by Staff Reporter | Aug 8, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Maricopa County Superior Court ruled against provisions of Arizona’s 2023 Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) on Tuesday.
The EPM, drafted and passed under Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, was challenged in court earlier this year by the public policy nonprofit, Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC).
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jennifer Ryan-Touhill ruled that Fontes’ 2023 EPM contained speech restrictions that violated the Arizona Constitution, as well as misstatements and modifications of statutes, and failures to identify distinctions between guidance and legal mandates.
Ryan-Touhill ruled that the EPM’s provisions on speech were unnecessary, vague, overbroad, and serving as universal prohibition on conduct.
“The EPM’s language has restricted what the Secretary finds acceptable regarding behavior, both speech and acts. Our state constitution guarantees a right to speak freely and is only restricted for an abuse of that right,” wrote Ryan-Touhill. “[M]any of the prohibitions listed in the EPM are free speech and protected by both the Arizona Constitution and the U.S. Constitution. What, for example, constitutes a person communicating about voter fraud in a harassing manner? Or, for that matter, ‘posting’ a sign in an intimidating manner? How does a person either do this behavior — whatever it means — or avoid it? And what content printed on a t-shirt might be offensive or harassing to one and not another? What if the t-shirt says, ‘I have a bomb and I intend to vote!’? Where does the Secretary draw the line?”
Ryan-Touhill highlighted 13 instances of “problematic language” within Fontes’ 2023 EPM in her ruling:
- [N]o electioneering may take place outside the 75-foot limit if it is audible from a location inside the door to the voting location.
- Any activity by a person with the intent or effect of [ ] harassing, [ ] (or conspiring with others to do so) inside or outside the 75-foot limit at a voting location is prohibited.
- The officer in charge of elections has a responsibility to train poll workers and establish policies to prevent and promptly remedy any instances of voter intimidation.
- The officer in charge of elections should publicize and/or implement the following guidelines as applicable:
- The inspector must utilize the marshal to preserve order and remove disruptive persons from the voting location.
- Openly carrying a firearm outside the 75-foot limit may also constitute unlawful voter intimidation, depending on the context.
- Aggressive behavior, such as raising one’s voice or taunting a voter or poll worker.
- Using [ ] insulting [ ] or offensive language to a voter or poll worker. Disrupting voting lines.
- Following voters or poll workers coming to or leaving a voting location, including to or from their vehicles.
- Intentionally disseminating false or misleading information at a voting location. . . .
- Directly confronting, questioning, photographing, or videotaping voters or poll workers in a harassing [ ] manner, including when the voter or poll worker is coming to or leaving the polling location.
- Asking voters for “documentation” or other questions that only poll workers should perform.
- Raising repeated frivolous voter challenges to poll workers without any good faith basis, or raising voter challenges based on race, ethnicity, national origin, language, religion or disability.
- Posting signs or communicating messages about penalties for “voter fraud” in a harassing or intimidating manner.
Judge Ryan-Touhill assessed that the EPM’s provisions modified the criminal intent and effect of crimes outlined by Arizona laws against harassment and voter intimidation or threats.
“The Secretary has no authority to change a mens rea, regardless of the objective of the language,” said Ryan-Touhill. “Moreover, neither law allows for a subjective belief of the alleged target of the crime but rather focuses upon the acts of the criminal (e.g., force, violence, infliction) or the victim (‘a reasonable person’).”
AFEC President Scot Mussi said in a press release that he was happy to see the court protect Arizonans’ First Amendment rights within elections.
“The judge correctly realized that certain portions of Secretary Fontes’ illegal and radical manual were nothing more than a brazen attempt to destroy the integrity and transparency of state elections,” said Mussi. “Secretary Fontes and his team of leftwing ideologues must conform the entire manual to state law as is their statutory duty.”
The court ordered the sections of the EPM containing speech restrictions to be unenforceable.
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 | 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.
