Two Arizona State Supreme Court justices survived competitive challenges to their retention to the judicial bench.
On Tuesday, state Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King won their retention elections. Both individuals had faced heightened challenges to their future service on the court.
Justice Bolick received 58.36% of the vote to retain, while Justice King obtained 59.43% to retain.
Bolick issued a statement after the outcome of his race was known, saying, “I am honored to have the opportunity to serve on the USA’s best state supreme court for another three years. I am beyond grateful for your votes, your support, and your prayers. This was so important to win to preserve an independent judiciary in AZ, and it appears we did so decisively. I couldn’t have better friends and colleagues!!”
The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry posted a statement of support for the results of these two elections. Its account wrote, “Congratulations to Arizona Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King on overwhelmingly being retained by Arizona voters despite partisan attempts to remove them from the bench. The Chamber was pleased to support these fair-minded and independent jurists.”
Congratulations to Arizona Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King on overwhelmingly being retained by Arizona voters despite partisan attempts to remove them from the bench. The Chamber was pleased to support these fair-minded and independent jurists. pic.twitter.com/8cihoqgA28
Bolick and King were appointed by former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey. Bolick received his appointment to the Arizona Supreme Court in 2016, while King obtained hers in 2021. Both justices served in the private sector as attorneys prior to making their journey to the state court.
According to the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review (JPR), both Bolick and King received extremely high marks to meet the standards on the merits of their decisions. The Commission “exists to provide meaningful and accurate information to the public for its use in voting on the justices and judges appointed to the bench through merit selection.” In his average of all evaluation categories, Bolick acquired 97% or greater. King had 90% and over for her categories. The JPR is used for voter recommendations for each cycle’s judicial retention elections.
For most voters in Arizona, judicial retention contests are often met with more apathy than any other selection(s) on their ballots. In recent elections, however, outside groups have put more of a target on judges for increased voter scrutiny, leading to the addition of Bolick and King with this year’s ballot choices. This was Bolick’s second retention election and King’s first.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
An attempt to transform Arizona’s elections systems on Tuesday night fell well short after voters went to the polls.
Proposition 140, which would have imposed a mixed system of Ranked Choice Voting and jungle primaries for future elections in Arizona, was defeated with almost 60% of the vote share, as of Wednesday evening.
“We are so grateful for the Arizonans who stood up to oppose this radical transformation of our elections systems,” said Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould, co-chairs of the No on Prop 140 Committee. “Voters of all political persuasions wisely concluded that Prop 140 would do irreparable harm to our state if enacted. Arizona elections must be free, fair, and transparent, and that is what our system remains after this just result.”
One of the measure’s fiercest opponents, Scot Mussi, the President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, praised the outcome. He said, “Prop 140 was one of the worst ideas to ever be proposed in our great state, and it is fitting that it met its demise from a vast majority of Arizonans. Radical leftists, out-of-state billionaires, and scheming consultants tried to hoodwink voters into adopting this failed system, spending millions of dollars and duplicating signatures to qualify for the ballot. We are so pleased that millions of Arizonans did their homework and said ‘hell no’ to, what would have been, a disastrous transformation of our elections system. California can keep their destructive policies and systems on their side of the state line.”
The organization behind Prop 140, Make Elections Fair Arizona, did not appear to issue a statement as of Wednesday on its website or social media platforms. Immediately following the close of polls on Tuesday night, its account promised to be “back online soon with an Election Day campaign update,” but that does not seem to have materialized yet.
In a Wednesday press release, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club highlighted the defeat of Ranked Choice Voting questions in several states in Tuesday’s General Election. Those results were as follows:
Colorado: Proposition 131 was defeated with almost 55% of the vote
Idaho: Proposition 1 was defeated with almost 70% of the vote
Montana: Both CI-126 & 127 were defeated
Oregon: Measure 117 was defeated with almost 60% of the vote
South Dakota: Amendment H was defeated with more than 65% of the vote
Nevada: Question 3 was defeated with almost 54% of the vote
Alaska: Measure 2, which repeals the state’s ranked choice voting system, appears headed toward passage
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Top financial officers from 17 states, 13 State Treasurers, one Commissioner of Revenue, and three state auditors, came together to issue a firm rebuke to members of Congress calling upon Fortune 1000 companies to “reaffirm their commitments to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).”
The letter, signed by Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee, stated, “We the undersigned are state financial officials responsible for state investment vehicles that hold ownership positions in your companies. We write concerning recent calls from Congressional members that your companies reaffirm their commitments to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). They commend DEI to you, claiming it is ‘good for business’ and ‘benefits employees, customers, and the bottom line.’ Significant evidence is mounting that precisely the opposite is true.”
DEI polices don’t prioritize the financial health or performance of a company. That’s why 17 state financial officers pushed back on woke Congressional members by encouraging Fortune 1,000 companies to remove DEI policies from their businesses.
— Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee (@AZTreasurerYee) October 30, 2024
Yee and her colleagues wrote in response to entreaties sent by a coalition of Democrat politicians, who wrote to the same firms in support of the radical-left DEI agenda. The Democrat coalition made unfounded claims that DEI programs create “a culture of equality” that “allows your companies to remain competitive,” as reported by the Daily Wire.
Jeremy Tedesco, Alliance Defending Freedom SVP of Corporate Engagement told the outlet:
“The divisive and discriminatory ideology at the root of DEI has caused some of our country’s most prominent companies, like Home Depot, Lowes, Ford, and Toyota, to pull back on their DEI programs. We should celebrate that and call on other companies to follow their lead. Sadly, some members of Congress have instead responded by urging companies to reaffirm their DEI commitments. Businesses should listen to their employees, customers, and shareholders, rather than politicians, and jettison DEI once and for all.”
The letter from the State Officers cites scholarly studies from Econ Journal Watch and Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance that sharply disprove the Democrats’ claims that corporate DEI efforts improve bottom line earnings and debunk the McKinsey studies upon which the agenda is based. They state, “The authors of the Econ Journal Watch article reported that they were ‘unable to quasireplicate’ the McKinsey studies’ results and admonished that ‘they should not be relied on to support the view that US publicly traded firms can expect to deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives.’”
The state officials highlighted key takeaways from a recent New York Times article for the industry leaders to consider when addressing the continuation of the controversial DEI measures: University student reactions and the birth of a “grievance culture,” and the delivery of a divisive culture as opposed to the goal of inclusivity. In a study that examined the University of Michigan’s DEI program as an exemplar of these policies, the author found in part:
“On campus, I met students with a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives. Not one expressed any particular enthusiasm for Michigan’s D.E.I. initiative. Where some found it shallow, others found it stifling. They rolled their eyes at the profusion of course offerings that revolve around identity and oppression, the D.E.I.-themed emails they frequently received but rarely read.”
The author noted, “Michigan’s D.E.I. efforts have created a powerful conceptual framework for student and faculty grievances — and formidable bureaucratic mechanisms to pursue them. Everyday campus complaints and academic disagreements, professors and students told me, were now cast as crises of inclusion and harm, each demanding some further administrative intervention or expansion.”
“Michigan’s own data suggests that in striving to become more diverse and equitable, the school has also become less inclusive: In a survey released in late 2022, students and faculty members reported a less positive campus climate than at the program’s start and less of a sense of belonging. Students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or religion or with different politics — the exact kind of engagement D.E.I. programs, in theory, are meant to foster.”
In the letter, the financial experts concluded that employees have widely expressed the same views of DEI programs with a Freedom at Work Survey conducted by Ipsos and released by Viewpoint Diversity Score, finding that 40% of respondents said the policies divide rather than unite the workplace. They added that legal exposure is also possible as Chief Justice Roberts observed, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Adding that the race-based theories and practices baked-into DEI programs “fly in the face of our colorblind Constitution and our Nation’s equality ideal.”
A recent release from the Northeast Arizona Native Democrats has raised concerns about the ethical and legal considerations involved with partisan operatives helping voters fill out and mail in their ballots.
According to the release from Northeast Arizona Native Democrats, the group held a “Ballots, Stew & Socks event,” in Sawmill, AZ, a village on the Navajo reservation described as “a remote, census-designated area in the Navajo Nation,” boasting a population of less than 800.
The Democrat group explained their mission writing:
“In that small town, our team was able to engage with over 50 voters, some who had traveled far distances, and helped them fill out and mail their ballots on time.
While in Sawmill, we were joined by a truck-load of Pinon Pickers who shared a bowl of stew with us, while talking about the issues they care about. After this engaging, inspiring conversation, they thanked us for the information we provided and committed to voting early.”
The question of legality for holding an event to assist in mailing ballots, such as the Sawmill effort, could be unlawful under A.R.S. 16-1005(H), which states: “A person who knowingly collects voted or unvoted early ballots from another person is guilty of a class 6 felony. An election official, a United States postal service worker or any other person who is allowed by law to transmit United States mail is deemed not to have collected an early ballot if the official, worker or other person is engaged in official duties.”
As the event appeared on Facebook, it advertised: “Free Meal, Warm Socks, Voter Info.” This could potentially run afoul of A.R.S. 16-1005(C), which states, “It is unlawful to receive or agree to receive any consideration in exchange for a voted or unvoted ballot. A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a class 5 felony.”
Recent legal battles have been fought pertaining to everything from providing food and water to voters as they wait in line, to Elon Musk’s efforts to forward a petition by offering a $1 million giveaway each day until the election with winners chosen from the signatories.
However, specifically in Arizona and under Arizona law, these electioneering efforts carried out in the Navajo community by the Democratic party could prove to be illegal if challenged.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes announced during Channel 12 News’ “Sunday Square-Off,” that her office is now investigating President Donald Trump’s comments about “radical war hawk,” former U.S. Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY). The comments took place during a Glendale appearance with Tucker Carlson.
Mayes reportedly asked investigators to determine if Trump’s rhetorical remark on Cheney’s attitude toward sending American servicemen to war qualifies as a death threat when he said, “Let’s see how she feels about it. You know, when the guns are trained on her face.”
Speaking with 12News, Mayes said, “I have already asked my criminal division chief to start looking at that statement, analyzing it for whether it qualifies as a death threat under Arizona’s laws,” according to AZCentral.
“I’m not prepared now to say whether it was or it wasn’t, but it is not helpful as we prepare for our election and as we try to make sure that we keep the peace at our polling places and in our state,” she said.
During the campaign event at Glendale Stadium, Trump was interviewed by Tucker Carlson, and the topic turned to former Vice President Dick Cheney and his daughter’s sudden turn against him during his presidency. Trump lamented that the elder Cheney turned against him but said he understood it as a need to support his daughter.
In full context President Trump told Carlson, “Dick Cheney’s daughter is a very dumb individual. She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing there, with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let’s see how she feels about it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face. They’re all war hawks when they’re sitting in Washington in a nice building, saying, ‘Oh, gee, well, let’s send 10,000 troops right into the mouth of the enemy.’ But she’s a stupid person. And I used to have, I’d have meetings with a lot of people and she always wanted to go to war with people.”
🚨TRUMP: "Dick Cheney's daughter is a very dumb individual. She's a radical war hawk. Let's put her with a rifle standing there with 9 barrels shooting at her, let's see how she feels about it when the guns trained on her face. They're all war hawks when they're sitting in… pic.twitter.com/Wzq4BBiP8C
Per Reuters, Mayes added “That’s the question, whether it did cross the line. It’s deeply troubling. It is the kind of thing that riles people up, and that makes our situation in Arizona and other states more dangerous.”
In a post to X, Cheney alluded to Trump being a “dictator” and characterized his comment with the claim, “They threaten those who speak against them with death,” and went on to call Trump a “petty, vindictive, cruel, unstable man who wants to be a tyrant.”
Trump campaign National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a Friday statement that his remarks were misinterpreted. She said, “President Trump is 100% correct that warmongers like Liz Cheney are very quick to start wars and send other Americans to fight them, rather than go into combat themselves.” She added that this “is just a desperate attempt to help out Kamala Harris’ failed campaign.”
Every media outlet is reporting on the new Liz Cheney hoax.
Trump did not call for her to be kiIIed. The media know this and are purposely misleading their readers and leaving out the context.
Responding to the controversy in a post to Truth Social Trump wrote, “All I’m saying about Liz Cheney is that she is a War Hawk, and a dumb one at that, but she wouldn’t have ‘the guts’ to fight herself. It’s easy for her to talk, sitting far from where the death scenes take place, but put a gun in her hand, and let her go fight, and she’ll say, ‘No thanks!’ Her father decimated the Middle East, and other places, and got rich by doing so. He’s caused plenty of DEATH, and probably never even gave it a thought. That’s not what we want running our Country!”
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen reacted to the announcement Sunday in post to X writing, “Just learned that Kris Mayes is investigating @realDonaldTrump over what he said about Liz Cheney. First of all his comment was clearly not a threat. He said if she had to go to war instead of our kids then she would not be a warhawk. She has it completely backwards!
She should have told the media what he said was protected by the 1st amendment. Protect the Constitution instead of weaponizing your office to harrass and censure!”
She should have told the media what he said was protected by the 1st amendment. Protect the Constitution instead of weaponizing your office to harrass and censure!
Senate President Warren Petersen announced on Monday morning that he received the list of 218,000 voters registered without proof of citizenship.
These 218,000 voters (an increase from the initial estimate of nearly 100,000) had obtained their driver’s licenses prior to the 1996 requirement to apply with proof of citizenship, went on to get a duplicate license, and then registered to vote for the first time or re-registered to vote after 2004. For over 20 years, they were caught up in a compatibility error between the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the state’s voter registration system.
Later in the day, Fontes announced that voters can check whether they’re one of the affected voters through my.arizona.vote.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled in September that these voters caught up in the compatibility error would be allowed to vote the full ballot. America First Legal sued Fontes last month to obtain access to that list of voters.
“This morning I authorized receipt of those names,” said Petersen. “We will do everything we can to make sure our elections are run with integrity.”
Judge ruled AZSOS must release 218k names that he had refused to disclose. This morning I authorized receipt of those names. We will do everything we can to make sure our elections are run with integrity. Special thanks to @merissahamilton@America1stLegal@JenWEsq!
After Petersen announced receipt of the list, Fontes held a press conference discussing the impact of the court-ordered release.
“Let me be very clear about that: every single person on that list has sworn under penalty of perjury that they are a U.S. citizen and eligible to vote,” said Fontes. “They’ve done the exact same thing that every other citizen of the United States of America has done. But because here in Arizona we have that extra thing that needs to be done, that extra documented proof of citizenship — that is not required anywhere else in the country — we find ourselves in this quagmire.”
Fontes assured voters that they had the right to not be harassed at their homes or have others demand identification from them. Fontes said that any harassing of the 218,000 voters would be subject to prosecution.
“If anyone does do this sort of thing, please contact our office or your local law enforcement agency. Voter harassment and intimidation is a violation of the law,” said Fontes.
Fontes said that his office would be contacting the county recorders about voters on the list within the next few days and week. The secretary of state said that their office would work “later this year” to collect the appropriate documentary proof of citizenship.
Fontes discouraged the 218,000 voters on the list from contacting their local election officers presently, due to the busy nature of the ongoing election.
“You are under no obligation whatsoever to provide documented proof of citizenship if you’re on this list,” said Fontes.
Fontes said he is “not happy” with the court order, and blamed the focus on the 218,000 voters on the “lies and conspiracies” by individuals concerned with election integrity, which he characterized as “folks who mean this democracy harm.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
