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.
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.”
