by Matthew Holloway | Oct 15, 2024 | Education, News
By Matthew Holloway |
Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell has announced that her office has filed misdemeanor trespassing charges against 68 demonstrators who were arrested during a pro-Hamas protest at ASU in April. The demonstrators defied the orders of ASU police to disperse and leave the ad hoc encampment they illegally created on the alumni lawn near Old Main.
Under A.R.S. 13-1502, criminal trespassing entails “knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully on any real property after a reasonable request to leave by a law enforcement officer, the owner or any other person having lawful control over such property.” As a Class-3 misdemeanor, the penalty, if the accused are found guilty, could be up to 30 days in the county jail with a $500 fine and up to one year of probation.
“The right to free speech does not extend to violating the law,” County Attorney Mitchell said.
“The university’s policy is clear – encampments are not permitted in this particular area on campus. The protestors – many of whom were not students – were given the chance, over and over again, to peacefully take down the encampments and leave the area. ASU, along with local law enforcement, had a responsibility to keep the area safe for students and faculty. My office is now playing the equally important role of holding these people accountable for their actions.”
Shortly after the arrests on April 26th, ASU released a statement, now seemingly confirmed by Mitchell, that the demonstrators were mostly not ASU students or faculty:
“ASU Police arrested 72 people for trespassing after they set up an unauthorized encampment Friday, in violation of university policy. Encampments are prohibited on Arizona State University property. Lawful demonstrations can take place except overnight between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m.
A group of people – most of whom were not ASU students, faculty or staff – created an encampment and demonstration that continued until well past 11 p.m. when the group was instructed repeatedly to disperse. Individuals who refused to leave after numerous warnings were arrested and charged with criminal trespass. Of the 72 arrested throughout the day Friday, 15 were ASU students; about 80 percent of those arrested were not students.“
According to later reporting from ABC15, twenty of the people arrested were later revealed to be ASU students who were subsequently suspended from the university after their arrest.
In the days following the arrest, independent journalist Kyle Becker reported that ASU fraternity members could be seen assisting campus police to tear down the demonstrators’ encampment. Speaking to Campus Reform, the students told reporters that the university was happy to have their help.
“It’s our duty to help keep our freedoms secure. Jews should not have to feel threatened to hide on campus,” they told the outlet. “When they call for “Jewish genocide” the answer was extremely clear: help the police.”
In May, charges against the 68 suspects were initially vacated due to a failure on the part of ASU police officials to refer them to the prosecutor’s office in a timely manner. The charges were eventually submitted over the next few months.
The incident resulted in ASU police chief Michael Thompson being placed on administrative leave after a series of complaints were filed against him for his actions during the demonstration. He ultimately retired.
Mitchell’s office stated that the arrests were carried out by Tempe Police, Arizona Department of Public Safety, and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Officers, and that trial dates for the accused are pending.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Oct 14, 2024 | Education, News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Common Sense Institute of Arizona (CSI) has released a comprehensive report setting facts versus myths surrounding Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESA) program.
According to the CSI, the full eleven page report, “dispels misconceptions and presents data-driven insights into the fiscal and educational impacts of the ESA program on Arizona’s public education system and state budget—an issue of growing interest for states considering ESA expansion.”
Although it follows an argumentative “claim/fact” format, the primary findings of the report can be broken down into five key area: K-12 Funding Growth, Per-Pupil Spending, Public School Enrollment Decline, ESA Program Costs, and Accountability and Oversight.
According to the release, during the nine year-span from Fiscal Year 2016 to 2025, the K-12 funding for Arizona Public Schools exploded by approximately 60 percent, jumping up by over $6.3 billion. Conversely, the funding allocated to ESAs only increased by $792 million over the same period, amounting to barely 11% of the budget’s overall growth. This simple fact torpedoes the popular online fiction that legislators are making cuts to public school funding to pay for the ESA.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, the report aligns well with a statement from Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne as well as a report from the Arizona Legislative Budget Committee and the Goldwater Institute.
Answering concerns on per-pupil spending, the CSI found, “Arizona now spends over $15,100 per public school student, a 30% increase since FY2016 (adjusted for inflation). Despite a decrease of over 23,500 students in public school enrollment over the past five years, overall funding has continued to grow.”
In a post on X, the CSI observed, “Traditional district public school enrollment has been steadily declining in Arizona for years. This trend, driven by demographic shifts and changing attitudes, is likely to continue regardless of the ESA program. ESA is the response not the cause.”
Easily the most divisive effort to assail ESA funding has come from the claim that it only benefits wealthy, urban students. The CSI joins the Joint Legislative Committee in dashing the notion, stating, “Since the pandemic, demand for traditional district public schools has fallen nationwide – among broad demographic groups. With the expansion of things like home schooling, Microschooling, etc., non-traditional students may look very different than you’d expect!”
As noted in prior reporting: the Goldwater Institute, the nonpartisan Common Sense Institute, and multiple conservative outlets have repeatedly verified that families of ESA children cover the full breadth of the socio-economic strata from crushingly impoverished to blindingly wealthy, from the broken down trailer parks of South Phoenix to the most lavish homes of Paradise Valley.
The report notably cites the Black Mother’s Forum, an Arizona microschool operating two locations and serving over 150 pupils since 2021. All the students use ESAs and 90% are non-white with a wide majority classified as low-income. According to the Forum’s CEO, “Without the universal ESA program, these schools would not exist.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Oct 14, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Regina Romero, the Democrat Mayor of Tucson, released a “Voter Guide” via Facebook on Wednesday, which calls for her supporters to vote “No” on Proposition 140. The proposition would create an open primary system in Arizona along with a system of ranked-choice voting.
As AZ Free News previously reported, a broad, bipartisan coalition has formed to oppose Prop 140 including Democrat groups such as: Coconino County Democrats, Gila County Democrats, North Scottsdale Democrats, LD 5 Democrats, LD 3 Democrats, LD 8 Democrats, LD 13 Democrats, LD 14 Democrats, South Mountain Democrats, and Democrats Abroad. And Republican groups such as: Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Center for Arizona Policy, Heritage Action for America, AMAC Action, Goldwater Institute, EZAZ, Turning Point Action, and the Republican Party of Arizona.
For Romero to find herself on the same side of an issue as some of these groups seems to indicate the profound impact the proposed changes would have on Arizona politics. Even the Libertarian Party of Arizona has lent its voice to oppose Prop 140, writing in a post to X that repeated an alert from the AZGOP, “The AZLP approves this message. Prop 140 could effectively kill third-party and independent candidates. Vote no!”
Legislative District 8 Democrats posted a brief explanation of the proposition on their website with the objection:
“This amendment to the state Constitution would open primaries to all voters, regardless of party. Proponents say this process would moderate the extremism we’ve seen on numerous contentious issues. The Legislature would be required to pass a bill to determine how many candidates would advance from the primary to the general election. This could be the top-two primaries like California, top-five primaries, or any number in between. For two-winner elections for the Arizona House, the number to advance could be from four to seven. If the Legislature fails to pass such a bill by 11/1/2025, the Secretary of State would choose the number of candidates to advance.
The proposition requires a majority of the votes to win the general election. It requires the use of ranked-choice voting in general elections where three or more candidates advance from the primary. This proposition has attractive features, but important decisions left to the Legislature make it harder to support. “
As previously reported by AZ Free News, a press release from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club warned that Prop 140 would do the following if enacted:
- “Allows one politician, the Arizona Secretary of State, to decide how many candidates qualify for the general election ballot for every single contest, including his or her own race
- Would result in some races where candidates from only one political party appear on the general election ballot
- Would force voters to navigate two completely different voting systems on the same ballot, with some races requiring voters to rank candidates and others that do not
- Will increase tabulation errors, create longer lines at the polls, and significantly delay election results.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Oct 12, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The long-awaited debate for the U.S. Senate Race in Arizona took place on Wednesday between Kari Lake and Congressman Ruben Gallego. And even the most mainstream of outlets took note, or took pains not to note, that Lake outperformed Gallego.
The Associated Press seemed to call out Rep. Gallego’s performance against Lake in a singular headline that read, “Lake’s Comfort And Polish In Front Of The Camera Stood In Contrast To Gallego.”
Jonathan Cooper and Gabriel Sandoval wrote for the wire, “Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake repeatedly reminded viewers Wednesday of her three-decade career on Arizona television, looking to harness the intimate connection she built with voters and overcome Democrat Ruben Gallego’s portrayal of her as a liar in the only debate of the closely watched race.”
“Lake’s comfort and polish in front of the camera stood in contrast to Gallego, a military veteran who occasionally tripped on his words. The hourlong forum, at times caustic and personal, highlighted big differences on immigration, border security, abortion and taxes.”
Detracting from her performance, the outlet noted that Lake didn’t pursue what was potentially the best attack avenue against Gallego far enough. It’s an angle President Trump has levied against Vice President Kamala Harris with great success: citing the Democrats’ current offices and asking why the changes they champion haven’t been made already.
“I haven’t had a vote in this; you’ve had a vote for 10 years,” she said.
The AP observed that Gallego focused on election integrity and Lake’s objection to the 2022 gubernatorial race results, bait that Lake refused to take. However, she did pivot to a strong argument on election integrity that Gallego was poorly equipped to answer.
“You know we’ve had problems across the country since 2000. One year the Democrats are mad, the next year the Republicans are,” Lake began. “We’ve got problems with our elections, and there’s no doubt about it. The people of Arizona have been burned. They’re tired of hearing about hiccups and loopholes and problems that happen on Election Day. We just want to make sure that our legal vote counts!”
She then zeroed in on Gallego: “My opponent wants illegal votes to count! He actually voted twice to have illegals vote. He voted against the SAVE Act, which would prevent illegals from voting. I want every legal vote to count. I don’t care if you are the most liberal Democrat or the most conservative Republican or where most of Arizona is: somewhere in between. I want every legal vote to count.”
Lake offered a solution to the matter of election integrity that will likely resonate with beleaguered Arizona voters fed-up with election-day mishaps for over a decade. “My solution would be: let’s get back to something closer to what we used to have: Election day, paper ballots, and we know the results right there on the night of the election. But we definitely can’t have people pouring across our country illegally voting. Not only does he want to let them vote, he wants to give them all asylum, and we’ve got to stop this nonsense at the border and restore our country.”
Even AZCentral, an outlet that has often proven openly hostile to Lake, seemed to de facto concede that Lake, in her confrontational, ‘take-no-prisoners’ debate style, successfully steamrolled Gallego. Bill Goodykoontz wrote in an editorial, “She followed the debate tactics (of) Donald Trump (her ‘good friend,’ she said) and repeatedly went over her time limit and talked over Gallego, often resorting to personal attacks. It was ugly. And she got away with it.”
Goodykoontz observed that though Gallego didn’t take the bait, he “didn’t respond as forcefully as he might have.” Further, Lake from the start, sought to classify Gallego as the “extreme makeover” candidate by drawing stark contrasts between his current talking points and his congression record, in lockstep with the Biden-Harris administration.
“Ruben Gallego has supported — every step of the way — Kamala Harris, the border czar, and Joe Biden’s open border,” she said.
While the New York Times’ Kellen Browning assessed that the debate may not have been a “knock out blow” to Gallego, the momentum generated by a dominant debate performance could move Lake back into striking distance of her opponent.
In polling per FiveThirtyEight, Gallego achieved several breakaways, carrying him into double digits over Lake, the most recent at the end of September. But in the past week, he has begun to hemorrhage his lead again from thirteen points in September, back down to seven. Should the cycle the two candidates have been locked in for months repeat, it will find Lake likely within margin of error by election day, if not overtaking the Democrat.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Matthew Holloway | Oct 11, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
After a stunning decision by the Arizona Supreme Court that will allow votes to be tabulated for Proposition 140, which would usher in ranked-choice voting, a coalition has formed to defeat the measure.
The NO on Prop 140 Committee, co-chaired by Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould, has launched a concerted effort to defeat the measure alongside organizations on both sides of the aisle including:
In a statement, Lamb and Gould said, “Special interest groups should not decide how our elections system operates. Arizonans on all sides of the aisle agree: this scheme to transform our elections into a system found in California is a bad idea. We oppose re-writing our Constitution and imposing such a radical, convoluted scheme on Arizonans.”
According to the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, one of the groups involved in the bipartisan coaltion, Prop 140 would do the following if enacted:
- “Allows one politician, the Arizona Secretary of State, to decide how many candidates qualify for the general election ballot for every single contest, including his or her own race
- Would result in some races where candidates from only one political party appear on the general election ballot
- Would force voters to navigate two completely different voting systems on the same ballot, with some races requiring voters to rank candidates and others that do not
- Will increase tabulation errors, create longer lines at the polls, and significantly delay election results.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
