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.
Just over four years past the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the government flexes of authority that went with it, Arizona voters, come November, will decide on whether the governor should have less powers in an emergency.
Proposition 135 would amend the Arizona Constitution to terminate the governor’s emergency powers automatically after 30 days — except in those emergencies related to war, fire, or flood — and thereafter require the legislature to approve any extensions of emergency powers. Those approvals could be granted indefinitely, and the legislature could issue certain limits to the governor’s powers.
The proposition would also require the governor to call a special legislative session to address whether to terminate or alter his or her emergency powers should one-third of the House and one-third of the Senate request it. Should the legislature reject an extension of emergency order, the governor may not call one.
Effectively, the legislature would have an even greater check and balance on the executive.
Current law allows the governor’s emergency powers to last up to 120 days before requiring legislative approval for extensions.
Arizona Horizon premiered a debate on the opposing and supportive arguments for Prop 135 earlier this month.
Will Humble, executive director of the Arizona Public Health Association (APHA) and former director of Arizona Department of Health Services, and Greg Blackie from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) represented the leading arguments on either side of the issue.
Blackie, in favor of Prop 135, stressed that emergencies should be limited in their time frame, and that the “police powers” of the state shouldn’t be indefinite, as they effectively became under COVID-19.
“Emergencies by definition, are temporary, and so the response should also be temporary, especially the powers delegated to the governor,” said Blackie. “This measure simply provides reasonable limits by providing termination after 30 days unless the legislature chooses to extend those powers further.”
Our very own Greg Blackie was on 🔥 during this debate on Prop 135! We must have a mechanism in place now that ensures proper checks and balances of the delegated authority no matter what current or future statutes on emergency powers look like. https://t.co/9BAkO49PdP
Humble responded that the current, 120-day limit with 30-day permissions of extension from the legislature was sufficient to address emergencies, as exercised under former Governor Doug Ducey during the initial outbreak. In fact, Humble said that he wished that the initial term limit of 120 days were longer.
“I don’t think 30 days is long enough,” said Humble. “All of these agencies have these emergency response plans and they can’t execute those plans if they lose that authority and that authority could be lost because of partisan reasons.”
Humble alluded to the prolonged government response to addressing COVID-19 as the need for the governor to have more than 30 days to sustain an emergency order.
“I could live with a quarter of the year to figure out the emergency,” said Humble. “Let’s say you had a biological agent that was released [then] you’d have a much longer period than 30 days that you would need to implement some of these measures to help control.”
Humble also opposed Prop 135 being a constitutional amendment, citing the difficulty of amending the constitution.
But Blackie responded, “But this is the issue of what should be in the Constitution. This is a question about how our government operates and separation of powers. And that belongs in the Constitution, the framework of government. When can the governor take large sums of legislative power, and then what is the legislative check on that. It belongs in the Constitution because it fundamentally answers questions about how our government is to operate.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The 2024 report from the Joint Legislative Budget Committee could potentially silence opponents of Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) Program once and for all. This week, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne called the myth that the ESA program was ever a threat to the budget: “utterly demolished.”
In a press release from the Arizona Department of Education, Horne explained that for Fiscal Year 2024, which concluded on June 30th, the Basic State Aid payments for education programs at district and charter schools and the controversial ESA program all finished well under budget with a net savings to the state of $4.3 million. The news comes just days after the Goldwater Institute debunked the narrative that the ESA program harmed students and blew up the state budget as previously reported by AZ Free News.
Horne said in the press release, “Having a surplus of more than $4 million is proof positive that the critics who have claimed the ESA program will bust the not only the state’s education budget but the entire budget itself were always wrong. It was always a myth, and that myth is utterly demolished.”
The report revealed that out of $6,309,352,100 appropriated toward education funding, even with the ESA, the state only spent $6,305,050,851.55 leaving behind a $4,301,248.45 surplus.
Horne, who was previously State Superintendent of Schools from 2003 to 2011 before being elected State Attorney General, continued:
“Budget figures are stubborn facts and they do not stand up to the political posturing that ESA critics have consistently and wrongly thrown at the program. The universal ESA scholarships are a vital part of making sure that parents are able to choose the schools that best fit the needs of their children. For example, we have families with three children. Two are doing fine in the neighborhood public school, but the needs of the third are not being met. ESAs enable the parents to find a school that meets the needs of the third child. How can anyone be so immersed in ideology that they would deny the parents that ability?”
He concluded, “Having choices such as charter schools, open enrollment for district schools and ESAs are a valuable tool for Arizona parents. As today’s announcement shows, these choices do not result in any part of the budget deficit. It resulted from overly optimistic projections of state revenues. ESAs are enabling parents to find the best schools to meet their children’s needs. No rational person should oppose that.”
The revelation from the JLBC report could severely undermine the political arguments of Democrats running against the state’s ESA program in November such as Democrat John McLean who is seeking to gain a State Senate seat in Arizona Legislative District 17. McLean is challenging Republican Vince Leach.
In a statement to AZ Free News in early August, Leach warned, “John McLean is going to have to defend the actions of the Democrat party both at the state level and the national level. He owns the damage to the state of Arizona by Governor Katie Hobbs, and also the radical policies that President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are inflicting on our country. If voters elect McLean to office, that will help the Democrats take over the state legislature, which means that taxes will increase, school choice will disappear, and commonsense election laws will be reversed.”
The Arizona Republican Party has filed a lawsuit in the state Supreme Court against Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs challenging the constitutionality of her Executive Orders 2023-23 and 2023-25. The orders designated state-owned facilities, including those managed by the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) and the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC), as ballot drop-off locations and ordered state authorities to make voter registration forms available and process them respectively.
Republicans, under AZGOP Chair Gina Swoboda, stated that the new orders rip away authority held by county recorders and other local election authorities.
In the text of the lawsuit, the AZGOP argues, “Governor Hobbs unlawfully exercised her office by attempting to establish voting locations, drop-off locations for completed ballots, and make ADCRR and ADJC, as well as other state agencies, de facto public assistance agencies, which is outside her lawful authority.” They note, “The Arizona law is clear on who can distribute and accept voter registration forms and completed ballots: (1) public assistance or disabilities agencies as defined by statute; or (2) a location/agency as designated by a county recorder (or designee of a county recorder) or justice of the peace. The Governor is nowhere included in this clear line of authority. The same is true for determining voting locations.”
In a statement provided by the AZGOP to AZ Free News, Swoboda wrote,
“Governor Hobbs’ actions represent a blatant overreach of her authority and a direct violation of the separation of powers established by our Constitution. The responsibility for designating voting and ballot drop-off locations, as well as handling voter registration, lies squarely with the Legislature and county officials, not the Governor. These executive orders undermine the trust Arizonans place in their electoral process, and we will not stand by as our constitutional rights are trampled.”
Political commentator George Behizy observed Thursday, “Similar measures were taken in Michigan by Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who designated various state agencies to do the same.” He added, “Hobbs’s orders blatantly violate Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1 of the US constitution which clearly states, ‘The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof[.]’ The constitutional delegates ALL election oversight to the state legislatures. It doesn’t grant the executive any power to delegate random government departments as vote registration sites or ballot drop-off locations.”
BREAKING: Arizona Republicans have just filed a lawsuit against illegitimate Governor Katie Hobbs for issuing unconstitutional executive orders to facilitate the steal of the 2024 election
The US Constitution as referenced by Behizy states, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing(sic) Senators.”
A state Governor or Secretary of State’s ability to enact such measures remains unadjudicated and was the subject of the 2020 Election challenge Texas v. Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan & Pennsylvania which the U.S. Supreme Court, in one of its most controversial historic decisions, declined to hear. The case divided the states with twenty supporting Texas’ claim, twenty supporting Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and six states undecided.
The Texas complaint similarly revolved around three major points:
“Non-legislative actors’ purported amendments to States’ duly enacted election laws, in violation of the Electors Clause’s vesting State legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors.
Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more favorable allotted to voters – whether lawful or unlawful – in areas administered by local government under Democrat control and with populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of Defendant States.
The appearance of voting irregularities in the Defendant States that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity protections in those States’ election laws.”
Should the case be taken up by the Arizona Supreme Court and adjudicated, it could serve as a basis for a federal ruling to settle the question nationally that was left ambiguous in 2020.
The U.S. Department of Labor revealed, as part of its preliminary annual benchmark revisions to national nonfarm payroll figures, that the department’s initial job creation numbers were overestimated by as much as 30%. Approximately 818,000 fewer jobs than the figure of 2.9 million touted by the Biden administration were actually created.
As reported by Forbes, the metrics taken from March 2023 to March 2024 estimated by the Deptartment of Labor at 2.9 million for the year, or 242,000 per month on average, were reduced to 174,000 per month or approximately 2.08 million.
Joint Economic Committee Vice Chairman Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) said in a statement, “This significant downward revision from BLS confirms what we’ve known since January 2021: that the U.S. economy is much weaker than President Biden and Vice President Harris have been selling.”
“This administration’s excessive spending, outrageous tax hikes, and burdensome regulations added over the last 3.5 years have made life much more difficult for American families than before the pandemic. Yet Biden and Harris have continued to peddle the narrative that the economy is robust because of ‘record-breaking’ job growth. Now, we know that the job gain estimates last year were notably overstated by more than 800,000 in yet another example of how badly the Biden-Harris administration has failed the American people.”
According to the announcement, the preliminary estimate of the upcoming annual benchmark revision is part of usual practice within the department and revisions are common. Another such revision took the Biden administration by surprise in 2022 when the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia corrected the estimate for the Second Quarter that year from an estimated one million down to just 10,500 jobs per The Post Millennial.
This is crazy LMAO
Biden bragged about creating over 1 million new jobs in Q2 of this year. A new audit of the data by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia shows it was actually only 10k.
Despite past experience with the fickle nature of federal jobs estimates however, in an election year, President Joe Biden has repeatedly boasted his administration’s job creation.
BREAKING: 818,000 jobs that the Harris-Biden administration claimed to have “created” aren’t actually there, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Just a day before the announcement, he posted to X, “Since Vice President Harris and I took office, our economy has created nearly 16 million jobs,” adding, “Average unemployment under our administration has been lower than during any administration in 50 years.” On April 5th, he wrote that the erroneous job report marked “another chapter in America’s comeback. With the report of 303,000 new jobs in March, we’ve passed the milestone of 15 million jobs created since I took office. That’s 15 million more people who have the dignity and respect that comes with a paycheck.”
Today’s jobs report marks another chapter in America’s comeback.
With the report of 303,000 new jobs in March, we've passed the milestone of 15 million jobs created since I took office.
That’s 15 million more people who have the dignity and respect that comes with a paycheck.
Reporting from CNBC confirmed that the downward revision of -0.5 percent is the largest in fifteen years, the last occurring on the tail end of the 08’-09’ recession. Chief economist at LPL Financial Jeffrey Roach told the outlet, “The labor market appears weaker than originally reported. A deteriorating labor market will allow the Fed to highlight both sides of the dual mandate and investors should expect the Fed to prepare markets for a cut at the September meeting.”
The most heavily impacted sectors of the economy were professional and business services that saw a heavy revision down of 358,000 jobs followed by the badly struggling leisure and hospitality industry, which was revised down by 150,000 and has suffered severely under inflationary burdens and short-staffing. Manufacturing jobs took a heavy hit with a downward revision of 115,000 jobs along with trade, transportation, and utilities taking a hit to the tune of 104,000 jobs.
On April 4th, Biden specifically boasted about creating “Nearly 800,000 new manufacturing jobs.” The Bureau of Labor Statistics revision revealed this was overblown by at least an eighth.
Under my economic agenda, we’ve already created nearly 800,000 new manufacturing jobs.
America used to lead the world in manufacturing, and we’re going to do it again. pic.twitter.com/fHihnV3eVz
Despite the massive, heavily, and repeatedly boasted overestimation, White House economist Jared Bernstein strained to maintain the Biden administration narrative in a statement writing, “This preliminary estimate doesn’t change the fact that the jobs recovery has been and remains historically strong, delivering solid job and wage gains, strong consumer spending, and record small business creation.”
Economists at Goldman Sachs told the outlet later that they theorize the Bureau of Labor Statistics, “may have overstated the revisions by as much as half a million,” CNBC wrote. The report added, “The firm said undocumented immigrants who now are not in the unemployment system but were listed initially as employed amounted for some of the discrepancy.”
Goldman Sachs economist Ronald Walker said that the revision is likely “erroneous” and “misleading,” according to Forbes.
Following the report Wednesday, President Donald Trump took to TruthSocial expressing outrage and suggesting the Biden-Harris administration inflated the job statistics for political benefit.
He wrote:
“MASSIVE SCANDAL! The Harris-Biden Administration has been caught fraudulently manipulating Job Statistics to hide the true extent of the Economic Ruin they have inflicted upon America. New Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the Administration PADDED THE NUMBERS with an extra 818,000 Jobs that DO NOT EXIST, AND NEVER DID. The real Numbers are much worse than that and, if Comrade Kamala gets another four years, millions more Jobs will VANISH overnight, and Inflation will completely destroy our Country. YOUR LIFE SAVINGS WILL BE WIPED OUT. With a TRUMP VICTORY, we will once again have the Greatest Economy in History. MAGA2024!”
The final benchmark revision is set to be published by the Department of Labor in February 2025.
