A nonprofit program receiving taxpayer funds to house illegal immigrants called police on two congressmen who attempted to visit the facility last week.
A manager with Casa Alitas called the sheriff on Republican Reps. Tom Tiffany (WI) and Doug LaMalfa (CA), both members of the Natural Resources subcommittee, when they attempted to visit a Casa Alitas location housing illegal immigrants: a repurposed Ramada Inn in Tucson. In a video of the interaction, the pair are invited to speak to an unidentified, masked woman referred to as the “manager” of the location; upon hearing them introduce themselves as members of Congress, the woman turned and yelled at her colleague to “call 911.”
Tiffany urged a public congressional hearing on NGO expenditures for illegal immigrant aid.
“These NGOs aiding illegals are receiving federal dollars, and it’s Congress’ duty to provide oversight,” said Tiffany. “This needs investigating ASAP, and Congress must hold public hearings with these groups testifying to give the American people transparency on how their tax dollars are being spent.”
After @JamesOKeefeIII exposed that the Casa Alitas Ramada Hotel in Tucson was housing illegals, I made a stop to see how American taxpayer dollars are being spent.
These NGOs aiding illegals are receiving federal dollars, and it’s Congress’ duty to provided oversight.
Casa Alitas is a program of the Catholic Community Services of Southern Arizona. The program takes in illegal immigrants from ICE and Border Patrol detention, and gives them housing, food, clothing, laundry, toiletries, and travel assistance.
The parent organization spent over $3 million in the 2022 fiscal year to operate Casa Alitas, assisting nearly 47,700 illegal immigrants that year. As of their latest data in 2023, the program has assisted over 180,000 illegal immigrants since launching in 2014.
In December, illegal immigrants overwhelmed Phoenix Sky Harbor airport with transport and travel assistance supplied by Catholic Community Services of Southern Arizona. Multiple individuals reported witnessing the illegal immigrants receiving priority boarding and expedited security checks.
The cost to house and transport illegal immigrants has come at a high cost to taxpayers. In October, AZ Free News reported on the city of Tucson having spent $5 million in under a year to provide housing and busing to illegal immigrants through a reimbursement arrangement with the county and federal government. The city entered into an agreement last April to have Pima County reimburse them for incurred expenses providing services to illegal immigrants.
In a meeting last week, the Tucson City Council agreed to be reimbursed for up to another $6 million under this arrangement through the summer.
Current Casa Alitas program leadership include Diego Peña Lopez, agency director; Susana Selig-Gastelum, associate agency director; Daniel Diochea, operations manager; Kyle Haynes, operations manager; and Caleb Milford, operations manager.
“This a prime example of a critical lack of transparency,” said Backer. “If public dollars are being used to run this facility, it requires oversight by public servants who will be transparent and can be trusted to look out for the taxpayers interests.”
Tiffany visited the Casa Alitas location after O’Keefe Media Group (OMG) went undercover to report the location’s inner workings. One migrant informed an OMG journalist that he witnessed gang members taking advantage of the lax border policy.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Mesa Public Schools (MPS) faces a lawsuit for policies resulting in the secret transitioning of children’s genders and tracking their gender transition journeys while restricting parental knowledge or consent.
The amended lawsuit, filed on Tuesday by America First Legal (AFL) on behalf of MPS Governing Board member Rachel Walden and the mother of one alleged victim, accused MPS of unlawfully hiding policy and evidence of their transitioning of children from parents. Arizona’s Constitution and Parents’ Bill of Rights acknowledge that it is the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.
The amended complaint contained new information revealing that at least one MPS school maintained a “parent concealment cheat sheet”: a spreadsheet tracking the gender journeys of over a dozen students as well as information on which of their parents were supportive or needed to be kept in the dark.
/1 🚨BREAKING – America First Legal Sues Mesa Public Schools in Amended Lawsuit, Adding Mother Whose Daughter’s Gender Was Transitioned Without Parental Knowledge or Consent, and After Obtaining New Evidence Proving Scale of Deception
MPS policy of transitioning children without parental knowledge or consent, the Transgender Support Plan (TSP), dates back to 2015, according to the lawsuit. The policy asks the children for permission to notify their parents of their gender transition: should the child decline, MPS requires its employees to keep the transition hidden from parents.
MPS has long denied the allegations that TSP occurs without parental notification. Last June, MPS Superintendent Andi Fourlis dismissed the allegations in a public letter.
According to a once-public document students were made to fill out to initiate a TSP, the Support Plan for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students, students were given the option to deny permission of disclosure of their gender transitions to their parents. MPS removed that support plan from public view following community outcry in 2022. The district then issued an updated version of the support plan with a loophole to parental disclosure: name and gender changes were to be requested through Synergy — the district’s online database — in order for parents to be notified. Should Synergy not be updated, parents would not be notified.
AFL noted that this loophole contradicted Fourlis’ claim, which ultimately resulted in the gender transition of the eighth-grade girl at the heart of AFL’s lawsuit, Megan Doe, to a male by school staff without the knowledge or consent of Doe’s mother, Jane.
“[S]chool employees encouraged Megan to lie to her parents and helped her to do so, which harmed the parent-child relationship and delayed Megan from receiving needed mental health counseling,” stated AFL.
Per the lawsuit, Jane’s attempts to learn of what had happened to her daughter were rebuffed by school staff and leadership in 2022. The principal at her daughter’s school refused to disclose further records or information about the conversations school staff had with her daughter, and refused to comply with Jane’s demand to cease referring to her daughter as a boy and by a boy’s name.
“The principal admitted that school personnel intentionally had not changed Megan’s name in the [Synergy] system to avoid any notification being sent to Jane and that there were no plans to change Megan’s name in the system,” stated the lawsuit. “The principal told Jane that even if Jane had asked to be notified about any name changes, pronoun changes, or other choices related to a transgender identity by her child, it was official MPS policy not to tell parents and that school personnel would not notify Jane about any further developments related to these issues.”
It was only after this ordeal that Jane discovered Megan’s struggles and, reportedly, was able to resolve them through conversations with her mother and a psychotherapist. The lawsuit stated that this maternal intervention resulted in Megan’s issues being “completely resolved” within a month.
“[Megan] is now very comfortable presenting herself as a female and using her given name and is thriving in high school,” stated AFL.
AFL claimed to also have discovered, upon information and belief, that MPS employees regularly ignored the requirement to notify parents after students began transitioning genders in school.
AFL further issued evidence of a school counselor, Emily Wulff at Kino Junior High, instructing school staff in an email last March to not disclose gender transitions to anyone outside those allowed within the support plan. Wulff’s email made no mention of parental notification.
In a follow-up email, Wulff clarified that the purpose of the nondisclosure policy was to “protect outing students who are not ready to come out to peers or family members.” Wulff specified that the support plan was designed to keep gender transitions a secret from certain families.
“The main takeaways would be to make sure when contacting home to use their preferred name home,” wrote Wulff. “For example, if I have a student that goes by Emily and she/her pronouns that I need to call home for, and in their plan it says to use their birth name and biological pronouns home, [be] sure you do not out the student by using their preferred name and pronouns they use at school.”
Last March, Wulff also directed school employees to keep up a spreadsheet tracking the gender transition journeys of 17 students, titled “Pronoun Preference,” with notes declaring whether a student’s parents and family were aware of their transition.
For three students whose parents were documented as “unaware,” Wulff’s spreadsheet directed school employees to hide their preferred names and pronouns. For another seven students whose parents were documented as somewhat aware or partially supportive, the spreadsheet instructed staff to use the students’ birth names and gender to mask the extent of their transition.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) is suing Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes due to certain rules in the latest Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) from December 2023, which the group believes are unlawful. The pro-free market nonprofit filed the legal challenge in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona for the County of Maricopa late last week.
AFEC is asking the court to strike down the provisions challenged by the lawsuit which are believed to contradict or exceed statutory authority.
“Secretary Fontes has produced one of the most radical elections procedures manuals in our state’s history,” said Scot Mussi, president of AFEC. “If the illegal provisions of this manual are allowed to stand, the integrity and transparency of state elections would continue to dissipate at the hands of leftwing ideologues.”
The complaint alleges that the 2023 EPM improperly places protected political speech at risk of criminal prosecution and has an unconstitutional chilling effect on protected political speech.
The provisions of the EPM that AFEC contends are unconstitutional include rules that: restrict observation of drop boxes and polling places, ban photography at election sites, and regulate speaking to people at election sites.
“These activities — watching drop boxes, speaking to people at election sites, and photographing activity at election sites — all constitute forms of speech,’’ the lawsuit says.
In addition to these claims, the lawsuit is challenging the 2023 EPM’s rules requiring political parties to open their primaries to federal only voters.
“The 2023 EPM also contradicts statutory requirements and exceeds statutory authority by opening the Presidential Preference Election to federal only voters, in essence, creating a new law out of whole cloth,” AFEC said in a news release.
The Free Enterprise Club details three counts for causes of action regarding the EPM, including speech, free association, and vagueness.
“We hope the court agrees with our arguments and forces the Secretary to adhere to state law,” Mussi said.
This isn’t the first lawsuit that’s been filed over the 2023 EPM. In January, Arizona’s leading legislative Republicans sued Fontes over the EPM. The Arizona Republican Party, Republican National Committee, and Yavapai County GOP filed their own lawsuit late last week.
Elizabeth Troutman is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send her news tips using this link.
A bipartisan effort to pass election reforms in Arizona succeeded last week.
After many failed times of attempting to approve election reform measures in Arizona under a divided government since the start of 2023, the Republican-led legislature and Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs came to an agreement on a crucial package. Late last week, the state house and senate passed HB 2785, and then the governor signed the legislation.
According to an overview provided by the Arizona House of Representatives, the bill is “an emergency measure that modifies certain procedures and deadlines related to the conduct of elections.” The significant provisions of the legislation, per the press release from the Arizona House, are as follows:
Robust legally binding signature verification standards in law for first time in Arizona.
Puts political parties on an equal playing field when curing ballots.
Promotes greater use of ID when voting early.
Ensures that Arizona’s overseas military will be able to vote, and Arizona’s electors will be delivered on time.
With the bipartisan agreement, Arizona’s primary election date will be moved up to July 30.
“Politics is the art of the possible, and when Republicans stick together, we can achieve the impossible, like getting Katie Hobbs to sign real election reforms into law,” said Representative Alexander Kolodin, sponsor of HB 2785. “Arizona’s voters can rest assured that the 2024 election will be more secure, free, and fair than those that have gone before.”
The Senate Elections Committee Chair, Senator Wendy Rogers, added, “”This legislation is a major win for Arizona voters and important in restoring voter confidence in election Integrity. After months of painstaking discussions among lawmakers, election experts, administrators, county officials, and the executive branch, I’m proud we were able to craft a commonsense solution that all 15 Arizona counties support. It will ensure our service members abroad will have their votes counted on election day, and moreover, it will enable us to accurately determine the winner sooner rather than later.”
Governor Hobbs also struck a triumphant tone in her statement when she signed the bill, saying, “With this bill, we are making sure every eligible Arizonan can have their voice heard at the ballot box. We protected voters’ rights, we kept the partisan priorities out, and we demonstrated to the country that democracy in our state is strong. Thank you to Republicans and Democrats in the legislature who put partisan politics aside to deliver this important victory for the people of Arizona.”
I'm proud to sign our bipartisan deal to keep our elections free and fair.
With this bill, we're making sure Arizonans will have their voices heard at the ballot box. pic.twitter.com/GQNOfoyXXl
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, also a Democrat, chimed in with his support of the package. Fontes said, “I am pleased to see Arizona’s bipartisan effort to pass House Bill 2785, keeping on-time ballot delivery for military and overseas voters and securing the state’s electoral votes for the 2024 presidential election. This legislation received overwhelming support across party lines and demonstrates Arizona’s commitment to fair and secure elections.”
The bill passed the state house with a 56-2 vote (with two vacant seats), and the senate with a 24-2 vote (with four members not voting).
Ironically, the consensus on these election reforms between legislative Republicans and statewide Democrats comes as both parties prepare to wage a legal fight in the courts over the Elections Procedures Manual that was produced by Secretary Fontes and greenlighted by Governor Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes is facing another lawsuit over his Elections Procedures Manual (EPM), the state’s rulebook for administering federal and state elections updated biennially.
On Friday, the Arizona Republican Party (AZGOP), the Republican National Committee (RNC), and Yavapai County GOP sued Fontes over the 2023 EPM. Newly-elected AZGOP Chairwoman Gina Swoboda stated in a press release that Fontes had far surpassed his limited rulemaking authority through the EPM.
“Fontes and his allies are not legislators — they have no right to insert their preferred far-left policies into the guidance for Arizona elections,” said Swoboda. “This is a blatant attempt to rewrite election law and hollow out basic safeguards that are designed to preserve election integrity in our state’s elections.”
State law limits Fontes’ rulemaking authority to supporting existing laws on early and regular voting, and the handling of ballots and other election materials. The GOP groups stated in their lawsuit that these limitations were necessarily “specific and exhaustive” because the EPM carries the force of law upon approval by the governor and attorney general: a violation of any EPM provision is a class two misdemeanor, which carries a maximum four-month jail sentence.
Nine provisions set forth in Fontes’ EPM conflict with state election law, according to the GOP groups. These provisions concern registered voters who are declared noncitizens or have not provided Documentary Proof Of Citizenship (DPOC), signature verification, challenges to early ballots, out-of-state mailed ballots, and out-of-precinct voters.
One contested EPM provision requires county recorders to not cancel the voter registrations of individuals who declared themselves noncitizens on juror questionnaires if they have previously provided DPOC or have been registered to vote since 2004. The GOP groups contend that A.R.S. § 16-165(A)(10) requires county recorders to cancel those types of voter registrations, should the individual in question not respond to a mailed request for DPOC within 35 days.
A second contested EPM provision allows for those who don’t submit DPOC or whose DPOC can’t be verified to be registered as federal-only voters: individuals who may only cast votes for federal offices. The GOP groups contend that A.R.S. § 16-127(1) prohibits those without DPOC from voting in presidential elections.
A third contested EPM provision allows first-time, federal-only voters to provide only an ID and not DPOC in order to vote by mail. The GOP groups contend that A.R.S. § 16-127(2) prohibits anyone who hasn’t provided DPOC from voting by mail.
Fourth and fifth contested EPM provisions declare that county recorders aren’t required to check federal databases for citizenship review purposes. The GOP groups contend that A.R.S. §§ 16-165 and 161-121.01 require county recorders to compare voter registrations to a specific and inclusive list of state and national databases.
A sixth contested EPM provision precludes public review of voter signatures on mail ballots, limiting review to documents pertaining to a candidate, initiative, referendum, recall, new party, or petition. The GOP groups contend that A.R.S. § 16-168(F) allows public review of voter signatures for all election purposes.
A seventh contested EPM provision allows Active Early Voting List (AEVL) voters to make one-time requests for their ballots to be mailed to an address outside the state for certain elections. The GOP groups contend that A.R.S. § 16-544(B) prohibits AEVL voters from using a mailing address outside the state unless they are Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) voters.
An eighth contested EPM provision requires the denial of early ballot challenges received prior to the “return” of an early ballot or after the opening of an early ballot affidavit envelope. The GOP groups contend that A.R.S. § 16-552(D) allows for challenges to be placed before early ballots are placed in the ballot box specifically.
A ninth contested EPM provision allows out-of-precinct voters to cast provisional ballots. The GOP groups contend that A.R.S. § 16-122 prohibits out-of-precinct voters from voting at all.
Their lawsuit also accuses Fontes of ignoring statutory requirements for public and stakeholder review of the EPM, namely by withholding disclosure of “critical portions” of the rulebook until its final release last December.
GOP leadership also objected to Fontes only granting 15 days for initial public comment on the draft EPM from last July to mid-August and then allowed for no public comment period prior to the publishing of the final EPM in December. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires agencies — defined as boards, commissions, departments, officers, or other administrative units — to allow for at least 30 days of public comment. The GOP groups argue that the secretary of state’s office falls under APA’s definition of agency.
Both the AZGOP and RNC raised objections to the brevity of public comment for the draft EPM around the time of its release, which Fontes ignored.
At the end of last month, Arizona’s GOP legislative leadership sued Fontes over the EPM. Their lawsuit contested some of the same provisions as this latest lawsuit from the GOP groups, but also contested other provisions, such as an AEVL provision delaying voter roll cleanup until 2027 and a canvassing provision circumventing court-based relief for when boards of supervisors fail to certify an election.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Sarah Liguori will fill a vacancy in the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 5, after the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors appointed her last week.
“Sarah Liguori’s previous legislative experience will allow her to hit the ground running. Since the legislature is currently in session, LD5 deserves a representative who can step right in,” District 3 Supervisor Bill Gates said. “I also appreciate her background in business and her openness to working across the aisle to get things done.”
The board appointed the Democrat by a unanimous vote. She fills the seat vacated last month by Rep. Jennifer Longdon.
The mother of two has a history of supporting left-wing bills. She sponsored a bill repealing Arizona statues making abortion a crime and another allowing terminally ill adults to choose to take medicine to end their lives.
In March 2022, two Arizona sisters traveled to Switzerland to take their lives by assisted suicide due to “medical frustrations” including back pain. Liguouri’s bill, which failed to pass, could have allowed such decisions in the Grand Canyon state.
Since 2016, doctors in Canada, where euthanasia is legal, have administered around 30,000 lethal injections, one-third of them in 2021 alone, at patients’ requests. The more than 10,000 cases of euthanasia in 2021 marks an increase of 34.7% from 7,446 in 2020, representing 3.3% of all deaths, according to the Washington Post.
Liguori previously worked as a financial advisor for an international bank and in commercial real estate. She represented Arizona’s former District 28 in the House of Representatives from 2021 to 2023.
The district Liguori will now represent comprises a large portion of Central and North Phoenix.
In accordance with Arizona law, board members selected Liguori from a list of three candidates submitted by the LD-5 precinct committeemen. All candidates were required to reside in the district and be a member of the same party as the person who vacated the office. In this case, a Democrat.
Liguori will serve until Nov. 5, when the position will be on the ballot.
Liguori sits on several community boards and volunteers with Local First Arizona, Phoenix Art Museum, Women’s Art Council, Big Brothers Big Sisters, and the Salvation Army Shelter. She received her bachelor’s degree in Economics with a minor in Business Administration from University of Arizona and studied International Studies in Business at Lorenzo de Medici University in Florence, Italy.
She has served as senior director of impact investing at the Arizona Community Foundation since October 2022.
Elizabeth Troutman is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send her news tips using this link.
