On June 1, Arizona’s Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs released a video on X extolling Pride Month and her pro-LGBTQ+ policies. However, the contrast between Hobbs’ full support of LGBTQ+ interests and her past behavior did not go unnoticed by Brian Anderson, Founder of the Saguaro Group and Arizona Capitol Oversight.
This isn’t the first time either, as Anderson described his attention to the matter as “yearly.” Anderson brought back to light the seldom reported allegation that Hobbs removed her “preferred pronouns” and support for #BLM from her Twitter account prior to launching her 2022 campaign for governor.
Sharing Hobbs video to X, Anderson wrote, “Yearly #PrideMonth reminder that @KatieHobbs deleted her “gender pronouns” from her Twitter bio right before running for #AZGov so that voters didn’t know she’s weird lmao.” Accompanying his message were a pair of screenshots of Hobbs personal Twitter bio before and after her campaign announcement.
A search of the social media platform did reveal previous iterations of the post from 2022. Hobbs’ Republican opponent Kari Lake’s campaign posted a similar tweet in August of 2022 stating, “This as her bio before @katiehobbs announced for Governor. Before she started pretending she hadn’t spent her entire political career on the lunatic fringe of the radical left. We’re very curious about Katie’s updated pronouns & whether she still believes Black Lives Matter.”
This was her bio before @katiehobbs announced for Governor.
Before she started pretending she hadn't spent her entire political career on the lunatic fringe of the radical left.
We're very curious about Katie's updated pronouns & whether she still believes Black Lives Matter. pic.twitter.com/50Oekpiy02
On June 1, Hobbs ordered the Ninth Floor balcony of the Arizona Executive Building festooned with four “pride” flags and offered the statement, “I’m proud to stand tall for an Arizona that’s for everyone, including the LGBTQ+ community,” she said according to The AZ Mirror.
“To the LGBTQ+ Arizonans, we celebrate the light and energy you bring to our state, and I will continue to work alongside you until we have an Arizona where everyone, no matter who they are or who they love, has the safety, freedom and opportunity to truly live their authentic lives.”
However, absent from the proliferation of media coverage was any inquiry as to why Hobbs chose to remove her ‘preferred pronouns’ and her support of BLM from her bio prior to launching her gubernatorial campaign.
The latest poll released from Noble Predictive Insights has shown that, when compared to a pre-abortion ban reversal poll last year, public opinion on abortion in Arizona has remained largely the same, with the state’s apparent rejection of abortion on demand or “legal under any circumstances” remaining consistent with 60% of respondents. Of the voters opposed, 11% said abortion should be illegal regardless of circumstances while 49% said it should be permitted “only under certain circumstances.”
The poll, conducted by NPI from May 7-14, compared consistently with a similar February poll that predated the state Supreme Court ruling on the 1864 abortion ban re-activated by the reversal of the Roe v. Wade ruling. David Byler, NPI Chief of Research said in a press release, “When Roe was overturned, a significant chunk of the electorate moved left on abortion. But the 1864 law didn’t have a comparable effect in Arizona. The governor and legislature moved quickly on the 1864 law, so it didn’t change the landscape much.”
Among the voters who agreed that abortion is acceptable under “certain circumstances” the support for each reason broke down as:
Cases where the mother’s life was endangered (85%)
Instances of rape (82%)
Cases of incest (78%)
Babies at risk of severe complications (57%)
Within a certain timeframe (45%)
47% support within the first 6 weeks of pregnancy (within the first missed menstrual cycle/prior to a heartbeat).
43% support up to 15 weeks (roughly the end of the first trimester of pregnancy).
Support significantly drops off at 24 weeks or late-term with only 9% and again at 40 weeks or full-term at just 1%.
The pro-abortion politicos and activists who are working on a ballot initiative to enshrine a “right to abortion” up to any point before fetal viability (typically between 22-24 weeks) are likely to find the battle a contentious one with Arizonans evenly split according to NPI at 41% in favor and 41% against, fighting for the 18% of undecided voters.
As noted above, only 9% of those polled were comfortable with the 22-24 week timeframe with a majority of the support resting at the six and fifteen week marks. Arizona’s current statute places the limit at fifteen weeks already.
As reported by Tucson.com, the language of the initiative could prove even more problematic with the determining point of “fetal viability” being “in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional, is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.”
The poll also indicated that abortion, though important, is hardly an Arizonan’s top priority. Twenty-two percent of registered voters in Arizona said that immigration was the most important of their top three issues, with abortion only amounting to 12%. Inflation weighed heavily with 19% of voters naming it as their top issue. Affordable housing accounted for 12% of the first choice with climate change, taxes, national defense, healthcare, education, the income gap, LGBT rights, and gun policies all coming it at single digits.
Simply put, Tuesday’s poll appears to indicate that the upcoming election in Arizona could be far more decisively driven by economic factors than abortion, an issue where Arizonans’ opinions seem to be largely locked-in.
After failing to comply with an August 2023 legal demand that his office properly update the alleged dirty voter rolls of 14 Arizona counties, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes is now the target of a lawsuit from Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi, and former gubernatorial candidate Steve Gaynor, in their capacities as voters as well as Arizona GOP Chairwoman Gina Swoboda in her official capacity.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, Attorneys Jason B. Torchinsky, Dallin B. Holt, and Brennan A.R. Bowen representing Mussi sent a pre-litigation letter to Fontes on August 8, 2023. In the statutory notice they informed Fontes of their allegations that these counties are in violation of Section 8 of the National Voting Rights Act.
Arizona’s current and former Secretaries of State have failed to perform the necessary voter list maintenance. Now, 14 counties are in violation of the NVRA. Something must be done. https://t.co/EYgawkK2h0
The legal team cited Census Bureau Data showing that four counties in the state have reported having a larger total of registered voters than citizens over the age of 18. Those counties in particular were Apache County with a startling 117.4%, Santa Cruz County with 112.6%, La Paz County with 100.5%, and Navajo County with 100.1%. The outlying counties possessing much smaller populations when compared to Maricopa and Pima Counties, home to Phoenix and Tucson respectively, only serve to amplify the statistical abnormalities. In addition, the team identified nine other counties with voter registration rates in excess of 90% of voting aged adults with another in excess of 80%.
Registration rates for all 14 counties far eclipse the voter registration rate recorded nationwide in previous elections, noted in the complaint as being 69.1% determined by reviewing the Current Population Survey (“CPS”) data from the U.S. Census Bureau and comparing estimates of registered voters who are actually eligible to be registered. Arizona’s rate is noted as 69.9%
The attorneys explained, “This evidence shows that these counties are not conducting appropriate list maintenance to ensure that the voter registration roll is accurate and current, as required by federal law.”
In the text of the complaint the attorneys noted, “These rates are implausibly high,” adding “The data made public by the Secretary show that Arizona counties have actual registration rates that exceed the expected registration rates provided by the U.S. Census Bureau and evidence a high rate of likely ineligible voter names on the official lists of eligible voters.”
Applying more concrete numbers to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that “Based on even the most conservative data sources, Arizona has at least 500,000 registered voters on the voter rolls who should have otherwise been removed.” They summarized in the complaint, “In other words, at least 500,000 registered voters currently listed on the Secretary’s voter rolls for Arizona are deceased or no longer reside in Arizona.”
In a statement to AZ Free News, The Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Deputy Director of Policy Gregory Blackie said:
“Last year, the Free Enterprise Club sent a pre-litigation NVRA notice to Secretary of State Adrian Fontes highlighting artificially high voter registration rates compared to the most recent US census data. Since then, four Arizona counties continue to have more registered voters than residents of voting age population and the other eleven have rates far exceeding the national average. Ensuring only those eligible to vote are registered is the starting point for conducting elections with integrity. We hope the courts will make sure Fontes complies with the NVRA mandate that he maintain up-to-date and accurate voter registration lists by removing those who are not eligible.”
Mussi, Gaynor, and Swoboda are seeking a declaratory judgement that Fontes has violated Section 8 of the NVRA and that the court issue injunctions “requiring the Secretary to fully comply with any existing procedures that Arizona has in place to ensure ineligible voters are identified and removed from the rolls,” and “develop and implement additional reasonable and effective registration list-maintenance programs to cure their failure to comply with Section 8 of the NVRA and to ensure that ineligible registrants are not on the voter rolls.” The plaintiffs are also seeking that Fontes’ office assume the legal costs and attorneys fees as well.
AZ Free News reached out to Fontes’ office for comment and were informed by Deputy Communications Director JP Martin that “unfortunately the office doesn’t speculate on legal matters in this way.”
In the tumultuous race for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, the incumbent Republican Rachel Mitchell is facing attacks from both sides as fellow Republican Gina Godbehere, a former bureau chief for the MCAO and former prosecutor in Goodyear was first to launch a blistering campaign. However, by comparison the findings of investigative reporters against Godbehere are far more serious than those she’s levied against Mitchell.
The victor in the upcoming July primary will face off against Democrat Tamika Wooten, a judge pro tem, former chief prosecutor in Glendale, and a municipal judge in multiple jurisdictions. But before Wooten has even taken the stage, the GOP primary campaign has already been marked by the weapon of choice for any Attorney’s race: ‘sweetheart’ plea deals. Godbehere fired the first shot, blasting Mitchell for a plea deal with former director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry, Charles Ryan in a radio interview with KFNN’s J.D. Hayworth as reported by the Phoenix New Times on April 9th.
Godbehere prefaced the issue telling Hayworth, “The problem with the county attorney is she’s wedged between a Democratic governor and a Democratic attorney general, and she has liberal staff that are running that office.” She later landed the rhetorical blow, “When you allow sweetheart deals, like in the Ryan case or pointing the gun at police, and you’re not holding offenders accountable, this is the problem we’re having.”
As noted by New Times, Wooten also latched onto the plea deal telling the outlet, “As a prosecutor, justice is supposed to be blind, and (Mitchell’s) not making her decisions that way. I think there was definitely some favoritism based on Ryan’s former position.”
It didn’t take long though for the investigative reporters at the Arizona Daily Independent to uncover a troubling unsolicited plea deal issued by Godbehere during her tenure with the MCAO for 52-year-old Laquanza Young, also known as Quan Chaney before changing his name in 2019. As reported by the Independent, Young (then known as Chaney) was arrested in 2009 for attempting to rob his former employer Cricket Wireless, threatening a pregnant former co-worker at gunpoint while doing so. He had been previously terminated by Cricket on suspicion of theft and for weeks ahead of the robbery reportedly sent threatening emails to his ex-employer.
Young was arrested and was looking at 3 counts of aggravated assault, burglary, and armed robbery charges, class three and two felonies respectively, and had a lengthy criminal record. Depending on mitigating facts he should’ve been looking at up to 30 years in prison. Confusingly, Young even expressed in pretrial statement that he had no interest in a plea deal. That was at least until Godbehere took the case.
According to the Independent, “Godbehere promptly gave Young a five-week continuance for his trial date, and then offered him a plea deal. Instead of felony charges for aggravated assault, burglary, and armed robbery, Godbehere offered Young lesser charges of disorderly conduct with a handgun (a class six felony) and burglary in the first degree with a handgun (a class three felony). Minimum sentencing under the revised charges amounted to three years, or a maximum of eight years. Godbehere personally signed off on the plea deal.”
Young (then Chaney) was sentenced to just 10 months in prison, was out in five, and he only paid $400 in restitution to the pregnant mother he threatened.
Already, this would be egregious. But on March 21, 2024, Young now under his new moniker, drew a firearm on Scottsdale Police officers who had pulled him over during a routine traffic stop. The suspect was driving a vehicle that had been reported stolen at the time of the traffic stop according to AZCentral. Near Scottsdale Road and Cactus Young exited the car rapidly, drew his gun and opened fire on two officers who returned fire and struck him fatally. He was declared dead at the scene.
A man who was only on the street due to an unsolicited plea deal from Godbehere, was killed just weeks ago while he attempted to murder two Police officers in the line of duty.
Without expressing an opinion regarding the plea deal that Mitchell offered Ryan, a charge based on an incident in which no one was harmed being reduced in light of a dedicated civil servant’s years of service doesn’t strain imagination. But an unsolicited, astoundingly light plea bargain, putting a known criminal back on the street who would later die attempting to gun down two police officers is quite another matter.
To quote Godbehere’s own words, “When you allow sweetheart deals (…) and you’re not holding offenders accountable, this is the problem we’re having.”
Striking a blow against the blight of homelessness in the state that has reached epidemic proportions in the Arizona Capitol, the Phoenix City Council voted unanimously (8-0) across party lines to ban sleeping, camping, or preparing food outdoors within 500 feet of any school, park, day care center, or homeless shelters in the city. Violation of the new ordinance could result in a Class 3 misdemeanor charge, a fine of $100, and up to 30 days in jail with up to one year unsupervised probation which is a reduction from a Class 1 misdemeanor under a previous city ordinance that applied exclusively to city-owned buildings, parks, and parking lots. Under the law, 12News reported that “camping” is defined as using a property for “sleeping, storage, making fires, cooking activities or setting up tents.”
Republican Councilwoman and Chair of the Public Safety Committee Ann O’Brien explained the ordinance which she proposed in a statement, “It’s so our community members can feel safer going to their parks, and those receiving services have a higher chance of success by not being surrounded by encampments.”
In a post to X, she noted that the new ordinance is a part of her “Homeless Plan put out 11mo ago.” She noted that “To date, over 50% of my ideas are in progress or have been implemented.”
The Phoenix City Council unanimously approved my ordinance that would ban camping within 500ft of a school, daycare, public park, or shelter facility.
This was included in my Homeless Plan put out 11mo ago. To date, over 50% of my ideas are in progress or have been implemented. pic.twitter.com/q33Kgq5V1c
— Councilwoman Ann O’Brien (@CWAnnOBrien) May 30, 2024
As recently as April, this reporter can provide a first hand account of a large group of homeless people encamped at La Pradera Park on 39th Avenue a few hundred feet from Global Academy of Phoenix Middle School, and Catalina Ventura Elementary School, both in the Alhambra School District. Fox News reported a similar scene at Griffith Elementary School in Pierce Park in Phoenix where two young girls played soccer, flanked on either side by homeless men sleeping on makeshift beds.
O’Brien continued in her statement saying, “This is a tool that helps us sometimes get them into services, right? Community court. Not everybody always says yes to services, but this might help us to hold folks accountable with our laws.”
Phoenix Mayor, Democrat Kate Gallego told 12News that it isn’t safe for individuals to be living in these areas and that Phoenix will continue assisting the homeless with social services. Other members of the city council emphatically stated that the ordinance isn’t intended to criminalize the homeless.
“This is so no child must walk past a line of tents on their way to school or play on a playground with tents pressed up against their school fence. It’s so our community members can feel safer going to our parks and so those who are receiving services have a higher chance of success by not being surrounded by those encampments,” O’Brien added.
Democrat Councilmember Laura Pastor who approved the ordinance expressed her concerns that it would be difficult to enforce, or could set homeless people to cycle through the criminal justice system. “I feel like we’re putting something in the book to put something in the books and there’s no true enforcement and (ability) to place people where they need to be placed,” she told AZCentral.
