by Matthew Holloway | Aug 13, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Speaking with KTAR’s Jim Sharpe and Jayme West last week, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes openly attacked the Arizona Free Enterprise Club after the group successfully fought to strip away rules from the 2023 Elections Procedures Manual (EPM). The very next day, AFEC President Scott Mussi responded.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jennifer Ryan-Touhill ruled that Fontes’ 2023 EPM contained speech restrictions that violated the Arizona Constitution, as well as misstatements and modifications of statutes, and failures to identify distinctions between guidance and legal mandates.
Fontes began by immediately mischaracterizing the lawsuit from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club saying, “First and foremost, I’m going to break a rule and talk about pending litigation. Usually I don’t, but this is important and this manual, the Elections Procedures Manual is promulgated by the Secretary of State every two years. And the rules that are in question right now are guidelines basically for elections workers, for election administrators across the state. And they do in this section particularly help to protect them and voters from harassment and intimidation, specifically using language like blocking the entrance to a voting location. Also, following voters or poll workers coming or leaving voting locations, including to or from their vehicles.
This is some of the language that we put in there, which was also in the 2019 manual, by the way, that the Free Enterprise Club wanted to block and they have now blocked. It is as if the Free Enterprise Club wants voters to get followed to and from their vehicles to polling locations. It is as if the Free Enterprise Club is okay with this.
Check this, they had this blocked by the judge too, intentionally disseminating false or misleading information at voting locations. So is the Free Enterprise Club want people to be lied to?”
Jayme West asked, “But that’s free speech, right? Yeah.”
Fontes answered with a rebuke to the First Amendment, “Is it when you are inside of the 75-foot zone? Look, not all speech is protected. Every American knows this. You can’t yell fire…” he began to quote a classic legal fallacy.
As reported by Reason, the origin of this legal theory came from an analogy written in the 1919 case Schenk v. United States. That ruling was later overturned in 1969 by Brandenburg v. Ohio.
As Reason’s Emma Camp cited, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression President Greg Lukianoff, wrote, “Anyone who says ‘you can’t shout fire! in a crowded theatre’ is showing that they don’t know much about the principles of free speech, or free speech law—or history. This old canard, a favorite reference of censorship apologists, needs to be retired. It’s repeatedly and inappropriately used to justify speech limitations.”
Host Jim Sharpe put the conversation back on track though, “You’re not allowed the electioneer within those 75 feet.”
“That’s exactly right.” Fontes said. “But what the Free Enterprise Club is doing is chipping away at a long established statutes. They’re chipping away at our ability to help the folks out there in our 15 counties regulate the behavior during election seasons. They basically want someone to be able to come up and scream and yell at voters as they’re standing in line to vote.”
West pushed back on the Secretary though, “But not necessarily about the election or electioneering. I mean you could just be yelling at somebody, right? It doesn’t have to be about the specific election itself right?” Fontes began to argue with her, “Is that how we want our voters to be treated? “ “No, I’m just saying not…” she began when Fontes cut her off. “That’s why I have…” But West continued, “not considered electioneering.”
Fontes continued saying, “…why I’m going to fight like heck to make sure that we have peaceful processes so that our voters are treated with dignity during this incredibly important point in time. Because here’s the deal, you have to stand in line in some circumstances and because the regulation is that you have to be in line, the government is forcing you to be in that line. You should be protected while you’re in that line to vote.
He then directly attacked the Arizona Free Enterprise Club claiming, “So the Free Club is basically saying, we want chaos, we want lies. We want people to be able to block entrances to voting locations. That’s what the Free Enterprise Club is saying. By asking for this order, I’m going to fight tooth and nail against this nonsense. So the next steps, as you asked, we have the capacity to appeal. Our lawyers are working on it right now. I’m going to protect every voter. I don’t care if you’re in Sun City, east Mesa or in Holbrook. I’m going to do everything I can to make this process peaceful and reasonable.”
The very next morning, Sharpe and West invited Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scott Mussi to answer Fontes’ bold-faced politically-driven attack.
“Jim, Jamie, thanks for having me on this morning. These claims being made by Secretary of State Fontes are just outrageous, and it’s ridiculous that he’s attacking and maligning our organization, our 15,000 supporters and activists throughout here in the state of Arizona. Our donors, who he made veiled attacks saying that people should stop supporting our organization because of this ruling. We filed this lawsuit because simply put, Adrian Fontes included language in his Election Procedures Manual that exceeded its statute and was unconstitutionally overbroad. It constrained speech rights.
He’s citing things that simply, there’s already statutes and we didn’t challenge any specific statute. We challenged the language in the procedures manual itself and the language in the manual cannot rewrite state law, cannot create new laws, and there’s laws against the things that he’s describing. The things that we sued over are things dealing with speech constraints where he included vague language that’s undefined that could be used against people that are trying to simply engage in their First Amendment rights at poll locations.”
Sharpe asked Mussi, “So would you be okay with some of the provisions in the Election Procedures Manual that you’ve asked to have removed if they were worded in a more precise manner?”
Mussi replied, “The section of the Election Procedures Manual that we sued over included, again, as I mentioned before, vague language if it’s drafted in a way that’s consistent with what state law is or what statute is. And again, for example, he’s talking about blocking people. That’s against state law. You can’t do that. And that goes beyond even what’s really to an election. For example, nobody could show up at your guys’ radio station and block your ability to go to your vehicle. There’s already statutes against harassing other people. You can’t do those things. But that’s not what is Election Procedures Manual in the section that we were challenging does. Again, it includes language that says that if you raise your voice or say things that are offensive and these things are undefined, and if these things are enforced, you can be not only kicked out of the polling location, but you can be prosecuted.
The irony of all of this is that in the public ranting that Adrian Fontes is engaging in, where he is raising his voice, something could say or engaging a language that many people could find offensive, especially when he’s maligning our organization. Ironically, it could be used against him to kick him out of a polling location. It is bizarre. I think that the judge was correct. I would encourage everybody to read the ruling that the judge issued yesterday or earlier this week outlining this because it’s very clear these terms that he included in the Election Procedures Manual are overly broad. They infringe on people’s constitutional rights to engage in the election process.”
West sought some clarification from Mussi asking, “I asked him, I said, is it just an issue of it being the language being too broad? But he said that specifically your organization, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, wants to make it okay to harass voters waiting to cast ballots at polling places.”
He answered, “And again, those comments and claims are outrageous and only vindicates that we were correct in filing this lawsuit.”
“We’re not just talking about just some individual. He is the top election officer here in the state of Arizona who’s now again, maligning and attacking our organization, our 15,000 activists and supporters throughout the state of Arizona. And we’re supposed to believe that he’s not now going to use this vague language that he included in the Election Procedures Manual to impinge on people’s First Amendment rights to engage in the political process.
And again, just based on his own behavior, he violated his own guidelines within his Election Procedures Manual. Or it could be interpreted that way. And that’s the problem because somebody does have a First Amendment right. If Adrian Fontes wants to show up at a polling location and complain that he lost a lawsuit to the Free Enterprise Club and say the same mistruths and lies that he said on your radio program, he does have a First Amendment right to do that.”
When reminded of the 75-foot barrier for electioneering under the law by Sharpe, Mussi added, “That’s correct. That’s another thing too that he said was factually wrong. He was talking about people. It’s against state law to go within the 75-foot parameters and election area. The Election Procedures Manual can’t change any of those statutes. And we weren’t challenging statutes. We were challenging this vague and overbroad and unconstitutional language that he included in the Election Procedures Manual.”
According to KTAR, Fontes said that his office plans to appeal the ruling and is hoping to expedite the request citing the general election being just three months away. In her scathing ruling, Judge Touhill called the EPM provisions “overbroad” and “unenforceable.”
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 Matthew Holloway | Aug 13, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Merissa Hamilton, the Executive Director of Kari Lake’s organization Save Arizona Fund and Co-founder and CEO of Strong Communities Action, notched a victory against Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer in his ongoing defamation lawsuit against Lake.
The lawsuit overall is continuing to move forward with Richer stating through his complaint that he has faced “violent vitriol and other dire consequences,” due to what he calls lies spread by Lake, according to the Associated Press. In an op-ed he wrote for the Arizona Republic, Richer said, “Rather than accept political defeat, rather than get a new job, she has sought to undermine confidence in our elections and has mobilized millions of her followers against me.”
In the course of this case, Richer’s attorneys subpoenaed Hamilton, who is not a party to the lawsuit, and compelled her compliance to provide documents for the case. According to court documentation, “Hamilton informed Plaintiff’s counsel she had copied over 100,000 documents. As was her right under A.R.S. § 12-351, Hamilton insisted on payment of reasonable costs at the time of production.” Hamilton assessed her costs to be $32,345.50.
Per A.R.S. § 12-351, ‘All reasonable costs incurred in a civil action by a witness who is not a party to the action with respect to the production of documents pursuant to a subpoena for the production of documentary evidence shall be charged against the party requesting the subpoena if the witness submits an itemized statement to the requesting party stating the reproduction and clerical costs incurred by the witness.” It also allows a witness to “demand payment of the reasonable costs simultaneously with actual delivery of the subpoenaed documents.”
Rachel Alexander of the Arizona Sun Times reported via X, “MaRICOpa(sic) County Recorder Stephen Richer just got smacked down by a left wing judge; ordered to pay Merissa Hamilton $25,345.50! And it appears she was representing herself without an attorney and still won. This was regarding him trying to drag her into his defamation lawsuit against Kari Lake.”
Hamilton corrected her noting that the judge had been changed over the summer and that the presiding judge is now “the Honorable Randall Warner[.] He’s known as being a traditional Constitutionalist judge.”
Judge Warner ruled in Hamilton’s favor that Richer must pay Hamilton $25,345.50 upon picking up the documents even if he elects not to take them, ruling that “Hamilton is not entitled to $7,000 for clerical costs both because those costs are not itemized as required by A.R.S. § 12-351(A), and because 280 hours—the equivalent of seven people working full-time for a week—is an unreasonable amount of time to spend on producing documents.”
Richer’s legal team argued that “Hamilton’s costs are unreasonable because they result from her unilateral decision to produce paper documents. Plaintiff points out that the subpoena and Rule 45 direct documents to be produced in native form and as they are kept in the usual course of business.” However, Hamilton noted that the cover letter she received with the subpoena stated, “Plaintiff was seeking ‘copies of all documents requested,’ that she could comply with it by ‘mailing or delivering the requested documents,’ and that she would be reimbursed for ‘reasonable copying expenses.’” She also pointed out that the letter failed to mention electronic production as an option and that her decision to produce the documents on paper was reasonable.
Judge Warner did concede that “Hamilton misread Plaintiff’s instructions, which any lawyer familiar with the discovery rules would understand as a request for documents in native form. This means digital documents must be produced in their original digital form. Documents stored as PDF’s must be produced as PDF’s. Word documents must be produced as Word documents. Excel files must be produced as Excel files.” However, he added “But it is easy to see how a non-lawyer endeavoring to comply with Plaintiff’s subpoena could be confused.”
In law, many attorneys believe you should never ask a question you don’t know the answer to. It seems clear that Richer didn’t know Hamilton would answer on paper.
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 Daniel Stefanski | Aug 12, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizonans are using a lot of energy throughout this hot summer in the Valley of the Sun.
Last week, the Arizona Corporation Commission issued a press release to alert readers that Arizona electric utilities had “set new records for peak energy demand.”
According to the communication from the state government agency, the record for peak energy was reached on Sunday, August 4, between 5-6pm, when the high temperature for that day was 116 degrees Fahrenheit.
Republican Corporation Commissioner Kevin Thompson told AZ Free News, “Our utilities have done an exceptional job of keeping the lights on and air flowing through new record setting peak demand this summer. There’s no coincidence to the fact that despite our extreme heat and load growth, Arizona hasn’t suffered the same crippling energy pitfalls of California. Arizona regulators have focused on an ‘all of the above’ generation approach bolstered with dispatchable baseload to keep our grid reliable and affordable. This Commission has worked relentlessly to do away with energy mandates that cost ratepayers more money and get in the way of what utilities should be primarily focused on: generating electricity.”
“Our utilities continue to deliver reliable power in the face of excessive temperatures and ever-increasing electricity demand. Arizona continues to be ranked in the top ten of states with the most reliable power—a critical statistic for which each of us is thankful during these record-breaking temperatures,” said Chairman Jim O’Connor.
Arizona Public Service (APS) used 8,212 MW on August 4 (compared to 8,162 MW on that date in 2023). Salt River Project used 8,219 MW in 2024 (compared to 8,163 MW in 2023). And TEP / UNS just barely missed out on the record, finishing with 2,917 MW on July 8 (compared to 2,969 MW in 2023). On August 4, TEP’s peak demand reached 2,661 MW.
“Our utilities are facing unprecedented challenges in balancing the needs of our energy demands during this hot summer while ensuring energy reliability at the most affordable rates,” said Commissioner Lea Márquez Peterson. “Their summer preparedness planning for peak demand is vitally important to keeping our families safe and cool in the summer.”
The Commission shared that these utilities have made assurances “that they are prepared to produce a combined total of more than 23,000 megawatts of electricity to meet customers’ daily summer demands.” APS has 1.3 million customers; SRP, 1.1 million customers; and TEP / UNS, 719,000 customers.
At the end of its release, the Commission “encourages Arizonans to be mindful and help reduce electric demand during peak hours. Actions, such as lowering energy use during peak hours and signing up for demand response programs can contribute to reducing overall customer demand and reducing monthly electric bills.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Aug 12, 2024 | Education, News
By Daniel Stefanski |
A new leader has been selected for one of Arizona’s major universities.
On Friday, the University of Arizona and the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) announced that Dr. Suresh Garimella had been appointed as the school’s 23rd president.
Dr. Garimella is currently the president of the University of Vermont, and he was previously at Purdue University as its Executive Vice President for Research and Partnerships.
The incoming president’s career fate was sealed with a unanimous vote from the members of ABOR.
“I am honored to be chosen by the board as the next president of the University of Arizona,” said Dr. Garimella. “I have long admired the U of A and its stature in the state of Arizona and far beyond. The institution demonstrates the best qualities of a land-grant university with exceptional leadership in research and health sciences, highly acclaimed faculty and staff, and a diverse student population comprised of the best and brightest from around the world. There are tremendous opportunities in front of us and I look forward to collaborating with U of A students, faculty, staff and alumni to build upon our strengths as an institution and continue to lead in excellence here in Tucson and around the world.”
“Dr. Garimella is student-focused and considers himself first and foremost a faculty member. With a 35-year career in higher education, Suresh is engaging, a great listener and a collaborative leader,” said ABOR Chair Cecilia Mata. “Wildcats are part of our state’s DNA and Dr. Garimella has shown he is the right leader at the right time to heal and grow Arizona’s land-grant university.”
Dr. Robert C. Robbins currently serves as the university’s president, which he has held since 2017. Earlier this spring, Robbins announced his plans to step away from the school at the end of – or before – his term in office.
“I join our University of Arizona family in welcoming Dr. Garimella to Tucson,” said President Robbins. “His experience as a president at a public university and as an esteemed professor, researcher and published author will serve him well in his new role. In the weeks ahead, I look forward to partnering with Dr. Garimella and assisting him with the transition in any way possible. The U of A will be in good hands for years to come.”
According to the press release issued by the Arizona Board of Regents, “Dr. Garimella received his Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, his M.S. from The Ohio State University, and his bachelor’s degree from the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Aug 11, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona Senator Jake Hoffman recently responded to the launch of an Arizona chapter of “Republicans For Harris” with a blistering comment.
In his scorching post to X, Hoffman quipped “Strange… I thought prostitution was illegal in Arizona.” He advised his fellow Republicans to “Ignore these whores,” and asserted confidently, “Donald J. Trump will win Arizona.”
In the image shared by Delaney Corcoran, Communications Director for the Harris campaign, Mesa Mayor John Giles is shown headlining the rally. “Our party used to stand for the belief that every Arizonan, no matter their background or circumstances, should have the freedom, opportunity and security to live out their American Dream,” he wrote, in his endorsement of Harris according to The Hill.
“But since Donald Trump refused to accept the outcome of the 2020 election, Republicans have yet to course correct,” Giles claimed. “The Republican Party with Trump at its helm continues down the path of political extremism, away from focusing on our fundamental freedoms.”
Expressing a similar sentiment, former Maricopa County GOP Chair Tyler Bowyer wrote, “For those not aware— John Giles is not a real Republican. He sold out in exchange for switching his party later to run for Congress next term to replace Democrat Greg Stanton in CD4. This is simple backroom politicking. He is supporting the most radical leftist ticket ever.”
In the aftermath of his initial comment, Hoffman addressed concerns over his choice of words from one commenter Kenny Jacobs, writing, “This commie is crying because I used textbook definitions to describe fake Republicans who’ve decided their virtue signaling and future pay day is more important than your future[.] Sorry losers Pimp yourself out to the Left at the expense of hardworking Americans… you’re a whore.”
He cited The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 5th Edition definition of “Prostitute” which reads, “A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.
Hoffman is currently one of several defendants in an ongoing organized lawfare campaign by Arizona’s Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes. He is being prosecuted for his 2020 role on the GOP slate of alternate electors who prepared documentation to be presented to Congress in the event that the slate favoring President Joe Biden was rejected.
In a more recent post, he has also revealed a letter from an Instagram whistleblower with nearly 150k followers, “exposing a sophisticated Astroturfing effort underway by the Harris-Walz campaign. Social media users are being PAID to post pro Harris-Walz content on Instagram.”
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 Daniel Stefanski | Aug 11, 2024 | Economy, News
By Daniel Stefanski |
An Arizona ballot proposition regarding tipped workers remains on track for consideration in November’s General Election.
Last this week, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter A. Thompson denied a request from Raise the Wage AZ for an issuance of a preliminary injunction against SCR 1040, the Tipped Workers Protection Act, which was passed by the Arizona Legislature this past spring and transmitted to the state’s Secretary of State for inclusion on the November ballot.
The measure will be Proposition 138 on the ballot.
According to the fact sheet provided by the Arizona Senate, SCR 1040 would “constitutionally establish minimum hourly wage requirements for employees who customarily and regularly receive tips or gratuities from patrons or others (tipped employees).” If approved by voters in November, the amendment would “authorize an employer to pay a tipped employee a wage of up to 25 percent per hour less than the statutory minimum wage if the employer can establish that for each week, when adding tips or gratuities received to wages paid, the employee received not less than the minimum wage plus $2 for all hours worked” – among another provisions.
Andrew Gould, a former Arizona Supreme Court Justice, helped to lead the defense of this ballot measure in Superior Court. He said, “Holtzman Vogel is proud to defend the right of Arizonans to voice their opinion on this important matter. The proposed amendment, SCR 1040, protects the jobs of tipped workers while allowing the businesses that employ them to survive financially. This is a victory for the people of Arizona against anti-business politics.”
Arizona Restaurant President and CEO, Steve Chucri, told a local media outlet that, “Without passage of Prop 138, you can bet the imposters behind One Fair Wage will be back with a future attempt to install a California-style pay system in Arizona. That means lower tips for workers, lost jobs for employers and higher costs for everyone. Passage of Prop 138 is the first step to prevent that from happening.”
In his order, Judge Thompson wrote, “Far from voter fraud, the legislative process used for SCR 1040 is created by the Arizona Constitution. There is no allegation that the proper process was not followed… Plaintiffs have failed to cite to specific authority which would permit this Court, or any court, to remove an Initiative or proposed Legislative Constitutional Amendment because it interferes with or makes passage of a competing ballot measure more or less likely. Placement of the proposed Constitutional Amendment (SCR 1040) on the November General Election Ballot will not undermine the sanctity of the election process. In fact, it is part of the democratic process enshrined in the Arizona Constitution with choice being left to the voters.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
