Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne issued a statement of support for a lawsuit challenging Attorney General Kris Mayes’ restrictions on the state’s school choice program.
Horne said that he maintains concerns that Mayes will demand the return of Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) funds from families based on her interpretation of the laws governing allowable expenses.
In July, Mayes advised the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) that, per her interpretation of the law, parents should no longer be reimbursed for supplementary educational materials not expressly outlined in curriculum.
Though Mayes acknowledged that the statute on which she based her interpretation didn’t offer a definition of “supplemental materials,” she argued in her letter to Associate Superintendent John Ward that the State Board of Education’s definition of the term should apply: “relevant materials directly related to the course of study for which they are being used that introduce content and instructional strategies or that enhance, complement, enrich, extend or support the curriculum.”
Mayes’ application of this definition requires explicit mention of all supplies required within a curriculum: even things like pencils and erasers. The ADE handbook doesn’t require documentation of items “generally known to be educational” in their purpose, such as pencils and erasers.
The attorney general directed Ward to provide documentation of total supplementary material expenditure from 2019 to present, as well as funds spent on curriculum materials without curriculum documentation and approved textbooks lacking proof of requirement by a qualified school or eligible postsecondary institution.
In response to Mayes’ directive, the Goldwater Institute sued on behalf of ESA mothers Velia Aguirre and Rosemary McAtee. The two mothers homeschool their children: Aguirre homeschools all three of her children, while McAtee homeschools seven of her nine children.
In their argument, the Goldwater Institute argued that Mayes’ directive was not only in violation of the law, it was a jeopardy to the existing backlog of tens of thousands of purchase orders — an issue that would inherently impact the education of many children relying on those ESA funds.
The Goldwater Institute also pointed out in a press release that not even public and private school curriculums necessarily list supplementary items such as pencils and erasers.
In a statement, Horne expressed hope that the Goldwater Institute would prevail in its lawsuit.
“The Department of Education concedes the argument of the Goldwater Institute. When this issue first arose in July, my concern was that the Attorney General could force Empowerment Scholarship Account holders to return funds if they did not comply with her office’s interpretation of the law. This lawsuit will settle the issue in court and my sincere hope is that the arguments made by Goldwater will prevail.”
Horne had issued an anticipatory show of support for a hypothetical lawsuit from the Goldwater Institute in a response on the ADE page for ESAs immediately following Mayes’ letter. Horne clarified that a prior court decision bound ADE from having the standing to file lawsuits.
The superintendent said that he doesn’t agree with Mayes’ interpretation that supplementary materials are required to be tied to curriculum. However, Horne said that Mayes’ directive was one his department advised him that he couldn’t challenge and win.
As of Monday, over 78,600 students were enrolled in the ESA Program.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Federal agents at the border were busy earlier this month to stop dangerous drugs from escaping into American communities.
On September 23, Nogales Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Area Port Director Michael W. Humphries announced that his port of entry had seized more than 1.5 million fentanyl pills over four days at the start of the month.
Over 1.5 million fentanyl pills seized in a 4-day period by CBP officers at the Nogales POE 9/5: About 527,065 fentanyl pills hidden throughout a car 9/6: About 1,013,814 fentanyl pills concealed throughout a car (photos) 9/8: About 54,813 fentanyl pills hidden in a car’s battery pic.twitter.com/VAF7siKUOK
— Port Director Michael W. Humphries (@CBPPortDirNOG) September 23, 2024
According to Director Humphries, the pills were discovered and apprehended on September 5 (approximately 527,000 pills in a car), September 6 (approximately 1,000,000 pills in a car), and September 8 (approximately 55,000 pills in a car battery).
Just days after these seizures, Humphries revealed that his officers had encountered over 341 pounds of illegal meth on a rail box car.
9/10: CBP officers conducting rail operations at the Nogales POE seized 341.6 lbs meth hidden in the front and rear support beams of a rail box car. Officers have recently made significant interceptions of narcotics in rail, commercial operations, cars, pedestrians and outbound. pic.twitter.com/BSftBFWFBh
— Port Director Michael W. Humphries (@CBPPortDirNOG) September 24, 2024
In Fiscal Year 2024, the Tucson CPB Field Office and Tucson Sector have interdicted more than 30,000 pounds of fentanyl, with one month left in the twelve-month calendar. Last fiscal year, over 25,000 pounds of fentanyl were apprehended in that section of the border.
These seizures are only a fraction of the drugs escaping detection from law enforcement into communities all across the nation. In 2022, The Washington Postpublished an article about the proliferation of fentanyl from Mexico to the United States, citing estimations from unnamed federal drug agents that “they are seizing 5 to 10 percent of the drugs coming from Mexico – if that much.” The article also stated that “agents say it has been nearly impossible to stop fentanyl trafficking” at the border.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The Hobbs Administration is again under political fire for alleged conflicts of interest.
This week, Arizona State Senator T.J. Shope, the Senate President Pro Tempore, issued a statement to announce the recent conclusion of an administrative law judge that “the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCS) improperly awarded contracts for healthcare services for 26,000 elderly and physically disabled individuals enrolled in the Arizona Long Term Care System.” According to the release from Senator Shope, the “determination was based on several factors, including violations of statutes and rules by AHCCCS, prejudice, a lack of transparency, contract awards based on best interests of the agency and not the state, an arbitrary and flawed ranking system of bid proposals, as well as deceptive criteria provided by AHCCCS to health care companies on the evaluations of their bid proposals.”
Shope revealed that “while the judge recommended cancellation of the procurement and issuance of a new request for bid proposals, AHCCCS announced this month it would not do so, and instead, would delay the transition to the newly awarded health plans by one year, commencing in October of 2025.”
In a statement, Shope said, “I’m deeply disturbed by what’s transpired under the Hobbs Administration, from the Sunshine Residential pay-for-play scheme, to now this procurement scandal. The integrity of state government and its spending practices have been compromised. As chairman of the Senate Health & Human Services Committee, it’s my goal to get to the bottom of these disputes and determine whether in fact preferential treatment is being provided using the tax dollars of hardworking Arizonans, and whether our citizens who rely on these critical services are being protected.”
The Senate Republican leader added, “I will be on a fact-finding mission in the coming months and will determine the best course of action to address these cases, whether through legislation, or other legal avenues.”
Earlier this year, The Arizona Republic broke a story about the Arizona Department of Child Safety “approv[ing] what amounts to a nearly 60% increase in the rate that Sunshine Residential Homes Inc. charges to care for a child for a day.” The alleged action to approve the rate increase for the one organization was made while “DCS has denied pay increases to home operators and cut loose 16 providers during the contract renewal process.” The Republic also asserted that “no other standard group home provider was approved for any rate increase during Hobbs’ tenure.”
After the story ran in the Republic, Shope sent a letter on June 5 to both Attorney General Kris Mayes and Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, asking both officials to “examine the facts surrounding the Department of Child Safety’s alleged decision to approve a nearly 60% rate increase for Sunshine Residential Homes and determine if conduct by any of the involved parties warrants a criminal or civil investigation.”
State Representative Matt Gress followed up with a letter on June 6 to Mitchell, letting her know that “the Auditor General’s Office stands ready to partner with you in getting the facts about this troubling matter,” and that the Joint Legislative Audit Committee “will allocate the resources the Auditor General needs to help restore what appears to be a major breach of trust in our government.”
That day (June 7), Mayes fired off two letters to both Mitchell and the Arizona Auditor General, Lindsey Perry, over the investigation. Mayes told County Attorney Mitchell that “it would not be appropriate or in the best interest of the state to conduct parallel investigations into the same matter,” and that “a separate process conducted by the MCAO could jeopardize the integrity of the criminal investigation that my office will now proceed with.”
Mayes similarly told Auditor General Perry that “while [the Auditor General’s] office is statutorily authorized to examine records and conduct audits at the direction of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, at this time, the assistance of [her] office is not needed by the Attorney General’s Office for our investigation.”
After the letters from Mayes, Arizona State Treasurer Kimberly Yee sent a letter to Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, requesting “that [she] investigate the allegations that have occurred in [her] jurisdiction.” Yee also delivered a letter to Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, highlighting that the state’s top cop’s assertion that her office had singular control over any investigation “is not appropriate or authorized by law, as those entities have separate jurisdiction to investigate this matter.”
After receiving the letters from Senator T.J. Shope and Gress, County Attorney Mitchell informed them that her office was “contacted by the Arizona Auditor General asking that the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office serve as the prosecution office that will work with them while they conduct an investigation into this matter.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A new national poll has Republican Presidential nominee Donald J. Trump leading his opponent in the State of Arizona.
Earlier this week, the New York Times / Siena Sunbelt Poll released its latest survey of a handful of swing states in the presidential contest this upcoming November, showing that former President Donald J. Trump is leading Vice President Kamala Harris by five percent (50-45%).
The poll, which took place last week in Arizona, took responses from 713 registered voters. Eighty-seven percent of respondents were either very likely or almost certain to vote in the presidential general election.
Trump flipped this poll from the previous month’s result, when he trailed Harris by four percent (49-45%). Last year (in October), Trump also led Harris by five percent (48-43%).
In this latest installment, seven percent of respondents either didn’t know the candidate they would be voting for or refused to answer.
President Joe Biden had a 60% disapproval rating in this poll, which was increased from 57% last month.
The 45th President had a 47% approval rating in this survey, compared to a 51% unfavorable rating.
Harris had a 46% favorable rating in September, compared to a 51% unfavorable rating.
The economy, at 26%, was selected as the number one issue for voters in factoring into their vote for November. Immigration and abortion followed as the next issues of importance. Trump was selected by more respondents in the Arizona poll as the candidate who “would do a better job of handling the issue you think is most important.”
Arizona voters had far more trust in Trump for handling the economy (57-40%) and immigration (54-42%). Harris enjoyed a larger lead when it came to voters’ trust for her policies on abortion (55-39%) and a smaller advantage for the issue of democracy (49-46%).
More respondents believed that Trump’s policies have helped them and others (44%) than hurt (34%), while more individuals thought that Harris’ policies would hurt them (40%) than help (36%).
Voting for the General Election has already begun in the Grand Canyon State, with the contest just over a month away.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A Republican state House member is calling on the U.S. military to increase its fire safety standards for Arizona communities.
Earlier this week, Arizona State Representative David Cook submitted his comments for the U.S. Air Force’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), asking the military branch “to ensure the use of flares is prohibited on days where local, state, and federal agencies have put fire restrictions in place.”
Cook said, “While Arizona is an important state for conducting strategic military training operations, the Air Force needs to take every precaution to protect people and land from preventable disasters, including wildland fires. Releasing flares during times when fire restrictions are in place poses an unnecessary risk to residents. The military must recognize the danger these flares pose to Arizona communities and ensure that no flares are deployed on days when state or local fire restrictions are active.”
In his comments, Cook wrote that, “Although the Draft EIS states that the possibility of wildfires ‘would be remote considering the release altitude under the Proposed Action,’ history has shown that flares have been tied to wildfire occurrences, including the 2021 Telegraph fire, which burned over 180,000 acres and for nearly a month. While ‘the DAF believes it is unlikely that the fire was caused by flares,’ the cause of the Telegraph fire has not been fully resolved, and the Draft EIS does not rule out the possibility that flares were responsible for the fire.”
Cook added, “I believe the best way to reduce the risk of fire caused by flares is to implement a dual approach that includes both minimum altitude restrictions and operational constraints that correlate with local, state, and federal fire restrictions. Accordingly, I respectfully request the DAF update its Final EIS and Proposed Action to prohibit the use of flares on days where local, state, or federal agencies have put fire restrictions in place.”
Members of the public may submit their own comments in support or opposition to the proposal up until October 9.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Two of Arizona’s Supreme Court justices are facing a fight for their future tenure on the bench.
This November, Arizona voters will have the opportunity to retain two key votes on the state’s high court, Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King. Both justices have demonstrated a consistent standard for standing on the principle of the law, not politics, though their stances have often angered outside interests – including the groups now attempting to remove them from the court.
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 is Bolick’s second retention election and King’s first.
Earlier this year, Bolick and King drew the ire of progressive groups after their votes in a controversial abortion case. The group helping to lead the efforts to oust the two justices, Protect Abortion Rights Arizona, posted on its website, “Arizonans need a fair judiciary that will protect our rights. This year, Arizona voters will decide whether to vote out two of the Supreme Court justices who voted to uphold the total, 160-year old abortion ban.”
In an op-ed published in The Arizona Republic this past May, Bolick explained his vote on the abortion case. He wrote, “Serious commentators, liberal and conservative, who actually read the decision (which I encourage voters to do), agree it is solidly grounded in law. We had before us not a question of policy, or even of constitutionality, but simply whether the Legislature in 2022, following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, restored an earlier abortion restriction. After careful analysis, we concluded it did.”
The high-profile justice continued: “I cannot count the number of cases in which I have voted against my policy preferences. One example is when Gov. Doug Ducey vetoed nearly two dozen conservative bills over a budget dispute with the Legislature. They were passed again, then challenged by the Arizona School Boards Association. We struck them all down because they were passed unconstitutionally as part of the budget rather than as standalone bills.”
The case that Bolick was referring to in his piece was Arizona School Boards Association v. Arizona. The plaintiffs had challenged four budget reconciliation bills – HB 2898, SB 1824, SB 1825, and SB 1819. The court unanimously decided that the bills were void in part because of they violated the title requirement, and that SB 1819 was entirely void because it violated the single subject rule. Justice Bolick factored into the decision of the court, yet King recused herself. According to the court, the Arizona constitution “requires that appropriations beyond the scope of the general appropriations bill ‘shall be made by separate bills, each embracing but one subject.’”
As the court wrote in its conclusion, “We respect the role of the legislature in the discharge of its constitutional duties, including in its budgetary processes, and we heed our constitution’s fundamental premise that the division of powers necessarily impels judicial restraint, particularly in the realm of lawmaking. But this Court’s constitutional duty to interpret and apply the constitution requires us to invalidate a law if it infringes the constitution. Thus, today we do not intrude upon the legislature’s unique constitutional authority; instead, we merely exercise our own such authority to interpret, apply, and enforce the Arizona Constitution’s command that the legislature’s acts comply with the title requirement and the single subject rule.”
Judicial Independence Defense PAC has taken the side of Bolick and King, working to convince enough voters to retain these two justices in the upcoming fall election. The group warns that these retentions have been grossly politicized, and that Arizonans will pay the price if Bolick and King are removed from the bench. The PAC states, “From the federal level on down, we’ve seen politics creep its way into the judicial branch. But our courts should be independent, and in Arizona they have been. According to published media reports, out-of-state liberal groups like the National Democratic Redistricting Committee and Planned Parenthood Votes have budgeted $5 million to take over Arizona’s Court and defeat Justices Clint Bolick and Kate King. If they succeed, liberal Governor Katie Hobbs will get to choose their replacements, giving liberals a majority on the Arizona Supreme Court for the first time.”
These cautionary words from the Judicial Independence PAC echoes what Bolick also penned in his aforementioned op-ed. Bolick said, “The groups opposing us need a serious civics lesson about the role of the courts. Nowhere in their materials will you read about the importance of an independent judiciary in protecting our free society. Instead, they think we should decide cases based on the ‘will of the people.’ How do we determine that? Commission a poll? Convene a focus group? Simply assume the Legislature always reflects the will of the people?”
Bolick answered his questions with a quote from the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, saying, “As Justice O’Connor put it following her retirement, ‘the judiciary should not respond to public opinion in its individual decisions,’ but instead should be ‘accountable to the public for its constitutional role of applying the law fairly and impartially.’ That is what the iconic image of the scales of justice is all about.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
