by Staff Reporter | Aug 6, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona State Bar Cochise County Attorney declined to punish Brian McIntyre last week for working against his own county supervisors, and the bar ultimately dismissed the complaint against him. However, the state bar did issue a public admonition against him, according to the Arizona Daily Independent.
The state bar dismissed the complaint because, according to their statements, they felt that lawyer discipline was achievable through “instructional comment,” and because McIntyre had completed a client confidentiality course. The bar admonished McIntyre for airing out his concerns and the county supervisors’ confidential information publicly instead of the more appropriate venue of an executive session.
During a 2022 public meeting in which the Cochise County Board of Supervisors was discussing a post-election hand count audit, McIntyre revealed that he’d advised the board against the audit.
After the board was sued over the audit, McIntyre then sent a letter to the plaintiffs’ counsel disclosing a list of laws he believed his clients had potentially violated.
Former Pima County Supervisor Ally Miller and State Representative Alexander Kolodin had filed the complaint against McIntyre late last year for those actions. The pair alleged that McIntyre violated attorney-client privilege with his remarks during that 2022 public meeting, and that McIntyre had worked against his clients with the letter by providing legal analysis and fodder for the media against his clients.
The controversy escalated amid the state bar investigation after an uncovered document revealed that McIntyre had apparently colluded with Attorney General Kris Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes against his county supervisors.
The document was a letter from McIntyre to Mayes, in which the county attorney had asked the attorney general to retract an opinion set by her predecessor, Mark Brnovich, on expanded hand counts. McIntyre sent the letter amid an active appeal by his clients (the county supervisors) to conduct those hand counts.
“Key to our initial efforts was determining the readily apparent potential conflicts with pursuing a prosecution that might result from that investigation. While I remain satisfied that legally we could move forward if evidence warranted doing so, practically it would create substantial issues for this office’s relationship with the Board moving forward,” wrote McIntyre. “Unfortunately, recent events outside the office may also create the appearance that any prosecution is motivated by less than just concerns.”
After the state bar began investigating McIntyre last December, Mayes brought down indictments reflecting felony-level election interference and conspiracy charges against Cochise County Supervisors Peggy Judd and Tom Crosby.
McIntyre would later testify to the grand jury on the controversial 2022 general election audit.
Several months after struggling with his county supervisors over the 2022 audit, McIntyre was arrested and pleaded guilty to an extreme DUI in early 2023. An extreme DUI applies to blood alcohol content (BAC) levels over .15 percent (the Arizona legal limit is .08 percent); McIntyre had a .2 percent BAC.
The arrest video showed McIntyre was refusing to believe law enforcement’s breathalyzer results.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Aug 6, 2024 | Education, News
By Staff Reporter |
Parents and community members within the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) are petitioning for the removal of sexually explicit books from school libraries.
Last week, a coalition of parents’ rights and educational organizations submitted a letter to the SUSD governing board requesting the book removals. Nearly all of the books on their list were only offered at high school libraries, with the exception of one offered at a K-8 school library.
Parents and community members involved with Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity, Arizona Women of Action, Restore Parental Rights in Education, Protect Arizona Children Coalition, A Legal Process, Not In Our Schools, EZAZ, SaveCFSD.org, KIDS FIRST, Mom Army, and Moms for Liberty submitted the request. Two individuals also joined the request, Shiry Shapir and Dan Kleinman.
The parents submitted their request to remove all “pervasively vulgar” or “educationally unsuitable” content from SUSD libraries to the Scottsdale Unified Governing Board, citing Arizona laws on furnishing harmful items to minors and the 1982 Supreme Court ruling recognizing that school boards maintain the authority to remove books determined to be vulgar or unsuitable for education.
The groups argued that the books don’t offer “serious educational value,” or any “serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value.”
The parents and community members also requested that the district employ a book maturity rating system, and to prohibit future purchases of books rated not for minors or aberrant.
“This request is not to ban books,” said the parents. “All of the books mentioned in this letter are widely available in bookstores and other online and brick-and-mortar retail outlets. Schools have a limited amount of library budget and shelf space, thus the question we must answer is which books should be offered to minors and which should not.”
Per the groups, SUSD hasn’t responded to their request.
The sexually explicit books that parents would like to see removed were “A Stolen Life” by Jaycee Dugard, “Doomed” by Chuck Palahniuk, “Haunted” by Chuck Palahniuk, “Lucky” by Alice Sebold, “PUSH” by Sapphire, “Sold” by Patrick McCormick, “Tricks” by Ellen Hopkins, “Perfect” by Ellen Hopkins, “People Kill People” by Ellen Hopkins, “Identical” by Ellen Hopkins, “Icebreaker” by Hannah Grace, “A Court of Frost and Starlight” by Sara J. Maas, “Anatomy of a Boyfriend” by Daria Snadowsky, “Anatomy of a Single Girl” by Daria Snadowsky, “Breathless” by Jennifer Niven, “Me and Earl and the Dying Girl” by Jesse Andrews, “Lawn Boy” by Jonathan Evison, and “Smoke” by Ellen Hopkins.
One or more of the books were located at all five high schools: Arcadia, Chaparral, Coronado, Desert Mountain, and Saguaro.
Desert Canyon K-8 school was also on the list for one book included: “Sold” by Patrick McCormick.
These books not only contain sexually explicit material, they contain aberrant depictions of sexual activities such as child molestation, rape, bestiality, sexual assault or battery, incest, adult and child prostitution, and sodomy. The books also contain descriptions of the usage of drugs and alcohol by both adults and minors, as well as suicide and self harm.
Arizona law prohibits the distribution of harmful items to minors, which includes that which contains descriptions or representations of nudity, sexual activity, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse.
Parents cited the Supreme Court case Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School No. 26 v. Pico to make their case that SUSD had full authority to remove the contested books immediately without review.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Aug 4, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the practice of union release time was unconstitutional.
Release time occurs when government agencies direct their employees to be released from their job duties in order to work for their union advancing private interests such as lobbying and recruitment. While on release time, those government employees would still receive their regular government pay, benefits, and retirement.
Chief Justice Clint Bolick on behalf of the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in Gilmore v. Gallego that release time constituted a violation of Arizona’s Gift Clause prohibiting the granting of public money to private entities, or “gifts,” because it used public funds raised by general taxation in the aid of enterprises engaged in private business.
“[R]elease time should be separately scrutinized to determine if it has a public purpose and provides sufficient tangible, enforceable consideration to the City,” wrote Bolick. “The release time provisions at issue are precisely that: a ‘release’ from the ordinary duties for which [city] employees were hired, to instead perform, in the main, lawful union activities.”
The Gift Clause prohibits the state and its subdivisions from giving or loaning credit, or making any donations or grants, to any individuals, associations, or corporations.
The Goldwater Institute sued the city of Phoenix in October 2019 over the practice of time release, on behalf of two non-union city employees and taxpayers.
In a press release on their court win, the Goldwater Institute’s Timothy Sandefur and Jon Riches said that the end to government-funded union activities through release time would ensure private interests weren’t financed by taxpayers.
“Today’s ruling is a watershed decision that ensures taxpayer dollars will be spent to advance public interests, not private special interests, including the politically powerful special interests of government labor unions,” read the joint statement.
As disclosed in court documents, release time cost the city of Phoenix nearly $500,000 annually.
That six-figure cost became a factor in the court’s decision. Bolick noted that the city had no direct control or supervision over the employees under release time, “an essential criterion” to establish the public purpose standard for Gift Clause adherence.
“[T]he City costs are substantial, but the benefits are so negligible as to render them largely illusory. The Union receives four full-time employees, who are released from their public duties but paid as if they were performing public work, for the Union to direct as it sees fit,” said Bolick. “In return, the MOU provides ‘examples’ of the uses of release time, and the City argues that ‘release time promotes cooperative labor relations and facilitates an open dialogue about employment issues.’ At best, these are anticipated indirect benefits that do not count as enforceable obligations for consideration purposes.”
The city of Phoenix argued that release time yielded benefits to city work by improving union-government relations. The Arizona Supreme Court rejected that argument.
“To the extent that the City values the purposes to which release time might be devoted, it has not explained why it could not assign employees, under its direction and control, to perform precisely those tasks (such as serving on task forces), rather than placing them at the Union’s disposal,” wrote Bolick. “Indeed, the costs and benefits here are so one-sided that it is difficult to envision how such expansive time release provisions could ever survive the consideration prong unless the employees genuinely paid for them through foregone wages or otherwise[.]”
However, the Arizona Supreme Court did reject arguments that the release time provisions violated the state’s constitutional protections for free speech and free association.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Aug 4, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
A radical Democrat state representative is attempting to return to her middle-of-the-road legislative district for a new term in office.
State Representative Lorena Austin is running for reelection in Arizona Legislative District 9, which covers the city of Mesa. According to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the district is likely one of the most competitive in the state, with a 2.6% vote spread over the past nine statewide elections. (Democrats are slightly favored in the district, having won the district in five of those nine elections.)
Austin is a member of the Appropriations and Commerce Committees in the Arizona House of Representatives.
Earlier this year, Austin initiated what many thought was one of the most controversial events of the 2024 Arizona Legislative Session, when she partnered with Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona to host a Drag Story Hour in the Copper Basin Room in the House Basement.
That event was immediately met with condemnation from Republicans. Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma addressed the event on his “X” account, writing, “Democrat Rep. Lorena Austin deliberately misled House leadership to reserve a conference room to host a drag story hour with Planned Parenthood. Use of House facilities for radical activism to promote dangerously perverse ideology will not be tolerated while I am Speaker. As a result, I’ve ordered that Democrats have lost the privilege of accessing House meeting rooms until trust can be restored.”
Austin responded to the Speaker’s comments, saying, “This is the people’s House and that includes the LGBTQ+ community, whether my colleagues on the other side of the aisle like that or not. It is nothing short of ridiculous that I have been described as dishonest, deceitful and perverse and have been subjected to calls for punishment and expulsion. What is true is that I hosted a drag performer who read stories about LGBTQ+ history and inclusion. There were no minors present, but also no content that would offend a minor.”
The Democrat lawmaker added, “We were completely transparent when we reserved the room, and the content was not, or should not be, controversial. In total approximately 20 people attended (all adults) because the House is currently only conducting business on Wednesdays, and today was a Tuesday. It was educational and completely within the mission of our LGTBQ+ Caucus. I will never apologize for teaching people to be inclusive, to accept others as they are, and to stand up to hate and bigotry.”
Republican Representative Alexander Kolodin also weighed in on the controversy. He said, “The People’s House should be a safe place for the children of Arizona and I am outraged at this violation of trust. In addition to this punishment, also I call on leadership to bar Rep. Austin from accessing any part of the House aside from public areas and the floor.”
As with many of her fellow Democrats running for the state legislature, Austin promotes endorsements from left-leaning organizations for her campaign for the Arizona House of Representatives, including Moms Demand Action, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, Save Our Schools Arizona, Progressive Turnout Project, HRC in Arizona, AEA Fund for Public Education, NARAL Pro-Choice Arizona, Stonewall Democrats of Arizona, Arizona Education Association, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Emily’s List, and Human Rights Campaign PAC.
The Democrat lawmaker has a lengthy record of voting against bills meant to prevent crime waves from engulfing the Grand Canyon State – as has been experienced in jurisdictions like California. In 2023, Austin voted against HB 2478, which would have expanded the definition of aggravated assault to include a person knowingly assaulting an employee of a law enforcement agency while engaged in the execution of official duties. She voted against HB 2212, which would have established liability for aggravated criminal damage if a person interferes or prevents the performance of a normal function of utility infrastructure or property or the intended course or path of any utility service (2023). And she voted against SB 1262, which would have required a court to promptly issue a warrant for the rearrest of a person that has been charged with a felony offense that was committed during the person’s probation term.
The district is currently represented by two Democrats in the state House of Representatives. Austin and her fellow Democrat incumbent, Seth Blattman, ran unopposed in the recent primary election. Austin received 8,624 votes, and Blattman obtained 7,316 votes. They will face off against Republicans Mary Ann Mendoza and Kylie Barber, who also ran unopposed in the primary election. Mendoza garnered 8,571 votes, and Barber received 8,335 votes.
November’s General Election will be the second time that Mendoza has been pitted against Austin and Blattman. In 2022, Austin and Blattman defeated Mendoza and her running mate, Kathy Pearce, to assume their offices for the 2023 Arizona legislative session.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Aug 3, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Around two weeks after its initial ruling allowing Arizona to require proof of citizenship for voter registrations, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a ruling from its motions panel.
That means that state voter registration forms may be accepted without proof of citizenship, as they have been since the LULAC Consent Decree went into effect over eight years ago.
The LULAC Consent Decree was the end result of a lawsuit against Arizona’s requirements of documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC). Under the consent decree, Arizona agreed to accept state voter registration forms without DPOC and register them as federal-only voters. Once a court approves a consent decree, it carries the same weight and enforcement of a final judgment.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the National Voting Rights Act (NVRA) prohibits Arizona from requiring DPOC of voters registering with the federal voter registration form.
In the 2-1 ruling for Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, the court determined that the motions panel overlooked specific considerations pertaining to election cases and “misunderstood the extent of confusion and chaos” such a change to election rules that the contested legislation, ARS 16-121.01(C), had brought.
The court stated that the state legislature’s new enactment of a DPOC requirement for state forms was an “upset [to] the status quo” because it altered voter registration rules shortly before the primary election last month, and well into the registration timeline for the upcoming election.
“The motions panel overlooked this fundamental principle of judicial restraint, resulting in manifest injustice to voters and election officials alike,” said the court.
The Ninth Circuit also wrote that the DPOC requirement caused elections officials to choose between violating the state law, a class 6 felony, or violating the consent decree provisions within the Election Procedures Manual, a class 2 misdemeanor. The court characterized this as a “manifest injustice” carried out by the motions panel.
“Elections officials are now subject to conflicting criminal penalties, orders, and policies. Identically situated voter registration applicants are treated differently depending on the voter registration application form they picked up,” said the court. “All Arizonans must now navigate an arcane web of shifting and confusing rules that will without a doubt dissuade some who are otherwise eligible and willing from exercising the fundamental right to vote.”
The court wrote that nothing would change the outcome of their ruling, unless the LULAC Consent Decree was modified or set aside.
“Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants offer no authority to suggest that a state legislature may nullify a final judgment entered by an Article III court which Intervenors-Defendants-Appellants have not sought to set aside, modify, or otherwise terminate,” stated the court.
The court also rejected the argument that striking DPOC would cause irreparable harm to either the Republican National Committee or lawmakers supportive of the DPOC requirement.
“[T]he RNC has not at any point explained why the use of the State Form to register applicants without accompanying DPOC to vote in federal elections, when identically situated applicants may register for at least federal elections without accompanying DPOC through the Federal Form even with a stay in place, inflicts an irreparable ‘competitive injury’ on the RNC,” said the court.
Counsel defending DPOC for state voter registration forms informed AZ Free News that they intend to file an emergency petition with the Supreme Court at some point within the next week.
The one judge to dissent from the Ninth Circuit Court ruling, Judge Patrick Bumatay, noted that his court had exercised an “irregular and strongly disfavored” power by reconsidering the motion panel’s order, usually reserved for actions by colleagues that amount to “a manifest injustice.” Bumatay disagreed. He said that the lawmakers and other Intervenor-Appellants have proved likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of interests, and public interest.
“With the political nature of this case, we should be especially careful to avoid the use of unconventional or disfavored procedures,” said Butamay.
Butamay contended that the LULAC Consent Decree wasn’t binding on the Arizona legislature. He said that such a perception of permanent judicial power over lawmakers presented separation-of-powers concerns. Further, Butamay argued that the NVRA doesn’t preempt the DPOC requirement, and that the state would face irreparable harm by having its statutory authority enjoined.
Further, Bumatay noted that the significance of this reverse ruling had nothing to do with merit of the claims, but the random assignment of the reconsideration.
“All the public can take away from this episode is that four judges of the Ninth Circuit have voted to partially stay the injunction here, while two other judges voted against it,” said Butamay. “The two judges prevail — not because of any special insight, but because of the luck of an internal Ninth Circuit draw.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
