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.
In a major victory for millions of Arizonans, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club has prevailed at the Arizona Supreme Court in its attempt to protect a forecasted $1.9 billion tax cut through changes signed into law last year to change Arizona from a four rate income tax structure to a single rate.
On Thursday, the justices ruled in favor of a lawsuit filed the AFEC and several of its members who sought to ensure two provisions of Senate Bill 1828 related to the new 2.5 percent flat rate income structure goes into effect in January 2025. SB1828 was the omnibus appropriations bill signed into law by Gov. Doug Ducey in June 2021.
The AFEC lawsuit was in response to an effort by the Arizona Education Association sponsored Invest In Arizona to have voters overturn those two provisions in November.
But key to the AFEC’s legal arguments is the Arizona Constitution, which prohibits voter referendums of legislative actions undertaken for “the support and maintenance of the departments of state government and state institutions.” Oral arguments were held at the Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday, during which attorneys Kory Langhofer and Thomas Basile presented AFEC’s position.
On Thursday morning, Mussi took part in an interview with KFYI’s James T. Harris about the efforts to protect the forthcoming tax cuts due to changing to a 2.5 percent flat rate. Mussi told Harris that Tuesday’s arguments at the Arizona Supreme Court “went well” and that he was optimistic “the justices generally understood what our argument was.”
Mussi did not realize how prescient his observation was, as just a few hours later the justices released their decision siding with AFEC and rejecting the referendum attempt.
The decision under the signature of Chief Justice Robert Brutinel enjoined the Invest In Arizona referendum effort from appearing on the 2022 General Election Ballot. In addition, the decision denied Invest In Arizona’s request for attorneys’ fees.
OFFICIAL STATEMENT ON RULING:@AZCourts issued a big win for taxpayers today. The court ruled against referendum filed by Invest in Arizona that sought to stop the implementation of critical tax reform legislation passed by #AZleg and signed into law by Gov @DougDucey. (Thread)
After the Court’s decision was announced, Mussi called it “a big win for taxpayers” across the state.
“The legislature passed historic tax cuts last year that benefit all Arizona taxpayers,” he added. “It’s time for Invest in Arizona and out-of-state special interest groups to accept this reality and stop making a farce of the referendum process.”
A detailed opinion explaining the legal conclusions made by the justices to form Thursday’s decision will be released in the next few weeks.
A Democrat-backed nonprofit wants State Representative Mark Finchem (R-Oro Valley), Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05), and Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04) disqualified from the upcoming midterm election for organizing the January 6 protest.
Arizona State University (ASU) law professor and legal expert Ilan Wurman told “The Conservative Circus” that the lawsuit not only misinterprets constitutional law but represents the bad habit of both parties to weaponize the Constitution.
“Just after the Civil War, this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to prevent individuals who had been office holders, federal and state office holders, who had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, who then seceded from the Union, unconstitutionally seceded from the Union, and then took up arms against the government of the United States. By the way, that is an insurrection,” explained Wurman.
The nonprofit, Free Speech for People, invoked the Fourteenth Amendment to argue that Finchem, Biggs, and Gosar were responsible for the U.S. Capitol intrusion because they helped organize the preceding protest.
The lawsuit against Finchem, Biggs, and Gosar is part of a national campaign to “ban insurrectionists from the ballot” under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment: the “14Point3 Campaign.” Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA-14) and Congressman Madison Cawthorn (R-NC-11) also face lawsuits under the campaign. Last month, a federal judge in North Carolina ruled in favor of Cawthorn.
Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads as follows:
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”
The nonprofit behind the lawsuit, Free Speech for People, also filed another lawsuit last month against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) concerning the debunked Russiagate collusion.
On Wednesday, the State Senate approved legislation lowering the percentage of assessed valuation for commercial property to 15 percent. SB1093 would reduce the property assessment ratio gradually over the next five years.
According to the bill sponsor in a press release, State Senator J.D. Mesnard (R-Chandler), explained that the aim was to ensure that Arizonans have more money to spend and, ultimately, invest back into the economy.
“Property taxes are a critical issue to all businesses, but especially for our smaller establishments. This bill will provide broad relief to our job creators,” said Mesnard. “Reducing the tax burden allows our small businesses to invest more money in their workforce and in expanding operations.”
The bill passed along party lines in both the House and Senate.
SB1093 would impact class one property: commercial and industrial properties that include those for mining, telecommunication companies, utilities, standing timber, airport fuel delivery, oil and gas production, pipelines, shopping centers, golf courses, and property devoted to any commercial or industrial use. Additionally, SB1093 prohibits fire district tax from increasing beyond $3.75 per $100 of assessed valuation.
State Senator Kelly Townsend (R-Mesa) commended Mesnard for the bill.
Grateful to Sen. @JDMesnard for his efforts in passing SB1093 which lowers the % of assessed valuation for commercial properties. It will reduce the imbalance in taxes that affect small businesses. Good job!
Legislature Democrats disliked that funds accrued from those property taxes would no longer be available, arguing that the state would turn elsewhere for the lost funds: homeowners, sales taxes, and the general fund.
State Senator Lela Alston (D-Phoenix) insisted during the Senate floor vote that the legislation would result in a tax increase on homeowners down the road.
State Representative Mitzi Epstein (D-Chandler) offered similar sentiments last month during the House floor vote. She added that the fund was a slippery slope mindset that would ultimately lead to steep cutoffs of education funding. State Representative Pamela Powers Hannley (D-Tucson) argued that the bill was based on trickle-down economics that she said only made the rich richer and the poor poorer.
“This bill picks winners and losers with the regular folks being losers in the state of Arizona,” said Powers Hannley.
State Representative Kelli Butler (D-Phoenix) added that the bill would result in county deficits that must either be mitigated or result in cuts. Butler said that the deficit would hurt rural areas the most.
“If you want to continue to fund law enforcement, like I do, if you want to continue to fund really important things in your counties and rural Arizona, you need to vote against this bill,” said Butler.
State Representative Neal Carter (R-Queen Creek) rebutted the arguments put forth by his Democratic colleagues. He insinuated that their calculations were simplistic and neglecting the potential for exponential and possibly unprecedented growth inspired by low tax rates.
“In reality, the loss is less than it may appear by simply subtracting the revenue that’s brought in,” said Carter.
State Representative Shawnna Bolick (R-Phoenix) noted that the assessment ratio is applied across the state equally and would eventually make Arizona more competitive with Texas, Colorado, and Utah.
SB1093 now heads to Governor Doug Ducey for approval.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
