by Matthew Holloway | Sep 20, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Surprise City Council repealed the ordinance prohibiting residents from criticizing city officials during public meetings in a unanimous vote. The decision followed the now-viral arrest of Rebekah Massie, a local activist, while she addressed the body in August. Massie and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) subsequently launched a lawsuit against the city, which according to the group is still ongoing.
In an email from FIRE obtained by AZ Free News, the group confirmed that the lawsuit is moving forward. Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick said in a statement, “The city council’s decision to scrap its unconstitutional rule banning criticism of public officials is the right move — but the damage has already been done. Twenty-eight days ago, police dragged a local mom out of the meeting for criticizing a city attorney’s pay. Twenty-eight days ago, Mayor Skip Hall abused his power to stifle dissent. This decision comes 28 days too late for Rebekah Massie.”
Cameron Arcand, writing for the Arizona Daily Independent, reported that the effort to end the policy was led by Surprise Councilman Jack Hastings. Earlier this week, the councilman posted to X, “On Tuesday, at our next City Council Meeting, I will make a motion and/or vote to remove the rule that prohibits complaints against elected officials and city staff members during the public comment portion of our meetings,” adding “I support the freedom of speech and people should be able to voice their concerns and criticize their government and elected officials.”
“I’m hoping it passes unanimously because it’s the right thing to do. You have to be able to deal with criticism if you’re going to be an elected official,” Hastings told the Center Square via text.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, the lawsuit targeting the city, outgoing Mayor Skip Hall, and Surprise police officer Steven Shernicoff in their individual capacities, was filed September 3rd and is seeking “preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the City of Surprise from enforcing the Council Criticism Policy during meetings of the City Council of the City of Surprise;” which may be rendered moot by the policy change, as well as a declaratory judgment that the city’s “enforcement of the Council Criticism Policy against Massie on August 20, 2024, violated Massie’s First Amendment rights;” and a declaratory judgment that the policy violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Finally, Massie is seeking “compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages,” for her arrest as well as legal fees.
At the time of Massie’s arrest, Mayor-Elect Kevin Sartor who is set to replace Hall condemned the mayor’s actions saying, “As Americans, our right to free speech is fundamental, especially when it comes to holding our government accountable.” He added, “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.”
“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 continued. “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.”
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 19, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The narrowly passed repeal of Arizona’s complete ban on abortion became effective on Sep. 14th in a moment that is being widely celebrated by pro-abortion Democrats. Although Democrat Gov. Katie Hobbs signed the bill, H.B. 2677, into law in May, the bill only became effective on Saturday.
Under the current legal framework enacted in 2022, the state of Arizona has an effective ban on abortion after 15 weeks. While the Arizona Court of Appeals had previously ruled that the 2022 15-week measure and the total ban enacted by the territorial legislature in 1864 could be “harmonized,” the Arizona Supreme Court rejected this notion.
The Court wrote in its majority opinion, “Our conclusion that the legislature did not intend to create a privilege secured by law to obtain or perform an abortion obviates the need to harmonize §§ 13-3603 and 36-2322. Harmonization between these laws may be accomplished only by repealing § 13-3603 in contravention of the legislature’s express intent and engaging in untenable statutory interpretation such as excising physicians from the plain meaning of ‘person’ in § 13-3603, defined as ‘a human being’ in A.R.S § 13-105(30). And indeed, despite purporting to harmonize the statutes, the dissent’s treatment of § 13-3603 all but nullifies it. We decline to do so.”
The court ruled that following Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the ruling that reversed Roe v. Wade, “Arizona has never independently created a statutory right to abortion. We will not ‘amend a statute judicially [nor] read implausible meaning into express statutory language’ given the absence of an abortion right in Arizona jurisprudence. Kyle v. Daniels, 198 Ariz. 304, 306 ¶ 7 (2000). Therefore, because the federal constitutional right to abortion that overrode § 13-3603 no longer exists, the statute is now enforceable, prospectively prohibiting abortion unless necessary to save a woman’s life.”
As reported by the Associated Press, Hobbs in no way intends to stop at repealing the 1864 ban and intends to install the a “right” to abortion in the state. She said in a statement cited by the AP, “I will continue doing everything in my power to protect reproductive freedoms, because I trust women to make the decisions that are best for them, and know politicians do not belong in the doctor’s office.”
In a May post to X, she outright stated, “Any bill attacking the right to safe and legal abortion access will be vetoed without hesitation.”
Indeed the initiative Proposition 139 created by “Arizona for Abortion Access” will appear on the ballot in November to repeal the 2022 15-week abortion ban and create an amendment for a “fundamental right” for abortion up to “fetal viability” allowing a baby’s life to be ended potentially up until birth.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, a legal battle unfolded between the legislature and the initiative organizers over the use of the phrase “unborn human being” in the description of the initiative. The State Supreme Court found in a 5-2 decision that the legislature’s choice to use the phrase “unborn human being” rather than “fetus” met legal standards.
The state legislative council explains in its analysis of the ballot proposal to make abortion a constitutional right:
“Current state law prohibits a physician from performing an abortion if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being is more than 15 weeks, except when a pregnant woman’s medical condition necessitates an immediate abortion to avert the pregnant woman’s death or for which a delay creates a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”
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 18, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
In a hearing on Wednesday with Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Frank Moskowitz, the fate of Prop 140, the open primary, ranked-choice voting initiative, could be decided.
The final report of the court-appointed Special Master, Retired Arizona Superior Court Judge Christopher Skelly, has revealed that of the original 41,387 pairs of signatures challenged, a total of 37,657 or approximately 99%, were in fact duplicates. In a press release on the case April Smith v. Fontes, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club noted that the determination by Judge Skelly now places Prop. 140 thousands of signatures short of the minimum qualification to appear on the Nov. 5th ballot. To be precise, it would be 3,300 signatures short of the standard reaffirmed in the Arizona Supreme Court ruling Mussi v. Hobbs (2022).
Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club said in a statement, “As we knew all along, Prop 140 lacks the signatures required for this measure to even make it to the ballot in the first place, let alone be considered by voters in November. Even though they knew about the illegitimacy of these duplicate signatures, the special interests behind this initiative attempted to run out the clock on this challenge through obstruction and delay. They were caught, and now we hope the court does the right thing and enjoin the measure from tabulation in the fall.”
As previously reported by AZ Free News, the extent of the signature duplication was extreme and brazen with 250 individuals reportedly signing five or more times, and a single individual signing no less than fifteen times. You can see the exhibit here.
In the text of Judge Skelly’s determination, hundreds of the alleged duplicates were overruled and removed from consideration and 3,333 were removed from consideration by agreement of attorneys on both sides. While the signatures were classed into “exact matches” and “near matches,” Skelly writes that he was instructed to “not read anything into those descriptions and I did not.”
Judge Skelly found that “Plaintiffs had proved by clear and convincing evidence that 37,657 signatures were duplicates— that the same person had signed more than once.”
Writing about the dupicate signature issue in August, the AZFEC criticized the group behind Proposition 140, the “Make Elections Fair PAC,” stating that the group which seeks to import “California-style elections to our state—got very creative in their signature gathering efforts. In fact, you could say that in many ways, they excelled in duplicating their work. And that’s exactly why Prop 140 should be invalidated.”
“This is outrageous,” AZFEC wrote, encouraging readers to examine the evidence themselves.
“This isn’t a debate about dubious matches or concerns of same family members with the same name being confused as a duplicate. All the duplicates submitted to be removed were the same name and same address that aligned with what was on the voter file. Under state law, you are only allowed to sign a petition once, so they should have been removed. Instead, thousands of people were allowed to sign the initiative petition sheets multiple times, and those signatures were counted.”
Judge Frank Moskowitz will hold the next hearing on Prop. 140 on Wednesday.
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 17, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Reformed Democrats Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard pumped up the pro-Trump crowd at Arizona Christian University in Glendale on Saturday, railing against the hyperbolically left Democratic National Committee as having become the “party of war,” “the party of censorship.”
According to the New York Post, former Presidential candidate RFK, Jr., told the rapt audience, “Today it’s become the party of war, it’s become the party of surveillance, it’s become the party of censorship.” He added, “It’s no longer the party that I recognized.”
The event, entitled “Team Trump’s Reclaim America Tour,” was attended by approximately 600 people as reported by AZ Central, with more turned away at the door due to the size of the more intimate venue. The discussion was moderated by independent journalist Jessica Reed Kraus.
Kennedy’s showstopper moment came while explaining the withdrawal of his candidacy for President saying, “The reason I terminated my campaign is because it became clear to me my remaining in this campaign was going to bring to power a candidate who I believe will be easily manipulated by the deep state, by the national security state, by the intelligence agencies, to keep us in a state of continual war and seal the destruction of the United States of America.”
Gabbard echoed Kennedy’s sentiment, the outlet reported, noting that the Harris campaign would see America mired in “continual war,” citing the endorsement of anti-Trump GOP former Vice President Dick Cheney.
She referred to the Democratic Party as an “elite cabal,” and “warmongers,” asking, “How could I […] align with a party that stands for tyranny and war?”
The former Congresswoman cited efforts by the left to target both Kennedy and President Trump via “systematic weaponization of government.”
Gabbard countered, “We the people are far more powerful than them, which is why they are trying to destroy us, but we the people will not let them do that.”
As noted by the Post, Gabbard made a clear distinction between her and Kennedy’s message and the hyperpartisanship of the election at large. She told attendees the goal of their tour is to “point out the truth that this is not about Democrats versus Republicans. This is about our country.’
“This is about we the people standing up for freedom. This is about we the people standing up for peace.”
When asked about the pair’s future in the Trump campaign, Gabbard quipped, “Well I think Bobby and I are going to be on the road for the next 51 days,” and explained that despite her name not being on the ballot, as most politicians are who say it, “this is the most important election of our lives.” Wistfully noting that the waves in her home state of Hawaii “are really good right now,” she emphasized that the next 51 days will be filled with “conversations like this.”
Kennedy, answering the same, said his next trip home wouldn’t be for three weeks.
Brian Hughes, a senior Trump campaign advisor said in a statement released in late August that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard have been added to the Trump/Vance Transition team. He wrote, “As President Trump’s broad coalition of supporters and endorsers expands across partisan lines, we are proud that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard have been added to the Trump/Vance Transition team.” What roles the two will play in the second Trump administration remain unclear.
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 16, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
A new law, H.R. 3269, the Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act, has passed the House Committee on Ways & Means and will move to the full floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. The proposed legislation would reform federal firearms laws to “account for advancements in de-escalation and less-than-lethal instruments, ensuring the continued innovation of lifesaving devices,” according to a press release from Congressman David Schweikert (R-AZ).
Under the existing laws, less-than-lethal weapons such as the TASER are legally considered “firearms” under federal regulation and the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET). Title 18 of the U.S. Code applies the Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax, and the National Firearms Act also imposes an additional excise tax on “sales by the manufacturer, producer, or importer of certain firearms and ammunition,” potentially stifling adoption of the less-than-lethal devices by agencies and the public alike.
In the press release, Schweikert said, “Imagine a society where law enforcement is able to effectively protect our communities, without any lives being lost. Aligning the tax code to meet the needs of our law enforcement officers and communities offers Congress the opportunity to reduce the chance of the use of deadly force and the unnecessary loss of life. Our ability to keep pushing forward to a world where such technology is available and robust has inspired this moral fix in hopes to solve part of the bigger societal issue, and I promise to continue advocating for this bill until it is signed into law.”
The new bill would define a “less-than-lethal projectile device” as a “device with a bore or multiple bores, that—‘‘(A) is not designed or intended to expel a projectile at a velocity exceeding 500 feet per second by any means; and (B) is designed or intended to be used in a manner that is not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury.’’
Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-MO) observed, “We need many different tools to keep the peace and protect our communities. Unfortunately, inconsistencies in our laws and tax code have resulted in critical and innovative less-than-lethal devices such as tasers being taxed as firearms, making it costly and difficult to meet safety needs. The Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act, sponsored by Reps. Schweikert and Stanton, will harmonize our tax code to ensure less-than-lethal technology is readily available and that our communities can keep pace with future innovations.”
In a post to X in April, The International Union Of Police Associations endorsed the bill writing, “The I.U.P.A. vigorously advocates for law enforcement professionals on a national level by supporting legislation that serves their interests. One recent example is H.R. 3269, the ‘Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act’.”
The bill was introduced by Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ) and co-sponsored by Congressmen Andy Biggs (R-AZ), David Schweikert (R-AZ), Debbie Lesko (R-AZ), Eli Crane (R-AZ), Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ), and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) along with forty-three other Republicans and seventeen Democrats making it a truly bipartisan piece of legislation.
Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly referrred to Rep. Greg Stanton as a Republican. Rep. Greg Stanton is a Democrat. The story has been corrected.
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.
