by Daniel Stefanski | Jul 17, 2023 | Education, News
By Daniel Stefanski |
The State’s Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction continues to fight on behalf of an Arizona law.
Last week, the Arizona Department of Education sent a media advisory to note that “State schools chief Tom Horne is at U.S. District Court in Tucson to stand up for the state’s law prohibiting biological boys from participating in girls’ sports.” The communication announced that “a federal judge is hearing arguments whether to temporarily block the ban that was signed into law last year.”
That law was SB 1165, which was signed by former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey on March 30, 2022. The law prohibits biological males from competing in women’s and girls’ athletic events at state public schools, colleges, and universities.
The Department later posted a tweet on the issue, which stated, “Superintendent Horne is defending Arizona state law which bans biological boys from competing in girl’s sports. Title IX was created for equal opportunities for female athletes, and allowing males to compete in women’s sports undermines everything these athletes have fought for.”
AZ Free News reached out to Superintendent Horne about his thoughts on the legal hearing and the case in general. Horne replied, “It’s partly about safety but it’s mostly about fairness and the fact that there have been many news articles about girls who focused very strongly on sports, worked really hard, hoped to excel, maybe get a college scholarship or be in the Olympics or whatever, and then all of a sudden have to compete against biological males. They have no chance to compete successfully against them and they’re devastated by it. Now they have found what they believe to be sympathetic plaintiffs because they’re 11-year-olds who are using puberty blockers, so they say they lose the advantage of males. But we have presented numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies to the court showing that even before puberty, males still have an advantage. Our evidence is overwhelming compared to theirs.”
The Arizona Women of Action applauded the latest action from the Department, writing, “We greatly appreciate Tom Horne for upholding the Save Girl’s Sports Act. AZ Women of Action stands with Tom Horne in this endeavor by joining the lawsuit & representing Arizona families who want to save girls’ sports.”
At least some Democrats saw Horne’s defense of the law in a different light. The Yavapai County Democrats tweeted, “Sup. Horne seen here wasting time on a manufactured crisis. Protect public schools. Do something useful for education. Horne is a disgrace.”
Horne isn’t the only Arizona official who has weighed in on this court case. Earlier this year, both Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma filed a Motion to Intervene in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Tucson Division. The Senate Republican’s press release highlighted that “on April 17, 2023, plaintiffs represented by a radical organization filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to stop the law from being enforced in Arizona,” and “Attorney General Kris Mayes is not defending the constitutionality of the law.”
At the time, Petersen said, “In the absence of the Attorney General defending Arizona’s law, we’re looking forward to fighting for the rights of female athletes across Arizona, as well as for the Court making it clear Arizona’s law protecting women and girls should be enforced.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Jul 17, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
One of Arizona’s county attorneys is taking the lead in pushing back against one of the governor’s recent, controversial executive orders.
Last week, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell went on Arizona Horizon on PBS to talk about her opposition to Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs’ executive order last month, which would “centralize all abortion-related prosecutions under the Attorney General to ensure differences in application of the law by county attorneys do not restrict access to legal abortions.”
Mitchell has consistently framed her counterargument in a way that allows the application of the law to overshadow the divisive issue of abortion. During the interview, Mitchell acknowledged that there were strong feelings on both sides of the abortion debate, saying, “It’s certainly an emotional topic, and I certainly understand why there are very emotional views on both sides.”
Though the Maricopa County Attorney recognizes the feelings for this issue, she is unwavering in her stance on the importance of following the law. She stated, “But the bottom line is that this is a government of laws, not of men – and there is a process for enacting laws in this state – and we have done that. It involves the legislature and the governor – or a referral to the people. And it cannot be governed by just one person’s decision. That is a government of men, and that is something that is just not appropriate – it’s not consistent with the American way of doing business.”
The Republican County Attorney also addressed the argument that the authority of the state’s attorney supersedes that of individual county attorneys, saying, “The attorney general is not the primary prosecutor in the State of Arizona. The primary prosecutors are the various 15 county attorneys, and so they are the ones with the greater jurisdiction – and so the governor cannot just take jurisdiction away from county attorneys who are elected in their own right…. If you look at the jurisdiction of the various county attorneys, it is a more general jurisdiction. The attorney general, for example, she can’t even go into a county grand jury without either my permission or the permission of a judge. Not a governor. So it’s not something where she can just assume someone else’s jurisdiction.”
Mitchell also poked significant holes in the idea that there was even a need in the first place for the governor and attorney general to step in to referee the issue of abortion, adding, “We know that the Dobbs’ decision came out a year ago now, and there has not been a single prosecution brought in any of the 15 counties. So I don’t know who would be considered to be overzealous. What I’m concerned about is somebody who is an extremist in another way, and that is if we set this as a precedent, where a governor thinks that they can strip another elected official’s powers – it may not be a bad thing today to some people, but in the future it may be…. They did not react to a specific case where extremism was occurring. They tried to take all of the power away from elected county attorneys in all circumstances, including cases that don’t involve that – and that is not appropriate. And it’s a very, very frightening precedent to start.”
When asked about her next move in response to the governor’s executive order, Mitchell didn’t completely close the door on being proactive, but instead indicated that her office might wait until conflict arose between the two jurisdictions: “I would have liked to have handled it in a professional way through discussion. I was hoping that the governor, through talking to others as well as the letter, would understand, that there is a better way to handle this, that this is an extremely dangerous precedent. She chose not to, and that’s within her purview. But that does not give her the authority. And so where it goes from here is that we’re going to continue to conduct business as we have for the past year. If a case is submitted – and there have been no cases submitted to me – we’re going to follow the same procedure that we have followed for every other case.”
The first-term county attorney ended her interview on Arizona PBS by announcing her commitment to following the law in this circumstance where she and the governor might take opposing sides. Mitchell reiterated that Hobbs’ “executive order doesn’t have the authority of overcoming the law,” and that “the law trumps executive orders and the constitution trumps the law.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Corinne Murdock | Jul 16, 2023 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
Peoria Unified School District (PUSD) is allowing males into girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms, overlooking evidence of females harmed by policies allowing gender identity to dictate bathroom usage. Legal counsel for the members advised a need to align with the Biden administration’s interpretation of Title IX, based on recent legal rulings in the Ninth Circuit.
Board members Melissa Ewing, David Sandoval, and Bill Sorensen supported allowing students to use the bathrooms or locker rooms based on their gender identity. Board members Heather Rooks and Rebecca Hill opposed it.
The Biden administration announced in 2021 that it intended to expand Title IX sex-based protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The Education Department proposed the change to the policy last year; in May, the Biden administration announced that it would publish the final Title IX rule in October.
The rule change received over 390,000 public comments.
The Biden administration’s updated version of Title IX would not only allow gender identity to determine locker room and bathroom access — it would also impact sports team admissions.
In an April meeting, PUSD member Ewing claimed that no problem existed against preventing boys from entering girls’ spaces because no similar crimes have been reported in PUSD schools. Ewing further claimed that national data doesn’t support the belief that female-identifying males present a danger in private female spaces.
“If you look at our incident reports, and the narrative about assaults in the bathroom, it has not come as the result of a transgender-identified student. There is not a single incident that has happened,” said Ewing. “And if you look at the nationwide data, that does not show it as well. As board members, we need to be making sure that we are making data-driven decisions.”
Last month, Ewing shared a legal opinion from an LGBTQ+ advocacy site which argued that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that discrimination based on sexual orientation violates Title IX protections.
Although Ewing claimed no bathroom assault cases exist due to transgender individuals, there were several high-profile cases over the last few years. Their existence was brought up in a viral video pulled from a recent meeting.
Ben Larrabee, project manager for conservative activist organization Turning Point USA, cited multiple cases in which males identifying as females were alleged to have flashed, sexually assaulted, or raped girls or women after entering female bathrooms or locker rooms.
This included the two teenaged girls sexually assaulted by the same gender-fluid teenage boy at two different schools in Loudoun County, Virginia; the sexual assault of a five-year-old girl by a gender-fluid boy in Decatur, Georgia; and the assault of a teenage girl by a teenage boy identifying as a female.
“Before you say that these are anecdotal evidence, just note that in a survey of trans inmates in federal prisons, half were convicted of sexual assault and 90 percent were convicted of violent crimes: well above the general prison population,” said Larrabee.
Larrabee noted that the perpetrators in the study he cited had all received some form of transgender care or gender identity accommodations.
“You do not affirm that people with anorexia can be healthy in any way, you do not affirm that somebody with schizophrenia is hearing voices, and you do not affirm that somebody in a manic episode is having great ideas,” said Larrabee. “When you leave someone to languish in their false mental state — i.e. men who think they’re women — they will inevitably lash out and harm themselves and those around them. Hurt people hurt other people.”
Board members Rooks and Hill attempted to enact a policy preventing males from entering female bathrooms and locker rooms in April. Ewing, Sandoval, and Sorensen blocked that policy.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Daniel Stefanski | Jul 16, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona will be at the forefront of the presidential campaign come the 2024 general election, but there’s one contest that might take on more importance.
On Monday, Save Democracy Inc., an Arizona-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization, gave a preview of an election-oriented voter initiative that could be coming the state’s way in November 2024. They tweeted, “Coming Soon: A statewide initiative campaign aiming to outlaw partisan primaries.”
The post shared that this initiative would prohibit “the use of taxpayer funds to pay for private political party primaries; that all candidates (would) appear on the same ballot and compete under the same rules; and that all registered voters (would) use the same ballot to vote.”
Save Democracy Arizona’s website asks and answers the question, “Why do we need reform?” by alleging that “the current system is not working,” that “we need an even playing field,” and that “Arizona has a tradition of open elections.” On their home page, they write, “At a time when many Americans are concerned about the health of our election system, our coalition was formed to educate voters about how Arizona’s voting system currently operates. Join us as we explore alternative primary structures that could make our system work better for ALL Arizonans.”
The group’s efforts have already caught the eye of longtime Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts, who wrote a piece about the likely potential for action on this front. She tweeted, “Coming soon to a neighborhood near you: A statewide initiative campaign aiming to outlaw partisan primaries. Makes total sense here, in the state where independents now outnumber Republicans and Democrats.”
In her column, Roberts elaborated on what voters might see over the coming year, opining, “(This group) has scrapped plans for an initiative to bring ranked-choice voting to Arizona. Instead, it is preparing an initiative asking voters to outlaw taxpayer-financed partisan primary elections. The Legislature and Gov. Katie Hobbs would be directed to develop a new system that puts all candidates on one primary-election ballot. With one set of rules to get there.”
The Roberts’ piece grabbed the attention of Representative Austin Smith, who has been fighting against Ranked Choice Voting since the day he entered the Arizona Legislature – and may be one of the significant reasons why there may not be a direct attempt to bring Ranked Choice Voting to Arizona via a November 2024 ballot initiative.
Smith tweeted, “Two competing initiatives!? Fun! I look forward to helping Arizonans pass HCR 2033 protecting Arizona’s primary election system and keeping the entrenched consultant class out of picking our representatives. Looks like the Arizona Freedom Caucus is effective yet again like Laurie Roberts said.”
The freshman legislator sponsored HCR 2033, which sent a question to voters on an amendment to the state constitution to “determine that a Legislature-enacted direct primary law supersedes any contrary or inconsistent provision of any charter, law, ordinance, rule, resolution or policy of any city and modifies nominee requirements for a direct primary election.”
The vote in the Senate was split down party lines – 16-13, with one Democrat (Senator Miranda) not voting. Earlier in the session, the Arizona House passed the resolution – also along party lines – 31-28, with one Democrat (Representative Shah) not voting. The legislature then transmitted the resolution to the Arizona Secretary of State.
After the Senate passed the resolution, Smith wrote, “This constitutional referral to protect our party primaries and girding us against radical experimental election systems that disenfranchise voters such as ‘ranked choice voting.’”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Corinne Murdock | Jul 15, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for the upcoming year, which outlines the annual budgets and expenditures for the Department of Defense, has a historic number of amendments — 23 of which were filed by Arizona’s representatives.
Over 1,500 amendments have been filed onto the NDAA, H.R. 2670. Congress anticipates final passage on Friday. However, the House Freedom Caucus has expressed opposition to it. The caucus consists of 45 members, of which four are Republican Reps. Andy Biggs, Eli Crane, Debbie Lesko, and Paul Gosar. Biggs, Crane, and Gosar filed 14 of the amendments.
The caucus expressed opposition to the NDAA over the military’s progressive policies and stances on abortion; China-Taiwan relations; critical race theory; climate change; diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); LGBTQ+ issues; and the Russo-Ukrainian war.
The following are amendments filed by Arizona’s congressmen (all amendments and the bill text are available here):
Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05)
Amendment 365 (Version 1): require the Department of Defense to perform an audit. If not, the DOD’s discretionary budget authority would be reduced by .5 percent. Cosponsors: Reps. Crane, Andrew Clyde (R-GA-09), Michael Burgess (R-TX-26), and Mary Miller (R-IL-15).
Amendment 367 (Version 1): urge the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship and the need to continue offering security assistance and related support. Cosponsors: Crane, Beth Van Duyne (R-TX-24), and Miller.
Amendment 369 (Version 1): terminate the designation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as a major non-NATO ally.
Amendment 371 (Version 1): prohibit the use of funds for any project or activity related to NATO until the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense committees that each NATO member country spent two percent of their respective GDP on defense expenditures. Cosponsors: Crane and Miller.
Amendment 373 (Version 2): require the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and United States Agency for International Development to give Congress a report on agreements made with the Taliban.
Amendment 375 (Version 1): exempt defense-related activities from the Endangered Species Act.
Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ-06)
Amendment 816 (Version 1): insert text of H.R. 2393, the Combating Cartels on Social Media Act of 2023 to the bill. This bill requires DHS to report and implement a strategy to combat the use of social media by transnational criminal organizations to recruit individuals in the United States to support illicit activities at the border. Cosponsors: Abigail Spanberger (D-VA-07) and Burgess.
Amendment 948 (Version 1): direct United States Geological Survey to provide for the inclusion of Copper on its’ critical minerals list. Cosponsor: Bob Good (R-VA-05)
Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ-02)
Amendment 995 (Version 1): condemn Lieutenant General DeAnna Burt for politicizing the military’s stance on domestic policies during the DOD LGBTQ+ Pride Event and emphasize the importance of the military remaining apolitical to maintain its readiness and effectiveness. Cosponsors: Biggs, Gosar, Miller, and Lauren Boebert (R-CO-03).
Amendment 1000 (Version 1): prohibit the DOD from making participation in training or support for certain race-based concepts a requirement for hiring, promotion, or retention of individuals. Also ensures that employees and service members cannot be compelled to declare belief in or participate in training that promotes such concepts as a condition of favorable personnel actions. Cosponsors: Biggs, Gosar, Good, Miller, and Boebert.
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ-09)
Amendment 441 (Version 1): authorize employees at the Yuma Proving Grounds to use nonelectric vehicles in the performance of their duties. Cosponsor: Biggs.
Amendment 598 (Version 1): require the Secretary of Defense to expeditiously disclose to the public all records relating to the war in Afghanistan. Cosponsors: Biggs, Boebert, Byron Donalds (R-FL-19), Randy Weber (R-TX-14), and Andy Ogles (R-TN-05).
Amendment 672 (Version 1): authorize the Army and Corp of Engineers to complete, reinforce, and maintain the wall on the southern border. Cosponsors: Crane, Biggs, Boebert, Donalds, Weber, Ogles, and Ken Buck (R-CO-04).
Amendment 711 (Version 1): grant Congress exclusive power to declare a national emergency. Cosponsors: Crane, Boebert, Weber, and Ogles.
Amendment 739 (Version 1): designate phosphate, copper, and uranium as minerals critical to national security.
Amendment 1415 (Version 1): declare Congress’ responsibility to provide compensation for all individuals that developed radiation-induced cancer from past nuclear weapons testing. Cosponsor: Crane.
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ-07)
Amendment 861 (Version 1): strike language that exempts Air Force activities from any requirements under the Marine Mammal Protection Act that would protect the critically endangered Rice’s Whale.
Amendment 898 (Version 1): extend the protections necessary for the continued use by the Air Force of the Barry M. Goldwater Range in Arizona. Cosponsor: Ruben Gallego (D-AZ-03).
Amendment 1378 (Version 2): prohibit the amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available by this act be used to establish or maintain any relationship between the Department of Defense and the Government of Ecuador, including any office or agent of such government, in order to provide, authorize, or assist in any way in the transfer of weapons, military equipment, crowd control supplies, or any other supplies, to such government or to coordinate joint exercises with the military and police forces of such government until certain criteria is met.
Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ-04)
Amendment 465 (Version 1): expand a program to compensate “downwinders” in Arizona and Nevada exposed to and affected by DOD-led atmospheric nuclear testing from 1945 to 1962.
Amendment 1400 (Version 1): direct the State Department to create a strategy for subnational cooperation between local law enforcement, civil society, and government to combat fentanyl trafficking holistically. Also directs the State and Treasury to review how to best expand financial access to countries in the Caribbean.
Amendment 1424 (Version 2): direct the Secretary of the Veterans Affairs (VA) to regularly ensure the accuracy of the VA Accreditation Search database, to submit an annual report on the accreditation process for agents/attorneys/representatives, and to create a trademarked insignia for accredited agents/attorneys/representatives to use.
Amendment 1425 (Version 1): prohibit the use of federal funds for the maintenance of civilian vehicular assets (yachts, jets, cars, etc.) seized in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine or belonging to sanctioned Russian oligarchs and officials.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Daniel Stefanski | Jul 15, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
As the Arizona Legislative session may be nearing its final stretch, the state’s premier business organization is highlighting bills that would have had grave consequences for jobs.
On Wednesday, the Arizona Chamber Foundation and the Common Sense Institute released a report, showing that “67 failed bills from the 2023 legislative session in Arizona” would have cost the state’s economy $9.5 billion and deprived individuals of 113,500 jobs. According to the report, those bills would also have “imposed over $25 billion in annual new costs on Arizona’s businesses, including $15 billion in new taxes and fees.”
The two organizations compared Arizona’s path to our neighboring state of Colorado – if the Grand Canyon State would have passed any or all of the 67 bills of note. They reveal that 13 bills that failed this year in Arizona, “have actually passed in Colorado.”
Danny Seiden, the President and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry issued a statement in conjunction with the report, writing, “At the Arizona Chamber, we are committed to protecting the job gains we have seen in Arizona in recent years. This analysis provides important data points for legislators to consider as these failed bills will likely resurface in future sessions.”
Katie Ratlief, the Executive Director of Common Sense Institute Arizona, also weighed in on the announcement, saying, “This study shows that policy matters when it comes to jobs and economic impacts. Policymakers and the public should be informed about the short and long term impacts these pieces of legislation have so they can weigh pros and cons and make informed decisions.”
AZ Free News reached out to Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen, one of the key forces behind killing these bills throughout the still-ongoing session, to respond to the report. Petersen said, “This is a great example of why policy matters. Arizona has built on years of sound policy under Republican leadership that has helped grow our state’s economy. We’ll continue to do everything we can to protect Arizona citizens and our economy from the type of policies that have negatively impacted Colorado.”
House Speaker Ben Toma, another stalwart defender of conservative principles in the Legislature, added, “The far left has tightened its grip on the Democrats in Arizona and it shows in the bills they introduced this session in the State Legislature. They propose business and environmental regulations that would stymie growth, kill jobs, and make energy costs higher. In my term as Speaker of the House, I will continue to work to stop these policy proposals so we can continue to be a state on a positive trajectory with low taxation, high growth, and maximum freedom.”
Freshman Republican Representative Matt Gress shared his thoughts on the report in a tweet, stating, “POLICY MATTERS. Arizona succeeds when leaders trust people over government. @CSInstituteAZ’s report reveals that some politicians think they know better than you with terrible ideas like, tax hikes, higher energy costs to fund more ‘green’ regulations, greater compliance with the ‘Mother, may I?’ administrative state. That’s everything Arizona is not.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
