On Monday, the Arizona House approved the Senate bill appropriating $400 million to widen the I-10 highway between Chandler and Casa Grande.
SB1239 enables the funds to not only be used for construction, but for obtaining federal funds to match the state funds.
The Biden administration has already allocated funds to the I-10 under the president’s infrastructure initiative.
Today the House overwhelmingly passed SB1239, committing $400 million to join with federal infrastructure funds (thanks President Biden!) to widen I-10 near Casa Grande. Leader @reginaldbolding explains the importance of infrastructure investment. #azlegpic.twitter.com/BapBVF0TQa
— Arizona House Democrats (@AZHouseDems) May 2, 2022
The I-10 is the fourth-largest national highway in the country, connecting the southernmost states from coast to coast.
State Senator T.J. Shope (R-Coolidge) sponsored the bill.
By a vote of 55-1, the AZ House of Reps has passed my SB1239 (Appropriation; Widening; I-10). It’ll be transmitted to Gov @DougDucey this afternoon. We will finally have a widened I-10 between Casa Grande & Phoenix! I will have a more formal statement on this later today. #AZLegpic.twitter.com/qiJQxNHwNm
The House and Senate passed it almost unanimously. Only State Senator Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-Scottsdale) and State Representative Jacqueline Parker (R-Mesa) voted against it.
Ugenti-Rita insisted that the funding wasn’t a wise move fiscally.
“Thank you, Joe Biden”….that is something I will never agree with.
Voting on appropriation bills outside of the budget process is not how you craft a conservative and fiscally responsible budget.
Cities and other government entities which allow their flagpoles to be used by community groups and private organizations cannot prohibit the hoisting of religious-themed flags based on the religious messaging, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday.
Justice Stephen Breyer authored the main opinion in Shurtleff v City of Boston, holding that the city would not have engaged in the endorsement or support of religion by simply allowing a religious flag to be flown from one of the three flagpoles often used for special events at Boston City Hall.
The case stems from a resident’s request in 2017 to fly a “Christian flag” during a public event at city hall to celebrate “the civic and social contributions of the Christian community” in Boston. City officials denied the request, citing concerns that allowing the flag would be a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the enactment of any law “respecting an establishment of religion.”
However, none of the prior 50 or so flagpole requests being denied. And that, according to Breyer’s opinion, put the City of Boston on the wrong side of another provision of the First Amendment – the Free Speech Clause which states governments shall make no law respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech.
“The boundary between government speech and private expression can blur when, as here, a government invites the people to participate in a program,” Breyer wrote, adding that on balance, the Court concluded “Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech.”
This meant, Breyer noted, that Boston’s refusal to allow a Christian flag to fly during a special public event abridged the requestors’ Constitutional right of freedom of speech.
According to Breyer’s opinion, there could be times when flying a non-governmental flag could convey a governmental message. Which is why it is necessary to undertake a “holistic inquiry” of the circumstances involved in, he wrote. Such an inquiry in this case, Breyer noted, shows city officials policy allowing third-party flag raisings makes the message private, non-government speech.
And when the government does not speak for itself, it may not exclude private speech based on the “religious viewpoint” of that speech.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Samuel Alito agreed Boston officials violated the First Amendment’s freedom of speech by rejecting the Christian flag, but came to that decision using different legal reasoning than Breyer.
Alito, in a concurring judgment, felt Breyer’s review process was overly complicated. The only question to be asked, Alito wrote, is whether the flag represented the city’s speech.
“The ultimate question is whether the government is actually expressing its own views or the real speaker is a private party and the government is surreptitiously engaged in the ‘regulation of private speech,’” Alito wrote.
And in his own concurring judgment, Gorsuch placed blame on a 1971 SCOTUS decision Lemon v. Kurtzman for Boston’s uncertainty with the competing interests of the Free Speech Clause and the Establishment Clause. According to Gorsuch, Lemon “produced only chaos” for years before eventually being abandoned by the Court.
“Our Constitution was not designed to erase religion from American life; it was designed to ensure ‘respect and tolerance,’” Gorsuch wrote, quoting in part a 2019 SCOTUS opinion. “To justify a policy that discriminated against religion, Boston sought to drag Lemon once more from its grave. It was a strategy as risky as it was unsound.”
Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a short concurring opinion, pointing out the Boston dispute arose because city officials did not understand the Establishment Clause.” He noted that SCOTUS “has repeatedly made clear” that a government does not violate the Establishment Clause merely by treating religious persons, organizations, and speech equally with secular persons, organizations, and speech.
“Under the Constitution, a government may not treat religious persons, religious organizations, or religious speech as second-class,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Over the weekend, leaders from across the world convened in Sedona for an annual event dedicated to collectively solving global issues: the McCain Institute’s Sedona Forum. Among them was Governor Doug Ducey.
A recap of the event focused on the word “democracy.” Featured speakers insisted on white supremacy’s hold on U.S. institutions, argued that the significance of 9/11 ended with January 6, lamented distrust in mainstream media, and proposed tactics for increasing aggression against Russia for invading Ukraine.
While at the event, Ducey published a series of tweets declaring that Russia was attacking democracy and freedom by invading Ukraine. He commended the late senator, John McCain, for warning Americans about Russia and Vladimir Putin. Ducey didn’t mention NATO’s role in instigating the war. However, he did post a candid photo of his conversation with former NATO and Ukraine ambassador Kurt Volker.
Though Volker only served as NATO ambassador for one year, 2008 to 2009, he worked on NATO-related assignments beginning in 1998. Volker’s U.S.-Ukraine Business Council (USUBC) Ambassador position incited controversy due to former President Donald Trump’s investigatory attempts into President Joe Biden and Hunter Biden’s business dealings in China and Ukraine.
Volker helped create Arizona State University’s (ASU) Ukrainian campus, American University Kyiv, which stalled at the end of February due to the Russian invasion.
Senator McCain had been sounding the alarm about Russia and Putin. Russia’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine is an attack on democracy and freedom. Arizona stands with the men and women of Ukraine putting up an incredible fight – from President Zelensky to everyday citizens. 2/
ASU President Michael Crow was also in attendance at the Sedona Forum. He co-hosted a panel with Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-IL-16) and The New Yorker writer Sue Halpern to discuss cybersecurity.
Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) was also present at the Sedona Forum.
I'm excited to be opening the @McCainInstitute’s Sedona Forum on strategic competition, a topic where we miss Senator McCain’s voice and leadership as much as ever.
The event had moderators and reporter coverage provided by its “media partner,” The Washington Post — the very publication that doxxed the woman behind “Libs of TikTok,” the popular social media account relied on by parents and politicians for showcasing leftist ideologies and political trends.
The U.S. House Select Committee investigating the January 6, 2021 incident announced on Monday that it requested a meeting with Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05). The committee called cooperation “a patriotic duty.” They asked that Biggs meet with them as soon as next Monday.
In a letter, the January 6 Committee informed Biggs of four of an undisclosed number of issues it wished to discuss.
The first issue concerned his participation in meetings to reject the election results, citing one House Freedom Caucus meeting which discussed a plan for former Vice President Mike Pence to refuse certain states’ electoral votes. The second issue concerned claims from Ali Alexander — an organizer of Stop the Steal, a campaign to resist the 2020 election results — that Biggs helped organize the January 6 protest. The third issue concerned Biggs’ communications with former President Donald Trump’s Chief of Staff Mark Meadows that reportedly marked efforts to persuade elected officials in overturning the 2020 election. The fourth issue concerned Biggs’ name appearing among those requesting presidential pardons for involvement in election overturning efforts.
The committee said that it would use Biggs’ cooperation to “make informed legislative recommendations.”
In raising each issue, the committee associated Biggs’ relation to Trump’s attempts to undermine American democracy and the Constitution, as well as Alexander’s calls for violence preceding January 6.
Biggs hasn’t issued a statement on the committee’s letter.
The committee also requested cooperation from Congressmen Mo Brooks (R-AL-05) and Ronny Jackson (R-TX-13). Each congressman received a letter tailored to their involvement in the January 6 rally and Capitol breach.
The Select Committee has requested cooperation from three additional members of the House of Representatives: • Rep. Andy Biggs • Rep. Mo Brooks • Rep. Ronny Jackson pic.twitter.com/ioB1rGxAG5
— January 6th Committee (@January6thCmte) May 2, 2022
Brooks’ letter concerned his public remarks on a televised interview with CBS News and a press release in March. He claimed that Trump asked him to rescind the 2020 election results. Brooks said that he refused. The committee wanted to glean from Brooks additional evidence that Trump intended “to restore himself to power through unlawful means,” in a manner adverse to the Constitution.
Jackson’s letter was the lengthiest. It included encrypted text messages from the founder and various members of Oath Keepers, a right-wing militia organization formed to defend the Constitution against perceived violations from government. Those messages asked members that breached the U.S. Capitol on January 6 to locate and protect Jackson because he had “critical data to protect.”
The committee asked Jackson why those charged with seditious conspiracy were attempting to protect him. Additionally, they asked Jackson to expound on his participation in the rally preceding the Capitol breach and efforts to barricade the House Chamber during the breach.
Like Biggs, neither Brooks or Jackson have issued statements on their committee letters.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Last Wednesday, Northern Arizona University (NAU) announced that it would grant free tuition to Arizonans with household incomes at or below $65,000 — about half of Arizona households qualify.
Free tuition came from NAU’s Access2Excellence (A2E) initiative to increase enrollment. NAU President José Luis Cruz Rivera explained in a press release that this latest development aligned with broader operational goals: access and equity.
“Affordability of college is top of mind for many, and this program ensures that tuition is not a barrier,” said Cruz Rivera. “It’s the embodiment of our university’s commitment to excellence and delivering equitable postsecondary value to all our students.”
Access to Excellence! @NAU to provide a tuition-free, world-class college education to AZ residents with household incomes of < $65K – assuring tuition will be fully covered by scholarships & financial aid for half of all AZ households. ➡️ All the details: https://t.co/CMVQCw620Wpic.twitter.com/vWTe4TC79G
NAU’s enrollment has been in steep decline over the years. Last fall, their total enrollment was over 28,700 students. The latest numbers mark a steady declining trend over the past three years: in fall 2020, they had over 29,500 students enrolled; in fall 2019, over 30,700 students enrolled; and in fall 2018, over 31,000 students enrolled. Prior to the last three years, NAU had grown steadily in its enrollment for over a decade. Their campus went from just over 20,500 students enrolled in 2006 to over 31,000 in 2017.
The Biden Administration likely spurred the free tuition initiative. In January, the Department of Education awarded $4.8 million to NAU for low-income students and low-wage or unemployed workers to achieve higher education.
According to a report from Pew Research Center last month, $65,000 would fall around the middle of middle-class income for a single individual: about $30,000 to $90,000. For households of five, middle-class income would range from over $67,000 to over $201,000.
NAU’s free tuition announcement came several weeks after the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) announced tuition and housing hikes at all three of Arizona’s public universities. NAU, along with Arizona State University (ASU), also announced an increase in its student meal plan costs — something University of Arizona (UArizona) didn’t do.
Under the ABOR changes, NAU students received a 3.5 percent tuition increase: around $11,000 to nearly $11,400. The increased tuition applied to both state residents and non-residents equally. Additionally, they will face an 3 to 3.5 percent increase in housing costs, along with additional course fees.
In March, NAU guaranteed that it would admit individuals that meet Arizona high school graduation requirements with a 3.0 or higher GPA.
The free tuition opportunity will take effect next fall. Housing costs won’t be covered.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
2020 established Arizona as a purple state going blue, but the latest voter registration data indicates that the state may be shifting back to red. The data appears to align with predictions that the new legislative maps would favor Republicans.
The Yellow Sheet Report first reported the voter base shift. They obtained the data from DeMenna Public Affairs, a Phoenix-based government relations, public affairs, and political consulting firm.
LD9 went from slightly Democratic at a 2.6 percent advantage, to slightly Republican at a .071 percent advantage. The Senate seat will either be taken by State Senator Tyler Pace (R-Mesa), Republican candidate Robert Scantlebury, or Democratic candidate Eva Burch. House LD9 candidates are Republican candidates Mary Ann Mendoza and Kathy Pearce, and Democratic candidates Lorena Austin and Seth Blattman.
LD4 and LD13 increased Republicans’ advantage from 3.4 to 11.25 percent and 1.6 to 7 percent, respectively.
The only Senate candidates for LD4 are State Senators Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix) and Christine Marsh (D-Phoenix) — if the data forecasts the outcomes, it appears Barto will take the seat. The House race will see sole Democratic candidate Laura Terech face off against two of the six Republican candidates: John Arnold, Kenneth Bowers Jr., Vera Gebran, Matt Gress, Jana Jackson, and Maria Syms.
Senate LD13 candidates are State Senator J.D. Mesnard (R-Chandler) versus either one of two Democrats: Cindy Hans or Michael Morris. As for the House seats, State Representative Jennifer Pawlik (D-Chandler) will face two of the five Republicans running: Josh Askey, Ron Hardin, Liz Harris, Don Maes, and Julie Willoughby.
LD2 increased steadily from a Republican lead of 3.8 to 6.28 percent. That may not bode well for State Representative Judy Schwiebert (D-Phoenix), the lone Democratic candidate running for one of the House seats. She may end up facing State Representative Justin Wilmeth (R-Phoenix) and one of the other Republican candidates: Christian Lamar, Pierce Waychoff, Neil Desanti, and Reynold Ramsey.
State Representative Steve Kaiser (R-Phoenix) is uncontested in the Senate LD2 primary, and will face off against one of the two Democratic candidates: Jeanne Casteen or Victoria Thompson.
LD8 Democrats lost just under 45 percent of their advantage, dropping from 27.5 to 12.36 percent. State Senator Juan Mendez (D-Tempe) retains a decent margin against either of the Republicans running for the Senate seat: Roxana Holzapfel or Todd Howard. Vying for the House seats are State Representatives Melody Hernandez (D-Tempe) and Athena Salman (D-Tempe) as the Democratic candidates, with Republican candidates Caden Darrow and Bill Loughrige.
LD12 Democrats lost just under 66 percent of their advantage, dropping from 53.9 to 35.36 percent. State Representative Mitzi Epstein (D-Chandler) will likely win the Senate seat against either one of the Republican challengers: David Richardson or Suzanne Sharer. As for the House seat, five Democrats and two Republicans are vying for the seats: Democratic candidates Patty Contreras, Sam Huang, A.J. Kurdoglu, Stacey Travers, and Paul Weich versus Republican candidates Jim Chaston and Terry Roe.
Only one legislative district shrunk for Republicans: LD16, where the advantage dropped from 3.6 to 1.04 percent. That makes the Senate race tighter for State Senator T.J. Shope (R-Phoenix) and Republican Daniel Wood, either one of whom may face Democrat Taylor Kerby. State Representative Teresa Martinez (R-Oro Valley) has two other Republicans in the race, Rob Hudelson and Braden Biggs, and one Democrat, Keith Seaman.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
