Voters across Arizona who are registered as Independents or who have not listed a political party preference have a few weeks to request early voting ballots for the Aug. 2 Democratic and Republican primaries.
The Arizona Secretary of State’s Office shows 34.15 percent of all Arizona registered voters were listed as Libertarians or “other” as of Jan. 2. And each of those “other” voters have the option of requesting a Democratic or Republican primary ballot without formally changing their party affiliation.
In preparation of the upcoming primaries, Arizona’s 15 county recorders recently mailed out a “90-day notice” to all voters on the active early voting list (formerly the permanent early voting list). The mailing seeks to ensure current addresses are on file before primary ballots are mailed out in late July.
The notice also provides voters with information on how to be removed from the AEVL if they don’t want ballots mailed to them.
However, the most critical impact of the notice is the reminder to Independent and Party Not Designated (PND) voters on the AEVL that they may vote in either of the two main primaries if they request a ballot within the next few weeks. (Voters may not request a Libertarian primary ballot as that party’s primary is closed to registered Libertarians.)
Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer recently took to Twitter to promote the 90-day mailing, but referred only to “Independents” when discussing the right to request either a Democratic or Republican ballot. Cochise County Recorder David Stevens and others have confirmed to Arizona Daily Independent this includes voters whose registration card shows PND for party not designated.
The mailings are also raising questions about why several former voters have received an AEVL notification packet from Richer in 2022 despite not living in the county since before the 2020 election. In some instances, a voter summoned for jury duty may have been excused after providing proof of a move, but the county recorder must ask for such information to be shared.
The same exchange of information is necessary when a death is reported. In addition, a registered voter convicted of a felony has restrictions on their voting rights as of the date of sentencing, but a county recorder must ensure the information makes its way from the clerk of the court’s office.
Stevens says registered voters on the AEVL who need to make changes to their voter file should return the AEVL card as soon as possible. Other voters can call their county recorder. In the meantime, qualified voters who are not yet registered have only until July 5 to become registered for the August primary.
The Arizona SOS shows 34.5 percent of voters registered as Republicans and 31.35 percent as Democrats, so the impact of Independent or Party Not Designated voters will likely have a major effect in August, as winners in Arizona’s primary elections are determined by plurality vote.
This means the candidate who receives the highest number of votes wins, even if the candidate did not receive the majority of all votes cast in that contest. Such an outcome is expected in the race for U.S. Senate with five Republican candidates: Ret. USAF Major General Mick McGuire, ACC member Justin Olson, venture capitalist Blake Masters, Attorney General Mark Brnovich, and businessman Jim Lamon).
It is likely none of the five Republicans can receive more than 50 percent of all votes cast, so the highest vote-getter will be listed on the 2022 General Election ballot against Sen. Mark Kelly and Libertarian candidate Marc Victor.
The 10-year combined impact of Arizona’s recently enacted 2.5 percent flat rate income tax along with repealing the state’s progressive income tax structure with an 8.0 percent top rate included in 2020’s illegal Proposition 208 would increase Arizona’s GDP by about $11.9 billion with about 58,000 more employed workers.
That’s the conclusion from Common Sense Institute Arizona which took a deep look into the long-term effect of the Arizona Supreme Court’s rejection of Prop 208 and the signing into law of Arizona’s first flat tax.
“Generally, economists agree that high income taxes are economically harmful, particularly when they tax capital gains and other income on savings and investment at the same rate as ordinary income (as in Arizona and most other states),” the CSI report states. “This is because the tax discourages taxpayers from saving or investing ordinary income in the taxing jurisdiction, and instead spending it today on consumption locally or moving their investment to lower taxed jurisdictions.”
Arizona is one of 42 states with an individual income tax. When first enacted in 1933, the state had 11 tax rates ranging from 1.0 percent to 4.5 percent. Over the years, the tax rates have changed, bringing Arizona to its current four rates which range from 2.59 to 4.5 percent, the 40th lowest in the country.
According to Glenn Farley, CSI-Arizona’s Director of Policy & Research, Arizona is the 11th state to adopt a simplified flat tax structure. And when the state’s 2.5 percent flat rate is transitioned in, it will give Arizonans “the lowest income tax rate in the country” among the states with such a tax.
Farley added that Arizona currently has a happy revenue problem, in that the State has experienced unprecedented annual growth in income and sales tax collections since Fiscal Year 2018.
“Arizona is collecting at least $2.4 billion more per year due to the 2019 Tax
Omnbius, passed by the Arizona state legislature, than it was under the pre-2018 tax base,” the CSI report states. “The problem is best addressed by revisiting the state’s tax structure adopted in 2019, and not by trying to use one-time spending to absorb the excess cash. The 2.50% flat tax plan helps further the intended goal begun back in 2019: a revenue-neutral modernization of the state tax code, and not a permanent tax increase.”
The transition to a flat tax comes as Arizona continues to enjoy unprecedented revenue windfalls. The report notes that by FY2025, current trends and forecasts show the State General Fund adding $5.8 billion in new revenue despite all taxpayers paying in at a lower rate.
Which makes it all the more important that Prop 208 with its surcharge to a 8.0 percent rate was invalidated on constitutional grounds, the report states.
“Economic theory suggests high income taxpayers will relocate income in response to tax and other fiscal policy, without necessarily relocating themselves,” according to the CSI report. “A 77% increase in the states marginal tax rate on its highest earners would have reduced both Arizona’s long-term growth prospects and short-term revenue collections.”
Cities and other government entities which allow their flagpoles to be used by community groups and private organizations cannot prohibit the hoisting of religious-themed flags based on the religious messaging, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.
Justice Stephen Breyer authored the main opinion in Shurtleff v City of Boston, holding that the city would not have engaged in the endorsement or support of religion by simply allowing a religious flag to be flown from one of the three flagpoles often used for special events at Boston City Hall.
The case stems from a resident’s request in 2017 to fly a “Christian flag” during a public event at city hall to celebrate “the civic and social contributions of the Christian community” in Boston. City officials denied the request, citing concerns that allowing the flag would be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the enactment of any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”
However, none of the prior 50 or so flagpole requests being denied. And that, according to Breyer’s opinion, put the City of Boston on the wrong side of another provision of the First Amendment – the Free Speech Clause which states governments shall make no law respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech.
“The boundary between government speech and private expression can blur when, as here, a government invites the people to participate in a program,” Breyer wrote, adding that on balance, the Court concluded “Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech.”
This meant, Breyer noted, that Boston’s refusal to allow a Christian flag to fly during a special public event abridged the requestors’ Constitutional right of freedom of speech.
According to Breyer’s opinion, there could be times when flying a non-governmental flag could convey a governmental message. Which is why it is necessary to undertake a “holistic inquiry” of the circumstances involved in, he wrote. Such an inquiry in this case, Breyer noted, shows city officials policy allowing third-party flag raisings makes the message private, non-government speech.
And when the government does not speak for itself, it may not exclude private speech based on the “religious viewpoint” of that speech.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito agreed Boston officials violated the First Amendment’s freedom of speech by rejecting the Christian flag, but came to that decision using different legal reasoning than Breyer.
Alito, in a concurring judgment, felt Breyer’s review process was overly complicated. The only question to be asked, Alito wrote, is whether the flag represented the city’s speech.
“The ultimate question is whether the government is actually expressing its own views or the real speaker is a private party and the government is surreptitiously engaged in the ‘regulation of private speech,’” Alito wrote.
And in his own concurring judgment, Gorsuch placed blame on a 1971 SCOTUS decision Lemon v. Kurtzman for Boston’s uncertainty with the competing interests of the Free Speech Clause and the Establishment Clause. According to Gorsuch, Lemon “produced only chaos” for years before eventually being abandoned by the Court.
“Our Constitution was not designed to erase religion from American life; it was designed to ensure ‘respect and tolerance,’” Gorsuch wrote, quoting in part a 2019 SCOTUS opinion. “To justify a policy that discriminated against religion, Boston sought to drag Lemon once more from its grave. It was a strategy as risky as it was unsound.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a short concurring opinion, pointing out the Boston dispute arose because city officials did not understand the Establishment Clause.” He noted that SCOTUS “has repeatedly made clear” that a government does not violate the Establishment Clause merely by treating religious persons, organizations, and speech equally with secular persons, organizations, and speech.
“Under the Constitution, a government may not treat religious persons, religious organizations, or religious speech as second-class,” Kavanaugh wrote.
An outpouring of condolences continues in response to the announcement that former Maricopa County Attorney Allister Adel died Saturday due to unspecified health complications.
“How very tragic. The hearts and prayers of Arizonans are with Allister’s family, colleagues and close friends,” Gov. Doug Ducey stated after Adel’s death was revealed. “May she Rest In Peace.”
I’m shocked and devastated to learn that my friend, Allister Adel, passed away earlier today. My heart is broken for her husband and two young children that she leaves behind. Please join me in praying for the family as they grieve during this difficult time. RIP Allister. 💔 pic.twitter.com/TDcbZJ5ZFF
Similar sentiments were shared on Twitter by Arizona LD28 Republicans.
“We grieve the loss of our fellow member Allister Adel and pray for her family and friends who stood beside her,” the group tweeted. “She will be remembered as a caring mother, first female elected Maricopa County attorney, a loyal friend and party member. She wished only to do good in her life.”
Adel is survived by her husband, David DeNitto, and two children. DeNitto serves a senior vice president and investment officer for Wells Fargo Advisors.
“My family and I are utterly heartbroken by this unimaginable loss. We are so very proud to call Allister wife and mom,” DeNitto said Saturday in a released statement. “We are asking that the press and the public honor her, her legacy, and our family by respecting our privacy at this difficult time.”
Adel, a Republican, was appointed as Maricopa County Attorney in 2019 when then-County Attorney Bill Montgomery joined the Arizona Supreme Court. She was the first woman to hold the office, to which she was elected by voters in November 2020.
Unfortunately, Adel spent election night in the hospital where she underwent emergency surgery for a head injury suffered when she fell at home. She remained in the hospital for several weeks and even after being discharged Adel spent much of early 2021 recuperating at home.
In August 2021, Adel admitted herself to a rehabilitation facility for several weeks for treatment of anxiety, an eating disorder, and alcohol abuse. However, her frequent absences from the office were not disclosed to the board supervisors or other elected county officials until September when Sheriff Paul Penzone became concerned with who was signing off on various legal advice to his office.
Those absences also raised further questions about who was managing the 1,000 employees of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and its $115 million budget. It also led to revelations that Adel had little direct involvement in strategizing many major Maricopa County legal decisions, including multiple lawsuits related to the Senate’s 2020 election audit.
Further scrutiny into how decisions were made by the criminal division in several high-profile controversies led in February to five of Adel’s chiefs asking her to resign. Their letter was shared with the State Bar of Arizona, the board of supervisors, and the media.
That resignation finally came as of March 25 when it was apparent Adel’s personal issues were distracting from the daily work of her office. It was later confirmed she was receiving in-patient treatment at the time her resignation was announced.
“I am proud of the many accomplishments of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office during my tenure, including policies that seek justice in a fair and equitable manner, hold violent offenders accountable, protect the rights of crime victims, and keep families safe,” Adel stated in a news release at the time.
Anni Foster, general counsel for the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, tweeted that she was heartbroken for Adel’s family.
“I had prayed for a miracle for her,” Foster said. “Hoping she can now rest in peace and that everyone can let her family grieve in private.”
For Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio, Adel’s sudden death serves as a reminder to remember others who may be going through difficult times.
“We never know the struggle the person next to us is going through,” he tweeted. “Today we should pray for her soul and for her family. We should also be praying for those having difficulties in their lives.”
Adel was a 2004 graduate of the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University. She held a number of legal positions, including as a deputy county attorney for Maricopa County before serving as the chief administrative law judge for the Arizona Department of Transportation and then becoming general counsel for the Arizona Department of Child Safety.
The sentencing options for several felonies related to child sex abuse, human trafficking, and human smuggling will be significantly restricted in Arizona later this year when new legislation takes effect.
On Thursday, Rep. Leo Biasiucci celebrated the enactment of House Bill 2696 which reforms the state’s sentencing ranges for some of the most horrific crimes against children. It triples the length of prison sentences for some crimes against children under age 15 while prohibiting judges from placing someone on probation instead of in prison for other offenses, including human trafficking and human smuggling.
“I’m proud to have sponsored this important legislation to ensure that anyone convicted of these heinous crimes serves mandatory prison time with no chance of parole,”said Biasiucci, the House Republican Majority Whip. “Iappreciate the strong support of Governor Ducey and my fellow legislators. These new laws will combat these crimes and make Arizona safer for everyone.”
Under HB2696, the sentencing range for the continuous sexual abuse of a child under age 15 changes from 13 to 27 years to 39 to 81 years. And someone who has a prior felony involving various forms of child abuse would have a sentencing range of 69 to 111 years if later convicted of the continuous sexual abuse of someone under age 15.
Judges will also see new restrictions when sentencing a defendant convicted of luring a minor for sexual exploitation if the minor is under age 15, aggravated luring when the minor is under age 15, as well as sexual extortion. Such offenses will become prison mandatory and ineligible for probation, suspension of sentence, pardon, or most early releases from confinement.
Luring involves offering or soliciting sexual conduct with another person knowing or having reason to know that the other person is a minor, while aggravated luring involves the use of an electronic communication device “to transmit at least one visual depiction of material that is harmful to minors for the purpose of initiating or engaging in communication” which offers or solicits sexual conduct with a recipient the sender has reason to believe is a minor.
Although luring and aggravated luring often involve online predators, those crimes are also frequently committed by young adults and teens. In addition, the offense does not require an actual victim who is a minor. A conviction can be obtained on the basis of offers or communications with someone the person have reason to believe is under 15, even if that person is a peace officer.
But HB2696 also targets those involved in criminal activity involving human trafficking and human smuggling. Once effective, the new law will allow prosecutors in the state’s 15 counties as well as the Arizona Attorney General’s Office to charge someone who knowingly or intentionally gets involved in a human smuggling organization or operation.
The bill adds a provision to Arizona Revised Statute 13-2323A making it a crime for someone to knowingly assist a human smuggling organization or operation “by transporting a person, or procuring the transportation for a person” with the intent to conceal the person from a peace officer or to assist the person in fleeing from a peace officer “who is attempting to lawfully arrest or detain” that person.
Several law enforcement officials from across the state attended Thursday’s bill signing by Ducey. During the event, the governor made pointed comments about ongoing border crisis, while praising Biasiucci and the bill’s 32 bipartisan co-sponsors for ensuring anyone who aids illegal human smuggling organizations or operations will be held accountable.
“We’re taking another critical step to fill the void in leadership left by the federal government’s unwillingness to secure the border,” Ducey said. “We have seen a dramatic increase in human smuggling at the border since President Biden took office. I’m hopeful this new law will help to save lives and deter more migrants from making the dangerous journey to our border.”
Biasiucci’s bill was opposed by the Arizona Justice Project, the William E Morris Institute for Justice, and Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice. The sentencing requirements do not take effect until later this year and are not retroactive.
Nothing in HB2696 restricts the ability of a governor to commute a sentence in accordance with existing state law.
