The Senate Health and Human Services Committee received a welcome surprise from 10-year-old Adam Fraleigh, when the little boy with Down syndrome thanked them for hearing his family’s testimony by hugging each senator present.
Adam’s father, John Fraleigh, brought Adam to address a bill that would include Down syndrome among the developmental disabilities recognized by the Department of Economic Security (DES) for its programs, services, and facilities. The pair matched in their attire: gray vests, light purple dress shirts, and purple ties.
Fraleigh gave a brief medical explanation of what makes Down syndrome a developmental disability. He cited the many medical procedures Adam has undergone in his 10 short years, and the likely many more ahead for the rest of his life.
“Requiring paperwork to consistently prove the effects of Down syndrome is wrong. Please pass this bill to demonstrate the understanding that Down syndrome is a disability, a cognitive disability,” said Fraleigh. “My son will require additional resources forever. With that, I’m open for questions, he’s open for hugs.”
Adam rushed over after his father’s testimony to hug each committee member, pulling them close and patting everyone vigorously on the back. He brought a welcome break from a long, packed legislative season, inspiring smiles and laughter from all in the room.
State Senator Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix) thanked Fraleigh for bringing Adam, noting that he brightened their day.
“Thank you; he brightens my day every day,” responded Fraleigh.
The bill passed the House unanimously last month.
Currently, the list of developmental disabilities under DES doesn’t include Down syndrome, but does include autism, cerebral palsy, intellectual disability diagnosis, epilepsy, or diagnosed as at-risk for developing these disabilities.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) announced earlier this month that it would consider the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), federal law that determines when states can rescue abused or neglected Indian children, as well as foster rules. This law applies to tribal children and those eligible to live on a tribe but living off of a reservation. Essentially, ICWA does all it can to keep Native American children within their own families or with other Native Americans, and requires state officials to apply a higher degree of scrutiny over abuse to determine whether abuse exists. While other children’s cases need only present “clear and convincing evidence” of abuse, Native American children’s cases would need to present “without a reasonable doubt.” ICWA was enacted to prevent the government from taking Native American children from their families.
Phoenix’s nationally-acclaimed public policy research and litigation organization, the Goldwater Institute, requested SCOTUS to review ICWA; they’ve challenged the federal law for years. In light of the SCOTUS announcement, Goldwater Institute Vice President of Litigation Timothy Sandefur discussed ICWA on the “Andy Caldwell Show.”
Sandefur described the law as unconstitutional and depriving children of fair treatment. He noted that Native American children are at greater risk for molestation, abuse, gang membership, and suicide, arguing that already-vulnerable children were only hurt more by ICWA.
“The rules that [ICWA] sets for child protection are actually less protective for a child than the laws that apply for every other racial group,” said Sandefur.
TUNE IN today at 4:30 PM MT/6:30 ET!
Goldwater's @TimothySandefur will be on the @ACaldwell_Show to analyze SCOTUS' decision to hear a challenge of the unconstitutional federal law that discriminates against Native American kids.
— Goldwater Institute (@GoldwaterInst) March 1, 2022
The case SCOTUS will consider, Brackeen v. Haaland, comes from a culmination of different cases brought by several parents desiring to adopt Native American children but were denied due to not being Native American themselves.
Sandefur described one case that the Goldwater Institute worked on, in which a mother wanted to terminate the rights of her abusive husband so that her new husband could legally adopt her son. If the child had been any other race, the rights could’ve been terminated. However, ICWA applied. Under ICWA, it was “prohibitively difficult” to terminate an abusive parent’s right, even in the case of a mother requesting that action.
In a press release, Sandefur also noted that ICWA also violates the separation of the federal and state governments by requiring states to enforce federal law and interpret their own laws differently.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Gov. Doug Ducey had a productive Friday, signing 19 bills that will take effect later this year, including legislation which makes adoption hearings more accessible and ensures more thorough vetting of those working at nursing homes.
One of the bills signed by Ducey is Senate Bill 1242 which made it to the governor’s office with strong bipartisan support to enhance background checks for those working at and managing by nursing care and assisted living facilities. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Tyler Pace, also prohibits licensure of individuals who have a felony conviction involving acts of violence or financial fraud.
“Our nursing homes and assisted living facilities deserve accountability and leadership from their supervisors,” Ducey said Friday. “SB 1242 accomplishes this. Our seniors – grandmothers, grandfathers and family members – deserve nothing less to ensure their safety, happiness and health.”
Another provision of Pace’s bill requires the Arizona Board of Nursing Care Institution Administrators and Assisted Living Facility Managers (NCIA) to work with the Arizona Department of Health Services to establish an expedited process for identifying and referring complaints between the agencies.
Five of the 19 bills signed by Ducey on Friday were sponsored by Sen. TJ Shope. They cover a variety of issues, including liens, healthcare directives, tribal college enrollment, postsecondary education, and one which reduces the time period that a nonprofit organization must be in continuous existence prior to conducting a raffle down from five years to one year.
Sen. Nancy Barto sponsored four of the signed bills, including Senate Bill 1069 which allows adoptive families to invite members of the public to adoption hearings. Under current law, only persons with a “direct interest” in an adoption case could gain access to such hearings.
Municipalities will gain new authority when one of the 19 bills goes into effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends. That authority is courtesy of Senate Bill 1275, one of three bills signed by Ducey which were sponsored by Sen. J.D. Mesnard.
SB1275 allows local governments to reduce noise disturbances by limiting fireworks between 11 p.m. and 8 a.m., except for New Year’s Eve and Independence Day. On those two national holidays, the setting off of fireworks could be banned after 1 a.m.
A bill to tighten up mail-in voting, SB1260, passed the House Government and Elections Committee along a party-line vote on Wednesday, 7-6.
SB1260, introduced by State Senator J.D. Mesnard (R-Chandler), would make it a class 5 felony for someone to knowingly help another to vote who’s registered in another state. If made law, people would be required to write “not at this address” on an early ballot sent to their home but not addressed to them. There’s no penalty for not writing the phrase on the ballot. In return, county recorders would have to cancel that individual’s registration and remove their name from the Active Early Voting List (AEVL).
Mesnard explained during the committee hearing that Arizona law doesn’t currently have standards for handling those who’ve moved, such as duplicate registrations.
Minority Leader Reginald Bolding (D-Laveen) inquired how a prosecutor would determine that an individual knew they were helping another vote fraudulently, giving an example of a parent forwarding an absentee ballot to their college student who’d established residency and registered to vote in another state. Mesnard admitted that determining that someone “knowingly” facilitated fraudulent voting was difficult to prove, emphasizing that the burden to prove that would fall on the prosecutor.
“I don’t think it should be someone caught up in an innocent mistake,” said Mesnard.
State Representative Kevin Payne (R-Peoria) pointed out that the college student given in Bolding’s example would have to vote on the ballot for the parent’s mistake to be made apparent, and that the college student would be knowingly submitting a fraudulent vote.
State Representative Sarah Liguori (D-Phoenix) asked whether this was a real issue that occurred. Mesnard confirmed that he’d received reports of people submitting ballots to others registered in other counties.
“What does the statute say? Is the statute silent on it or does it address that? And it was silent on the issue,” said Mesnard.
Constituents in favor of the bill included Arizona Free Enterprise Club Deputy Director Greg Blackie, agreeing with Mesnard that current statute doesn’t address this problem that mailed ballots present.
Bolding claimed that counties already have a mechanism in place to address ballots sent to the wrong address, and he argued that the ignorant might be punished for unintentionally committing a crime.
“If they are somehow convicted by a rogue prosecutor, whether they’re at the local level or state level who’s looking to make a political point or score points,” said Bolding. “In this political environment right now, I think we need to be judicious in the laws that we’re making. We need to make sure we’re taking the politics out of it, especially when it comes to the electoral process.”
Liguori concurred with Bolding’s assessment, arguing that the legislation addressed a nonexistent problem.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The city of Tucson will require proof of vaccination for individuals wishing to serve as election workers for the upcoming special election in May. According to emails obtained by AZ Free News, individuals are required to bring their COVID-19 vaccination cards along with their social security cards and contact information if they would like to be a paid election worker.
Multiple studies on the demographics of the vaccinated show that the majority of vaccinated individuals self-identify as Democrats. As of press time, the FDA has authorized three booster shot brands for the COVID-19 vaccine: Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen-Johnson & Johnson. According to Johns Hopkins Medicine, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines’ protection wanes after five months, while the Johnson & Johnson version wanes after two months.
In less than a year after the FDA initially approved the first emergency use authorization (EUA) for the COVID-19 vaccine, some have received as many as three additional boosters on top of their initial shot. On Tuesday, Pfizer-BioNTech petitioned the FDA to approve a fourth booster. Full FDA approval of one of the vaccine brands, Pfizer-BioNTech, came at the end of August — about seven months ago.
The May 22 special election will have voters determine whether to approve Proposition 411, introduced by Mayor Regina Romero and the city council, to authorize a 10-year extension of a half-cent sales tax for travel infrastructure.
AZ Free News reached out to the city of Tucson for comment, and to ask whether they would grant exemptions to individuals who can’t get the COVID-19 vaccine. They didn’t respond by press time.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
In a rare split, nine Republican Senators voted Wednesday against a bill sponsored by a member of their own caucus, with one senator calling on Gov. Doug Ducey to veto the bill if it hits his desk.
Voters approved the one-half cent sales tax for transportation funding back in the early 1980s and again in 2004 as Proposition 400. It is set to expire at the end of 2025 unless voters approve an extension that will general billions over the course of the proposed new extension.
To understand the money at play, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee projects the current Maricopa County transportation tax will generate in $754 million in annual revenue in 2025 alone.
Senate Bill 1356 was introduced in January by Sen. Tyler Pace as the vehicle to get the choice in front of voters. It contains an emergency clause, so if signed into law by Gov. Doug Ducey then the extension option will appear on the 2020 General Election ballot.
Voters in Maricopa County would then have a chance to say aye or nay to another extension. They will also have a good idea for how the tax revenue would be spent during the next two decades thanks to a draft spending plan from the Maricopa Association of Government.
But it appears the rush to get the matter on the ballot this year was more of an objection to those senators voting against the bill than the extension itself.
For Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, putting the matter before voters in 2022 does not make sense considering the sales tax extension can go on the 2024 ballot.
“We have some members that are requesting that we suspend the 18 cents gas tax,” she said in explaining her no vote. “We’re sending mixed messages. There’s no reason we need to do it now. We can do this in 2024.”
Ugenti-Rita pointed out that Republicans have been touting tax cuts the last several years and are now asking voters in Maricopa County to approve a tax increase that cannot be undone for 25 years.
“Coming up on an election, this is the worst thing Republicans can do, is mandate a historic tax increase be placed on the ballot,” she added while calling on Ducey to veto the bill if it gets that far.
Joining Ugenti-Rita in voting against SB1356 were Senators Nancy Barto, Sonny Borrelli, David Gowan, Vince Leach, JD Mesnard, Warren Petersen, Wendy Rogers, and Kelly Townsend.
For Mesnard, the inclusion of funding for “intolerable” light rail projects was the primary reason for his no vote even though he applauded Pace for the effort put into the legislation.
“The thing that I have just wrestled over is when I look now down 25 yeas in the future, what is transportation going to look like?” Mesnard said on the floor. “And so I have been uncomfortable with the idea that we would spend what I think is hundreds of millions, billions of dollars, on light rail.”
SB1356 also makes several changes to the distribution of the tax revenues, while modifying the budgeting process for the Maricopa Association of Governments which will have to create a Transportation Tax Plan. And it increases the tax period from 20 to 25 years.
Gowan explained his no vote is also tied to the inclusion of so much money for light rail projects, saying he thought the money would be better spent on the construction of freeways and maintenance of existing highways and streets.
“I think it is a better fit for those dollars that we would get for light rail to actually go into the roads…the highways that we all travel,” Gowan said Wednesday. “I do believe, no pun intended, it’s a bridge too far to go with the light rail. And that is why you see me voting no today, Madame President.”
SB1359 still passed out of the Senate on a 21 to 9 vote, securing the two-thirds votes required of an emergency clause. It has been transmitted to the House where its passage is not assured due to the two-thirds requirement of the 60 representatives.
