A west valley mayor is continuing to keep his commitments to his city.
Last week, Peoria Mayor Jason Beck announced that there would be a police presence at all Peoria Unified School District schools during the 2023-2024 year.
Beck highlighted that there would be four new SLO’s (School Liaison Officers) and rotating SLO’s at every school; that this presence would be expanded to all elementary schools; that there would be 22 Peoria schools with police coverage and an increase in SLO salary.
The mayor said, “It’s the fact that we are trying to take care of our kids. Our first priority as a city is to take care of the residents. Safety and well being is our first priority.”
Peoria’s increased investment in school safety followed a communication from the first-year mayor in the city’s May 2023 newsletter, where he updated residents on his plan for keeping children safe. Beck wrote, “As Mayor, I believe the first priority of our city is to ensure that the kids, teachers and staff of the Peoria Unified School District not only feel safe, but are safe while in and around schools and associated facilities. Likewise, parents and loved ones should be able to have peace of mind that this is always the case. With this in mind, there should be nothing more important in our city’s budget than providing for the protection of our kids, teachers and staff while allowing them to have a great educational experience and positive work environment.”
Mayor Beck concluded his letter, stating, “No one should pit the skills, dedication, and good intentions of these wonderful public servants against one another. The choice is not between social workers, counselors, and law enforcement. We need an all-of-the above approach to show our children and community that we value safety and education for the happiness and prosperity of our community.”
The action to provide additional school safety personnel for Peoria schools comes on the heels of an earlier announcement from Mayor Beck on funding for the city’s police pension funding. In a Facebook post, Beck noted that the Peoria City Council had moved $6 million to the police pension funding, which was now 80% funded – compared to 48% funded in 2020.
Earlier this year, Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne and the Arizona Department of Education released the findings of a poll, which found that “81% of Arizona Public School parents support having a police officer” and “78% of Arizona Public School parents think that safety at schools is VERY IMPORTANT.”
Protecting Arizona's children shouldn't be a partisan issue, and parents agree. School resource officers are specially trained and provide more than just protection for our students. We encourage all schools to apply for the school safety grant here: https://t.co/63Uy6DQJZPpic.twitter.com/jFaLIx5wmJ
— Arizona Department of Education (@azedschools) April 13, 2023
Horne held an April press conference with Arizona legislators to address this issue. The group called on school boards “to support having an officer at every school and to apply for funding through an available school safety grant.”
If a deranged gunman entered your child's campus, would you prefer a school resource officer to be present, or a school counselor?
While both are important, in this day and age we're living in, SROs are crucial to the safety of our students, and new polling released today… pic.twitter.com/v6VmgdpHev
After that press conference, Senator T.J. Shope added, “While we certainly see the value in school counselors as a component to safe and healthy schools, we believe SROs (school resource officers) are a necessity in this day and age where we’re witnessing increasing school shootings across the country. SROs can also help detour gang activity as they foster positive relationships with students.”
Senator @TJShopeforAZ's Snapshot of the Week: Better Access to Care for Pets and Their Owners⬇️ pic.twitter.com/e8vCqqhiUq
On Tuesday, a joint committee of the Arizona legislature launched an investigation into allegations of censorship at Arizona State University (ASU). Lawmakers issued a 60-day deadline to conduct the investigation.
The directive arose from the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Freedom of Expression at Arizona’s Public Universities hearing concerning the T.W. Lewis Center, shuttered this year after the revocation of $400,000 in annual funding from its namesake, Tom Lewis, who cited “left-wing hostility and activism” as his reason for defunding the program.
Lewis’ contention arose from the efforts of 37 Barrett Honors College faculty members, who launched a coordinated campaign to prevent an event featuring prominent conservative speakers Dennis Prager and Charlie Kirk. Prager testified at Tuesday’s hearing; he also published an opinion piece on the event ahead of the hearing.
.@DennisPrager says Arizona State University Barrett Honors College faculty are intellectual & moral lightweights: "They fear any conservative coming for 90 minutes, because in 90 minutes I can undo the 4 years of the indoctrination that these leftists give their students." pic.twitter.com/tmXn56rFih
State Sens. Anthony Kern, co-chair (R-LD27), Frank Carroll (R-LD28), Sally Ann Gonzales (D-LD20), Christine Marsh (D-LD04), and J.D. Mesnard (R-LD13) served on the committee, as did State Reps. Quang Nguyen (R-LD01), Lorena Austin (D-LD09), Analise Ortiz (D-LD24), Beverly Pingerelli (R-LD28), and Austin Smith (R-LD29). Kern and Nguyen served as co-chairs.
“This is to get to the bottom of a state-funded university that is not meeting its obligation to freedom of expression and freedom of speech,” said Kern.
The center relied on an annual budget of around $1 million; ASU representatives explained that the center would live on through the classes taught, though the actual center itself and the executive director at its helm, Ann Atkinson, would be gone.
ASU Vice President of Legal Affairs Kim Demarchi explained that Lewis’ funding provided for career development and education. Demarchi testified that ASU considered what programs it could continue without Lewis’ funding, and declared that they could only sustain the faculty without Lewis’ funding. Demarchi also shared that the Barrett Honors faculty weren’t punished in any way for the letter or allegations of intimidation.
“It is possible it [their letter] has a chilling effect,” said Demarchi.
However, Demarchi clarified that a professor would have to explicitly threaten a student’s grade in order to be in violation of university policy.
Atkinson went public with the closure of the Lewis Center last month. (See the response from ASU). She toldAZ Free News that the university turned down alternative funding sources that would make up for the loss of Lewis’ funding necessary to keep the Lewis Center running.
Nguyen opened up the hearing by recounting his survival of Vietnam’s communist regime as a child, and comparing that regime’s hostility to free speech to the actions of Barrett Honors College faculty.
“My understanding is that there is an effort to prevent conservative voices from being heard,” said Nguyen. “I crossed 12,000 miles to look for freedom, to seek freedom.”
Nguyen expressed disappointment that none of the 37 faculty members that signed onto the letter showed up to testify in the hearing. He said if he accused someone, he would show up to testify.
Democratic members of the committee contended that the event occurred and therefore censorship hadn’t taken place. Kern said the occurrence of the event doesn’t resolve whether freedom of speech was truly permitted, citing the closure of the Lewis Center.
ASU Executive Vice Provost Pat Kenney emphasized the importance of freedom of expression as critical to a free nation. Nguyen asked whether Kenney read the Barrett letter, and agreed to it. Kenney said the letter was freedom of expression. He claimed the letter didn’t seek cancellation of the event.
“When faculty speak out on their own like that, they’re covered on the same topic we’re here about, which is free speech,” said Kenney.
ASU representatives claimed near the beginning of the hearing that Lewis and ASU President Michael Crow had discussed the withdrawal of funding. However, toward the end of the hearing Kern announced that he’d received information from a Lewis representative that the pair hadn’t discussed the funding, and accused ASU representatives of lying.
Ortiz called the anonymous complaints from students hypotheticals because no formal complaints were lodged. She also claimed that the hearing was merely an attempt to delegitimize public and higher education. Marsh claimed that lawmakers shouldn’t consider the claims of student fears of retaliation because the students should’ve gone to ASU directly.
Nguyen asked whether ASU would defend guest speakers, such as himself, if ASU faculty were to lodge claims of white nationalism. Kenney said that, in a personal capacity, ASU faculty were free to make their claims, but not if they spoke out on ASU’s behalf.
Atkinson contested with the characterization that the Barrett faculty spoke out in their personal capacity. She pointed out that Barrett faculty signed the letter in their capacity as ASU faculty, emailed her using their ASU emails, and sent communications to students about opposing the event using ASU technology.
Ortiz announced receipt of a letter from the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) on the outcome of the requested investigation into the incident, the results of which Kern and the rest of the committee appeared to not have been made aware, determining that no free speech violations took place at ASU.
✅FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE✅ State Representative @azaustinsmith Calls on Board of Regents to Investigate & Report on Free Speech Concerns at Arizona State University
“Free speech is paramount to the future of our Republic. Higher education taxpayer-funded universities must be held… pic.twitter.com/GllgAZhLiq
— Arizona House Republicans (@AZHouseGOP) June 21, 2023
Marsh speculated that the professors didn’t show up because they faced death threats, citing media attention and conservative speaker Charlie Kirk’s Professor Watchlist. Kern said that would be a “lame excuse.” He also pointed out that the professors launched a national campaign and initialized bringing themselves into a bigger spotlight.
“You’re making excuses where we don’t know that’s the case,” said Kern.
Atkinson said that she could provide “dozens, if not hundreds” of students that could testify to experiencing faculty intimidation. She also claimed that Williams told her to avoid booking speakers that were political.
“We allow the speaker but you have to take the consequences,” said Atkinson, reportedly quoting Williams.
Atkinson testified that TV screen ads were removed and flyers were torn down following the Barrett Honors faculty letter. She also said she shared the information for the person responsible on June 13, yet it appears ASU took no action. ASU said they weren’t aware of any advertising for the event pulled.
Additionally, Atkinson testified that Williams pressured her to postpone the event “indefinitely.” She noted that Williams interpreted ASU’s policy of not promoting political campaigns as not allowing political speech at all.
“We were in an environment telling us that this was ‘hate speech,’” said Atkinson.
Atkinson said she was directed by leadership ahead of the event to issue a preliminary warning that the event contained potentially dangerous speech.
Gonzales told Atkinson that hate speech doesn’t qualify as constitutionally protected speech. However, the rules attorney corrected her that the Supreme Court ruled hate speech as protected.
Arizona Senate Democrats had tweeted that "hate speech" doesn't qualify as free speech. Sen. Mesnard reminds Democrats present of the Supreme Court 8-1 ruling for Westboro Baptist Church that the First Amendment protects "hate speech." pic.twitter.com/tJT3laTbv7
ASU professor Owen Anderson also testified. He said that he’s previously had to get the free speech rights organization Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIR) involved twice due to faculty attempts to suppress free speech. Anderson also said that faculty have attempted to restrict speech by adding anti-racism and DEI to policy on class content and annual reviews of professors.
“Insults abound, but rational dialogue is rare. What we need are administrators that call these faculty to higher conduct,” said Anderson.
In closing, Kern said he doesn’t trust ASU, the University of Arizona, or ABOR. He argued that ABOR hadn’t issued a real investigation and called their report “typical government fluff [and] garbage.” Kern also called for the firing of Barrett Honors College Dean Tara Williams.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Three of the Arizona State University (ASU) professors behind a campaign to oppose an event featuring conservative speakers argue that only inclusive persons belong on university campuses.
In an opinion piece published in the Arizona Republic, the three professors argue that those who reject inclusive ideals were the real threat to debate and therefore should be barred from participating in democratic exchange. The trio — Barrett Honors College professors Jenny Brian, Michael Ostling, and Alex Young — noted that they weren’t opposed to all conservative speakers, referencing a 2018 event featuring conservative legal scholar Robert George.
A recent WSJ editorial has once again focused the ire of the far right on Barrett faculty for speaking up about the public programming of our own college. My colleagues @prof_jdb, Michael Ostling and I respond in this op ed: https://t.co/03579XAGSg
Earlier this year, the three professors signed onto a letter petitioning Barrett Honors College leadership to oppose an event featuring conservative personalities Dennis Prager, Charlie Kirk, and Robert Kiyosaki. The trio insisted that their original letter wasn’t an attempt to cancel the event, but merely a means of expressing consternation. AZ Free News learned that on-campus marketing of the controversial event was removed following the complaint letter. 37 of 47 Barrett faculty members signed onto the letter.
“By platforming and legitimating their extreme anti-intellectual and anti-democratic views, Barrett will not be furthering the cause of democratic exchange at ASU, but undermining it in ways that could further marginalize the most vulnerable members of our community,” read the letter. “Our collective efforts to promote Barrett as a home for inclusive excellence demand we distance ourselves from the hate that these provocateurs hope to legitimate by attaching themselves to Barrett’s name.”
In terms of reported attempts to recruit students to boycott the event, the three professors denied the charges. The trio added that they held an alternative “teach in” event preceding the T.W. Lewis Center event: “Defending the Public University.”
The three professors also denied responsibility for the dissolution of the T.W. Lewis Center and dismissal of its executive director, Ann Atkinson.
“As Barrett faculty, we see a brighter future for public higher education. We will continue to fight for a university ‘measured not by whom it excludes, but by whom it includes,’” stated the trio. “The ‘antagonistic cooperation’ of democratic exchange in Arizona’s public universities deserves to be defended against those who reject the inclusive ideals that make it possible.”
The letter was met with immediate response from a vocal critic of the Barrett Honors faculty opposed to the T.W. Lewis Center event: ASU humanities professor Owen Anderson. He criticized the three professors’ opinion piece as a poor display of logic and reason.
“[W]hat was their argument? They never gave one (not one that got above informal fallacies),” wrote Anderson. “No professor would give a good grade to a paper like this from a student. How can a professor who thinks this way teach others?”
Three of the Barrett Honors College faculty who signed the letter calling Dennis Prager a white nationalist bigot replied in an opinion piece in the Az Republic. Keep in mind, these are professors who teach honors students. They expect their students to learn how to think and how… pic.twitter.com/Ct3csDrYFy
Last Tuesday, Gov. Katie Hobbs announced that she signed the state onto the U.S. Climate Alliance: a Democrat-led initiative advancing the progressive energy reforms within the Paris Agreement and the Green New Deal.
Hobbs characterized the alliance — a project of the private nonprofit United Nations Foundation — as bipartisan. The only state in the alliance with a Republican governor is Vermont.
I'm excited to announce Arizona is joining the bipartisan Climate Alliance. Together, we are creating green jobs and businesses, ensuring clean air and water for Arizonans, lowering energy costs, and preparing more effectively for a changing climate.
— Governor Katie Hobbs (@GovernorHobbs) July 11, 2023
According to their 2021 tax filing, the United Nations Foundation pulled in $86.7 million according to ProPublica, with over $281 million the previous year. It spent nearly $23.1 million on climate initiatives in that 2021 filing, and around $25.2 million in the 2020 filling.
The alliance was founded in 2017 by the governors of California, New York, and Washington after the Trump administration withdrew from the Paris Agreement. California raised the initial funds to kickstart the alliance.
The current executive committee, elected in May, consists of all Democrats: Govs. Gavin Newsom (California), Janet Mills (Maine), Michelle Lujan Grisham (New Mexico), Kathy Hochul (New York), and Jay Inslee (Washington).
Other Democrat-led states in the alliance are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.
The territories of Guam and Puerto Rico are also in the alliance.
Express goals of the alliance concern fulfillment of the U.S. pledge to the Paris Agreement and proposals outlined by the Green New Deal. The alliance was behind recent joint efforts with the White House to decarbonize government buildings and purchase of low-carbon, American-made construction materials. In February, the alliance convened in Washington, D.C. to deliver 21 specific federal climate actions to accomplish a “net-zero future” — aka, zero carbon.
A zero carbon future includes replacement of coal, gas, and oil-based power sources with total electrification. The World Economic Forum (WEF), a globalist activist organization, defined a net zero carbon future as including decarbonized buildings, wind and solar energy reliance, and electric vehicles.
Collectively, alliance goals include reducing collective greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 26-28 percent by 2025, 50-52 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2050; centering equity, environmental justice, and a “just economic transition” in all initiatives; and building a globalist accountability network between states and “the global community.”
California leads on all fronts except one: statewide building performance standards for efficiency. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary form of GHG. The secondary GHGs are methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and the industrial gasses: hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3).
Alliance staff hail from a variety of high-profile progressive backgrounds within state or federal government, or climate advocacy organizations.
Casey Katims, the executive director, formerly worked as the deputy associate administrator for intergovernmental relations at the EPA, director of federal and inter-state affairs for Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, senior legislative assistant for Washington Rep. Suzan DelBene, and executive assistant for Inslee when he was a congressman.
Taryn Finnessey, managing director, formerly worked as the senior climate change specialist for Colorado and water policy analyst for Western Resource Advocates.
Andrew Sand, the policy director and formerly the senior policy advisor, formerly worked as the deputy director, assistant director, legislative liaison, and policy advisor for the Colorado Energy Office; chaired the Colorado New Energy Improvement District’s board of directors; served as chief of staff for former Colorado Sen. Gail Schwartz.
Marwa Kamel, senior policy advisor, also works as a freelance climate consultant; she formerly worked as a policy advisor to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, and a consultant for the World Bank.
Mark Teschauer, senior policy advisor, formerly worked as a senior consultant for the WSP environmental consulting firm and program manager for the American Public Transportation Association.
Kareem Hammoud, senior policy analyst, formerly worked sporadically as a Yale University teaching fellow and research assistant, contractor with the Rocky Mountain Institute, and analyst for Parnassus Investments.
Kristin Igusky, programs and analysis director, formerly worked as an associate for the World Resources Institute and climate change analyst for SAIC.
Evan Westrup, communications director and founder of Sempervirent Strategies consulting firm, formerly worked as a fellow for the German Marshall Fund, press secretary and communications director for former California Gov. Jerry Brown, and deputy press secretary for the California Department of Justice. Last year it was reported that Westrup’s consulting firm would receive $10,000 a month from a committee formed by his former boss, Brown, using the millions in leftover campaign funds. Westrup formed the firm nine months after Brown termed out, according to his LinkedIn profile; the California secretary of state’s office reflects an LLC registration for his firm occurring in January 2021.
Nikki Burnett, senior communications associate, formerly worked as a communications officer for C40 Cities, communications fellow for the Pacific Council on International Policy, and associate with CLS Strategies. That last company is known for its manipulation and influence of foreign politics using a coordinated network of fake social media profiles and pages.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The State’s Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction continues to fight on behalf of an Arizona law.
Last week, the Arizona Department of Education sent a media advisory to note that “State schools chief Tom Horne is at U.S. District Court in Tucson to stand up for the state’s law prohibiting biological boys from participating in girls’ sports.” The communication announced that “a federal judge is hearing arguments whether to temporarily block the ban that was signed into law last year.”
That law was SB 1165, which was signed by former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey on March 30, 2022. The law prohibits biological males from competing in women’s and girls’ athletic events at state public schools, colleges, and universities.
The Department later posted a tweet on the issue, which stated, “Superintendent Horne is defending Arizona state law which bans biological boys from competing in girl’s sports. Title IX was created for equal opportunities for female athletes, and allowing males to compete in women’s sports undermines everything these athletes have fought for.”
Superintendent Horne is defending Arizona state law which bans biological boys from competing in girl's sports. #TitleIX was created for equal opportunities for female athletes, and allowing males to compete in women's sports undermines everything these athletes have fought for. pic.twitter.com/pJyLoVAYdE
— Arizona Department of Education (@azedschools) July 11, 2023
AZ Free News reached out to Superintendent Horne about his thoughts on the legal hearing and the case in general. Horne replied, “It’s partly about safety but it’s mostly about fairness and the fact that there have been many news articles about girls who focused very strongly on sports, worked really hard, hoped to excel, maybe get a college scholarship or be in the Olympics or whatever, and then all of a sudden have to compete against biological males. They have no chance to compete successfully against them and they’re devastated by it. Now they have found what they believe to be sympathetic plaintiffs because they’re 11-year-olds who are using puberty blockers, so they say they lose the advantage of males. But we have presented numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies to the court showing that even before puberty, males still have an advantage. Our evidence is overwhelming compared to theirs.”
The Arizona Women of Action applauded the latest action from the Department, writing, “We greatly appreciate Tom Horne for upholding the Save Girl’s Sports Act. AZ Women of Action stands with Tom Horne in this endeavor by joining the lawsuit & representing Arizona families who want to save girls’ sports.”
We greatly appreciate @RealTomHorne for upholding the Save Girl's Sports Act. AZ Women of Action stands w/ Tom Horne in this endeavor by joining the lawsuit & representing AZ families who want to save girls' sports.
— Arizona Women of Action (@azwomenofaction) July 11, 2023
At least some Democrats saw Horne’s defense of the law in a different light. The Yavapai County Democrats tweeted, “Sup. Horne seen here wasting time on a manufactured crisis. Protect public schools. Do something useful for education. Horne is a disgrace.”
Sup. Horne seen here wasting time on a manufactured crisis. Protect public schools. Do something useful for education. Horne is a disgrace.
Horne isn’t the only Arizona official who has weighed in on this court case. Earlier this year, both Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma filed a Motion to Intervene in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Tucson Division. The Senate Republican’s press release highlighted that “on April 17, 2023, plaintiffs represented by a radical organization filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being enforced in Arizona,” and “Attorney General Kris Mayes is not defending the constitutionality of the law.”
At the time, Petersen said, “In the absence of the Attorney General defending Arizona’s law, we’re looking forward to fighting for the rights of female athletes across Arizona, as well as for the Court making it clear Arizona’s law protecting women and girls should be enforced.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
One of Arizona’s county attorneys is taking the lead in pushing back against one of the governor’s recent, controversial executive orders.
Last week, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell went on Arizona Horizon on PBS to talk about her opposition to Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs’ executive order last month, which would “centralize all abortion-related prosecutions under the Attorney General to ensure differences in application of the law by county attorneys do not restrict access to legal abortions.”
Mitchell has consistently framed her counterargument in a way that allows the application of the law to overshadow the divisive issue of abortion. During the interview, Mitchell acknowledged that there were strong feelings on both sides of the abortion debate, saying, “It’s certainly an emotional topic, and I certainly understand why there are very emotional views on both sides.”
Though the Maricopa County Attorney recognizes the feelings for this issue, she is unwavering in her stance on the importance of following the law. She stated, “But the bottom line is that this is a government of laws, not of men – and there is a process for enacting laws in this state – and we have done that. It involves the legislature and the governor – or a referral to the people. And it cannot be governed by just one person’s decision. That is a government of men, and that is something that is just not appropriate – it’s not consistent with the American way of doing business.”
The Republican County Attorney also addressed the argument that the authority of the state’s attorney supersedes that of individual county attorneys, saying, “The attorney general is not the primary prosecutor in the State of Arizona. The primary prosecutors are the various 15 county attorneys, and so they are the ones with the greater jurisdiction – and so the governor cannot just take jurisdiction away from county attorneys who are elected in their own right…. If you look at the jurisdiction of the various county attorneys, it is a more general jurisdiction. The attorney general, for example, she can’t even go into a county grand jury without either my permission or the permission of a judge. Not a governor. So it’s not something where she can just assume someone else’s jurisdiction.”
Mitchell also poked significant holes in the idea that there was even a need in the first place for the governor and attorney general to step in to referee the issue of abortion, adding, “We know that the Dobbs’ decision came out a year ago now, and there has not been a single prosecution brought in any of the 15 counties. So I don’t know who would be considered to be overzealous. What I’m concerned about is somebody who is an extremist in another way, and that is if we set this as a precedent, where a governor thinks that they can strip another elected official’s powers – it may not be a bad thing today to some people, but in the future it may be…. They did not react to a specific case where extremism was occurring. They tried to take all of the power away from elected county attorneys in all circumstances, including cases that don’t involve that – and that is not appropriate. And it’s a very, very frightening precedent to start.”
When asked about her next move in response to the governor’s executive order, Mitchell didn’t completely close the door on being proactive, but instead indicated that her office might wait until conflict arose between the two jurisdictions: “I would have liked to have handled it in a professional way through discussion. I was hoping that the governor, through talking to others as well as the letter, would understand, that there is a better way to handle this, that this is an extremely dangerous precedent. She chose not to, and that’s within her purview. But that does not give her the authority. And so where it goes from here is that we’re going to continue to conduct business as we have for the past year. If a case is submitted – and there have been no cases submitted to me – we’re going to follow the same procedure that we have followed for every other case.”
The first-term county attorney ended her interview on Arizona PBS by announcing her commitment to following the law in this circumstance where she and the governor might take opposing sides. Mitchell reiterated that Hobbs’ “executive order doesn’t have the authority of overcoming the law,” and that “the law trumps executive orders and the constitution trumps the law.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
