Former Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes declared that Arizona should eliminate its voting precincts and adopt all-mail voting.
Fontes proposed the ideas during a half-hour debate with House Minority Leader Reginald Bolding (D-Laveen) hosted by Arizona Horizon on Wednesday.
“We need to have vote centers across the entire state so anyone can vote anywhere,” said Fontes. “Do we need reform? The simple answer is yes, but that reform needs to come in a continuation of the progress Arizona has had for 30 years, not stepping backwards like some people want.”
Fontes also proposed that the state should adopt Maricopa County’s ballot tracking system and send voters text messages when mail-in ballots are mailed to the voter and received by the election department.
Bolding appeared to disagree with Fontes.
“One thing I do think is extremely important is that we have to provide Arizonans with choices. And we have to make sure that we have free, fair, and secure elections,” said Bolding. “We have to make sure our systems are working for everybody.”
That wasn’t to say that Bolding disagreed with mail-in voting. Bolding insisted that vote-by-mail is secure, and that Arizona is a prime example of that fact.
Fontes responded that his proposal for vote centers would still provide options for those who want to vote in-person rather than by mail. He insinuated that Bolding didn’t understand all-mail voting because he lacked the election administration experience.
“It’s very clear to folks with the experience in these offices that when we say ‘all ballot by mail’ we have to have an option for replacing messed-up ballots, ballots that folks want to change, for example: they can bring them in, turn them in, and get new ballots,” said Fontes.
Bolding pledged to register high school seniors to vote as soon as they turned 18 and improve the state’s lobbyist database. He said that partisanship has reached an “all-time high” in the state and country.
Fontes pledged to publish an easy-to-read elections procedures manual, reduce red tape for small business development such as registries of trademarks and notary public procedures, increase public communications, and improve information technology security systems.
Bolding argued that the current elections process was too complicated for most Arizonans to understand. Fontes agreed.
Fontes claimed that his administration executed a secure election that defeated former President Donald Trump’s “Big Lie” that the 2020 election was rigged to ensure President Joe Biden’s victory.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A bill to raise the legal age for smokers or users of tobacco, vaping products, and alternative nicotine products from 18 to 21 is set to be heard by the Arizona Senate on Monday.
House Bill 2505 is a strike-everything amendment introduced by Sen. Vince Leach which also expands the definitions of what tobacco, vaping, or alternative nicotine products fall under Arizona’s criminal code. It also puts more restrictions on retailers of such products.
Leach’s amendment would make it a petty offense for anyone under age 21 to buy tobacco, a vapor product, or an alternative nicotine product as well as to have such items in their possession. It would also be a petty offense for someone under age 21 to possess any “instrument or paraphernalia” solely designed for smoking or ingesting a prohibited substance, such as a hookah or waterpipe.
And if that person under age 21 misrepresents their age by means of a written instrument of identification with the intent to induce someone to violate the law then under HB2505 the person presenting the fake ID would be guilty of a petty offense and must pay a fine up to $500.
But Leach is also seeking tomake it a petty offense for any person -regardless of age- to “sell, give, or furnish” tobacco, a vapor product, or an alternative nicotine product to someone under 21 without a prosecutor having to prove the person did so knowingly.
HB2505 also seeks to expand restrictions on the possession or use of tobacco products, alternative nicotine products, and vapor products on school grounds, parking lots, playing fields, busses, and at off-campus sponsored events. The term “school” applies to any public, charter, or private school serving students from K-12.
SB2505 would also redefine the legal meaning of a retail tobacco vendor and prohibit the sale or distribution of tobacco products, alternative nicotine products, and vapor products through a self-service or vending machine unless located in a retail establishment that does not allow anyone under the age of 21 to enter. There would also be restrictions on the sale of such products via delivery service.
Retail tobacco vendors would also be required to “prominently display” a sign measuring at least 80 square inches warning that anyone under age 21 would be committing a crime by attempting to purchase tobacco products, alternative nicotine products, or vapor products. The sign must also note that a fine of up to $300 may be imposed on conviction.
The legislation also confirms that the definitions used HB2505 are to have “the same meaning” as the definitions used in Arizona’s criminal code.
Leach’s amendment to HB2505 includes an exemption to 21 year age limit for “a bona fide practice of a religious belief” that is an integral part of a religious or ceremonial exercise. Another exemption states that it is not a petty offense for someone under age 21 to possess paraphernalia used for smoking or ingesting tobacco or shisha if the item “was a gift or souvenir and is not used or intended to be used” by someone under age 21 for such activity.
If Leach’s effort passes out of the Senate, then HB2505 must be heard again by the full House given that its current language has nothing to do the original procurement legislation addressed in HB2505 when introduced by House Majority Leader Ben Toma.
HB2505 would take effect after Dec. 31 of this year if it is signed into law.
Arizona House Minority Leader Reginald Bolding (D-Laveen) claimed Republican secretary of state candidate Mark Finchem would have rigged the 2020 election in favor of former President Donald Trump if he had been in office.
Bolding made the statement during Wednesday’s debate for Arizona’s secretary of state candidates as a response to Arizona Horizon host Ted Simons’ question about preventing politicization of the secretary of state’s office.
“The reality is, is that in 2020 if Mark Finchem was our secretary of state, Donald Trump would’ve stolen the election. How do we know? Because he told us,” said Bolding.
After the debate, Bolding tweeted that voters needed to “move past the 2020 elections” in order to “change the tone” of the upcoming elections.
If we ever to change the tone of this year's elections, we have to move past the 2020 elections. We're going to use the leadership of the office to make sure we improve the system and fight for safe and secure elections.
Bolding’s remark elicited an incredulous expression from his debate opponent, fellow Democratic candidate and former Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes.
Simons didn’t respond to Bolding’s accusation. Instead, he addressed a separate question to Fontes about the importance of Democratic voters to select a winning candidate.
A small but elite unit of tactical officers known as the “Shadow Wolves” working out of the Tohono O’odham Nation will continue to patrol a 76-mile stretch of shared border with Mexico, but now they will do so as special agents of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).
The Shadow Wolves unit was created by Congress 50 years ago to track border area drug smugglers on Native American lands, utilizing modern “high-tech” equipment but mostly relying on members’ training in traditional tracking methods, particularly locating and analyzing physical signs.
The units efforts have been focused on patrolling the lands of the Tohono O’odham Nation, which encompass 4,400-square miles in Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties. But on April 19, the Shadow Wolves Enhancement Act was signed into federal law to reclassify the tactical officers, giving them additional authority to investigate, interdict, and disrupt criminal activity as HSI special agents.
HSI falls under the direction of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and is the principal investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. As such, it is responsible for investigating transnational crime and threats, specifically criminal organizations which exploit the global infrastructure through which international trade, travel, and finance move.
Reclassifying the Shadow Wolves preserves the unit’s historic legacy while broadening the authority of its members to further U.S. national security missions, according to ICE Acting Director Tae D. Johnson.
“The Shadow Wolves Enhancement Act will dramatically increase agency effectiveness in targeting and disrupting human and drug smugglers throughout the rugged terrain of the Sonoran Desert and across tribal lands,” Johnson said.
Scott Brown, the special agent in charge of HSI-Phoenix with responsibility for the entire state called the Shadow Wolves “an unparalleled law enforcement unit.” HSI will develop a strategy to expand the Shadow Wolves program and recruit new members, Brown said.
“It is with tremendous pleasure and pride that I will be welcoming the Shadow Wolves as HSI special agents,” Brown said. “After nearly 50 years since their establishment, their experience and impressive history, it is paramount we give this team the tools needed to grow as law enforcement officers.”
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday that implementation of the state’s new single or “flat” income tax rate will move forward without a voter referendum in November. But one Phoenix area media personality seemed to suggest that the justices were in on the fix.
Longtime ABC15 anchor Steve Irvin took to Twitter within hours of the justices denying the attempt by Invest In Arizona, a political committee sponsored by Arizona Education Association, to put last year’s income tax reform provisions of Senate Bill 1828 up for a vote by the people. Two provisions of SB1828 replace Arizona’s current four income tax rates (between 2.59 to 4.5 percent) with a singular 2.5 percent rate effective January 2025.
The Court’s decision cited the fact the Arizona Constitution bars a voter referendum on legislative revenue acts involving “the support and maintenance” of the state government. As a result, the lower one-rate-for-all will become the law in 34 months.
Yet despite the $1.9 billion tax cut expected from the reduced tax rate, Irvin used Twitter to question the qualifications of the supreme court’s justices and went on to disparage them for ruling against Invest In Arizona and Arizona Education Association based on the same wording that has been in the Arizona Constitution the last 110 years.
Who was the governor who expanded the court and stacked it with political allies with no judicial experience again?
Irvin was recognized in February by the Arizona Education Association for his coverage of education issues. He contends the income tax reform opposed by the group would have also been rejected by voters in November, even though there is no evidence that Arizona voters under pressures from inflation and other economic challenges would have agreed to continue paying more income taxes than needed to sufficiently cover appropriations.
When you pass a law that would never survive a statewide ballot initiative, you should be reminded of who you represent.
Irvin’s tweets also ignored the fact all Arizona income taxpayers will see their tax rate decrease as a result of SB1828. Instead, he focused on the fact “rich people” will benefit from the rate change.
Our state supreme court is on a roll. And your vote is legally irrelevant.
Voters approve more money for schools… the court declares Prop 208 unconstitutional.
And today… voters can't have a say on tax cuts for rich people either.
For the last few years, Arizona has experienced large budget surpluses (currently in the billions of dollars). State budget officials have confirmed that an across the board 2.5 percent income tax rate will be enough to fund state operations while leaving more money in the pockets of taxpayers.
Congressmen Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04) and State Representative Mark Finchem (R-Oro Valley) will not be disqualified from the upcoming midterm elections for organizing the January 6 protest, a judge ruled on Friday.
The question before the court was whether the three candidates violated Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, also known as the “Disqualification Clause.” Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs had no right of action to determine such a violation under the Constitution or supporting law.
Coury explained that the lawsuit’s argument for exercising the 14th Amendment contradicted legal precedent: the 1869 ruling for In Re Griffin, for example. Coury wrote that precedent, coupled with context of the amendment within the article, empowered Congress to exercise the 14th Amendment — not individual states or the people.
“[T]he Constitution provides legislation enacted by Congress is required to enforce the disqualification pursuant to the Disqualification Clause. Aside from criminal statutes dealing with insurrection and rebellion which Congress has enacted (lawsuits which require the government, not private citizens, to initiate), Congress has not passed legislation that is presently in effect which enforces the Disqualification Clause against the Candidates,” wrote Coury. “The text of the Constitution is mandatory. It sets forth the single arbiter of the qualifications of members of Congress; that single arbiter is Congress. It would contradict the plain language of the United States Constitution for this Court to conduct any trial over the qualifications of a member of Congress.”
The judge also rejected the argument that Arizona law enabled a private right of action to enforce the Disqualification Clause where the Constitution and federal law didn’t. Coury distinguished the term “prescribed” from “proscribed,” ruling that the Arizona law in question encompassed requirements for holding office, not disqualifications. Coury added that his interpretation was consistent with state and federal precedent.
Coury also noted that none of the three men were charged with or convicted of insurrection or rebellion. He refused to rule on the merits of the allegations of insurrection made against Gosar, Biggs, and Finchem.
The lawsuit was filed by Free Speech For People, a Democrat-backed, progressive nonprofit. The organization was ruled against last month as well in a similar lawsuit against Congressman Madison Cawthorn (R-NC-11). Another one of their similar lawsuits against Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA-14) had a hearing on Friday.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
