Arizona’s Republican Schools Chief is taking the state’s Democrat Governor and Attorney General to court.
Last week, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne announced that he had “filed a lawsuit against Governor Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes for a judicial declaration that all schools must obey a voter passed and protected initiative that English language learners must be taught in English immersion rather than dual language.”
In a statement that accompanied the press release, Horne said, “Governor Hobbs is named as a defendant because of a court of appeals decision stating that the governor is a proper defendant in these kinds of cases because of the constitutional requirement that she see it to it that the laws are faithfully executed. Attorney General Mayes is named because the same case states that an action questioning the constitutionality of a law names the Attorney General. A law passed by the legislature in 2019 has been interpreted by some as authorizing dual language instruction. This is incorrect because the voter-protection law is part of the Arizona Constitution and any change to a voter-protected initiative must further the purpose of what voters intended. Dual language instruction is the opposite of the initiative’s purpose.”
The Arizona Department of Education provided context for the initiative in question, adding, “The initiative, which passed by a margin of over 60%, states explicitly: ‘All children in Arizona public schools should be taught English by being taught in English, and all children shall be placed in English language classrooms.’”
Horne also said, “The fundamental purpose of the initiative is that students be taught throughout the school day in English, so they become proficient in English quickly, and can succeed academically, and not that they be taught half a day in another language, which would stunt their ability to master English.”
According to the Department, “the lawsuit also names as a defendant the Creighton school district, which is among the handful of districts defying the law established by the voter approved and protected initiative. The district’s rate of English Language Learners becoming proficient in English last year was 5.1%. This contrasts with some districts referred to in the complaint that have structured English immersion and who’s rates range from 23.87% to 33.03%.”
The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court for the State of Arizona in the County of Maricopa. Horne asked the Court to declare that “A.R.S. 15-756.01 is unconstitutional if its intent was to authorize dual language without waiver, because it does not further the voter-protected initiative’s purpose that children be taught in English for the entire school day, in order for them to quickly become proficient in English”; and that the State Board’s dual language model, if it is without statutory waivers, is in violation of Arizona law, and the Defendant Attorney General’s opinion that district and charter schools can rely on the State Board’s dual language model without waivers is legal error.”
The court filing from the Arizona Department of Education fulfills a promise made by Horne earlier this summer to take this issue to the judiciary. The scuttle between Horne, Mayes, and Democrat legislators began on June 19, when the Superintendent announced that “public schools that are not teaching English Language Learners in English as required by state law risk losing funds for this legal violation.” Horne said at the time, “Proposition 203, the voter protected initiative passed in 2000, specified that classes for English Language Learners must be taught in English: ‘all children in Arizona public schools shall be taught English by being taught in English and all children shall be placed in English language classrooms.’”
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes issued an opinion to answer the question of “which state entity has statutory authority to eliminate a model of structured English immersion approved by the State Board of Education.” Mayes sent her findings to Democrat Representatives Jennifer Pawlik, Laura Terech, Nancy Gutierrez, and Judy Schwiebert.
In her opinion, Mayes wrote, “Arizona law is clear that the Board has the sole authority to eliminate or modify an approved SEI model. The Board also has the sole authority to determine whether a school district or charter school has failed to comply with Arizona law governing English language learners. Only those school districts and charter schools found by the Board to be noncompliant are barred from receiving monies from the English language learner fund.”
The Attorney General declined to answer the Representatives’ question of “whether the Dual Language Immersion SEI Model approved by the Board is consistent with Arizona law.”
The battle over the Structured English Immersion law is the second significant conflict between the Attorney General and Superintendent this year. Horne and Mayes have been locked in escalating public disputes over the state’s universal school choice program.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
An Arizona community’s months-long wrangling over water will be coming to a temporary end.
On Tuesday, the Scottsdale City Council voted to adopt Resolution No. 12892, which is an agreement to provide water for the Rio Verde Foothills Standpipe District.
Scottsdale City Council last night approved an intergovernmental agreement with the Rio Verde Foothills Standpipe District to address the lack of a sustainable water supply for Maricopa County residents living in the Rio Verde Foothills area.💧 Learn more: https://t.co/qzvR4ya5impic.twitter.com/vaE0idtq1N
According to a press release issued by the City of Scottsdale in the days leading up to the Council’s vote, the agreement stipulates that “Scottsdale’s own water resources will not be used, and the rate charged to the standpipe district is set so that costs are fully recovered on behalf of the Scottsdale residents who pay for the infrastructure and operation of the city’s water system.”
That September 1st press release from the City of Scottsdale outlined three points under the agreement, including:
The Rio Verde Foothills Standpipe District will acquire a water supply that can be provided to Scottsdale at one of the city’s surface water treatment facilities – Scottsdale’s own water resources will not be used.
The city will treat the water and make it available at the Pima Road Fill Station, from which haulers contracted by the district could provide water for up to 750 customers in Rio Verde Foothills (the limit stipulated by A.R.S. 9-500.40).
The city’s agreement is with the district only, which may then contract with other parties as needed to supply water to Rio Verde Foothills customers; the agreement will terminate Dec. 31, 2025.
The agreement originated from the signing of SB 1432, sponsored by Senator Justine Wadsack, which “outlined requirements of a city or town that provides water service through an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) with a standpipe district for a period of up to three years by use of a standpipe for water hauling to residences outside the city’s or town’s water service area that do not have access to sufficient water.”
Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs held a ceremonial signing ceremony on August 22. Two lawmakers, Wadsack and Laura Terech, were in attendance. Senator Wadsack tweeted, “Signing Ceremony in the Governor’s Tower for my bill SB 1432. The people of Rio Verde will have water again!! Water is not a partisan issue. Water is life.”
Signing Ceremony in the Governor’s Tower for my bill #SB1432. The people of #RioVerde will have water again!!
— AZ Senator Justine Wadsack (@Wadsack4Arizona) August 23, 2023
Representative Terech added, “Today, I had the honor of joining Governor Hobbs, Senator Wadsack, and the Rio Verde Foothills Standpipe District Board at the ceremonial signing of SB 1432. It was an emotional morning. For me, this bill represents the bipartisan cooperation that we will need to secure Arizona’s water future. There’s a long way to go from here and many communities who also face significant water needs, but this is a powerful step forward. I’m proud to have played an integral part in the process.”
Today, I had the honor of joining Governor Hobbs, Senator Wadsack, and the Rio Verde Foothills Standpipe District Board at the ceremonial signing of SB1432. It was an emotional morning. For me, this bill represents the bipartisan cooperation that we will need to secure … pic.twitter.com/pbSSf8y7iI
After signing the bill in June, Hobbs stated, “This bipartisan bill shows that when we put politics aside, we can come together to solve problems for everyday Arizonans. While it isn’t perfect, I’m glad we were able to deliver relief for the residents of Rio Verde Foothills. Moving forward, I will keep working across the aisle to protect water for every Arizonan and ensure we continue our growth and make Arizona the best place to live, work, and raise a family.”
The signing of this legislation led to the Rio Verde Foothills Standpipe District’s approval of an IGA with Scottsdale, which Republican Representative Alexander Kolodin covered on September 2: “We interrupt our regularly scheduled Twitter war to bring you the news that the Rio Verde Foothills Standpipe District has just voted to approve an IGA with Scottsdale to restore water service. Now back to our program!”
We inturrupt our regularly scheduled Twitter war to bring you the news that the @rvfsdaz has just voted to approve an IGA with Scottsdale to restore water service. Now back to our program! pic.twitter.com/pYnyHZKjAb
Few legislators worked with more intensity at the Arizona Legislature over this issue than Kolodin in the recently completed session. It was Kolodin’s HB 2561 that was added onto SB 1432 as an amendment before both chambers sent the bill to the Governor’s Office. After SB 1432 passed the legislature, Kolodin thanked many of his colleagues, including Senator John Kavanaugh, Wadsack, Terech, and Representative David Cook, for their efforts in ensuring the proposal’s success. Kolodin wrote, “This is not the first water crisis Arizona has faced and it will not be the last. But, today, we proved that the era of kicking the can down the road is over. This legislature is ready, willing, and able to roll up its sleeves and solve the problem – together.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Football season has reserved the attention of many of Arizona’s Republican and Democrat legislators.
Late last month, a bipartisan coalition of 35 lawmakers sent a letter to the President of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), urging the NCAA to “revisit its decision to deny a transfer waiver for football player Jake Smith.” The communication was led by Republican Representative Joseph Chaplik.
✅FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE✅ Bipartisan Group of Legislators Call on NCAA to Reconsider Denial of Transfer Waiver for ASU Football Hopeful Jake Smith
The release explains that “Jake Smith, an accomplished football player and former wide receiver at Notre Dame Prep in Scottsdale, has faced a series of challenges that have hindered his playing opportunities” – specifically during “his abbreviated 2020 season at UT Austin due to injuries and subsequent surgeries.” The release adds, “After receiving medical clearance to play football by UT, Smith transferred to USC in 2022 to be closer to home, only to be told his foot was not healed and ruled a medical non-transfer by the USC institution. He then transferred to ASU in January 2023 in hopes of continuing his college football career.”
Smith appealed to the NCAA in hopes of receiving a waiver to become immediately eligible during the 2023 season for the Arizona State University Sun Devils, yet was denied his request earlier in August.
Representative Chaplik issued the following statement in conjunction with the release of his letter: “Jake’s situation is a prime example of the challenges student athletes have faced, exacerbated by the pandemic. The NCAA’s decision not only affects his career but also sets a precedent that we believe undermines its commitment to the well-being of student athletes. The transfer portal does need to be restricted, but it also needs to have exceptions for unique situations such as Jake’s.”
I’m calling for the NCAA to allow Jake Smiths portal exemption so he can have the opportunity to play football this season for @ASUFootballhttps://t.co/wA3z7K5iM5
After news of the NCAA’s decision broke, new football head coach Kenny Dillingham told reporters, “Jake’s battled and battled and been through so much in his football career and to have something that means so much to him taken away – after all the work you put in – you know, it’s not the right thing to do for the kid. Everything we should do in college athletics should be about the kids – not the adults.”
In their letter, the group of Arizona legislators wrote: “…It goes without saying that many student athletes’ careers have been derailed by the COVID-19 pandemic. It is imperative that the NCAA take this into account and carefully consider the circumstances of each athlete to ensure a consistent and fair application of the NCAA’s rules. The NCAA should determine whether a student athlete has a legitimate reason to seek a transfer waiver and whether colleges are being honest with their athletes when they make medical decisions that have a direct impact on those students’ athletic success and future. Being a student athlete brings great responsibility to the student, but more importantly, the NCAA should be empowered to help students in these unique situations.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
This week, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne announced that he was “making $40 million available to parents of elementary grade students to pay for free tutoring in reading, writing and math beginning October 2.”
Superintendent Horne is laser focused on raising academic outcomes for students. This new tutoring program will help our students learn! #EducationForAllhttps://t.co/ESOrPN9V8i
According to the release sent out from the Arizona Department of Education, the funding source for these re-allocated dollars originates from a federal government 2021 program, which allowed the previous Superintendent to distribute funds earmarked to help “overcome pandemic-related learning loss” to several organizations around the state. In August, Horne’s administration asked these organizations “to provide evidence of the academic impact of their work, and those who could not show reasonable impact for the money had their contracts cancelled or reduced.”
Parents will have options of public school teachers or private tutoring companies to assist with their children’s educational development under this program. The Department projected the $40 million would cover approximately 1.3 million hours of tutoring.
The schools chief explained his action, saying, “My first priority as Superintendent is to raise academic outcomes, therefore I am making $40 million available so parents whose children did not test as proficient can get free tutoring for students in first through eighth grades.”
Superintendent Horne is confident that his program will achieve results for Arizona children, promising, “If they cannot show increased academic outcomes, I will, with this massive tutoring program.”
Horne also discussed the impact this stream of funding would have on teachers who participated in this reimagined program. He said, “Public school teachers who tutor will be paid $30 an hour and will earn a $200 stipend for each student who shows a one-half year gain from the tutoring. A teacher who tutors the maximum amount would earn an extra approximately $8,000. I believe teachers deserve more pay, which is why I supported Rep. Matt Gress’s recent bill for a $10,000 raise. I was shocked to see that the Governor and teachers’ union opposed it. If they won’t help teachers get more money, I will.”
More details are expected to become available for this new program on September 15. Members of the public and interested parties can visit the Arizona Department of Education’s website to learn more after that date.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
An Arizona-based organization is going to court again to protect the interest of state voters.
This week, the Goldwater Institute announced that its legal team had filed a special action petition with the Arizona Supreme Court on behalf of four state voters, “urging the high court to strike down the current retention election system for Court of Appeals judges and ensure all voters have an equal say.”
The release from Goldwater makes the case that “all Arizonans periodically vote on whether to retain each of the justices of the Arizona Supreme Court,” but that “they cannot vote on the retention of all the judges on the Court of Appeals…whose decisions set statewide legal precedent.” The reason for this being that “a voter’s residency limits their choices to only those Court of Appeals judges who resided in a corresponding geographic area of the state when appointed.”
According to the Goldwater Institute, “approximately 60 percent of Arizona voters get to vote in retention elections for Court of Appeals judges residing in Maricopa County but only 10 percent of voters can participate in retention elections for Court of Appeals judges residing in the far smaller Pinal, Cochise, Santa Cruz, Greenlee, Graham, or Gila counties.”
Former Arizona Supreme Court Justice and current special counsel for this case, Andrew Gould, said, “If a judge’s decision will affect the whole state, it shouldn’t matter where in the state he or she lives. The current system is unfair to the millions of Arizona voters who are bound by the decisions of the judges on the Arizona Court of Appeals, and it raises serious constitutional questions.”
There are four plaintiffs, who are all represented by the Goldwater Institute in this matter. The first is Bonnie Knight, who lives in Yuma County and only has the ability to vote on the retention of judges in Division 1 (which excludes Maricopa County). The second is Deborah McEwen, who lives in Santa Cruz County and only has the ability to vote on the retention of judges in Division 2 (which excludes Pima County). The third is Sarah Ramsey, who lives in Pima County and only has the ability to vote on the retention of Court of Appeals Judges in Pima County. The final plaintiff is Leslie White, who lives in Maricopa County and only has the ability to vote on the retention of Court of Appeals judges in Maricopa County.
The plaintiffs sued Secretary of State Adrian Fontes “in his official capacity because under the state constitution the Secretary of State’s office receives judicial retention candidate declarations and certifies to the county boards of supervisors which candidates’ names shall appear on the ballot.”
The petition for special action makes two arguments for the state’s Supreme Court Justices to consider. First, that “the judicial retention provisions of A.R.S. 12-120.02 violate Arizona’s Free and Equal Elections Clause.” And second, that “Section 12-120.02 violates the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause because it discriminates among voters based on their residency, and therefore denies the right of all citizens to vote equally in judicial retention elections.”
In conclusion to their petition, the plaintiffs asked the Court to exercise its mandamus jurisdiction and “(1) declare the judicial retention provisions of A.R.S. 12-120.02 unconstitutional to the extent they prohibit statewide electors from voting in judicial retention elections for judges on the Court of Appeals, (2) enjoin those portions of A.R.S. 12-120.02 that prohibit statewide retention elections, and (3) order the Secretary of State to certify that the names of all Court of Appeals judges who declare their candidacy for retention in all future elections must be placed on the ballot statewide.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
