Earlier this week, a court-appointed Special Master confirmed that nearly 40,000 initiative signatures were duplicates and thus invalid. But on Thursday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Frank Moskowitz still ruled that, because Proposition 140 cannot be removed from the ballot, votes for the Ranked Choice Voting and Open Primary initiative will be counted.
The court’s affirmation of the initiative, despite Petition Signature Fraud being proven, sent shockwaves through the Arizona political scene.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi released a statement following the ruling, openly accusing Moskowitz of bias in favor of the initiative.
“From the moment he was unanimously rebuked by the AZ Supreme Court for blocking the removal of nearly 40,000 duplicate signatures, Judge Moskowitz has been trying to find a way to place Prop 140 on the ballot, irrespective of whether it had enough signatures to qualify. Today he issued a ruling manufacturing that outcome, deciding that the statutory method for determining the number of valid signatures for ballot initiatives is now unconstitutional. He made this radical determination despite the fact that the statute Moskowitz invalidated is nearly 30 years old and was reviewed and upheld against a constitutional challenge by the AZ Supreme Court in 2022 (Mussi v Hobbs).”
🚨 URGENT: Judge Moskowitz has issued a radical ruling invalidating the statutory method for determining the number of valid signatures for ballot initiatives in an effort to place #Prop140 on the ballot! https://t.co/VOT0dtnBrR
Prior to Moskowitz’s ruling, Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ann Timmer ordered that if the Special Master ruled the signatures invalid, then the Make Elections Fair PAC would be permitted to argue against enjoining the vote count on grounds that court precedent typically required ruling prior to ballot printing, something not required in statute.
This ruling would appear to validate concerns many opponents of the Proposition have voiced, that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, defending legal council, and Moskowitz himself all sought to deliberately slow-roll the court proceedings beyond the printing date to ‘run out the clock’ and force the vote through.
In the ruling AZFEC deemed “radical” in a post to X, Moskowitz claimed that the confirmation of duplicated, invalid signatures was “moot,” having passed the printing deadline. He curiously cited a statute NOT being present in his justification and leaned purely on case law. He wrote, “Although there is no statutory authority for the proposition that petition challenges must end before ballot printing begins, there is case law that supports such a ‘bright light’ end to such litigation.”
He continued, “Here, the time pressures were such that not every duplicate signature was reviewed and verified by clear and convincing evidence before the August 23, 2024 ballot printing deadline, such that the underlying action is moot as of that deadline.”
In a staggering move, Moskowitz claimed that the court cannot grant injunction against counting the signatures, citing “Perhaps the absence of such express authority in statute,” as expressing the intent of the legislature.
In full he wrote, “That is not a sufficient basis for this Court to grant such a remedy, especially given the injunction allowable under (the law), the statute upon which Plaintiffs initially brought this action, does not include enjoining the canvassing of votes,” Moskowitz wrote. “Perhaps the absence of such express authority in statute is because the Legislature never intended for initiative challenges to go past the ballot printing deadline.”
Mussi wrote in the AZFEC statement that the organization intends to bring the matter to the State Supreme Court once again, “The bottom line is that after the removal of the duplicate signatures, Prop 140 lacks the required number of valid signatures needed to qualify for the ballot. The committee behind the measure was aware of this fact, which is why they obstructed and delayed the review of the duplicate signatures for over a month.
We are confident that after a careful review of the facts, ruling, and trial court record, the AZ Supreme Court will again overturn this outrageousruling by Judge Moskowitz and enjoin Prop 140 from being tabulated.”
Warning: this article contains spoilers from the newly released film, “Am I Racist?”
The Arizona State University (ASU) graduate who gained notoriety for her viral confrontation of two white students, Sarra Tekola, was featured in the latest mockumentary film from Daily Wire, “Am I Racist?”
Tekola accosted two white male students in September 2021 for studying in a room established around that time as a multicultural center under a campaign she helped to lead. At the time of the incident, per our past reporting, the room had not yet been established officially as a multicultural center and no signage existed to designate the room as such.
Though the Arizona Board of Regents determined that Tekola’s actions violated the Code of Conduct — only finding guilt of interfering with university activities, but not harassment — ASU awarded her a doctorate in sustainability eight months later in May of 2022. Tekola runs her own consulting firm presently, and now goes by “they/he” pronouns as “Yeshaq Sarra Tekola.”
Daily Wire host Matt Walsh provided commentary of Tekola’s actions at the time and subsequently provided coverage on developments following the incident.
Now, nearly three years to the day of that viral incident, Walsh premiered a mockumentary, “Am I Racist?” in which he interviews Tekola.
However, Walsh didn’t present himself to Tekola under his true identity. Walsh also didn’t interview Tekola about the 2021 incident. Rather, Walsh presented himself as a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) advocate and interviewed Tekola about her beliefs on racism.
At no point in the portions of the interview included in the movie did Tekola discern Walsh’s true identity.
During her interview, Tekola told Walsh that she believed that all white people were racist.
Tekola also said she subscribed to a theory that white individuals don’t recognize their racism because they divide themselves into two selves: a subconscious self which is guilty of being racist, and the conscious self which believes it isn’t racist. Tekola told Walsh that it’s the responsibility of white individuals to reconcile the two selves to become aware of their racism.
Tekola also advocated for an end to whiteness altogether.
It is unclear when Walsh filmed this interview with Tekola, though it appears she maintains similar or the same beliefs at present. In an X post earlier this year, Tekola implied that those opposed to illegal immigration based on the surge in violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants were racist.
“Who belongs here [in America]? It’s giving whites only,” wrote Tekola.
Tekola is also the co-founder, co-director, and policy strategist for the Phoenix Metro area’s Black Lives Matter chapter. Tekola also co-founded and co-leads the Phoenix Environmental Justice Coalition. In recent years, Tekola joined the activist organizations Working Families Party Arizona, Chisholm Legacy Project, and Hive Fund.
Prior to enrolling at ASU, Tekola made headlines for her activism: from blocking the construction of a police station in Seattle, Washington to organizing a BLM protest-turned-riot in 2020 that ended with her arrest (for which she raised over $6,000). Tekola was also a Ford Foundation Fellow from 2018 to 2021.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Surprise City Council repealed the ordinance prohibiting residents from criticizing city officials during public meetings in a unanimous vote. The decision followed the now-viral arrest of Rebekah Massie, a local activist, while she addressed the body in August. Massie and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) subsequently launched a lawsuit against the city, which according to the group is still ongoing.
In an email from FIRE obtained by AZ Free News, the group confirmed that the lawsuit is moving forward. Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick said in a statement, “The city council’s decision to scrap its unconstitutional rule banning criticism of public officials is the right move — but the damage has already been done. Twenty-eight days ago, police dragged a local mom out of the meeting for criticizing a city attorney’s pay. Twenty-eight days ago, Mayor Skip Hall abused his power to stifle dissent. This decision comes 28 days too late for Rebekah Massie.”
Cameron Arcand, writing for the Arizona Daily Independent, reported that the effort to end the policy was led by Surprise Councilman Jack Hastings. Earlier this week, the councilman posted to X, “On Tuesday, at our next City Council Meeting, I will make a motion and/or vote to remove the rule that prohibits complaints against elected officials and city staff members during the public comment portion of our meetings,” adding “I support the freedom of speech and people should be able to voice their concerns and criticize their government and elected officials.”
On Tuesday, at our next City Council Meeting, I will make a motion and/or vote to remove the rule that prohibits complaints against elected officials and city staff members during the public comment portion of our meetings.
I support the freedom of speech and people should be…
“I’m hoping it passes unanimously because it’s the right thing to do. You have to be able to deal with criticism if you’re going to be an elected official,” Hastings told the Center Square via text.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, the lawsuit targeting the city, outgoing Mayor Skip Hall, and Surprise police officer Steven Shernicoff in their individual capacities, was filed September 3rd and is seeking “preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the City of Surprise from enforcing the Council Criticism Policy during meetings of the City Council of the City of Surprise;” which may be rendered moot by the policy change, as well as a declaratory judgment that the city’s “enforcement of the Council Criticism Policy against Massie on August 20, 2024, violated Massie’s First Amendment rights;” and a declaratory judgment that the policy violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Finally, Massie is seeking “compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages,” for her arrest as well as legal fees.
City of Surprise: We'll see you in court.
The First Amendment protects Americans' right to criticize public officials without being arrested. https://t.co/Ii6D2dJ4v8
At the time of Massie’s arrest, Mayor-Elect Kevin Sartor who is set to replace Hall condemned the mayor’s actions saying, “As Americans, our right to free speech is fundamental, especially when it comes to holding our government accountable.” He added, “What happened to Rebekah Massie is unacceptable. No citizen should ever be arrested for voicing their concerns, especially in a forum specifically designed for public input.”
“The right to free speech is at the heart of our democracy, and as your next mayor, I will ensure that every citizen’s voice is heard, respected, and protected,” Sartor continued. “While there must be reasonable limits on speech in public forums—such as prohibiting violence, threats, or profanity—this recent incident did not come close to crossing those lines. As mayor, I will ensure that our city is a place where open dialogue is encouraged, not suppressed. We are stronger when every voice is heard.”
Arizonans are pessimistic about the future of their state.
Last month, Noble Predictive Insights (NPI) conducted a poll of over 1,000 registered voters in Arizona, showing “a picture of a state grappling with general pessimism and shifting priorities for voters.”
The survey from NPI indicated that 60% of respondents believed that Arizona is going in the wrong direction, compared to 40% who believe that the state is on the right track. The negative responses were up from the start of Governor Katie Hobbs’ administration in January 2023, when 55% believed the state was headed in the wrong direction, and 45% believed Arizona was headed in the right direction.
According to NPI, “In August, Republicans were overwhelmingly pessimistic, with 77% believing the state is on the wrong track. Within the party, the discontentment is slightly more pronounced among Trump-First Republicans (81%) compared to Party-First Republicans (77%). Democrats, on the other hand, are broadly optimistic – two-thirds say Arizona is on the right track, with Party-First Democrats (68%) and Harris-First Democrats (67%) in general agreement. Independents’ views on Arizona’s direction line up closest to the toplines with 64% unhappy with the trajectory of the state.”
“It’s not hard to see why pessimism increased in this period. In early 2022, a COVID-19 survey hit the state. And since then, Arizonans have told us that inflation has become more and more of a pain point,” said David Byler, NPI Chief of Research. “Partisanship plays a role too. Longtime Republican Arizonans are watching the state turn purple – and they blame newcomers from Oregon, Washington, California, and other blue states. Democrats – whether longtime residents or new arrivals – are greeting this political change with more warmth. So, partisanship plays a role – but so do real-life conditions.”
Additionally, the release from NPI highlighted that “the poll also found that the length of residency in Arizona correlates with outlook on the state’s trajectory. The longer a respondent has lived in Arizona, the less satisfied they are with the direction of the state. Recent transplants – those who have moved to Arizona within the last five years – were more likely to believe the state is headed in the right direction (56%).”
In an exclusive comment to AZ Free News, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen said, “Republicans in Arizona have been passing good policies for more than a decade, prompting hundreds of people to move to our state every day. We used to be able to keep up with the demand for affordable housing. Unfortunately, since the Governor entered office, she has implemented policies restricting our housing supply, which have forced prices to rise. The pessimistic attitudes are a direct result of the partisan games being played by the Governor, and our citizens are paying the price.”
House Speaker Ben Toma added, “Arizonans are bearing the brunt of an economy weakened by the Biden-Harris administration’s inflationary policies. Hardworking families are desperate for relief, but the failure of Democratic leadership in Washington and locally continues to erode the successful conservative policies that once drove record economic growth, reduced costs, and fueled confidence in our future.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizona’s Republican school’s chief is taking additional action to raise awareness for Holocaust education.
Earlier this week, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne presented the Arizona Jewish Historical Society with a seven-million-dollar check for the purpose of creating the Hilton Family Holocaust Education Center.
The mission of the center, per its website, is that it will be “dedicated to exploring the lessons of the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity. The Center educates and inspires visitors of diverse backgrounds through survivor stories, artifacts, immersive media experiences, community outreach, and public programs.” Its vision is to “inspire visitors to learn from the Holocaust, to become upstanders, and to work toward a world without hatred and bigotry.”
Horne stated, “In the past year, we have seen the unbelievable and tragic targeting of the Jewish community with the horrific acts committed on innocent men, women and children by Hamas in Israel, the ignorant and misguided protests against Jews on college campuses and the endorsement of antisemitic literature in some Arizona classrooms. This cannot go unchallenged, and educating people is one of the most powerful tools to face this scourge. Developing the Hilton Family Holocaust Education Center is a needed step toward bridging understanding between people of all ethnicities and belief systems and I am grateful to be a part of this important cause.”
Joining Horne at the presentation were State Representatives Alma Hernandez and David Marshall. Arizona business leader Steve Hilton also appeared alongside the state officials.
It was bipartisan legislation spearheaded by Hernandez and Marshall that made the check presentation from the Arizona Department of Education possible for the benefit of the Center.
According to the Center’s website, the explanation for why it is being created at this time is because “Phoenix is the fifth largest city in the United States, yet it is the largest U.S. city that does not have a Holocaust museum or education center. With anti-Semitic and hate crimes on the rise over the last five years in Arizona and the United States, now is the time to build a new center to raise awareness and educate the community so that we can help to address these critical issues that affect all groups of people that may be marginalized and made vulnerable to discrimination. When one group’s freedom is curtailed, all people are susceptible to prejudice and injustice.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The narrowly passed repeal of Arizona’s complete ban on abortion became effective on Sep. 14th in a moment that is being widely celebrated by pro-abortion Democrats. Although Democrat Gov. Katie Hobbs signed the bill, H.B. 2677, into law in May, the bill only became effective on Saturday.
Under the current legal framework enacted in 2022, the state of Arizona has an effective ban on abortion after 15 weeks. While the Arizona Court of Appeals had previously ruled that the 2022 15-week measure and the total ban enacted by the territorial legislature in 1864 could be “harmonized,” the Arizona Supreme Court rejected this notion.
The Court wrote in its majority opinion, “Our conclusion that the legislature did not intend to create a privilege secured by law to obtain or perform an abortion obviates the need to harmonize §§ 13-3603 and 36-2322. Harmonization between these laws may be accomplished only by repealing § 13-3603 in contravention of the legislature’s express intent and engaging in untenable statutory interpretation such as excising physicians from the plain meaning of ‘person’ in § 13-3603, defined as ‘a human being’ in A.R.S § 13-105(30). And indeed, despite purporting to harmonize the statutes, the dissent’s treatment of § 13-3603 all but nullifies it. We decline to do so.”
The court ruled that following Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the ruling that reversed Roe v. Wade, “Arizona has never independently created a statutory right to abortion. We will not ‘amend a statute judicially [nor] read implausible meaning into express statutory language’ given the absence of an abortion right in Arizona jurisprudence. Kyle v. Daniels, 198 Ariz. 304, 306 ¶ 7 (2000). Therefore, because the federal constitutional right to abortion that overrode § 13-3603 no longer exists, the statute is now enforceable, prospectively prohibiting abortion unless necessary to save a woman’s life.”
As reported by the Associated Press, Hobbs in no way intends to stop at repealing the 1864 ban and intends to install the a “right” to abortion in the state. She said in a statement cited by the AP, “I will continue doing everything in my power to protect reproductive freedoms, because I trust women to make the decisions that are best for them, and know politicians do not belong in the doctor’s office.”
In a May post to X, she outright stated, “Any bill attacking the right to safe and legal abortion access will be vetoed without hesitation.”
Any bill attacking the right to safe and legal abortion access will be vetoed without hesitation. pic.twitter.com/yuzvFCUsfL
— Governor Katie Hobbs (@GovernorHobbs) May 30, 2024
Indeed the initiative Proposition 139 created by “Arizona for Abortion Access” will appear on the ballot in November to repeal the 2022 15-week abortion ban and create an amendment for a “fundamental right” for abortion up to “fetal viability” allowing a baby’s life to be ended potentially up until birth.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, a legal battle unfolded between the legislature and the initiative organizers over the use of the phrase “unborn human being” in the description of the initiative. The State Supreme Court found in a 5-2 decision that the legislature’s choice to use the phrase “unborn human being” rather than “fetus” met legal standards.
The state legislative council explains in its analysis of the ballot proposal to make abortion a constitutional right:
“Current state law prohibits a physician from performing an abortion if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being is more than 15 weeks, except when a pregnant woman’s medical condition necessitates an immediate abortion to avert the pregnant woman’s death or for which a delay creates a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”
