In a letter sent on August 15th, the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC Foundation, told Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Attorney General Kris Mayes that they wish to conduct conversations with both of them to establish guidelines for volunteers to monitor ballot drop boxes for the 2024 election. The reception to the overture from CPAC Chairman Matt Schlapp and Vice Chairman Bill Walton was described as “frosty” by AZCentral on Friday.
In the letter from CPAC, Schlapp and Walton wrote, “The purpose of our letter is not to relitigate the 2020 elections. Rather we hope to work with you to reduce voter concerns regarding election fraud and the fair and transparent administration of elections.”
They added, “The goal is to establish standards for drop box observation that our organization as well as any other interested parties on the right or left, can rely upon and reassure the public in Arizona that drop boxes are not being fraudulently used.”
“Failure to do so risks that the results of the November elections will be questioned by those who did not support the winning candidate,” they warned.
As AZCentral reports, the response from Mayes and Fontes, both Democrats and both controversially involved in the 2020 and 2022 contested elections, was unmistakably negative. The outlet reported that the two elected officials claimed the CPAC letter was not sent in good faith and accused CPAC of fueling public skepticism in the security of Arizona’s elections.
Aaron Thacker, communications director for the Fontes, told reporters, “To come out and pretend like you recognize the problem and that you want to help is so disingenuous when you’re a part of the problem.” Thacker even added that CPAC should have started by asking for forgiveness from the Democrats saying, “They need to lead with a mea culpa, not pointing fingers.”
In a statement to the Arizona Republic, Mayes indicated she would be open to working with CPAC, provided that the group made a statement conceding the Democrat talking point that it is an “indisputable fact” that the 2020 and 2022 elections in Arizona were fairly conducted.
She further indicated that she would not allow CPAC to utilize open-source data to verify the identity of people ballot monitors suspect of committing voter fraud. “I want to be extremely clear that I will not stand for any voter intimidation, and that includes using ‘open-source’ information to identify individuals using a drop box to vote,” she told AZCentral.
“With the election less than 90 days away, we have reached out to state officials in both parties. Our goal is to ensure voters have confidence in the fairness in the system. That means the voting procedures must be transparent, with checks and balances in place so that Americans can have great confidence in the actual winner.
As a part of this process, we have identified unmonitored boxes as one area that undermines people’s faith in fair elections. Hence, we have been planning on a program like this for an extended period of time for states that have failed to establish robust protocols for monitoring drop boxes. Unfortunately, many states still have not detailed a clear, transparent and effective process to address the vulnerabilities of unmonitored drop boxes.”
Speaking to WaPo, Fontes claimed, “The whole thing is an absurd sham to cover up direct efforts to intimidate voters by a bunch of CPAC-recruited vigilantes to intimidate voters — and we absolutely will not be cooperating with them.”
Schlapp concluded, “We hope every person who has a lawful right to vote will have confidence their vote will be counted and protected. Every illegitimate vote – unlawful for a myriad of reasons including voting more than once, voting by those in the U.S. illegally, or votes of deceased persons somehow making it to the ballot box – violates the principle of one person, one legal vote. CPAC is committed to playing a responsible role in making certain all legal citizens have the chance to vote — no matter who they want to vote for – and have it count equally.”
As previously reported by AZ Free News, Democrats have expressed concerns after the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) prevailed in court with Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jennifer Ryan-Touhill ruling the 2023 Elections Procedures Manual unconstitutional. The ruling has effectively cleared the way for CPAC’s monitoring efforts, constrained only by the existing 75ft. exclusion area in Arizona statute.
On Wednesday, U.S. Senators Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema heaped praise on the Biden-Harris Administration for the nomination of Sharad Desai as a U.S. District Court judge.
Sharad is the brother of a sitting 9th Circuit Court Judge, Roopali Desai.
Sharad, Vice President and General Counsel for defense contractor Honeywell, worked as a civil litigator for Arizona law firm Osborn Maledon. At Honeywell, he focused on IT, Digital, and Strategic matters as well as Supply Chain and Electronic Solutions, according to his LinkedIn profile. Prior to his civil practice he worked as a law clerk for now-retired Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch during her 13-year tenure as Vice Chief Justice.
In a joint press release, Sinema said, “Sharad Desai possesses the experience, integrity, and intellect to serve as a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. I’m proud to have recommended his nomination to the White House and I look forward to securing his bipartisan confirmation by the United States Senate.”
Kelly added, “The President has nominated Mr. Desai, who is experienced and well-regarded by Arizona’s legal community, to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.” He added, “I congratulate him on this important nomination and look forward to working towards his confirmation in the United States Senate.”
As reported by Reuters, Sharad was in attendance at his sister’s confirmation hearing where she told the Senate Judiciary Committee that her brother and sister, who is an Arizona law professor, are her “biggest cheerleaders.” The outlet also noted that Roopali Desai was an election lawyer prior to her appointment and has worked for Sen. Sinema’s political campaigns.
While both Desais are highly experienced attorneys with impressive qualifications, the political significance of Roopali Desai’s work in recent years cannot be overstated, or overlooked. And whether the political efforts of then-counselor Desai influenced the nomination of one or both of them will very likely play into Sharad Desai’s confirmation hearing, along with any potential nominations that University of Arizona Law Professor Shefali Milczarek-Desai might see in the future.
The Citizens Clean Elections Commission’s U.S. Senate debate on October 9th is currently slated to include Republican Kari Lake and Democrat Ruben Gallego, excluding Green Party candidate Eduardo Quintana due to new requirements brought about this year. But now, Lake has intervened in support of Quintana, and it remains to be seen if Gallego will follow suit.
On August 23rd, Quintana made a public appeal via a post to X, that as a ballot qualified candidate he should be included in the debate and criticized the Commission writing “if you are truly ‘non-partisan’ organization, you have a duty to the voters to include every qualified candidate!”
I am a ballot qualified candidate for the U.S. Senate race here in #Arizona. I have every right to be on the debate stage with @KariLake and @RubenGallego.@AZCCEC, if you are truly “non-partisan” organization, you have a duty to the voters to include every qualified candidate! https://t.co/KZHHH2bNpr
— Eduardo Quintana for U.S. Senate 🌻 (@Quintana4Senate) August 23, 2024
In a statement released Wednesday, Kari Lake agreed.
According to a press release from the Lake campaign, “On Wednesday, the Lake Campaign contacted the Citizens Clean Elections Commission and agreed to them extending an invitation to every candidate on the ballot, which would include Arizona’s Green Party candidate, Eduardo Quintana. However, Clean Elections said that Gallego would first have to agree to including Quintana in the debate as well. Notably, Quintana has made several pleas for both campaigns to ‘stand up for the right of voters to hear from all candidates running’ and advocate for his inclusion in the debate.”
In a statement Lake said, “The Green Party’s nominee for U.S. Senate Eduardo Quintana will be on the ballot in November, and I believe we need to ensure that every candidate and every voter is heard and respected.
I urge Ruben to accept the proposal for Eduardo to be included in our debate. You cannot claim to be a ‘defender of democracy’ when you refuse access to third-party candidates.”
As reported by KJZZ, Chris Kline, president and CEO of the Arizona Media Association, explained that in order to be eligible for a general election debate, each candidate must have at least 1% of the total ballots cast in all primaries for the office. For the statewide U.S. Senate Election, that works out to 12,400 votes, nearly forty-four times the 282 write-in votes Quintana received in the primary.
Kline responded to the outlet that it is unclear if the Green Party candidate will be able to join the debate. “That is something we are navigating right now,” Kline said. He clarified, “We are reaching out to the Gallego campaign and trying to navigate where they are,” indicating that the ball is very much in the Democrat’s court as of this report.
Quintana followed with another post Wednesday evening calling out Gallego, “So, here’s the main issue I have with this; Why does @RubenGallego have to consent to my inclusion in the debate stage? I’m a qualified candidate that will be on the ballot, same as Gallego and Lake. I have every right to be there and for voters to hear me debate.” He added, “The @AZCCEC is supposed to be non-partisan, yet they’re deliberately blocking myself and other Green Party candidates like Athena Eastwood in CD6 from participating in their debates. It is wrong. It is voter suppression. It is an affront to democracy itself.”
Speaking to KTAR’s Mike Broomhead Thursday, Lake told the host, “I’m calling for everybody who’s on the ballot to be in there. Apparently, they did not invite the Green Party candidate. I think that’s not cool.” She added, “I would be calling for all of the candidates that are on the ballot for the U.S. Senate race to be present and able to make their case at this debate.”
In a post to X, Quintana lauded Lake for her efforts writing, “I thank @KariLake for advocating for our campaign’s inclusion in the upcoming @AZCCEC sponsored Senate debate. Kari and I have several important disagreements on policy, that’s no secret. But I applaud her for stepping up and demanding that all candidates be allowed to debate.”
Lake took the opportunity to fire a scathing shot at both Vice President Kamala Harris and Gallego in a follow-up comment noting, “Quintana4Senate got 282 more votes than @KamalaHarris. Don’t tell me he should not be on that stage, @RubenGallego”
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma filed an amicus brief in support of a lawsuit against Arizona State University and the Arizona Board of Regents for “unlawfully mandating racist DEI training for faculty.” The lawsuit was brought by Dr. Owen Anderson and the Goldwater Institute. The Arizona Board of Regents brought a motion to dismiss the case, which Petersen and Toma are urging the court to reject.
In the text of the brief, Petersen and Toma establish first and foremost that the case brought by Goldwater and Dr. Anderson “is a civil rights case,” citing Arizona Revised Statutes “enacted in part to prohibit discriminatory state and local government practices, including conduct that could qualify as, or lead to, a discriminatory work environment and even liability for the State.”
Sharing the brief, the Arizona Republican Party wrote in a post to X, “We refuse to normalize discrimination in higher education, or anywhere in the state of Arizona.”
🚨ICYMI: DEI or "Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion" is simply discrimination under another name, and we won't tolerate your tax dollars supporting radical left ideology that provides preferential treatment for individuals based on race, skin color, or sex.
As reported by Goldwater, the crux of the complaint by Dr. Anderson is that Arizona State University is using taxpayer funds to mandate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion training among the university’s faculty. And that Dr. Anderson’s refusal to participate in the inherently discriminatory training has left him open to discipline from his superiors.
“I shouldn’t be forced to take training and affirm ideas with which I disagree as a condition of employment,’” Dr. Anderson said. “This ‘training’ is simply racism under the guise of DEI. It goes against my conscience, and I want no part of it.”
Goldwater Staff Attorney Stacy Skankey noted, “Arizona state law prohibits mandatory training for state employees and use of taxpayer resources to teach doctrines that discriminate based on race, ethnicity, sex, and other characteristics.”
“But the ‘ASU Inclusive Communities’ training teaches discriminatory DEI concepts, including things like ‘how…white supremacy [is] normalized in society,’ how to ‘critique whiteness’; ‘white privilege’; ‘white fragility’; and the need for ‘transformative justice.’ Even ‘seemingly innocuous questions and comments’—like asking people where they’re from or commenting on their hair—can be deemed ‘racist.’”
Skankey and co-counsel Parker Jackson, representing Dr. Anderson, alleged in the complaint that the Arizona Board of Regents and ASU are “using public money to prepare and disseminate mandatory faculty and staff training for its employees that presents forms of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex, in violation of state law.” They add that the University is “compelling the speech of public employees by requiring faculty and staff to take an examination following a training that presents forms of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex, and answer with Arizona State University’s ‘correct’ answers, in violation of the Arizona Constitution.”
The training included slides containing these objectively racial and gender discriminatory statements and concepts:
“[A]cknowledging the history of white supremacy and the social conditions for it to exist as a structural phenomenon.”
“How is white supremacy normalized in society.”
“[G]iven the socio-historical legacy of racism, sexism, homophobia and other forms of structural inequality, perceptions of authority and control are not always granted to minoritized [sic] faculty.”
“White Fragility.”
“What is White Privilege, Really.”
“Explaining White privilege to a broke white person… .”
“7 Ways White People Can Combat Their Privilege.”
“Racism … can take the form of … and include seemingly innocuous questions or comments, such as asking people of color where they are from … .”
“Sexual identities are linked to power, and heterosexuality, the dominant sexual identity in American culture, is privileged by going largely unquestioned.”
A video segment of the training includes the statements via transcript:
“[I]t scares people to talk about white supremacy or to be called a white supremacist. But if we start thinking about it in terms of whiteness as something that is culturally neutral and we’re moving it from that neutral space into a critical space.”
“[W]e also have to open the space to critique whiteness.”
“[W]hite supremacy … referring to here is the period between the 1500’s and the 1800’s that encompasses both Spanish colonization and Euro American colonization. And what colonization did, was it really created this system of binary thinking. There were folks that were inherently good and folks that were inherently bad, and that led to the systems of superiority that were then written into the foundation documents of our nation.”
The original complaint summarizes: “The Inclusive Communities training provides discriminatory concepts including, but not limited to: white people are inherently racist and oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; heterosexuals are inherently sexist and oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously; white people should receive adverse treatment solely or partly because of their race or ethnicity; white people bear responsibility for actions committed by other white people; land acknowledgement statements are a way of holding one race or ethnicity responsible for the actions committed by other members of the same race or ethnicity; transformative justice calls for an individual to bear responsibility for actions committed by other members of the same race, ethnic group or sex; and dominant identities (whites or heterosexuals) are treated morally or intellectually superior to other races, ethnic groups or sexes.”
Skankey explained, “ASU is essentially forcing its employees to agree to a certain type of speech, which violates the Arizona Constitution’s broad protections for free speech.”
Speaking with Fox & Friends in March, Dr. Anderson explained, “I was told I need to ‘decolonize my classroom.’”
In a statement responding to the lawsuit, an ASU spokesman told Fox producers, “The Goldwater Institute suit misleads the court and misrepresents both the content and requirements of this training to make an argument the represents a political perspective but is not based on the law. ASU’s commitment to providing a support and welcoming educational environment for students of all backgrounds will continue and the university will respond appropriately to the Institute’s tactic.”
The case is currently awaiting a response from the Arizona Board of Regents.
A mother from Surprise, Arizona, Rebekah Massie, stirred a major controversy in the West Valley during a city council meeting last week. Massie utilized her time to address the city’s decision to give a pay-increase to City Attorney Robert Wingo despite “numerous violations or alleged violations and blatant disregard,” for the Arizona Revised Statutes, the State Bar of Professional Conduct, the Arizona Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution.
Surprise’s outgoing Mayor Skip Hall wasn’t willing to hear her objections though. He ordered Massie’s removal from the meeting, resulting in her arrest and citation.
Mayor-Elect Kevin Sartor issued a statement Monday condemning the arrest and Hall’s actions saying, “As Americans, our right to free speech is fundamental, especially when it comes to holding our government accountable,” said Sartor. “What happened to Rebekah Massie is unacceptable. No citizen should ever be arrested for voicing their concerns, especially in a forum specifically designed for public input.”
Sartor, who was endorsed by the Republican Committee for LD29 emphatically added, “My administration will prioritize transparency, respect, and the protection of our citizens’ First Amendment rights. We will never arrest or silence our residents for expressing their views or questioning their elected officials. This is not just about Rebekah Massie; it’s about every resident of Surprise. Your voice matters, and it will always be heard.”
“The right to free speech is at the heart of our democracy, and as your next mayor, I will ensure that every citizen’s voice is heard, respected, and protected,” Sartor stated. “While there must be reasonable limits on speech in public forums—such as prohibiting violence, threats, or profanity—this recent incident did not come close to crossing those lines. As mayor, I will ensure that our city is a place where open dialogue is encouraged, not suppressed. We are stronger when every voice is heard.”
Massie began by telling the council that she was concerned about Wingo’s pay increase in light of his recent handling of allegations against the city clerk’s handling of elections along with him already earning the second-highest salary in the city at $266,000.
As reported by the Arizona Daily Independent, Massie explained, “Recent months have uncovered numerous violations or alleged violations and blatant disregard I would say for not only the Arizona Revised Statutes, the State Bar of Professional Conduct, but also the Arizona State Constitution and the Bill of Rights at the federal level.”
She continued, “Title 16, I won’t rehash everything but we are all too well and familiar with what took place during the election season and the violations thereof. City clerk is our elections officer. Nothing was done with those violations. And the city attorney did nothing as far as that. Title IX and 38 have conflict of interest pieces of information. It was deemed there was conflict of interest. Title 39, there are numerous public records requests that I have open right now that are ‘pending legal review’ that I am entitled to request.”
During her remarks Massie was cut off by Mayor Hall. “Ms. Massie, I’ve got to interrupt you here because this is the public meeting forum you agreed to when you speak and I want to read this to you,” Hall said.
He continued, speaking over her, “That there are Oral communications during the City Council meeting that may not be used to lodge charges or complaints against any employee of the city, or members of the body, regardless of whether such person is identified in the presentation by their name, or by any other reference that tends to identify him or her.”
Massie pushed back immediately, stating that Hall was violating her rights under the First Amendment and the two began to argue in a rapid exchange. “This is your warning,” Hall told her. “Warning for what?” Massie asked. “Warning for attacking a city attorney personally,” Hall replied.
“This is factual information,” Massie argued. “You are violating my First Amendment rights.”
“It doesn’t matter,” the Mayor said dismissively. “This is what you agreed to for speaking. This is the form.” Massie rejected the legality of the form, noting that if she desired she could profane the council for three straight minutes under constitutionally defined free speech. Hall rejected this. And a Surprise police officer appeared to escort her out.
Massie resisted and demanded to know the charges she was being detained on with her 10-year-old daughter looking on.
“Chief, could you have somebody come down here and escort Miss Massie?” Hall can be heard saying on video of the meeting.
“Really is that necessary? In front of my 10-year-old daughter you’re going to escort me out for expressing my First Amendment rights?” Massie protested.
“She can go with you,” the mayor answered.
Ultimately, Massie was cited for third degree trespassing according to The Center Square.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a free speech advocacy group, announced its intent to take legal action in a Monday post to X, writing “City of Surprise: We’ll see you in court. The First Amendment protects Americans’ right to criticize public officials without being arrested.”
City of Surprise: We'll see you in court.
The First Amendment protects Americans' right to criticize public officials without being arrested. https://t.co/Ii6D2dJ4v8
Massie confirmed that she is now being represented by FIRE, which is planning to file a lawsuit on her behalf in a post to X saying, “As an American, it’s my right to speak out to keep the local government accountable. And as a mom, it’s my obligation to set a good example and stand up for our fundamental rights — like the right of free speech — when they’re threatened.”
Correction: A previous version of this article incorrectly referred to Rebekah Massie as a member of FIRE. The story has been updated.
