Kris Mayes may have been sworn in as Arizona Attorney General earlier this month, but the legal arguments over whether she received the most lawfully cast votes is still ongoing, with a decision expected in a few weeks on whether Republican candidate Abe Hamadeh should be granted a second trial in his election contest.
Hamadeh’s motion for a new trial has been opposed by Mayes, Maricopa County, and new Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, who took over as a defendant when then-Secretary Katie Hobbs was sworn in as Governor. Hamadeh’s reply to the oppositions is due Feb. 6 and is reportedly being written by Jen Wright, the former head of the Election Integrity Unit under Attorney General Mark Brnovich.
After the reply is filed, Judge Lee Jantzen of the Mohave County Superior Court can either rule based on the written pleadings or set a hearing for oral arguments. Any decision Jantzen makes will likely be appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which could keep the case in limbo for weeks.
Jantzen dismissed Hamadeh’s election challenge Dec. 23 after a brief trial that featured the results of an expedited and limited inspection of ballots in just a few of Arizona’s 15 counties. The inspections were undertaken in an effort to obtain evidence supporting Hamadeh’s claim that thousands of votes cast for him were not counted during the Nov. 8 General Election.
The evidence presented to Jantzen, however, did not include reports of tabulation problems experienced by Pinal County. Those reports were not made public until Dec. 29 when the statewide recount results were announced, cutting Mayes’ margin from 511 votes to 280 votes out of more than 2.5 million ballots cast.
In a Jan. 3 motion for a new trial, Hamadeh’s legal team points out Hobbs in her then-role as Secretary of State, did not disclose the extensive Pinal County problems to Hamadeh or the judge, even though Hobbs had direct knowledge of the issues prior to the trial. It is enough reason to allow for a more in-depth review of uncounted votes in the attorney general’s race across the state, Hamadeh argues.
Maricopa County has lost the trust of the people.
How can Arizonans have confidence in future elections not knowing if it will be run competently? This only casts doubt into the democratic process that they so loudly claim they’re protecting.
The argument for a new trial recently got a boost from Arizona’s top two lawmakers.
In an Amici Curiae (friends of the court) brief, Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma urge Jantzen to “afford the parties a full and fair opportunity” to determine to answer the pivotal question of which candidate received the highest number of votes for Attorney General in the 2022 General Election.
Petersen and Toma take no position on who is the legitimate winner. Instead, they point to the fact Hamadeh now has “the kind of salient evidence” that Mayes, Hobbs, and Maricopa County argued Hamadeh had to supply to prevail during trail.
The Jan. 25 brief argues those same parties argue it is simply too late for Jantzen to do anything about it on behalf of Arizona voters. But that is not what the Legislature intended when it created state laws which allow voters and candidates to challenge the proclaimed “official” election results, according to the brief.
“The nearly unprecedented circumstances surrounding this proceeding underscore the judiciary’s indispensable role in ensuring that the certified winner of an election did, in fact, receive the highest number of lawful votes,” the brief states, adding Arizona law has “for more than a century afforded contestants a nearly unqualified right to inspect all voted ballots upon a minimal threshold showing of good cause.”
Toma discussed the amici curiae brief shortly after it was filed, pointing to the important role judges like Jantzen play in preserving election integrity.
“Election contests promote transparency, fact-finding, and an independent judicial inquiry when there are credible questions surrounding the accuracy of certified election results,” Toma explained.
In the meantime, Jantzen has another matter he needs to rule on.
Several persons were appointed to serve as ballot inspectors for the various parties during Hamadeh’s trial last month. Compensation for those inspectors is mandated under state law at a rate fixed by the court.
Jantzen, however, did not announce the rate in advance. As a result, those inspectors cannot be paid until an appropriate court order is issued.
Mayes has requested nearly $2,900 for the ballot inspector she chose for review of ballots in Maricopa County, a rate of $445 per hour for 6.5 hours. Meanwhile, Mohave County Attorney Matthew Smith is asking Jantzen to authorize payment to its inspector for 7.5 hours of work on the pay scale similar to an attorney in private practice.
Navajo County also filed a motion to compensate the three inspectors who traveled to Holbrook to inspect ballots in that county. Each of the three traveled at least 100 miles roundtrip and worked between 7 and 9.5 hours.
Unlike the motions by Mayes and Mohave County, the compensation request by Deputy County Attorney Jason Moore of Navajo County took no position on the hourly rate for the inspectors.
Hamadeh’s legal team has until Jan. 31 to respond to the compensation motions. Jantzen can then request additional arguments or issue an order.
Terri Jo Neff is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or send her news tips here.
It is a standard officer safety, public safety protocol for an officer to draw his or her duty weapon and point it at a suspect during a high-risk arrest. But a proposal by Phoenix PD Interim Chief Michael Sullivan would make pointing a firearm at anyone, regardless of the situation, a Level 1 reportable Use of Force action even if the gun is never discharged.
It is just one of several changes to Phoenix PD’s Use of Force policy for which Sullivan is seeking public comment, and which clearly notes the policy will be “deliberately stricter than the Constitutional and legal minimums established by the Courts.”
A number of national law enforcement organizations, however, have come out in opposition to the underlying direction of the agency’s proposal, including the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).
According to a recent IACP Use of Force position paper, managing use of force by officers is “one of the most difficult challenges” facing law enforcement agencies.
“The responsibility of law enforcement officers to enforce the law, protect the public, and guard their own safety and that of innocent bystanders is very challenging,” the IACP noted. “Interactions with uncooperative subjects who are physically resistant present situations that may quickly escalate.”
Ideally, an officer is able to gain cooperation through the use of verbal persuasion and other de-escalation skills. But there are situations, the ICAP noted, where use of force is unavoidable.
In such instances, use of force to gain control and compliance of subjects must be “objectively reasonable,” according to the U.S. Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor, which acknowledged that an officer’s decision to use force is often made under varied scenarios and often on a split-second basis.
Most agencies base their Use of Force policies and training around Graham v. Connor, in which the justices recognized that officers do not need to use the minimum amount of force in any given situation. Instead, the officer’s use of any force must be “objectively reasonable” based upon the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time force was used.
The totality of the circumstances could include the immediate threat to the officer or others; the time available for an officer to make decisions in tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving circumstances; the seriousness of the crime(s) involved; whether the subject is attempting to evade or escape; and the danger the subject poses to the community.
Other factors may include prior contact with the subject; the number of officers on-scene; the age, size, and strength of the subject versus the officer; specialized skills of the officer; injury or exhaustion of the officer; whether the subject appears affected by mental illness or the influence of alcohol or other drugs; crowd-related issues; and the subject’s proximity to potential weapons.
But Sullivan wants to change the Phoenix PD Use of Force policy away from the objectively reasonable standard to a standard of “reasonable, necessary, and proportional” that goes outside the Supreme Court’s analysis and relies on a more subjective review or interpretation.
IACP has “significant concerns” with any policy or legislation which replaces the Graham v. Connor standard with a standard which opens an officer’s split second decision to a new level of interpretation that results “in endless scrutiny and second-guessing by investigators, prosecutors, and civil courts.”
AZ Free News spoke with several officers about their reaction to the proposed Use of Force changes. The officers are not being identified due to concerns of retaliation although their identities and employment have been confirmed.
One Phoenix officer said his biggest worry is that he and other officers “will hesitate for fear of being disciplined” when confronted with a threatening or potentially threatening situation.
“A moment’s hesitation can cause someone their life,” the officer said, adding he expects more officers to be injured on duty under such a vastly different standard.
He also pointed out that officers would be prohibited from using “any force” on a person whose health, age, condition, or circumstances “make it likely” that death or serious physical injury will result.
The prohibition is so broadly worded to be unclear whether an officer cannot use force to subdue a gun-wielding 80 year old who has just shot a neighbor.
Another Phoenix PD officer points to concerns with the proposed change to de-escalation tactics, which Sullivan wants to expand to include withdrawing from the scene.
According to the officer, current policy allows for retreating from a volatile or dangerous scene as a method of de-escalation. This is often utilized when dealing with someone having a mental health crisis or when a criminal suspect can be apprehended in another, less risky manner.
But under the proposed policy, Phoenix officers could be disciplined for not opting to deescalate by completely withdrawing and leaving the scene. While this may appear to resolve the immediate issue at hand, the officer says the tactic could place the public “at further risk” once the police presence has left.
One example is an uncooperative trespasser on private property. If the officer withdraws from the scene to avoid escalating into physical contact, the property owner would be left to protect the property and the residents’ safety.
Or officers will be called back to the scene to deal with a now more dangerous set of circumstances.
And then there are those high-risk arrests where a suspect could have a weapon or has shown a propensity for physical violence. It is common practice to point a gun at such suspects to protect the safety of officers and the public.
Sullivan’s proposal, however, would now add a Use of Force demarcation on an officer’s record for such conduct. This means, according to another Phoenix officer, that an officer involved in a few hundred arrests over several years in which their gun was drawn could be alleged to have poor de-escalation skills because the majority of their arrests involved “force” even if no physical contact was involved.
Another activity which could result in a Use of Force report against an officer under Sullivan’s proposal involves Phoenix PD’s highly touted utilization of a Less-Lethal Launcher that fires a 40mm rubber projectile as well as a Pepperball Launcher, both of which can temporarily incapacitate a suspect.
Public records show these proven best-practice tools have been successful by officers to reduce more dangerous encounters. Yet under Sullivan’s proposed policy changes, the use of such tools could easily end up being considered “deadly force” in many instances.
Attorney Steve Serbalik explains his concerns with Chief Sullivan’s proposed Use of Force policy:
Other agencies which support the current objectively reasonable threshold for the use of force include Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies. Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Federal Law Enforcement Officer Association, Fraternal Order of Police, Hispanic American Police Command Officer Association, International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement, National Association of Police Organizations, National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives, National Organization Black Law Enforcement Executives, and National Tactical Officer Association.
Terri Jo Neff is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or send her news tips here.
Arizona State University (ASU) has placed men’s urinals in women’s restrooms.
The woman who discovered one of these installations, Rachel Hope, was at ASU’s Art Building. The urinal was located inside one of the enclosed stalls next to a regular toilet. Hope is the vice chair of the East Valley Young Republicans.
ASU caves to the far left by putting men’s urinals in the woman’s restroom!! 🤢🤡 pic.twitter.com/semEfmUsWz
ASU allows students to use restrooms according to their gender identity. Those opposed to this policy may be in violation of ASU’s anti-discrimination rules. ASU’s Academic Affairs Manual (ACD) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.
These two choices are considered protected characteristics. ASU encourages students to report any violations of this policy through the Office of University Rights and Responsibilities (OURR) and Title IX officials.
Directly underneath the policy stating that ASU allows students to use restrooms according to their gender identity, the university includes a direct link for reporting discrimination.
Those found in violation of ASU’s anti-discrimination policy may include firing for employees, or suspension or expulsion for students. Those not enrolled or working for ASU may be subject to other legal penalties, if pursued by ASU.
Title VII protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity. This interpretation of federal law was determined by the Supreme Court in 2020 through Bostock v. Clayton County.
Gov. Katie Hobbs recently enacted a similar policy through her first executive order, declaring that the state may not discriminate against gender identity when hiring.
ASU completely supports transgenderism. In addition to its policies and guides prioritizing LGBTQ+ ideology in the classroom, ASU helps advance that lifestyle elsewhere.
On International Transgender Day of Visibility, Barrett, along with Prism, PAB @ Poly, RHA @ Poly, and BLAST @ Poly, hosted Pride Prom at the ASU Polytechnic Campus. While the event celebrated the LGBTQIA+ community, all students were invited. Read more: https://t.co/RodJqb0SzI
— Barrett, The Honors College at ASU (@barretthonors) April 7, 2022
As AZ Free News reported previously, ASU began reimbursing employees and their dependents, children, up to $10,000 for gender transition procedures. They’re joined in this health care policy by the University of Arizona (UArizona).
ASU Educational Outreach and Student Services provides a page dedicated to transgender-specific resources. In addition to a guide informing faculty and staff on advancing inclusivity of transgender individuals, the resource page directs students to gender-inclusive housing, gender-neutral housing, health services, name change links, voice therapy, and both local and national resources for advancing transgenderism.
However, activist students have found these accommodations insufficient. Last April, students complained that gender-inclusive housing, launched in Fall 2016, forced them to endure an insensitive application process which deadnamed (identified them by their birth rather than preferred name) and misgendered them.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Wednesday, the city of Phoenix rescinded the NFL’s authority to regulate free speech via signage throughout the Super Bowl season. The city’s resolution, issued Wednesday, followed their court loss last week in Paulin v. Gallego, in which a resident challenged the city’s resolution granting the NFL authority to approve or deny residents’ signage.
The change comes with less than one month left to go before the Super Bowl.
The city has a significant financial incentive to cater to the NFL’s requests. When the city last hosted an NFL game in 2015, they experienced a $700 million boost. Gallego toldScripps News this month that they anticipate over one million visitors to the downtown area.
“These events and activities will bring significant revenue and media exposure to the City of Phoenix during the event period,” stated the city’s original resolution.
In anticipation of this lucrative opportunity for exposure, the city enacted a resolution in October granting the NFL and Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee the authority to reject signage within a “clean zone” constituting two square miles in downtown Phoenix.
Direction on whether existing signage had to remain was unclear: the city issued contradictory instructions on its website, in one post declaring that temporary signage had to be removed by last Halloween, while another post declared that the signage rule didn’t take effect until Jan. 15.
Additionally, the city’s signage rule applied to all types of signage: menus, political yard signs, and trespassing warnings. The ordinance only left alone any permitted permanent signs — not temporary ones.
Local business owner Bramley Paulin challenged the city’s initial resolution; the rule prevented him from advertising on his property. Paulin wanted to advertise to the upwards of 1.5 million people anticipated to attend a nearby music festival in the week leading up to the Super Bowl. Yet, any potential business partners told Paulin they could not advertise on his property since he was in the city’s “clean zone,” and they were considered non-NFL partners.
In an email exchange, Coca-Cola informed Paulin that they would receive a cease-and-desist letter if they attempted to advertise within the “clean zone.”
Any business seen as competition to the NFL couldn’t advertise — effectively giving the NFL a monopoly over their allotted downtown area.
In response, Paulin sued the city with the help of the Goldwater Institute. In the lawsuit, the Goldwater Institute asserted that the city’s ordinance gave power to unaccountable private actors and stripped Paulin of his right to limited, accountable, and transparent government.
“The [city’s] resolution further violates the separation of powers by giving the NFL and the Hosting Committee unchecked power to make decisions about Arizonans’ constitutional rights, without the panoply of safeguards by which citizens can hold their governments accountable, such as public hearings, record requests, and elections,” stated the lawsuit.
A trial court judge issued a temporary injunction on the city’s ordinance; a more permanent block of the rule was contingent on the city removing it completely in Wednesday’s meeting.
Victory in @GoldwaterInst free speech lawsuit against Phoenix: judge bars the city from enforcing its #SuperBowl censorship law that forbids people from displaying signs on their own property w/o getting permission from government bureaucrats AND the NFLhttps://t.co/uPhZ59PMFz
The Goldwater Institute noted on its online profile of the lawsuit that cities in recent years have begun enacting similar, restrictive “clean zone” ordinances to cater to mega-events like the Super Bowl.
Censored… by the NFL?
The city of Phoenix has given the #NFL the authority to censor signage on private property.
That's why we're suing the city of Phoenix for this unconstitutional attack on Phoenicians’ free speech rights:https://t.co/QeT7KtQ8pG
A Northern Arizona University (NAU) study declared that America needs to cooperate with China more for climate change.
The lead author of the study, Hubert Cheung, advocated for greater cooperation with the communist country. In addition to being adjunct faculty in NAU’s School of Earth and Sustainability, Cheung is part of the University of Tokyo in Japan as well as the University of Queensland in Australia. Cheung grew up in Hong Kong, China.
“We need to cooperate with China if we are to find effective solutions to climate change, for illegal wildlife trade, for sustainability transitions,” stated Cheung. “Understanding the Chinese leadership’s core strategic interests—and where political will already exists in Beijing to deliver on these strategic interests—will help conservation scientists and practitioners find opportunities and manage challenges.”
The paper’s abstract advocated for increasing China’s political power in order to advance sustainability and conservation. The paper went on to issue a defense of the Chinese government’s core interests, such as maintaining its current level of authority over its citizens and expanding its power onto the global stage.
“‘[A]n environmentally healthy and secure China can benefit the world, and this will only become more apparent over the course of the 21st century,’” stated the paper. “The scale and reach of China’s environmental footprint — and global geopolitical influence — is such that an exploration of its leadership’s political agenda and political will is valuable and timely for conservation.”
The other NAU researcher involved in the study, Duan Biggs, is also part of the same school as Cheung. Biggs indicated that sustainability efforts were the way to brokering a unified front between governments.
“The environment and conservation represent an opportunity for soft-diplomacy and for countries and societies to maintain dialogue and collaboration despite growing tension,” stated Biggs.
The only researcher hailing from a Chinese university was Tien Ming Lee. He’s a professor at the State Key Laboratory of Biological Control and Schools of Life Sciences and Ecology at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, China.
The other researchers hailed from Japan, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and South Africa.
The World Economic Forum (WEF), the leading organization attempting to create a new world order of global governance, identifies China as a leader in combating climate change on an international level. The WEF Global Future Council is also attempting to increase trust in China as a world leader.
Last year, China’s President Xi Jinping opened up the WEF’s annual meeting in Switzerland by calling on stronger international cooperation in overcoming COVID-19, revitalizing the economy, and addressing climate change. Jinping encouraged more open relations between all nations, not less.
“We should remove barriers, not erect walls. We should open up, not close off. We should seek integration, not de-couple,” said Jinping.
The WEF invented the social credit score system — similar to the one used by the Chinese government currently. China keeps a database on its citizens to ensure compliance with government interests.
CHINA – Staff no longer required this register recognises your face & the food and then deducts the price from your bank account.
But only if your social credit score is acceptable, dissidents wouldn’t be served.
A Scottsdale superintendent said that the white race is problematic, and that meritocracy is a lie.
These comments, and more, came from Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Superintendent Scott Menzel in a 2019 interview given while he was a superintendent in Michigan. His remarks remain in line with his current beliefs, based on local reporting on his performance in the district over the last two years.
“There’s a misperception that educational equity is really only for ethnically and racially diverse districts. But White people have racial identity as well, and in fact problematic racial identity that we typically avoid,” said Menzel.
Menzel advocated for dismantling the current educational system and replacing it with a system based on racial equity and calling out privilege.
“[White people] should feel really, really uncomfortable, because we perpetuate a system by ignoring the realities in front of us, and living in a mythological reality,” said Menzel. “In this country it’s about meritocracy. ‘Pull up yourself by your bootstraps, everybody has the same opportunity.’ And it’s a lie.”
Menzel said that the chaos of riots and public conflicts, such as the Charlottesville incident, affords “liberal progressive” actors such as himself “the opportunity to dismantle, disrupt, and recreate” society into a more socially just and equitable design. He noted that school funding shouldn’t be equal; rather, it should be equitable based on kids’ needs.
“[White supremacy is] in the very fabric of the way this country was established, and we’ve never righted the wrongs of the genocide of the indigenous population, and the enslavement of a population from Africa on which the wealth of this country was built,” said Menzel.
Arizona legislators decried the superintendent’s remarks as racist.
State Rep. Joseph Chaplik (R-LD03) said that Menzel should issue an apology and be terminated from his position immediately.
“The racist words and sentiments expressed by Scott Menzel have no place in education in Scottsdale or anywhere else,” said Chaplik.
The racist words and sentiments expressed by Scott Menzel have no place in education in Scottsdale or anywhere else.
I condemn his words, he owes parents and students an apology.
I also call on the SUSD governing board to immediately terminate him.https://t.co/7gA4Dp47Dn
Menzel became the SUSD superintendent in July 2020 amid the George Floyd riots. He was formerly a superintendent for various districts throughout Michigan: Washtenaw Intermediate School District, Livingston Educational Service Agency, and Whitmore Lake Public Schools. While at Washtenaw, Menzel was named Superintendent of the Year.
Just prior to becoming a superintendent, Menzel was the director of career development for a district in a county well known in conservative politics: Hillsdale County, home to Hillsdale College.
Menzel has long advocated for prioritizing equity and other social justice approaches to reforming education. While in Michigan, Menzel advanced efforts to institute social-emotional learning, race theories, and equity.
Menzel said in a 2015 equity panel that schools should have a “cradle to career education continuum,” resonant of the controversial “cradle-to-grave” approach former President Barack Obama proposed during his re-election campaign in 2012.
Before migrating to Arizona, Menzel was awarded with honors and positions of power defining educational standards.
In 2013, the White House honored Menzel as a YMCA Champion of Change, one of 12 nationwide to receive the honor. The following year, the Michigan Department of Education added Menzel to their Great Start Advisory Council, which defined policy issues on early childhood education.
SUSD has been mired in controversy since Menzel assumed leadership. Last year, the district posted the names of individuals online who submitted records requests, but redacted staff members’ names in response to those requests.
This policy concerning records requests occurred after media attention on SUSD’s past records requests. Last summer, SUSD provided a parent with blank patient intake forms for a Phoenix hormone and gender transition facility in response to a request concerning a high school librarian and the Gender & Sexualities Alliance (GSA) Club.
Menzel defended a staff member for discussing gender ideology with kindergarten and elementary students. Menzel accused upset parents of Civil Rights violations for speaking against the staff member’s actions. He also previously defended staff members who encouraged childhood exploration of gender and sexual identities through GSA clubs.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
