Coalition, Heritage Foundation, Moms for Liberty, Alliance Defending Freedom, Center for Arizona Policy, Goldwater Institute, and AZ Women of Action.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A Christian university’s case against a Phoenix school district over alleged religious discrimination got a hearing on Tuesday.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Arizona Christian University (ACU) against the Washington Elementary School District (WESD), spoke with AZ Free News after the hearing on a motion for a preliminary injunction in the Arizona District Court.
ADF lawyer Jake Reed said they felt confident in their legal arguments and that the judge that heard the case, Steven Logan, was well-versed on the arguments ahead of Tuesday’s hearings. Reed said they’re hoping for a ruling within the next few weeks, considering ACU needs to place their student teachers for the upcoming year by the end of this semester.
“This is a pretty simple case about religious discrimination,” said Reed. “A public body is telling a university they can’t place their teachers because of their religious faith.”
WESD terminated its contract with ACU in February. Its governing board members cited ACU’s Christianity as a principal factor for their decision. Leading on the effort was board member Tamillia Valenzuela, who said that ACU’s Biblical perspective that traditional sexual morality and the standard of marriage between one man and one woman directly opposed her and other LGBTQ+ community members. Valenzuela received support from fellow board members Kyle Clayton and Nikki Gomez-Whaley.
“[W]hen I went and looked into not only [ACU’s] core values but then the statement of faith that they ask their students to sign and live by, what gave me pause was it’s not just teaching but it’s teaching as they say with a Biblical lens, with a proselytizing is embedded into how they teach, and you know, I just don’t believe that belongs in schools,” said Clayton. “I would never want, you know, my son to talk about his two dads and be shamed by a teacher who believed a certain way and is at a school that demands that they, you know, teach through [a] Biblical lens.”
Gomez-Whaley said she would be open to those who claimed to be Christians who were accepting of LGBTQ+ lifestyles.
“[E]ven though [ACU] may not do anything illegal where they are preaching or using Bible verses, I do believe that we owe it to especially all of our students when we’re working in equity but especially our LGBTQ students and staff who are under fire who are not protected, and who we have already pledged to support,” said Gomez-Whaley. “We cannot continue to align ourselves with organizations that starkly contrast our values and say that we legitimately care about diversity, equity, and inclusion and that we legitimately care about all of our families.”
Reed shared that in the 11 years of WESD and ACU’s relationship, there were well over 100 students placed as either student teachers or in teacher shadowing positions. Of those students, 17 went on to be hired by WESD.
When asked whether WESD could attempt religious discrimination in future contracting decisions under the guise of other reasons, Reed said that those incidents, if they were to occur, would have to be scrutinized.
“The government can’t treat certain people worse than everyone else. Students shouldn’t be denied opportunities because of their religious beliefs,” said Reed. “The government can’t pick and choose what beliefs they allow.”
WESD proposed to settle by extending a separate agreement with ACU for one more year — but not the agreement at issue.
Ahead of the hearing the judge denied an amicus brief filed last week by The Goldwater Institute, a public policy research and litigation organization. Logan stated in his order that the WESD didn’t consent to the brief and that the Goldwater Institute didn’t present relevant matters that hadn’t already or couldn’t be brought to the court by either party.
“The parties’ briefing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is complete, thorough, and more than sufficient for this Court to make a ruling,” wrote Logan.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
