The right to an abortion will now be enshrined in the Arizona Constitution after voters approved a radical ballot measure on Tuesday night.
Proposition 139 passed in the Grand Canyon State, receiving over 61% of the vote as of Thursday night. It will create a “fundamental right” for abortion up to “fetal viability” and allows a baby’s life to be ended potentially up until birth.
Arizona for Abortion Access released a short statement on its social media platform after the outcome became clear, stating, “We did it! Arizona has overwhelmingly voted to protect abortion access! We proved, yet again, that Arizona is a state that values freedom and individual rights. Thank you to the thousands of voters, volunteers, and donors – this victory belongs to you.”
Pastor Eric Jones, who helped organize a large coalition of local faith leaders against Prop 139, bemoaned the result of the campaign in a statement posted to his Facebook account. Jones wrote, “While I mourn and lament over the passage of Prop 139, there remains a silver lining as over 700 Arizona Christian pastors crossed denominational and doctrinal lines to unite over this biblical issue and take a stand for the sanctity of human life. Our unity and willingness to stand together pleases the Lord. “How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity (Psalm 133:1)! And so, let us not grow weary in doing good and let us pray without ceasing. God, have mercy on us.”
Cathi Herrod, another pro-life advocate against this ballot measure, issued a warning about the effects of this amendment on her state, saying, “Arizona will come to regret passing Prop 139 – when girls and women lose their doctors and safeguards, when parents get shut out, when a staggering number of unborn lives end before they even begin, and when voters realize they have been lied to by proponents who would say anything to pass their extreme abortion amendment.”
Herrod added, “I suspect abortion activists know, and that is why they deceitfully lied to voters, telling them there was a ban – when there was no ban – and shamefully telling them women cannot get treatment for miscarriages without passing the proposition. Again, false. But Prop 139 was never about protecting women; it has always been about unregulated and unlimited abortion.”
For several decades, Arizona had been one of the most pro-life states in the country – largely thanks to Republican legislators, governors, and effective activists. Because of the constitutional amendment being passed by voters, a simple majority of the members of the state legislature would not be able to reform any of the policies enacted by the measure.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
With votes continuing to be tabulated in Arizona, Republicans appear to be tracking toward a return to power in one or both of the chambers in the state legislature.
Over the past two years, Arizona Republicans have narrowly controlled the state House and Senate, giving them the ability to hold Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs in check. Both major political parties poured significant resources into competitive seats over the past year to wrestle a majority for the next legislative session.
As of Wednesday night, Republicans are leading in 16 of the 30 contests for State Senate. Two of those races – District 2 (Shawnna Bolick) and District 4 (Carine Werner) are currently within 2,000 votes. Of the 14 seats that Democrats are leading, three – District 9 (Eva Burch), District 17 (John McLean), and District 23 (Brian Fernandez) – are also within 2,000 votes at this time.
On the House of Representatives side, as of Wednesday night, Republicans are leading in 32 of the 60 contests. Democrats have an advantage in the other 28 races. Results in District 2, 4, 9, 13, 16, 17, and 23 may be fluid in the coming days with additional votes being factored in the candidate’s respective favor.
Control of the legislature is vital to the agenda of the next two years, when Governor Hobbs will be facing re-election and working to enact more of her policy directives to demonstrate her value to the state. Should Democrats manage to win a majority of both the state House and Senate, Hobbs and her legislative allies would be able to pass left-leaning priorities and sign those into law. One of these targets would be the historic Empowerment Scholarship Accounts program, which has been under tremendous scrutiny and criticism by Hobbs and other Democrats since it was expanded during Republican Governor Doug Ducey’s administration a few years ago.
The winners of the campaigns for state House and Senate will be sworn in for the new legislative session in early January.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Two Arizona State Supreme Court justices survived competitive challenges to their retention to the judicial bench.
On Tuesday, state Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King won their retention elections. Both individuals had faced heightened challenges to their future service on the court.
Justice Bolick received 58.36% of the vote to retain, while Justice King obtained 59.43% to retain.
Bolick issued a statement after the outcome of his race was known, saying, “I am honored to have the opportunity to serve on the USA’s best state supreme court for another three years. I am beyond grateful for your votes, your support, and your prayers. This was so important to win to preserve an independent judiciary in AZ, and it appears we did so decisively. I couldn’t have better friends and colleagues!!”
The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry posted a statement of support for the results of these two elections. Its account wrote, “Congratulations to Arizona Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King on overwhelmingly being retained by Arizona voters despite partisan attempts to remove them from the bench. The Chamber was pleased to support these fair-minded and independent jurists.”
Congratulations to Arizona Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King on overwhelmingly being retained by Arizona voters despite partisan attempts to remove them from the bench. The Chamber was pleased to support these fair-minded and independent jurists. pic.twitter.com/8cihoqgA28
Bolick and King were appointed by former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey. Bolick received his appointment to the Arizona Supreme Court in 2016, while King obtained hers in 2021. Both justices served in the private sector as attorneys prior to making their journey to the state court.
According to the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review (JPR), both Bolick and King received extremely high marks to meet the standards on the merits of their decisions. The Commission “exists to provide meaningful and accurate information to the public for its use in voting on the justices and judges appointed to the bench through merit selection.” In his average of all evaluation categories, Bolick acquired 97% or greater. King had 90% and over for her categories. The JPR is used for voter recommendations for each cycle’s judicial retention elections.
For most voters in Arizona, judicial retention contests are often met with more apathy than any other selection(s) on their ballots. In recent elections, however, outside groups have put more of a target on judges for increased voter scrutiny, leading to the addition of Bolick and King with this year’s ballot choices. This was Bolick’s second retention election and King’s first.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
An attempt to transform Arizona’s elections systems on Tuesday night fell well short after voters went to the polls.
Proposition 140, which would have imposed a mixed system of Ranked Choice Voting and jungle primaries for future elections in Arizona, was defeated with almost 60% of the vote share, as of Wednesday evening.
“We are so grateful for the Arizonans who stood up to oppose this radical transformation of our elections systems,” said Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould, co-chairs of the No on Prop 140 Committee. “Voters of all political persuasions wisely concluded that Prop 140 would do irreparable harm to our state if enacted. Arizona elections must be free, fair, and transparent, and that is what our system remains after this just result.”
One of the measure’s fiercest opponents, Scot Mussi, the President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, praised the outcome. He said, “Prop 140 was one of the worst ideas to ever be proposed in our great state, and it is fitting that it met its demise from a vast majority of Arizonans. Radical leftists, out-of-state billionaires, and scheming consultants tried to hoodwink voters into adopting this failed system, spending millions of dollars and duplicating signatures to qualify for the ballot. We are so pleased that millions of Arizonans did their homework and said ‘hell no’ to, what would have been, a disastrous transformation of our elections system. California can keep their destructive policies and systems on their side of the state line.”
The organization behind Prop 140, Make Elections Fair Arizona, did not appear to issue a statement as of Wednesday on its website or social media platforms. Immediately following the close of polls on Tuesday night, its account promised to be “back online soon with an Election Day campaign update,” but that does not seem to have materialized yet.
In a Wednesday press release, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club highlighted the defeat of Ranked Choice Voting questions in several states in Tuesday’s General Election. Those results were as follows:
Colorado: Proposition 131 was defeated with almost 55% of the vote
Idaho: Proposition 1 was defeated with almost 70% of the vote
Montana: Both CI-126 & 127 were defeated
Oregon: Measure 117 was defeated with almost 60% of the vote
South Dakota: Amendment H was defeated with more than 65% of the vote
Nevada: Question 3 was defeated with almost 54% of the vote
Alaska: Measure 2, which repeals the state’s ranked choice voting system, appears headed toward passage
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Top financial officers from 17 states, 13 State Treasurers, one Commissioner of Revenue, and three state auditors, came together to issue a firm rebuke to members of Congress calling upon Fortune 1000 companies to “reaffirm their commitments to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).”
The letter, signed by Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee, stated, “We the undersigned are state financial officials responsible for state investment vehicles that hold ownership positions in your companies. We write concerning recent calls from Congressional members that your companies reaffirm their commitments to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). They commend DEI to you, claiming it is ‘good for business’ and ‘benefits employees, customers, and the bottom line.’ Significant evidence is mounting that precisely the opposite is true.”
DEI polices don’t prioritize the financial health or performance of a company. That’s why 17 state financial officers pushed back on woke Congressional members by encouraging Fortune 1,000 companies to remove DEI policies from their businesses.
— Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee (@AZTreasurerYee) October 30, 2024
Yee and her colleagues wrote in response to entreaties sent by a coalition of Democrat politicians, who wrote to the same firms in support of the radical-left DEI agenda. The Democrat coalition made unfounded claims that DEI programs create “a culture of equality” that “allows your companies to remain competitive,” as reported by the Daily Wire.
Jeremy Tedesco, Alliance Defending Freedom SVP of Corporate Engagement told the outlet:
“The divisive and discriminatory ideology at the root of DEI has caused some of our country’s most prominent companies, like Home Depot, Lowes, Ford, and Toyota, to pull back on their DEI programs. We should celebrate that and call on other companies to follow their lead. Sadly, some members of Congress have instead responded by urging companies to reaffirm their DEI commitments. Businesses should listen to their employees, customers, and shareholders, rather than politicians, and jettison DEI once and for all.”
The letter from the State Officers cites scholarly studies from Econ Journal Watch and Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance that sharply disprove the Democrats’ claims that corporate DEI efforts improve bottom line earnings and debunk the McKinsey studies upon which the agenda is based. They state, “The authors of the Econ Journal Watch article reported that they were ‘unable to quasireplicate’ the McKinsey studies’ results and admonished that ‘they should not be relied on to support the view that US publicly traded firms can expect to deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives.’”
The state officials highlighted key takeaways from a recent New York Times article for the industry leaders to consider when addressing the continuation of the controversial DEI measures: University student reactions and the birth of a “grievance culture,” and the delivery of a divisive culture as opposed to the goal of inclusivity. In a study that examined the University of Michigan’s DEI program as an exemplar of these policies, the author found in part:
“On campus, I met students with a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives. Not one expressed any particular enthusiasm for Michigan’s D.E.I. initiative. Where some found it shallow, others found it stifling. They rolled their eyes at the profusion of course offerings that revolve around identity and oppression, the D.E.I.-themed emails they frequently received but rarely read.”
The author noted, “Michigan’s D.E.I. efforts have created a powerful conceptual framework for student and faculty grievances — and formidable bureaucratic mechanisms to pursue them. Everyday campus complaints and academic disagreements, professors and students told me, were now cast as crises of inclusion and harm, each demanding some further administrative intervention or expansion.”
“Michigan’s own data suggests that in striving to become more diverse and equitable, the school has also become less inclusive: In a survey released in late 2022, students and faculty members reported a less positive campus climate than at the program’s start and less of a sense of belonging. Students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or religion or with different politics — the exact kind of engagement D.E.I. programs, in theory, are meant to foster.”
In the letter, the financial experts concluded that employees have widely expressed the same views of DEI programs with a Freedom at Work Survey conducted by Ipsos and released by Viewpoint Diversity Score, finding that 40% of respondents said the policies divide rather than unite the workplace. They added that legal exposure is also possible as Chief Justice Roberts observed, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Adding that the race-based theories and practices baked-into DEI programs “fly in the face of our colorblind Constitution and our Nation’s equality ideal.”
A recent release from the Northeast Arizona Native Democrats has raised concerns about the ethical and legal considerations involved with partisan operatives helping voters fill out and mail in their ballots.
According to the release from Northeast Arizona Native Democrats, the group held a “Ballots, Stew & Socks event,” in Sawmill, AZ, a village on the Navajo reservation described as “a remote, census-designated area in the Navajo Nation,” boasting a population of less than 800.
The Democrat group explained their mission writing:
“In that small town, our team was able to engage with over 50 voters, some who had traveled far distances, and helped them fill out and mail their ballots on time.
While in Sawmill, we were joined by a truck-load of Pinon Pickers who shared a bowl of stew with us, while talking about the issues they care about. After this engaging, inspiring conversation, they thanked us for the information we provided and committed to voting early.”
The question of legality for holding an event to assist in mailing ballots, such as the Sawmill effort, could be unlawful under A.R.S. 16-1005(H), which states: “A person who knowingly collects voted or unvoted early ballots from another person is guilty of a class 6 felony. An election official, a United States postal service worker or any other person who is allowed by law to transmit United States mail is deemed not to have collected an early ballot if the official, worker or other person is engaged in official duties.”
As the event appeared on Facebook, it advertised: “Free Meal, Warm Socks, Voter Info.” This could potentially run afoul of A.R.S. 16-1005(C), which states, “It is unlawful to receive or agree to receive any consideration in exchange for a voted or unvoted ballot. A person who violates this subsection is guilty of a class 5 felony.”
Recent legal battles have been fought pertaining to everything from providing food and water to voters as they wait in line, to Elon Musk’s efforts to forward a petition by offering a $1 million giveaway each day until the election with winners chosen from the signatories.
However, specifically in Arizona and under Arizona law, these electioneering efforts carried out in the Navajo community by the Democratic party could prove to be illegal if challenged.
