After months of being spoken for by attorneys or just typing brief comments on Twitter, the two state senators at the heart of the legislative audit into Maricopa County’s 2020 General Election were finally front and center Tuesday during a livestreamed status meeting.
Senate President Karen Fann had hoped various Maricopa County officials would attend the meeting in order to address several questions put forth earlier this month by Fann on behalf of the audit team. But county officials announced they would not accept Fann’s invitation to meet in person and instead answered some of the questions via a letter on Monday.
In an effort to not let the scheduled meeting time go to waste, Fann and Sen. Warren Petersen of the Senate Judiciary Committee were joined by three top audit officials to hear how audit activities are going and what concerns have been identified so far. But first, Fann provided an opening statement downplaying talk of rampant fraud with Maricopa County’s election.
After months of being spoken for by attorneys or just typing brief comments on Twitter, the two state senators at the heart of the legislative audit into Maricopa County’s 2020 General Election were finally front and center Tuesday during a livestreamed status meeting.
“I have said from the get-go I’m relatively sure we’re not going to find anything of any magnitude that would imply that any intentional wrongdoing was going [on]; I believe that we were going to find what we’ve known all along in some of the things is that we could probably do a little better job with chain of custody and all the things we’ve talked about,” said Fann.
In January, Fann co-signed a legislative subpoena with Petersen which demanded the county turn over its voting systems, elections records, and nearly 2.1 million ballots cast in last fall’s election. She said again Tuesday the purpose of the audit “has nothing to do with overturning the election or decertifying electors or anything else.”
Instead, she said, lawmakers must ensure Arizona’s elections are done “properly, accurately, safely, with full election integrity.”
Conversation between officials with the Senate and Maricopa County about the 2020 General Election began shortly after polls closed on Nov. 3. There was an initial subpoena issued in December which was replaced with one in January.
Once the second subpoena was issued, “it has nothing but delays, delays, delays,” Fann recounted during the meeting, noting Maricopa County’s decision to sue the Senate in an effort to quash the subpoena.
County officials lost that challenge in February and eventually delivered 385 tabulator machines, several other voting equipment, and 1,681 boxes of ballots on 46 pallets to Veterans Memorial Coliseum last month. Missing from the county’s delivery are two items which Doug Logan, the CEO of audit contractor Cyber Ninjas said are necessary to complete the audit.
The first is the administrative access code or password to the Dominion Voting Systems ballot tabulator machines. In Monday’s letter, Board Chair Jack Sellers informed Fann that county officials do not have the access code. “We do not have it; we have no legal right to acquire it; and so, we cannot give it to you,” the letter states.
The second missing item is the election department’s computer routers which would show the department’s internet activity before and during the election. Earlier this month, Sellers announced neither the routers nor virtual images of the routers would be released, citing concerns by Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone that allowing outsiders access to the routers could put law enforcement officials at risk.
Among other questions raised by Fann in her letter to Maricopa County included concern that ballots were not in sealed bags nor in boxes secured with tamper-resistant tape when turned over to the audit team. Another concern was that a review of computer data files appeared to show one elections database had been deleted and another was missing.
Logan told Fann on Tuesday that upon further review there was no problem with how the ballots were packaged by the county. And CyFIR CEO Ben Cotton said during the meeting he has located the files that were previously the subject of concern.
The audit team’s hand count of the 2.1 million ballots is scheduled to resume May 24 at the Coliseum. Fann has not been shy about floating the idea of issuing new subpoenas in an effort to ensure auditors have all information needed to conduct a full review of how Maricopa County conducted the election.
A bill which would allow restaurants whose liquor licenses prohibit off-premises or to-go sales of booze to lease a portion of another type of liquor license that allows for such sales was sent Monday to Gov. Doug Ducey.
HB2773 allows a bar, wine bar, or liquor store to lease its off-sale privileges of non-mixed cocktails for one-year periods to a restaurant which under current law is prohibited from engaging in such to-go sales. The lessee and lessor must be located in the same county, and the lessor’s liquor license must be held in non-use status.
Under the legislation, the Arizona Department of Liquor License and Control (DLLC) will be required to establish an off-sale privileges lease amount for urban and rural counties “that fairly recognizes and is derived from the commercial value of selling spirituous liquor for off-premises consumption.” However, the lessee and lessor can agree to a lease amount different from the DLLC amount.
Other provisions of HB2773 allow a bar or liquor store to begin selling mixed cocktails with a tamper proof seal for off-premises consumption as of Oct. 1. And restaurants can apply to lease those mixed cocktails to-go privileges from a bar or liquor store for one-year periods through Dec. 31, 2025 before applying for a newly created to-go mixed cocktails permit beginning Jan. 1, 2026. The value of a to-go cocktail lease will be established by the DLLC.
If the lease plan is signed by Ducey, the legislation calls for all lease payments to be paid in full in advance, and all existing applicable laws and regulations concerning containers, quantities, and training will apply. Any violations or liability connected to liquor service under a leased privilege or permit would be attributed only the leasing restaurant licensee, according to the bill.
Most restaurants operate with a Series 6 or 7 liquor licenses which cost a few hundred dollars, while bars typically have a Series 12 license which allows for more options such as selling liquor to-go. Series 12 licenses are limited in number and can cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Finding a way for restaurants to conduct off-premises sales of spiritous liquor has been a priority for the Arizona Restaurant Association since November when a state judge ordered the immediate end to one of Ducey’s COVID-19 executive orders which allowed restaurants to violate state law by selling alcohol on a to-go basis even though their liquor license prohibited such sales.
The executive order issued in June 2020 also forbid law enforcement agencies or DLLC from taking any action to enforce the state law. At the same time, many bars, saloons, and wine bars were forced shut due to other Ducey executive orders or public health regulations.
The executive order was challenged in court by attorney Ilan Wurman on behalf of dozens of Series 6 and 7 licensees. Judge Pamela Gates of the Maricopa County Superior Court shot down the governor’s order, ruling that Ducey was not allowed to suspend Arizona’s liquor laws even during a state of emergency.
Gates’ order forced restaurants to stop to-go sales of liquor at the end of 2020, but Dan Bogert of the Arizona Restaurant Association suggested at the time that a change in state law was needed.
“I think that you don’t need to look any further for evidence of that to how popular this is with the consumer base,” Bogert said. “Furthermore, we’re going to be looking at bringing some legislation forward in the next legislative session to address this permanently.”
HB2773 outlines restrictions on the percent of on-site and off-premises liquor sales a restaurant can have. The bill also authorizes a bar, beer, and wine bar or restaurant with a lease to maintain a delivery service. And it includes language retroactive to July 1, 2020 to exempt the manufacture or sale of certain bitters products from regulation under Arizona’s alcohol beverage laws.
After months of meetings, crunching numbers, and compromises, the group of legislators and state staff tasked with hammering out Arizona’s $12 billion budget could be ready to roll it out this week.
Rep. Regina Cobb (R-LD5) told AZ Free News that after numerous meetings this session the fine-tuning of the budget package “is down to the last few items.” As a result, legislators could be presented with the package in a few days.
The two most anticipated features involve whether Arizona’s current multi-rate income tax structure will transition to a flat tax rate, and what types of immediate tax cuts will be divvied out of the state’s budget surplus of between $1 billion and $2 billion.
Cobb, who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, said tax relief via tax cuts was on top of the House’s budget wish list heading into budget negotiations, and now that all sides have come to “a general agreement on how much there is to spend” that income tax cuts for all Arizonans are part of the budget.
The other priority was a proposed flat tax which could drop Arizona’s four income tax brackets (which range from 2.59 percent to 8 percent) into one flat tax. According to Cobb, that plan is would get all Arizonans to a 2.5 percent income tax by 2024. A flat income tax has been supported by Gov. Doug Ducey although he had not proposed a rate plan.
Cobb has been involved in the budget or appropriation side of the legislature for five of the seven years she has been in office. Normally the House and Senate hammer out their differences and then bring the plan to the Governor’s Office. This year, however, the budget process differed in that the executive side became involved earlier.
“It was clear our philosophies between the House and the Senate were different, so we made it a three-way negotiation sooner than expected,” Cobb said, adding that the “majority of the negotiating and give-and-take is complete.”
Among those working with Cobb on this year’s budget is House Majority Leader Rep. Ben Toma, as well Sen. David Gowan, the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Sen. J.D. Mesnard, chair of the Senate’s Commerce Committee. A few issues remain, which is not unusual at this stage.
“The last items are always the most controversial items,” Cobb said.
Ducey introduced a budget for consideration by the legislature when the session started in January. The governor’s budget included discretionary spending and revenue changes necessary to enact a balanced budget, with a forecasted $350 million surplus.
That surplus prediction continued to exponentially grow every few weeks. In mid-April, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and its Finance Advisory Committee of public and private sector economists pegged the surplus at $1 billion, while some economists put it closer to $1.5 billion or even $2 billion.
The budget discussions are also addressing the impact of Proposition 208, which mandates a 3.5 percent income tax surcharge for thousands of Arizonans, many of whom are small business owners. Those subject to the surcharge are being “walloped” by the tax and need relief, according to Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club.
“We currently have an uncompetitive tax rate structure, which needs to be a priority for the legislature,” Mussi told AZ Free News. “We need a simpler tax code, we need to correct the damage from Prop 208, and we need to push for a $1 billion tax cut to return that money to the taxpayers.”
Another priority, particularly for business owners, is for Arizona’s income tax code to better conform or match up with the federal tax code. This limits the potential for double taxation of income, Mussi explained.
Mussi also noted none of the tax cuts or additional spending due to the surplus will impact Arizona’s rainy day fund, which was established in 1990 as a reserve of funds the state could turn to during economic downturns.
Once the budget bills pass the House and the Senate, Ducey will have the option to sign them, veto them, or let them take effect without his signature. He also has authority to do a line‐item veto of appropriations, although any veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote in each chamber before adjournment.
But how long it will take for the budget to get approved is not very clear. Traditionally, the legislature will sine die after the budget is approved. Sine die marks the adjournment and end of the session without setting a date for reconvening. It also terminates any unfinished legislative business.
However, Sen. Kelly Townsend has suggested there should be no sine die in case the Senate’s election audit of Maricopa County requires some type of legislative action. She has also been critical of the fact several of her 18 election reform bills never made it out of a Senate committee this year.
It is possible Rep. John Kavanagh, as chair of the House Government & Elections Committee, will introduce strike-everything amendments to others bills in an effort to force the Senate to support Townsend’s legislation, thus potentially ensuring her vote on the budget.
None of the budget surplus being considered by the legislature involves COVID-19 funds, as Arizona is one of a handful of states in which the executive branch controls federal funds issued to the state. That means Ducey has control of his own multi-billion purse derived from federal monies.
Making matters even trickier is that approving the budget will require the support of all 16 Republican senators and 31 Republican representatives unless a Democrat or two cross the aisle. Such uncertainty means it is unclear how much time will be needed by the leadership in both chambers to be ready for a vote.
Another shadow hanging over the budget negotiations is whether Arizona will be punished by the U.S. Treasury Department if it approves tax cuts which the Biden Administration later considers were “directly or indirectly” offset by federal COVID-19 funds.
Attorney General Mark Brnovich has filed for a court order declaring part of the recent COVID-19 relief package unenforceable. That provision prohibits states from using COVID-19 federal monies to essentially underwrite tax cuts, but the language needs to be clarified, according to nearly two dozen attorneys general.
“The fact that those politically allied to enact the Act cannot even agree with each other as to what the Tax Mandate means provides powerful evidence that it is subject to multiple potential interpretations,” Brnovich argues in a lawsuit filed in March in U.S. District Court. “Indeed, the language of the Tax Mandate is patently ambiguous, and even borderline incoherent.”
While some politicians have called in the past for boycotts or buycotts of specific companies, Rep. Reginald Bolding (LD27) has raised the subject of whether the National Football League should consider pulling the February 2023 Super Bowl out of Arizona in response to the state’s new election laws.
Bolding, the House Democratic Leader, broached the issue in a May 11 letter to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell on the same day the Senate passed SB1485, a bill which could remove more than 100,000 names from the early voting list of voters who continually fail to utilize the early ballot option.
The NFL announced in May 2018 that the Super Bowl LVII would be returning to Arizona in 2023 with a week-long list of activities culminating with the championship game. But in his letter, Bolding reminded Goodell the NFL reneged on its plan to hold the Super Bowl in Arizona in 1993 after legislators opted to not recognize Martin Luther King Jr. Day as a state holiday.
“I am respectfully requesting that you add your powerful voice to a chorus of folks from a broad political spectrum to urge Governor Doug Ducey to veto this reprehensible legislation,” Bolding wrote to Goodell, adding “it is time for organizations like the NFL, the NCAA and the College Football National Championship to get off the sidelines and take a stand like Major League Baseball.”
The MLB reference relates to last month’s announcement that the All-Star Game was being moved from Atlanta to Denver after Georgia lawmakers made changes to the state’s election laws.
What Bolding didn’t know when sending his letter to Goodell was that Ducey signed SB1485 less than one hour after the legislation was transmitted to his desk.
Since then, Bolding’s suggestion that the NFL could consider pulling a premier sporting event has been heavily criticized for its negative impact on Arizona’s tourism and hospitality industries still reeling from the last 15 months of COVID-19 restrictions.
An economic study released after last year’s Super Bowl LIV in Miami showed that visitor spending -including spectators, media, teams, and NFL – brought in nearly $250 million to the Greater Miami area. There were also millions in short term labor income, and a $34 million bump in local and state tax revenues connected to the event.
Bolding’s letter to Goodell referred to a decision by Michael Bidwell, owner of the Arizona Cardinals, to join a few dozen Arizona business leaders to oppose some election-related legislation, including SB1485.
But Ducey made it clear when signing the bill that he found nothing nefarious about making changes to the state’s elections law.
“Arizona has for years continuously improved and refined our election laws —including intuitively renaming ‘absentee’ voting to ‘early’ voting— and constantly seeking to strengthen the security and integrity of our elections,” he said. “SB 1485 ensures Arizona remains a leader for inclusive, accessible, efficient and secure election administration.”
Bolding has continued to attack SB1485, although he has not repeated his panned comments about the NFL’s option to pull the Super Bowl from Arizona. The February 2023 game would be the fourth time the Super Bowl is held in the state.
Rep. Shawnna Bolick says a tweet she wrote Wednesday was not intended as a commentary on the Senate’s ongoing audit of Maricopa County’s election process. Instead, she was simply trying to draw attention to a double-standard by many state Democrats on the issue of public-private partnerships.
Bolick (R-LD20) is a strong supporter of Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESA) which thousands of Arizona families can utilize to provide school choice for students. As Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, she has championed SB1452 which seeks to expand ESA eligibility to thousands more students.
But Bolick says she has seen many Democrats who do not support giving families more choice in a child’s education if that choice involves a privately run school. Then on Wednesday morning, Bolick was reading comments about the Senate’s election audit when an article caught her attention.
That article reported on how Maricopa County does not have the administrative passwords necessary to access key voting equipment the auditors want to review. Those passwords appear to be in the control of Dominion Voting Systems, a private company which leases voting equipment to the county.
And that, Bolick says, prompted a bit of a snarky retort “comparing how the Left is okay with our democratic process being turned over to a private entity for elections, but they are not okay with kids going to, say, a private school.”
“I see so much hypocrisy in the world, so it’s fun sometimes to point out an issue that might not even be related to another issue,” Bolick said, adding she did not mean to suggest private companies should never be involved in elections. “Just a little poke on hypocrisy between different governance structures and ideas. Nothing more, nothing less.”
An amended version of SB1452 which came through Bolick’s committee is slated to be considered by the House on Thursday. If it passes the legislation will have to return to the Senate for a final vote.
Bolick also serves as Vice-Chair of the House Criminal Justice Reform Committee.
