by Matthew Holloway | Sep 25, 2024 | Education, News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne issued a press release Thursday alerting parents of the Osborn School District that callers to the Arizona Department of Education’s (ADE) Empower Hotline have reported the central Phoenix district is allowing race and gender politics into the classroom, supporting Black Lives Matters and other political signage. Horne condemned the decision stating that the district is allowing race and gender politics to distract from academics. However, he noted that Arizona is a local-control state, so he is unable to intervene, and Osborn District parents must act.
In a statement, Horne said, “As Superintendent of Public Instruction my primary focus is helping schools increase academic outcomes, and the Osborn school district is not doing well academically, in part because of needless and provocative distractions.”
“We received a notification on the department’s Empower Hotline from a member of the Osborn community, who is offended by what is going on at that school district. This person sent pictures of a classroom wall that instead of posting academic materials had a big Black Lives Matter poster. They also sent a picture of stickers given to the students with the Osborn logo, surrounded by the colors associated with gender politics. The district provides magnets to attach this to cars, and stickers to students and staff, according to the notification we received on the hotline. There are no posters of brown lives matter, blue lives matter. Where does one stop when one goes down this path?”
Citing test scores holding up Phoenix’s Osborn District alongside the demographically similar Avondale Elementary District, which has an even higher poverty rate according to the free and reduced lunch enrollment, the release from the ADE noted that Avondale scores “significantly higher in academics.”
“81 percent of Osborn students are not proficient in math, compared to 67 percent in Avondale. In reading, 76 percent of Osborn students are not proficient, while that figure for Avondale is 63 percent.”
Horne offered some advice to school districts.
“If districts eliminate the time spent on race and gender politics they will have more time for academics. This will produce higher test scores. I spoke to the Osborne superintendent about this. He said what I was complaining about was designed to make all students feel welcome. The way to do that properly is to teach students to treat each other as individuals without regard to race, sexual orientation, sexual identity, or any such characteristic. It is not to promote identity politics in our public schools. He responded that we would have to agree to disagree.”
The State Superintendent added, “Arizona is a local control state. I do not have authority to order this to stop. We must rely on the parents and taxpayers in the Osborn school district to bring proper values and focus on academics to that school district. I urge them to do this as I do parents throughout Arizona who may observe this kind of needless distraction being promoted by schools.”
Pre-empting criticism for his opposition to the racial politics at play, Horne recalled his history of support for civil rights saying, “I have been a passionate supporter of civil rights since childhood. I attended the march on Washington in 1963 in which Martin Luther King gave his famous speech arguing that we should be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. That has been my philosophy my whole life.”
However, he made his recommendation clear: “Race and gender politics in schools are contrary to this philosophy which should be taught to all students.”
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 | Sep 24, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Republican Party of Arizona (AZGOP) released a new billboard design on Thursday exemplifying a theme of unity. The new digital billboards featured across the Valley of the Sun prominently feature an image of President Donald Trump backed by the Arizona Flag’s rays of red and gold sun above the blue sky and flanked by former Democrats, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and former Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., as well as Republicans Vice Presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance (R-OH), former Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, and ‘X’ owner Elon Musk. Although Musk has been supporting Trump, he has historically declared himself a “registered independent” and “politically moderate.” Thus the billboard represents real political unity representing Democrats, Independents, and Republicans.
According to a press release from the AZGOP, the new billboard is “part of its ‘Team Unity’ campaign, featuring President Donald J. Trump and Vice Presidential nominee Senator J.D. Vance alongside a coalition of prominent American heroes dedicated to restoring our great country.”
“The ‘Team Unity’ billboard is part of a broader effort by the AZGOP to energize voters ahead of the 2024 election. The AZGOP is committed to reaching every corner of the state with this message of hope, optimism, and most importantly, unity.”
The state party Chair Gina Swoboda hailed the billboard’s launch and emphasized the immense need for political unity in America:
“This billboard embodies the spirit of unity that our nation desperately needs,” said Swoboda. “The Trump-Vance ticket represents a powerful coalition of voices that will fight for America — protecting freedom of speech, addressing the health crisis, restoring prosperity, and ensuring security for all Americans. This campaign is about bringing together Arizonans and Americans who are united by their commitment to restoring our nation’s values and standing strong against those who seek to divide us.”
Dating back to his inaugural address in 2021 and throughout his term so far, President Joe Biden has often touted his administration as being one focused on “Unity,” but the message has largely fallen flat with voters, given that any “bipartisan” measures are only superficially so, typically representing the furthest left and most anti-Trump Congressmen and Senators siding against their own party, as well as the increasingly divisive and vitriolic rhetoric the Biden-Harris administration has employed against President Trump and his supporters.
During his inaugural address, Biden said, “We come together as one nation.” He claimed, “Democracy has prevailed,” adding, “We have much to repair, much to restore, much to build, much to heal, and much to gain. But we cannot do it while divided against ourselves. My whole soul is in this—bringing America together,” he said. It is time to end our “uncivil war.”
Alas, by September 2021, in his infamous “Red Speech” (Officially “Remarks by President Biden on the Continued Battle for the Soul of the Nation”), Biden seemed to wholly abandon the cause of ‘unity’ with pro-Trump Republicans when he declared unequivocally:
“Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”
Although he attempted to pivot, claiming, “Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology.” He quickly fell back to the divisive rhetoric, telling supporters, “There is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country.”
He added, “MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people.”
However, as the 2024 Election loomed, a resurgence of the new “Unity,” began to spring from the Biden-Harris administration. Yet, even then, he readily maligned President Trump and his supporters, and Vice President Kamala Harris through her campaign has continued to do so.
The clear dichotomy presents the Trump campaign versus the effort to install Harris, as the only ‘true’ example of unity across the political spectrum.
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 | Sep 24, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled on Friday that nearly 98,000 Maricopa County voters whose citizenship documents got caught up in a coding error will be allowed to vote full ballot in November. Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer had moved to have them relegated to voting ‘Fed Only’ in November.
The court received several amicus briefs from voters and organizations across the political spectrum arguing against the move, including the Arizona Republican Party; the League of Women Voters of Arizona; Coconino County Recorder Patty Hansen and Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cazares-Kelly; as well as the Carlos Apache Tribe, Living United for Change in Arizona, League of United Latin American Citizens of Arizona, Mi Familia Vota, and the ACLU of Arizona.
The Republican Party of Arizona (AZGOP) filed an amicus brief Thursday calling upon the court to intervene and prevent the removal of 98,000 voters from the rolls whose registrations were potentially endangered by a controversial clerical error by state officials.
On Tuesday, Arizona’s Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes announced that 97,000 inividuals would be impacted by an error that could prevent them from voting in state-level elections such as state legislative races, initiatives, and referenda. The error affects voters who were issued an Arizona driver’s license prior to October 1, 1996. The figure represents over 2.5% of the state’s total registered electorate. The outlet noted that a technical issue reportedly caused the error which has been resolved, however, the status of those affected is unclear.
In a statement published Thursday the AZGOP announced:
“Today, the Republican Party of Arizona filed an amicus brief in the Arizona Supreme Court supporting the preservation of voter rights in the case involving nearly 100,000 voters whose registration statuses were jeopardized by a state government clerical error.
The AZGOP urges the court to protect voters from sudden disenfranchisement and argues that the requested relief from Petitioner Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer violates both state and federal law.
The AZGOP’s amicus brief notes the importance of adhering to the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which prohibits systematic voter removals within 90 days of a federal election, and argues that the removal of voters based on this clerical error violates due process and the U.S. Constitution. The AZGOP maintains that any action taken to correct these registration issues should not result in the disenfranchisement of voters who have long participated in Arizona’s elections without issue.”
Gina Swoboda, AZGOP Chair said in a statement:
“Regardless of any outcome on this matter, all of these voters will receive a Federal Only ballot which permits them to vote for President, U.S. Senate, and U.S. Congress. The only question before us is if these voters, who have possessed an Arizona driver’s license since before October 1996, should be denied the right to vote for their representatives in the Arizona legislature, county, school board, and ballot measure contests.
Our brief makes it clear: nearly 100,000 Arizona voters should not be penalized for a mistake made by the government. We will not stand by as voters are disenfranchised, especially so close to an election. The law requires that any changes to voter registration or eligibility must be handled carefully and in accordance with federal and state law. Rushing to disenfranchise voters now would not only be illegal but would severely undermine confidence in our elections.”
In a lengthy post to X, Richer justified his lawsuit saying:
“My office discovered this issue last week, and we have been working with the Governor’s Office, the Secretary’s Office, the MVD, and the Attorney General to fix this moving forward. The number is about 97,000 registrants across the state. All of these people have attested under penalty of law that they are U.S. citizens. And, in all likelihood, they almost all U.S. Citizens. But they have NOT provided documented proof of citizenship. Moving forward (2025 onward), everyone agrees we need DPOC for those voters for them to vote a full ballot. But the Secretary and I have different opinions on what the law requires for the November 5, 2024 General Election. It is my position that these registrants have not satisfied Arizona’s documented proof of citizenship law, and therefore can only vote a ‘FED ONLY’ ballot.”
In the text of the amicus brief, the AZGOP argues that the declaratory judgment requested by Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer would stand in violation of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, Arizona’s Free and Equal Elections Clause, as well as the National Voter Registration Act. The party’s legal team explained, “It is difficult to imagine state action that would impose a more ‘severe’ burden on the right to vote than abruptly informing an individual who has lived and voted in Arizona for decades—and previously voted in all elections, state and federal—that they must suddenly prove that they are a U.S. citizen in the handful of days remaining before Arizona’s October 7 voter registration deadline if they want to vote in state elections this year.”
Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer writing for the majority ruled:
“In sum, Richer has not established that the county recorders have statutory authority to remove the Affected Voters from being able to vote in the upcoming 2024 General Election for federal offices and with respect to matters on an Arizona ballot. This is particularly true under the present facts, where a state administrative failure permitted the Affected Voters to be registered without confirming that they provided DPOC when they received their driver’s licenses and where there is so little time remaining before the beginning of the 2024 General Election.”
She continued, “Arizona law provides that ‘[w]hen the county recorder obtains information pursuant to this section and confirms that the person registered is not a United States citizen,’ the county recorder is to initiate a process to cancel a registration that includes sending the person notice that the person’s registration will be canceled in thirty-five days unless the person provides satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship. A.R.S. § 16-165(A)(10). Although challenges are pending to various aspects of the statute, subsection (A)(10) recognizes the right of any voter to notice and an opportunity to contest any determination of a voter’s ineligibility. A county recorder can therefore proceed with respect to individual voters under § 16-165(A)(10) as long as the provision’s due process requirements are followed… Regardless, we are unwilling on these facts to disenfranchise voters en masse from participating in state contests. Doing so is not authorized by state law and would violate principles of due process.”
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 | Sep 22, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Republican Congressman Andy Biggs carried on the well-worn tradition of symbolic and sometimes whimsical naming conventions for congressional bills last week. On Tuesday, Biggs introduced the Keeping Aid for Municipalities and Localities Accountable Act, abbreviated as the KAMALA Act, in a bid to withhold federal funding from states and municipalities providing housing assistance to illegal immigrants.
The obviously pejorative nature of the bill’s name aside, Biggs and his co-sponsors identified the necessity of the bill by pointing to the “Dream for All program” passed in the California legislature last month. That bill would have allowed illegal immimgrants residing in the state to receive a mortgage down payment handout of up to $150,000 bankrolled by California taxpayers, and given that a 14.5% of the state’s budget comes from federal funding, the American people as a whole.
As Biggs’ office noted in a press release, this California bill was vetoed by Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom, but not based on an issue with the policy, but rather purely on funding grounds, “not a recognition that the policy creates new incentives for illegal immigration and would drive housing prices further out of reach of middle-class Americans.”
In his veto, Newsom wrote, “This bill seeks to prohibit the disqualification of applicants from one of California Housing Finance Agency’s (CalHFA) home-purchase assistance programs based solely on their immigration status. Given the finite funding available for CalHFA programs, expanding program eligibility must be carefully considered within the broader context of the annual state budget to ensure we manage our resources effectively. For this reason, I am unable to sign this bill.”
In response the KAMALA Act, if adopted, would add new legal language to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program which would prohibit funds from CDBG funded programs to be used to benefit “illegal aliens, parolees, or asylees,” and only benefit American citizens. It would further prohibit the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from allowing the same funds to be allocated to “states or localities allowing noncitizens to participate in housing assistance programs.”
Biggs said in a statement, “Americans are outraged at the Biden-Harris Administration’s refusal to put the needs of citizens over the comfort of illegal aliens. Democrats across the country are coddling illegal aliens, providing them with housing assistance while hundreds of thousands of Americans live on the streets. Congress must step in and use the power of the purse to ensure that taxpayers aren’t subsidizing these foolish priorities.”
From the text of the KAMALA Act, the bill states, “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no amount from a grant under section 106 made in fiscal year 2024 or any succeeding fiscal year may be used to assist persons who are neither a national of the United States nor lawfully admitted for permanent residence under section 101(a)(20) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.”
The act is cosponsored by fellow Arizona Congressmen Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Elijah Crane (R-AZ), as well as Reps. Andy Ogles (R-TN), Matt Rosendale (R-MT), Bob Good (R-VA), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Andy Harris (R-MD), Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Andrew Clyde (R-GA), and Tim Burchett (R-TN).
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 | Sep 21, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Earlier this week, a court-appointed Special Master confirmed that nearly 40,000 initiative signatures were duplicates and thus invalid. But on Thursday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Frank Moskowitz still ruled that, because Proposition 140 cannot be removed from the ballot, votes for the Ranked Choice Voting and Open Primary initiative will be counted.
The court’s affirmation of the initiative, despite Petition Signature Fraud being proven, sent shockwaves through the Arizona political scene.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi released a statement following the ruling, openly accusing Moskowitz of bias in favor of the initiative.
“From the moment he was unanimously rebuked by the AZ Supreme Court for blocking the removal of nearly 40,000 duplicate signatures, Judge Moskowitz has been trying to find a way to place Prop 140 on the ballot, irrespective of whether it had enough signatures to qualify. Today he issued a ruling manufacturing that outcome, deciding that the statutory method for determining the number of valid signatures for ballot initiatives is now unconstitutional. He made this radical determination despite the fact that the statute Moskowitz invalidated is nearly 30 years old and was reviewed and upheld against a constitutional challenge by the AZ Supreme Court in 2022 (Mussi v Hobbs).”
Prior to Moskowitz’s ruling, Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ann Timmer ordered that if the Special Master ruled the signatures invalid, then the Make Elections Fair PAC would be permitted to argue against enjoining the vote count on grounds that court precedent typically required ruling prior to ballot printing, something not required in statute.
This ruling would appear to validate concerns many opponents of the Proposition have voiced, that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, defending legal council, and Moskowitz himself all sought to deliberately slow-roll the court proceedings beyond the printing date to ‘run out the clock’ and force the vote through.
In the ruling AZFEC deemed “radical” in a post to X, Moskowitz claimed that the confirmation of duplicated, invalid signatures was “moot,” having passed the printing deadline. He curiously cited a statute NOT being present in his justification and leaned purely on case law. He wrote, “Although there is no statutory authority for the proposition that petition challenges must end before ballot printing begins, there is case law that supports such a ‘bright light’ end to such litigation.”
He continued, “Here, the time pressures were such that not every duplicate signature was reviewed and verified by clear and convincing evidence before the August 23, 2024 ballot printing deadline, such that the underlying action is moot as of that deadline.”
In a staggering move, Moskowitz claimed that the court cannot grant injunction against counting the signatures, citing “Perhaps the absence of such express authority in statute,” as expressing the intent of the legislature.
In full he wrote, “That is not a sufficient basis for this Court to grant such a remedy, especially given the injunction allowable under (the law), the statute upon which Plaintiffs initially brought this action, does not include enjoining the canvassing of votes,” Moskowitz wrote. “Perhaps the absence of such express authority in statute is because the Legislature never intended for initiative challenges to go past the ballot printing deadline.”
Mussi wrote in the AZFEC statement that the organization intends to bring the matter to the State Supreme Court once again, “The bottom line is that after the removal of the duplicate signatures, Prop 140 lacks the required number of valid signatures needed to qualify for the ballot. The committee behind the measure was aware of this fact, which is why they obstructed and delayed the review of the duplicate signatures for over a month.
We are confident that after a careful review of the facts, ruling, and trial court record, the AZ Supreme Court will again overturn this outrageous ruling by Judge Moskowitz and enjoin Prop 140 from being tabulated.”
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.
