by Daniel Stefanski | Sep 16, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Maricopa County political races are essentially in a dead heat with less than two months until Election Day.
Earlier this month, Noble Predictive Insights (NPI) released its survey on Maricopa County races, showing Republicans and Democrats locked in a tight battle for all races.
According to NPI, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s race was tied with Republican Jerry Sheridan and Democrat Tyler Kamp tied at thirty-five percent each, with twenty-four percent undecided. Kamp has a twelve percent lead with independents, with thirty-six percent of that voting share undecided.
Incumbent Republican Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell leads Democrat Tamika Wooten by two percent (37-35%), with twenty-one percent undecided. Wooten has a ten percent lead with independents, with twenty-nine percent of that voting share undecided.
Democrat Gregory Freeman might be the frontrunner in the Maricopa County Assessor’s race, with a three-point advantage over incumbent Republican Eddie Cook (36-33%). There is twenty-six percent undecided in this race. Freeman holds a fifteen-point lead over Cook with independents, with forty percent undecided.
And in the Maricopa County Recorder’s contest, Democrat Tim Stringham leads Republican Justin Heap by four percent (38-34%), with twenty-two percent undecided. Stringham enjoys a fifteen percent lead over Heap with independents, with thirty-five percent of that voting share undecided.
“These races are incredibly close. In each one, the leading candidate is ahead by a low single-digit margin. With a high number of undecideds and more than two months between fielding this poll and Election Day – this poll just doesn’t point to a clear winner,” said Mike Noble, NPI President & CEO. “But historical data might tell us more.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Sep 16, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
A growing number of Arizona pastors are joining together to stand in opposition to a ballot measure that would amend the state constitution to allow abortion on demand.
This month, Pastor Eric Jones of Evident Life Church in Gilbert, announced that there were almost 700 faith leaders who signed the Declaration of Arizona Pastors in Defense of Voiceless Children and Vulnerable Women.
In July, Jones wrote, “Last August, after hearing about the horrific ‘Arizona Abortion Access Act’ (now called Prop 139) which would legalize abortion for all nine months, I felt the Lord calling me to do something. This declaration and the growing coalition of Arizona pastors is the result.”
The Declaration reads as follows:
“To save the lives of innocent children, to protect the health of women, to help people avoid a terrible regret, and to show love to our neighbors, we, as Christian pastors in Arizona, declare the following:
- Whereas every human life is valuable because every human life, born and pre-born, is wonderfully made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27; Psalm 139:13-14).
- Whereas abortion is the ending of an innocent human life, and results in danger and hurt towards women (Exodus 21:22-25; Genesis 9:6).
- Whereas the church is here to compassionately serve and support vulnerable women (1 John 3:18, Psalm 82:3-4).
- Whereas abortion is not a political issue, but a biblical and moral one (Mark 12:17).
- Whereas effort is underway to change the Arizona Constitution to allow children to be aborted during all nine months of development in the womb.
The undersigned Arizona pastors urge every person to refuse to provide a signature to put the ‘Arizona Abortion Access Act’ (Prop 139) on the ballot and should also vote against the Act, or any similar measure, if it appears on the ballot (Proverbs 6:16-17, Ephesians 5:11).”
According to the Declaration’s website, the purpose of this document and statewide effort is “designed to unify Arizona Christian pastors around the sanctity of human life while providing a clear voice against the proposed ‘Arizona Abortion Access Act’ (Prop 139).” The website shares that, per an analysis from an attorney, “the amendment is written so broadly that it allows unlimited abortion up to birth, removes most safety standards, eliminates the required qualified medical doctor, gives broad leeway to who can provide abortions, shuts out moms and dads when their minor daughter needs them most, shields sex offenders who force their victims to get abortions to cover their crimes, opens the door to taxpayer funded abortions, [and] threatens conscience protections for healthcare workers.”
Arizona voters will get an opportunity to decide the fate of the Abortion Access Act in November’s General Election.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Sep 15, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) is demanding an investigation into an alleged misuse of taxpayer funds by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.
AFEC published a press release on Tuesday accusing Fontes of misusing taxpayer funds by filing a “politically motivated” brief in the ongoing Arizona Supreme Court case, Smith v. Fontes. The organization also requested that Fontes recuse himself from all ballot tabulation procedures concerning the other initiatives.
“By filing his brief at the Arizona Supreme Court, Fontes unequivocally signaled his position that 40,000 duplicate signatures should be ignored and counted in favor of passing Proposition 140,” said AFEC in its press release. “In short, to Fontes, the ends justify the means to ensure that Arizona’s elections system can be operated like California’s radical system.”
AFEC and other critics compare the components within Proposition 140 to current election procedures exercised by California.
Proposition 140 seeks to remove the partisan split in primary voting — instead implementing open, or “jungle,” primaries — and determine winners using ranked-choice voting. Ranked-choice voting allows voters to rank their preferred candidates each election until one candidate accrues over 50 percent of the vote.
That claim of political motivation stems from Fontes’ role as a “team member” for the nonprofit organization (Save Democracy) supporting the political action committee (Make Elections Fair Arizona) pushing Proposition 140. Those two entities are also united by the involvement of Sarah Smallhouse as their president and treasurer, respectively: a longtime Democrat donor from Tucson who served as leadership for a University of Arizona board and the Southern Arizona Leadership Council.
Fontes’ brief petitioned the court to count any votes cast for Proposition 140, even if the ongoing review of the ballot-qualifying signatures determined that there weren’t enough signatures gathered. Fontes argued that the proposition should be considered valid since the ballots were already being printed with the contested proposition on them.
“Once the ballots have gone to print, it is in the hands of Arizona’s voters,” said Fontes. “The person contesting an issue (or candidate) can make a case to the voters, but the Courts cannot usurp the voters’ decision once it goes to them.”
AFEC sued to stop Proposition 140 earlier this summer after reportedly discovering that over half of the gathered signatures were in violation of state law — around 40,000 duplicates. Should all those alleged duplicate signatures be removed, the proposition would lack the number of signatures required to qualify for the ballot.
AFEC President Scot Mussi said in a statement that Fontes’ brief amounted to the secretary of state taking a side in a ballot measure rather than maintaining an impartial role in the elections process.
“Far from acting as a fair and impartial elections chief, Fontes has officially taken a side in a controversial measure that would be potentially on the ballot, showing Arizonans that he is using taxpayer dollars to make the case for a California-style amendment that would fundamentally transform the way we vote and select our candidates for public office,” said Mussi. “This is not saving democracy; this is trampling the will of the people and the laws that govern how elections should be executed.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 15, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Payson Town Council’s August decision to incur a $70 million debt via a bond measure approved without a public referendum has triggered a lawsuit from concerned residents with the assistance of the Goldwater Institute. Goldwater is assisting resident Deborah Rose to challenge the measure despite the Town’s claimed legal pretext of an “emergency” to counter efforts from the public to stop it.
John Thorpe, a Goldwater attorney representing Deborah explained, “Our leaders want our money, but not our vote. They’re trying to take advantage of legal loopholes to saddle their own constituents with tens of millions of dollars of debt, systematically stripping power from the people by ignoring laws and twisting their truths.”
As noted by the Payson Roundup, the lawsuit seeks to block the bond resolution by arguing that no legal emergency actually exists. However, the outlet reported Payson Town Attorney Jon Paladini scoffed at the lawsuit as “specious,” and claimed it would be dismissed quickly. He told the outlet, “Bottom line is that the courts are prohibited from second guessing a legislative body like the council — a slew of cases tell us that. It’s about as close to being frivolous as we’ve seen.”
The use of the city’s emergency clause with a 6-1 vote forced the bond sale into immediate effect and brushed aside the typical 30-day period voters would have to gather signatures to force a vote.
The alleged justification for the “emergency” comes from speculation that at an upcoming meeting of the Federal Reserve, the Fed is expected to reduce interest rates by a quarter or half-point which would lower the interest rates the town would pay.
Thorpe argued that, “Government officials’ efforts to time the market, based on pure speculation about financial trends, is not an ‘emergency,’” and added that this use of the “emergency clause” violates the Arizona constitutional right to organize a referendum and vote on it.
“The so-called ‘emergency’ here is nothing more than town officials’ apparent belief that interest rates might rise in coming months, and that they’ll secure slightly better municipal bond terms now than they could in 30 days if they gave residents the opportunity to organize a referendum,”
He wrote, “When the council approved the bond measure, it slipped in an ’emergency clause,’ stating that the measure would go into effect immediately, without letting residents who might oppose the measure organize a referendum and put the issue to a vote. But the Arizona Constitution guarantees the right of referendum: the right of Arizonans to circulate petitions and refer bills, ordinances, and resolutions for a popular vote. It’s a cornerstone of democratic accountability in Arizona, and it means that the people—not politicians—have the last word in state and local government.
The Payson Town Council is trying to bypass that safeguard and short-circuit the democratic process using a legal loophole: a narrow exception allowing cities and towns to enact emergency measures without waiting for a referendum when such measures are ‘necessary for the immediate preservation of the peace, health or safety of the city or town.’ The so-called ’emergency’ here is nothing more than town officials’ apparent belief that interest rates might rise in coming months, and that they’ll secure slightly better municipal bond terms now than they could in 30 days if they gave residents the opportunity to organize a referendum.”
Paladini maintains that the bond sale measure meets the emergency clause designation and therefore the bonds for such general town projects as “a community and swim center, hiking trails and trailheads, covered event center to lure conventions,” and “upgrades to Main Street to create a business and entertainment district,” “improvements to streets and to public facilities like the police station and fire stations,” according to the Roundup, all constitute “emergency” spending. As noted in the Roundup, nearly all bond sales rely upon the “emergency clause” to sidestep the possibility of blocking them through referendum.
Should the Goldwater lawsuit succeed, it would enforce the standard that voters can in fact challenge bond measures as intended under the Arizona Constitution.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by Staff Reporter | Sep 14, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Attorney General Kris Mayes has been asked to investigate the city of Surprise over its alleged violation of one citizen’s free speech rights.
Republican State Senator John Kavanagh sent a letter to Mayes on Tuesday requesting an investigation into the arrest of a Surprise citizen after criticizing the city attorney during a city council meeting last month. The arrested citizen, Rebekah Massie, sued the city of Surprise last week with the aid of Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
Mayor Skip Hall, who ordered Massie’s removal, cited city policy prohibiting public comment from lodging any “charges or complaints” against city employees or elected officials.
State law requires the attorney general to investigate local governmental ordinances, regulations, orders, or other official actions alleged to be in violation of the state law or Arizona Constitution. Under this law, Mayes’ office would have to issue a written report of their findings within 30 days of receiving the investigation request.
In a press release, Kavanagh claimed that the city of Surprise had violated both state law and the Constitution with Massie’s arrest.
“In Arizona statutes, we have a provision that specifically says, ‘[a] public body may make an open call to the public during a public meeting, subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions, to allow individuals to address the public body on any issue within the jurisdiction of the public body,’” said Kavanagh. “Protecting freedom of speech, especially in public government settings, is incredibly important to our democracy. Regardless of where they stand, members of the public deserve the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns to city leaders.”
Kavanagh’s letter to Mayes asked the attorney general’s office to investigate whether the city of Surprise’s policy restricting public speech by prohibiting complaints against city employees and elected officials violates the Arizona Constitution and state law governing public comment within public meetings.
Were Mayes to determine that the city of Surprise’s public comment policy violates state law or the Arizona Constitution, her office would provide notice to the city by mail of its violation and give the city a 30-day deadline to resolve the violation. Should the city fail to resolve the violation, Mayes would notify the state treasurer to withhold and redistribute state shared funds.
Or, were Mayes to determine that the city’s public comment policy may violate certain state law or the Arizona Constitution, the attorney general would file a special action in the state Supreme Court to seek a resolution. The court would then require the city to post a bond equal to the amount of state shared revenues paid to the city in the last six months.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 14, 2024 | Economy, News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Common Sense Institute of Arizona (CSI) released a report Wednesday which outlines the implications and economic impact of the City of Glendale’s far-reaching “Hotel and Event Center Minimum Wage Protection Act” (Prop 499). The act is set to be considered by voters on November 5.
The initiative, launched by the non-profit organization “Worker Power Political Action Committee,” has been challenged by the City of Glendale on the basis that it violates the State of Arizona’s “Single Subject Rule” limiting initiatives to act upon a single issue, The case is now headed to the State Supreme Court according to AZ Central.
The report from CSI Arizona details that the initiative, if it becomes law, would mandate that hotel and event center employers pay their staff a minimum of $20 per hour, and places narrow restrictions on the duties they may perform and the duration for which they may perform them. As Brunner explains, “For example, it prescribes how many square feet can be cleaned in a hotel before the employer is required to pay twice the room attendants’ regular rate of pay for each hour worked during that workday, and establishes new requirements on how Hotel and Accommodation firms treat certain revenues and records.”
The act would furthermore require the City of Glendale to create an entirely new enforcement division in order to enforce the mandate and hire staff to conduct investigations. It would also price non-union labor out of the market per the report.
The CSI found that the new law, if enacted, would, “reduce Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Glendale by between $120 million and $1.9 billion.” Given that the city’s event and accommodation industries account for approximately 8.2% of Glendale’s entire economy, the blow to the city’s tax base could be severe.
“Depending on how the industry responds to the new policies, between 1,700 and 32,000 Glendale jobs could be impacted. Impacts will range from the elimination of existing jobs subject to the new rules, to reduced work hours, to the movement of jobs outside the city. How much of each and when will determine where things fall in this range.”
In a post to X, the CSI explained, “The Minimum Wage Act would impose significant costs on the city of Glendale, requiring the creation of a new Department of Labor Standards to enforce the Act’s provisions. CSI estimates the city would need to spend $995,000 to $1.9 million annually to manage these new requirements.”
Compellingly, the CSI report referecnces similar policies put in place around the country as “instructive examples,” of the likely ramifications of enacting the restrictive law.
“This year California instituted a $20 per hour minimum wage for fast food workers leading restaurant owners to reduce staff hours, lay off part-time staffers, and limit overtime pay. Also this year, Long Beach, CA passed a ballot initiative instituting a $23 per hour minimum wage for hotel workers. On the consideration of increasing hotel and airport workers’ minimum wage to $25 per hour, the President of the Valley Industry and Commerce Association said ‘increasing the hourly wage by $6 or $7 this year alone could cost an employer about $14,000 more per worker.’ For Arizona to pass a $20 minimum wage for hotel and event center workers in Glendale, it could cost employers up to $10,756 per affected worker -through a combination of either direct increased wage costs or efficiency losses as employers mitigate the impacts by reducing staff, cutting hours, or moving business activity. Much of this cost will likely be passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices and increased fees (as has been the case in California). This may further incentivize both customers and operators to seek alternatives outside the city.”
With Glendale and the city’s businesses banking heavily on the much ballyhooed Mattel Adventure Park at the VAI Resort set to open in late 2024, according to a park representative, and the growing impact of the Westgate Entertainment District and State Farm Arena on the local economy, the impacts of this measure could be devastating.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
