The Arizona Democratic Party (ADP) rejected Gov. Katie Hobbs’ pick to lead the state party on Saturday.
Chairing the party will be Yolanda Bejarano, a longtime union organizer who’d been serving as ADP’s vice chair. Hobbs’ pick was Maricopa County Supervisor Steve Gallardo, who also served as a member of her transition team. Bejarano won in a landslide, receiving 70 percent of over 600 state party committee member votes.
AZ Free News reported in December that Hobbs’ endorsement of Gallardo indicated a party divide. The governor issued multiple public endorsements in the weeks leading up to the election.
In 2022 I was elected Arizona’s first Democratic governor in 15 years – and in 2024 we have the once in a lifetime opportunity to flip the legislature blue for the first time in decades.
Altogether, Bejarano boasted a lengthy list of top party leader endorsements, including: Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ); Reps. Greg Stanton (D-AZ-04), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ-03), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ-07); Secretary of State Adrian Fontes; Attorney General Kris Mayes; State Reps. Athena Salman (D-LD08), Analise Ortiz (D-LD24), Leezah Sun (D-LD22); State Sens. Anna Hernandez (D-LD24), Juan Mendez (D-LD08); Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cazares-Kelly; Phoenix City Vice Mayor Yassamin Ansari and Council Members Betty Guardado and Carlos Garcia; former Reps. Ann Kirkpatrick, Tom O’Halleran, and Gabby Giffords.
By comparison, Gallardo’s endorsements featured a smattering of unions and mostly former leaders from the state legislature and party. Present leadership that endorsed Gallardo included the Arizona Education Association; State Reps. Jennifer Longdon (D-LD05), Consuelo Hernandez (D-LD21), Minority Whip Marcelino Quiñonez (D-LD11), and Amish Shah (D-LD05).
Incredibly proud to have the support of these Arizona Democratic leaders. Together, we’re building a state party that leaves no one behind. I hope you’ll join them in supporting me for #ADPChairpic.twitter.com/ctcZ9Thh7X
However, Hobbs opted to congratulate all elected for the ADP board rather than acknowledging Bejarano’s win individually.
Congrats to the newly elected @azdemparty board – I look forward to partnering with them and @a_dlcc over the next 2 years to win back our US House & Senate seats, deliver our electoral votes for Pres. Biden again, and flip the legislature blue.
Hobbs later issued a tweet thanking former ADP chair, State Senate Minority Leader Raquel Terán (D-LD30), for her past two years of leadership. She credited Terán for helping her secure the governorship, but omitted Bejarano entirely.
“Together, we won the 9th floor for the first time in 15 years and I look forward to all that you will do in Senate leadership fighting alongside me,” said Hobbs.
So grateful for the amazing work and leadership from @RaquelTeran these past 2 years.
Together, we won the 9th floor for the first time in 15 years and I look forward to all that you will do in Senate leadership fighting alongside me. https://t.co/2BggPZngl1
With Bejarano at the helm, the ADP plans on flipping the state legislature next year. Republicans have held a consistently slim majority over the past four years: 16 Republicans to 14 Democrats in the Senate, and 31 Republicans to 29 Democrats in the House, the lowest in decades. The GOP majority began slipping from a recent high point in 2011, when it had 21 members to Democrats’ nine in the Senate and 40 members to Democrats’ 20 in the House.
Other board members are: Rick McGuire, treasurer; Lisa Sanor, secretary; Paul Eckerstrom, first vice chair; Sierra Yamanaka, senior vice chair; vice chairs April Ignacio, Brianna Westbrook, Deydrek Scott, Lupe Conchas, Shanna Leonard, and William Knight.
Congratulations to the new board of the @azdemparty! It’s time to win more elections, serve, and bring our communities together. We look forward to your leadership. pic.twitter.com/QmLhTeXdXo
The Arizona Department of Education (ADE) is eliminating social-emotional learning and other “woke” initiatives from its administration, with an eye on barring it from schools entirely.
ADE Superintendent Tom Horne explained his vision during an interview with “The Conservative Circus” on Thursday. Horne said that leftist agenda initiatives took away critical funding from teacher salaries.
“The money should be going to teachers’ salaries, and not, as we say, ‘woke’ ideology,” said Horne.
Tom Horne, AZ Superintendent of Public Instruction, discusses the elimination of emotional learning training along https://t.co/ML7GQVsO36
Horne said that social-emotional learning, sexualized curriculum, and critical race theory (CRT) had nothing to do with academics.
“The nonsense is producing the low test scores. If we focus on academics, we can bring the test scores back up,” said Horne.
Arizona students have struggled to perform well in tests over the last few years: a sharp downturn in achievement from forced school closures amid the pandemic following years of general decline.
Last October, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) revealed in a report that students suffered severe learning losses in math and nominal losses in reading due to the COVID-19 shutdowns. In September, ADE revealed that a majority of Arizona students were still failing the statewide assessment.
In response to critics alleging Horne operated out of racial animosity, Horne disavowed claims of racism and noted that he’s been a longtime supporter of Civil Rights. Horne participated in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s March on Washington in 1963.
Horne’s first moves in office included purging ADE of initiatives by former Superintendent Kathy Hoffman: sex chat rooms for minors, such as “Queer Chat”; the division on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI); and references to social-emotional learning.
“The word ‘equity’ in common-use of the English language is a very positive word,” said Horne. “But what they’ve done with Critical Race Theory is they’ve made it into a negative word: it is the desire that we have equal outcomes by racial groups which doesn’t recognize individual merit. I believe in individual merit.”
The Office of EDI contained the Office of Indian Education (OIE), which administered federal and state program resources for Native American students;
As part of ADE’s annual conference that began on Wednesday and concludes Friday, ADE eliminated presentations on social-emotional learning and racial trauma, as well as diversity and equity.
ADE spokesman Doug Nick said that these events didn’t address core academic issues: namely reading, science, and math. Nick said that teachers tell ADE that they oppose prioritizing SEL in the classroom.
“[Teachers] disagree with being compelled to use social-emotional learning curriculum instead of teaching core subjects,” said Nick.
During his campaign, Horne declared “war” on CRT and other “woke” curriculum championed by former Superintendent Kathy Hoffman.
“[CRT is] venal racism, and its war against merit and achievement, which if not stopped, will make us a third world country,” stated Horne.
There are two reasons I want to take office to fight CRT: its venal racism, and its war against merit and achievement, which if not stopped, will make us a third world country.Visit https://t.co/3hsKA2QKwf click donate now in the upper right hand side of web page. Thank you!
The Tucson Unified School District (TUSD) is violating state and federal law by making it too difficult for its employees to leave a labor union, according to a Jan. 18 letter sent to district officials by the Goldwater Institute.
Parker Jackson, staff attorney with the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute, advised TUSD Superintendent Dr. Gabriel Trujillo that a review of five collective bargaining agreements revealed “alarming restrictions” which infringe on the rights of district employees.
“We request that the District immediately act to bring these agreements and policies and practices made pursuant to them into compliance with federal and state law,” Jackson wrote to Trujillo and the district’s governing board.
At issue are memoranda of understanding (MOU) which TUSD has entered into with four labor organizations: the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local 449, AFL-CIO (“AFSCME”); the Communications Workers of America (“CWA”); Educational Leaders, Inc. (“ELI”); and the Tucson Education Association (“TEA”) with which there are two agreements.
TUSD employees may freely join a union at any time, but an employee covered by one of the five agreements must receive authorization from union bosses before district officials will process a request to resign from the union. This is unlawful, Jackson wrote, as it restricts when an employee may terminate their union membership and halt union dues deductions from their paychecks.
And then there is the issue of deduction revocation windows and/or deadlines which Jackson’s letter says do not comport with federal or state law. District policies and practices further exacerbate the unconstitutional activity.
For instance, the MOU with AFSCME—which Jackson calls “the worst of the five agreements”—restricts membership cancellation and dues deduction revocations to only two weeks per year, from May 1 to May 15. Similarly, the CWA agreement only permits cancellation of membership and dues deductions in July, while the other MOUs have comparable revocation restrictions.
This often results in an employee revoking their consent to union membership, only to have TUSD continue to deduct dues from each paycheck until the next opt-out period commences or the current membership year ends.
“This is not only unfair and predatory—it is also unconstitutional,” Jackson contends. “An employee revocation is obviously evidence that an employee does not affirmatively consent to pay union dues.”
Jackson’s letter to Trujillo cites Arizona’s Right to Work laws, the U.S. and Arizona constitutions, and various court cases in making its arguments.
“In order to prevent ongoing and future unconstitutional activity, the District must immediately revoke or revise any MOU provision that includes a union dues opt-out period and any requirement that a labor union must approve an employee’s request to stop the deduction of union dues,” Parker wrote. “The District must also revise any policy and procedure that imposes these unconstitutional conditions.”
The Goldwater Institute, which is dedicated to upholding the constitutional rights of all citizens, is a public policy and public interest litigation organization. It frequently initiates lawsuits when government entities do not voluntarily change conduct.
“The Goldwater Institute will always defend the constitutional right of all citizens to associate—or not associate—with whatever private organizations they choose,” Parker said after making the TUSD letter public. “Restrictive dues deduction revocation windows and deadlines, of course, are designed to make it difficult for people to leave powerful labor organizations. Fortunately, the U.S. and Arizona constitutions protect workers and prohibit the school district and the unions’ money grab.”
Terri Jo Neff is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or send her news tips here.
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.
