Arizona’s Superintendent of Public Instruction shared a helpful announcement about a new feature for high school students seeking information about careers in the U.S. military.
In a release sent last week, the Arizona Department of Education revealed that it had “unveiled a one-stop service to help students interested in a military career get information about the U.S. armed forces.” The website – azed.gov/military – was established so that “students can get essential information about the various branches of the service.”
Superintendent Horne met with Raif, who was frustrated his school had no information on how to enlist. He contacted over 40 districts and found that over 25 had the same issue. We worked together to change that by putting all the information in one place. https://t.co/6PTZrCHTH1
— Arizona Department of Education (@azedschools) June 27, 2023
Horne, a Republican, issued a statement in conjunction with the announcement, saying, “With a historic shortfall of U.S. military recruiting goals, Arizona high schools need to do as much as possible to help students get the information they need to learn if a career in the armed services is an appropriate choice for them. Serving our country is an honorable endeavor and our nation will depend on the next generation of those who enlist or become officer candidates so that our military can continue to defend our freedoms.”
The release highlighted that “the need for this effort was presented to state schools chief Tom Horne earlier this year by Raif Byers, a now-graduated Phoenix-area high school senior who was unable to find helpful and detailed information about a military career on the websites for his high school or the district he attends. He found that many other students his age have the same problem.”
Byers added, “I was trying to learn more about a career in the Navy when I was in high school, but it was nearly impossible for me to find any information on my school district website. It’s relatively easy to learn about other types of careers, so I believe it’s just as vital for schools to make armed services information readily available to students. Unfortunately, I learned that in many districts, that’s just not the case. I’m very grateful to Superintendent Horne for creating this webpage where anyone in the state can easily learn about a career serving our country.”
According to the Arizona Department of Education, “the webpage includes links to the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Space Force, Coast Guard, Army National Guard and Air National Guard. It also has details about the various military benefits and information for those interested in becoming officers or enlisted personnel.”
Horne’s efforts join several other similar endeavors from public officials around the state, who are very active in promoting opportunities in the U.S. Military or honoring those who serve. Recently, Glendale Mayor Jerry Weiers “partnered with local sponsors to host the Mayor’s Military Induction Ceremony” at a Phoenix-area church – with over 350 recruits!
In May, two in Arizona’s congressional delegation, Andy Biggs and Eli Crane, co-hosted a Military Service Academy Conference to give high school students more information about opportunities to learn more information about future military service and career opportunities.
Had a wonderful time speaking to constituents with @RepEliCrane at our 2023 Military Service Academy Conference today.
We had a great turnout and had many students interested in joining our armed forces.
Arizona elected officials found no shortage of material to react to from the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest term.
On Friday, the nation’s highest court released its opinion in Biden v. Nebraska, striking down the president’s student loan cancellation program. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the opinion, and he was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.
The majority opinion stated that “the ‘economic and political significance’ of the Secretary’s action is staggering by any measure. Practically every student borrower benefits, regardless of circumstances. A budget model issued by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania estimates that the program will cost taxpayers ‘between $469 billion and $569 billion,’ depending on the total number of borrowers ultimately covered.”
State legislators were quick to respond to the momentous decision from the Supreme Court. Freshman Republican Representative Austin Smith tweeted, “Canceling student loan debt is and always will be an irresponsible and brainless ‘policy’ proposal. It deserved this fiery death at SCOTUS. Do not take out astronomically large loans for a career with a salary you will never be able to pay off.”
Cancelling student loan debt is and always will be an irresponsible and brainless “policy” proposal. It deserved this fiery death at SCOTUS.
Do not take out astronomically large loans for a career with a salary you will never be able to pay off.
Smith also parried an attack from the House Democrats Caucus, which took to Twitter to pin the decision on Republicans. This tactic didn’t sit too well with Smith, who said, “The Constitution did this. Cope and seethe.”
On the other side of the aisle, Senate Democratic Assistant Leader Juan Mendez released a statement shortly after news broke about the opinion, writing, “Today’s decision on Student Loan Relief is all the evidence we need to rule this court as corrupt. For generations this court as been playing favorites, taking sides and receiving undisclosed donations, all while Congress has been bailing out corrupt corporations, reckless Wall Street traders and forgiving PPP loans for the wealthy.”
Senator Mendez also called on President Biden to take further action, saying, “The Court’s biased decisions can not go unanswered. The President must do everything within his power to set student loan interest rates to 0%, set minimum monthly payments to $25, and revamp current repayment plans to accept volunteerism as payment.”
“But when the President acts within his powers to protect all of us from the economic fallout of borrowers not being able to survive payments during multiple global emergencies, now the Court cries foul?” -Senate Democratic Assistant Leader @mendezforazpic.twitter.com/k3QUBMVi4F
— Arizona Senate Democrats (@AZSenateDems) June 30, 2023
Earlier this year, Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes announced that she had withdrawn the State from a lawsuit over the president’s actions on student loans, which was initiated by her predecessor, Mark Brnovich. Mayes told KTAR News that “we’re not going to be engaging in political lawsuits at the Attorney General’s Office anymore,” and that “suing the federal government over everything is not the answer and it’s not what the people of Arizona want.” The KTAR recap of the interview noted that the first-year attorney general “said the student debt lawsuit was inappropriate and unlikely to succeed.” Instead, Mayes joined a coalition of attorneys general from around the country to support a “federal proposal to create a more affordable repayment plan for student loan borrowers.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
On its last day of the term, the U.S. Supreme Court gave a major victory for the First Amendment, leading to mixed reactions from Arizona elected officials and advocates.
In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for 303 Creative LLC in the case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. The case centered on a Colorado businesswoman, Ms. Lorie Smith, who “filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create websites celebrating marriages that defy her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman.” The majority coalition in the Court held that “the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.”
As part of his prevailing opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote, “But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong. Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider ‘unattractive,’ post, at 38 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.), ‘misguided, or even hurtful,’ Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574. But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is reversed.”
The opinion sparked applause and outrage across the country – especially in Arizona. Center for Arizona Policy, one of the state’s influential pro-life and pro-family organizations, released a statement to cheer on the decision from the six justices in the majority, writing, “The ruling is a huge victory for those who do not want government telling them what to say or what messages they must create. That goes for the liberal publisher who does not want to publish a book with conservative views, as well as for the religious website designer who does not want to promote weddings that violate her religious beliefs. Today’s ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis acknowledges the difference between disagreement and discrimination by distinguishing between serving all people and promoting all messages. Lorie Smith happily designs websites for all customers but cannot create messages that run counter to her deeply held beliefs. Her decision is based on the message, not the person. Today, the Court affirms that difference.”
Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes took the opposite view, saying, “Today, a woefully misguided majority of the United States Supreme Court has decided that businesses open to the public may, in certain circumstances, discriminate against LGBTQ+ Americans. While my office is still reviewing the decision to determine its effects, I agree with Justice Sotomayor – the idea that the Constitution gives businesses the right to discriminate is ‘profoundly wrong.’”
Mayes added that “Despite today’s ruling, Arizona law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, including discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity. If any Arizonan believes that they have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, or ancestry in a place of public accommodation, they should file a complaint with my office. I will continue to enforce Arizona’s public accommodation law to its fullest extent.”
The Arizona House Democrats Caucus also weighed in on the decision, tweeting, “This is not about weddings. This is about creating a religious right to discriminate against protected classes across a broad front of services, taking our country back to Jim Crow. And using a fake case to do it. Shameful.”
Republican Representative Travis Grantham, the Arizona House Speaker Pro Tempore, responded to the Democrats’ attack: “And the award for dumbest take ever goes to……”
The Arizona Attorney General’s position on the case’s outcome is a complete reversal of her predecessor’s, who, in 2022, co-led a coalition of states in filing an amicus brief, which urged the nation’s high court “to defend the First Amendment rights of business owners.” At that time, Mark Brnovich said, “Owners of small companies do not give up their constitutional rights as a cost of doing business. Freedoms of speech, belief, and expression are at the core of who we are as Americans, and our government is out of line to infringe on them.”
ICYMI: Our office co-led a coalition, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to defend the 1A rights of business owners.
Freedoms of speech, belief, and expression are at the core of who we are as Americans, and our government is out of line to infringe on them. https://t.co/1PTOi9oEb5
The city of Phoenix sought advice on handling homelessness from another city plagued by the same problem: Portland, Oregon.
City officials attended a “homelessness summit” in May. Officials included Gina Montes, deputy city manager; Rachel Milne, director of the Office of Homeless Solutions (OHS); Scott Hall, deputy director of OHS; Titus Mathew, director of the city’s housing department; Sean Connolly, assistant chief of operations for Phoenix Police Department (PPD); Brian Fruendentahl, commander of PPD; Luke Christian, assistant city attorney.
“Given our issues and the continued increase in unsheltered homelessness, the crime and other complex problems, we have been in touch with other communities to see what we can learn (both from their successes and mistakes),” wrote Montes in an invitation email for the event.
Officials from the cities of Mesa and Glendale were invited on the trip, but it appears from records obtained by AZ Free News that a visit to Portland either didn’t sound appealing or beneficial. In a March email exchange, the city of Mesa’s deputy city manager, Natalie Lewis, asked why Montes and the city of Phoenix felt the need to go to Portland as well as Seattle, Washington — another proposed location for a homelessness summit.
Glendale’s director of community services, Jean Moreno, concurred with Lewis’ remarks.
“Our feedback was the same as Mesa’s — happy to participate but not sure Portland is the right field trip,” wrote Moreno.
Montes responded that Phoenix could learn much from Portland’s mistakes. She revealed that many of the issues facing Phoenix currently were the same as those Portland faced in the past. Meaning: Portland could be Phoenix’s future, if changes aren’t made.
“The reason we are interested in Portland is honestly because a lot of the same issues are happening here that happened there years ago. They made a lot of mistakes that they are paying for now. I’m concerned that our community trajectory is pointing in a similar direction,” wrote Montes. “I understand if Portland is not of interest to others and promise not to be offended!”
The homeless in Portland have taken over residential neighborhoods and public streets, with residents telling reporters that the crime-riddled mass encampments decimated quality of life.
Lewis turned down the invitation, sharing that she may attend a potential future trip to either San Antonio or Houston, Texas, potentially around the same time as this fall’s ICMA Conference in Austin, Texas. Lewis added that the breakup of the mass homeless encampment known as The Zone would likely impact her city.
“Also, I foresee the work to dismantle/relocate will impact Mesa. I am open to having a regional discussion on this (when Phx is ready) so that we are all working to minimize impact of the shift,” wrote Lewis.
Montes issued the proposal to visit either Portland or Seattle on March 29: two days after the Maricopa County Superior Court ordered the city to clean up The Zone.
Estimates of the homeless population in the Portland area hovers around 5,000, based on Multnomah County data. Phoenix’s homeless population sits around 3,000.
AZ Free News asked Montes whether city officials would attend similar summits in other cities who’ve mitigated homelessness in recent years such as Austin, Texas. Montes didn’t respond by press time.
City of Phoenix officials were also joined by officials from the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG), Maricopa County, and the city of Avondale. MAG representatives were Continuum of Care officials Amy St. Peter, deputy executive director, and Katy Gentry, regional homelessness program manager. Maricopa County officials were Jacqueline Edwards, human services director, and T.J. Reed, homelessness programs manager. City of Avondale representatives were Cherlene Penilla, assistant city manager; Dale Nannenga, chief of the Office of Public Safety; Memo Espinoza, chief of Avondale Police; Manuel Rios, sergeant of Avondale Police; and Brian Planty, homeless services manager.
The cost for the trip, for all 16 officials in attendance, likely totaled around $10,000. (Based on averages of flight, hotel, and per diem costs compiled from MAG travel request forms).
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Thursday, the Ninth District Circuit Court denied Superintendent Tom Horne’s emergency petition for the relocation of a lawsuit challenging Arizona’s ban on boys in girls’ K-12 sports.
Horne filed the emergency petition last month after District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps twice refused to approve his requested change of venue to a Phoenix court. The case sits currently in Tucson.
Horne’s team argued in their change of venue requests that his residency and primary duties as superintendent relegated him to Phoenix, making travel to a Tucson hearing difficult to arrange. They also argued that Zipps failed to follow Ninth Circuit precedent deferring to the state’s strong public policy interest in protecting residents and elected officials subject to frequent lawsuits from inconvenient venues.
“The District Court thus seriously erred and abused its discretion in overlooking or failing to properly weigh the effect of two Arizona statutes requiring suits against public officials to be filed in the county in which they hold office […] and requiring suits against the state to be filed in Maricopa County,” stated Horne. “Because public officials are subject to more lawsuits based on their public service, the State of Arizona has enacted special venue provisions requiring that public officials be sued in a venue that is convenient to the public official[.]”
However, the Ninth District Court determined that Horne hadn’t demonstrated a “clear and indisputable right” to such a change of venue.
In the case, Jane Doe v. Thomas Horne, the parents of an 11-year-old boy and a 15-year-old boy sued the state in April. The parents are seeking an injunction on SB1165, which requires children to play on sports teams aligning with their gender in K-12 sports.
The lawsuit claims that transgenderism — a mental dissonance between one’s perceived and actual biological gender — is a sex-based trait.
New lawsuit challenging Arizona's ban on transgender athletes in K-12 sports claims that transgenderism is a trait, not a state of mind. pic.twitter.com/E7NgDgh01W
The lawsuit also claimed that all individuals have a gender identity — a perception of one’s gender in addition to their biological reality — and that the only proper treatment for those with gender dysphoria was to allow the full exercise of the dysphoric feelings.
The children in the case are an 11-year-old Maricopa County boy that desires to play girls’ basketball, cross country, and soccer, named “Jane Doe” for anonymity, and a 15-year-old Pima County boy who desires to play girls’ volleyball, “Megan Roe.”
“Under the medical standards of care for the treatment of gender dysphoria in adolescents, the only safe and effective treatment for gender dysphoria is to permit transgender adolescents to live consistent with their gender identity in all aspects of their lives,” stated the lawsuit.
Doe hasn’t begun puberty blockers yet, but plans to at the onset of puberty; Roe has been on puberty blockers since 11 years old, and hormone replacement therapy since 12 years old.
Horne toldThe Associated Press that the lawsuit was “backwards” and an attempt to steal protections instituted for girls and women originally.
“Title IX was aimed at giving girls equal opportunities for playing sports. When a biological boy plays in a girl’s sport, it disadvantages the girls,” said Horne. “There have been lots of news stories about girls who worked hard to excel at their sports, found they could not when they had to compete against biological boys and were devastated by that.”
One mother, who remains anonymous due to concerns over her family’s safety, told The Associated Press that she worries about her son’s mental health due to this lawsuit.
“Jane knows this would be because [he] is transgender, and I worry about how that will affect [his] self-esteem and [his] confidence,” said the mother.
AIA first began to allow transgender students to compete on the sports team of the opposite sex in 2014. The AIA thereafter considered these acceptances on a case-by-case basis. In 2018, the AIA revised the policy to allow students to compete on sports teams that aligned with their gender identity rather than biological sex.
The lawsuit claimed that since no reported harm had come of the several students who exercised this policy, the Arizona legislature had no basis for passing its ban last year.
Attorney General Kris Mayes refused to defend the law in court, prompting State Sen. President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) and State House Speaker Ben Toma (R-LD27) to intervene.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Every year, Cox Communications gives tens of thousands to minority students through its diversity scholarships.
This year, the broadband, cable, and telecommunications company issued $35,000 to 10 students. Each student received $3,500. Cox Communications began offering the diversity scholarships in 2014.
Eligible students can’t be white; they must maintain a minimum 2.5 GPA.
Partners to the scholarship fund include YWCA Metro Phoenix, ACEL, Be a Leader Foundation, NAACP Maricopa Branch, One n Ten, Sunnyside Educational Foundation, Women’s Foundation for the State of Arizona, Greater Phoenix Urban League, Valle Del Sol, and the Educational Enrichment Foundation.
In a statement related to this year’s scholarship offering, Cox vice president of communications, Susan Anable, said that diversity of race correlates directly to stronger communities.
“Ensuring that diverse students have access to higher education will create stronger communities throughout Arizona,” said Anable. “We know that the cost of college can be prohibitive, and the challenge can be stressful for students and their families. We’re proud to connect families to opportunities like this one.”
In a statement regarding the awardees, Anable clarified that these scholarships were part of their company’s commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
“These annual Cox Diversity Scholarships are how we demonstrate our commitment to fostering diversity, equity and inclusion both within our company and in the communities we serve,” said Anable.
Cox Communication’s DEI initiatives include equitable promotion tracks to match the diversity of surrounding communities and customers. The company also established seven DEI councils across the states and regions it serves: California, Southwest, Central, Southeast, Northeast, Virginia, and Atlanta.
In addition to diversity scholarships, Cox Communications also implements race and identity-based diversity standards for its supply chain partnerships. The company identifies nine different race or identity classifications for diverse suppliers: minorities, women, LGBTQ+, disability, veterans, disabled veterans, and service-disabled veterans. In order to qualify for business with Cox Communications, those businesses must be at least 51 percent owned, operated, or controlled by a diverse group listed.
“We make it a priority to work with diverse-owned businesses and will continue to invest in the inspired talent and innovation diverse suppliers have to offer,” said George Richter, Cox’s senior vice president of supply chain management.
Even those diversity-led businesses who don’t qualify for supply chain partnership may still benefit from Cox Communications DEI commitment. The company offers a scholarship program for diverse-owned businesses through Arizona State University Thunderbird School of Global Management, UNLV Lee Business School, Council for Supplier Diversity, Delgado Community College, and Old Dominion University.
For their DEI efforts, Cox Communications has won multiple awards from DiversityInc over the last two years, as well as numerous diversity awards from Forbes.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
