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.
by Staff Reporter | Aug 2, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Maricopa County’s Republican voters declined to reelect Stephen Richer for recorder, instead electing his opponent, State Representative Justin Heap.
Richer lost despite having a well-funded and diverse network of bipartisan support, as well as a unique platform with the media after Heap was mistakenly denied the chance to participate in a televised debate.
In an X post, Richer said that he accepted the results and would “move on.” Richer pledged to carry out his duties in his remaining months in office, while making claims about the successes of his administration: improved voter rolls and flawless mail voting.
“[O]ne of my friends said the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office is basically like teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts. It’s cursed. So best wishes to my successor!” said Richer.
In his victory statement doubled as a campaign donation pull, Heap said that he would “end the laughingstock elections” of Maricopa County perpetuated under Richer.
Richer himself was also bipartisan with his voting choices. Earlier this summer, the recorder announced he would vote to reelect Democratic President Joe Biden rather than former President Donald Trump.
In the months leading up to that announcement, Richer hinted at his apparent party ambivalency.
Last year, Richer dismissed the importance of certain social issues that make up a major portion of the GOP platform: transgender activism, woke corporations, and critical race theory, among them.
The recorder’s ousting marks a close to a controversial and heated tenure kicked off by the 2020 election and similar contentions renewed in the 2022 election.
To Richer, contentions with the 2020 election were largely unfounded. Richer strongly opposed the election audit.
The 2022 election, the first under Richer’s watch, experienced significant failures of election machines leading up to and on election day. The issues prompted an investigation by then-outgoing Attorney General Mark Brnovich.
Richer used the attention from the election machine failures to fundraise for his reelection campaign.
Richer also doubled the number of vote centers, a point of contention for GOP voters due to beliefs that vote centers allow for easier ballot harvesting.
In 2022, Richer worked with the Biden administration on plans for speech moderation. Richer suggested that the government hold “bootcamps” for media outlets to improve election reporting.
Later that year, Richer deleted a tweet celebrating his prevention of a certain media outlet from having access to the county as part of a newly created press pass system. A federal court later ruled that Richer’s press pass denial was violative of the First Amendment. Richer later deleted his celebratory tweet.
Shortly after rolling out the press pass restrictions, the county launched a disinformation center.
Richer has also defended the much-maligned mail-in ballots as less problematic than in-person voting, as well as unmanned drop boxes.
Earlier this year, we reported on Richer tasking staff with compiling articles and online content pertaining to his personal defamation lawsuit against Kari Lake for her claims of the 2022 election, which marked her defeat against now-Governor Katie Hobbs.
Richer was also involved with the Republican Accountability Project, a Democratic dark money group that spent millions to ensure the defeat of 2022 gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake.
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 2, 2024 | Education, News
By Staff Reporter |
Arizona Democrats are hoping to gain a majority in the state legislature, in part, by picking up a seat that tends to favor Republican candidates.
John McLean is running for the state Senate in Arizona Legislative District 17. The district covers Pima County, north of Tucson, including Marana and Catalina.
Earlier this year, The Washington Post wrote a piece, entitled, “Forget the presidential race. Statehouses are where it’s at.” In that article, the reporters, Theodoric Meyer and Leigh Ann Caldwell, opined that “Democrats are trying to flip the state House and Senate in Arizona after Democrat Katie Hobbs won the governorship in 2022, giving the party control of state government.”
They added, “There are few places where the fights for control of Washington and state legislatures align more than in Tucson’s northern suburbs….Democratic Senator Mark Kelly and Hobbs carried the 17th District when they won in 2022, and Democrats are making it a top target this year. The party needs to flip only two seats in the state House and two in the Senate to win a trifecta (as it’s called when one party controls the governorship and the legislature).”
Kevin Volk, who is running alongside McLean for a seat in the state House of Representatives, told The Washington Post, “Arizona politically seems like the belle of the ball for the first time. And that’s translated to a lot of on-the-ground enthusiasm.”
McLean, a third-generation Arizonan shared on March 29 that he filed 1,369 nominating petition signatures to qualify for the ballot. He wrote, “To the army of volunteers who made this happen, I thank you. This campaign has only just begun!”
On his website, McLean lists endorsements from many left-leaning organizations, including Climate Cabinet, National Organization for Women Arizona PAC, Arizona Education Association, Sierra Club, Save Our Schools Arizona, and the Jane Fonda Climate PAC.
Last month, McLean also boasted about his endorsement from the Human Rights Campaign PAC.
For candidates without a legislative or governing record for voters to research, these endorsements often provide an insightful window into how they might handle their potential roles as legislators or who they may be beholden to in office. For example, organizations like the Arizona Education Association and Save Our Schools Arizona are staunch opponents of the state’s school choice and educational freedom opportunities, including the historic Empowerment Scholarship Account program, which was expanded just a couple years ago. One of McLean’s top issues on his campaign website is “Quality Education For All,” yet he only refers to public schools in his subsequent explanation.
Additionally, McLean’s endorsements from National Organization for Women Arizona PAC and Human Rights Campaign PAC raise concerns about how he would vote in matters of life and family issues. For decades, Arizona has been one of the top states in protecting life and family values, which have come under assault from countless individuals and groups, including the two aforementioned organizations. Support from those two seem to indicate that McLean would be a reliable vote for their issues should he be entrusted with the levers of authority from Legislative District 17 voters in November’s General Election.
McLean lists “Reproductive Rights” – or abortion – on his website as another top issue, framing the argument as “Government should not interfere with anyone’s personal health care decisions which should remain between her and her doctor.”
Arizona Legislative District 17 is a Republican-leaning seat with an 8.3% vote spread between Republicans and Democrats in the past nine statewide elections, according to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. Out of those nine elections, all nine contests have ended up in the Republicans’ column.
McLean ran unopposed in the Democrat primary on July 30. He obtained 23,312 votes, according to unofficial totals from the Arizona Secretary of State as of Wednesday afternoon. He will likely face off against Vince Leach, who was ahead of incumbent Justine Wadsack in the Republican primary by 943 votes as of Wednesday afternoon.
After emerging from the primary, McLean posted, “Thank you Legislative District 17 for choosing me as your Democratic nominee for state senate. Together, we’ll secure our water future, strengthen our school system, and build a stable economy. 98 days until Election Day. Let’s do this!”
Leach told AZ Free News that, “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. There is a clear divide between me and John on abortion, economic policy, border security, election integrity, and many other issues. I look forward to making this case to our district from now until the General Election.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
