by Daniel Stefanski | Sep 20, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
The political fallout has continued from New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s controversial executive order on the Second Amendment from earlier this month.
Late last week, the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association issued a letter to “publicly rebuke the order of New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham that suspended the second amendment in Bernalillo County, New Mexico.”
The letter, which was signed by the Association’s President and Yavapai County Sheriff, David Rhodes, asserted that “this chilling executive order erroneously cites a public health emergency but is nothing less than a full-blown violation of constitutional rights.” Rhodes’ letter added that the executive order out of New Mexico is “unparalleled and unprecedented” executive overreach in the United States, and that it “completely disregards well established case law and interpretation of the second amendment by the United States Supreme Court which has upheld an individual’s right to bear arms in self-defense.”
Sheriff Rhodes acknowledged the worries over crime across the nation and shared his insight on how communities and law enforcement officials could get control of the issues they face, writing, “To regain control of public safety, measures must be taken to inspire confidence that the law will be enforced against those who commit crimes, not those who don’t. Zero tolerance for crime, support for law enforcement, border security, and the encouragement of law enforcement to be proactive in their duties are all strong starting points. No community will ever be safe without the ever-continuing development of relationships between the police and the community.”
In his letter, Rhodes warned that “violating constitutional rights will do nothing to make the public safe,” but would rather “make the public less safe by eliminating individuals’ ability to defend themselves.”
The leader of the state’s sheriffs’ association closed his communication by addressing his fellow colleagues across all jurisdictions in law enforcement. He said, “And finally, to all our elected sheriffs, chiefs of police and law enforcement officials that took an oath to their office: Remember this: that oath is absolute, no matter what the governor of New Mexico claims. The Constitution, which you swore to uphold and defend, was designed by our founders specifically to protect us from the government overreach that the governor of New Mexico is attempting to exact on her citizens right now. We have been warned many times throughout history that leaders would attempt to exchange perceived security for constitutional rights. Resist that urge now by refusing to violate the constitutional rights of your fellow citizens of New Mexico.”
Rhodes’ letter stands in stark contrast to a social media post from the Arizona House Democrats Caucus that was sent out shortly after the New Mexico executive order hit the wires. That post appeared to endorse the controversial and legally suspect action from New Mexico’s Governor.
Republican Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell was quick to respond to the House Democrats’ post, vowing to see them in court if it ever came to that point on this issue of restricting Arizonans’ constitutional freedoms.
Just days after the executive order was signed, a U.S. District Judge in New Mexico granted a temporary restraining order to two of the governor’s sections in her action. That court decision followed a letter from the state’s attorney general, Raúl Torrez, who informed the governor that she was on shaky constitutional grounds with her order. Attorney General Torrez stated, “Though I recognize my statutory obligation as New Mexico’s chief legal officer to defend state officials when they are sued in their official capacity, my duty to uphold and defend the constitutional rights of every citizen takes precedence. Simply put, I do not believe that the Emergency Order will have any meaningful impact on public safety but, more importantly, I do not believe it passes constitutional muster.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Sep 20, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Maricopa County’s top prosecutor is sounding the alarm about online exploitation of unsuspecting minors.
Earlier this month, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell released information to help parents understand more about the dangers their children face while online.
Mitchell and her office shared a statistic from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), showing that more than 7,000 reports of online sextortion of minors occurred in 2022.
According to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO), sextortion “is a form of exploitation where children are threatened or blackmailed by a person who demands additional sexual content, sexual activity or money from the child. The scammer will threaten the child with the possibility of sharing nude or sexual images of them with their family, friends and the public.”
The genesis of these encounters, per the MCAO, happens when “a teen receives a message from a pretty girl on a social media or dating site. The two begin to talk and eventually share explicit photos. Unbeknownst to the teen, the person on the other side of the chat is not a pretty girl at all. It’s a scam artist who has recorded their entire conversation, explicit photos and all, and is now blackmailing the teen for more photos or money.”
The MCAO warned parents that this activity is “more common than you think,” adding that “13-17 boys are the most common target.”
Boys and girls come across these scammers through direct messages on their social media apps and are usually coaxed into moving the conversation or supposed relationship into an anonymous messaging app or a live-stream video chat.
County Attorney Mitchell and her office give the following advice for parents in helping educate and protect their children against these serious online dangers:
- Explain what information should never be shared on social media
- Remind your kids that they should never accept a friend request or respond to someone they don’t know in real life, even if they have friends in common online
- Teach them how to block and report people on social media sites
- Warn them of the risk of sharing inappropriate photos
- Most importantly, remind your kids that they can always come to you for help
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Corinne Murdock | Sep 19, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The Goldwater Institute asked a judge to make Pinal County return the $80 million in taxes it illegally collected. It’s been nearly a year and a half since the county learned it had to return the funds to the taxpayers.
The organization filed a request for a permanent injunction with the Arizona Superior Court in the Arizona Tax Court on Monday.
The $80 million came from a sales tax disproportionately applied to purchases under $10,000. Arizona law doesn’t allow that sort of tax arrangement, which the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed in a ruling issued last year, in Vangilder v. Arizona Department of Revenue.
The Arizona Department of Revenue (ADOR) promised to return the $80 million quickly. The Pinal Regional Transportation Authority (PRTA) has held the funding in an interest-bearing escrow account, with ADOR playing an administrative role in the distribution of the funds.
ADOR gave notice to the superior court last September that it was “setting up a system to process refund claims.”
Yet at the close of last month, ADOR announced that it wouldn’t process refunds at all until PRTA decides the final disposition of the funds. ADOR also indicated that it was the legislature’s duty to figure out how to return the funding, and that no laws were passed during this last session to that effect.
“For these reasons, until the PRTA makes a decision regarding the final disposition of these funds, the Department cannot process any refund claims for the invalidated Pinal County transportation tax,” said ADOR.
The Goldwater Institute declared in their request for a permanent injunction that this decision was unlawful, a “knowing defiance of the law” that constituted an illegal withholding of taxpayer funds violative of court rulings.
“Neither PRTA nor ADOR has any lawful authority to refuse to return illegally obtained and illegally withheld tax money,” stated the organization.
The organization also noted that both the PRTA and ADOR repeatedly neglected to set up a system for efficient returns of the funds should they fail to defend the tax in court.
In a press release, Goldwater Institute Vice President of Legal Affairs Timothy Sandefur stated that the taxpayers were long overdue for their refund.
“The department blames the county, but whoever is at fault, the bottom line is clear: taxpayers are legally entitled to refunds — and the state and county government are refusing to give the money back,” said Sandefur. “[This is] money they have no right to keep, because they had no right to take it.”
The PRTA and ADOR ignored their warnings to postpone collection of the tax in order to avoid administrative difficulties in returning the funds. PRTA also assured the court and the Goldwater Institute in 2018 that it would have a returns system in place.
“[A]t the end of the day if we are not successful, but we have but all this money in escrow by agreement, there will be — the system will play out as it should, through refund claims and the like, and no one will essentially be harmed in that anyone who overpaid will be entitled to a refund, plus interest,” stated PRTA’s counsel.
ADOR told AZ Free News in an emailed statement in February that taxpayers who paid the invalidated tax are able to file claims for what they paid with interest until April 9, 2026.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Sep 19, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The Democratic Party’s go-to election lawyer that played a principal role in Hillary Clinton’s Russiagate hoax scored a victory against two Arizona laws requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Judge Susan Bolton — appointed by Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton — issued the ruling last week.
Bolton ruled in the Arizona District Court case Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes that the two laws, HB 2492 and HB 2243, asked too much of voters by requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote. Bolton said the requirement constituted an “additional burden” that “disadvantages” voters.
Elias called proof of citizenship requirements “voter suppression.”
Whether or not the judge had ruled in favor of the state laws, the secretary of state’s office has apparently been ignoring certain reporting requirements in one of the contested laws. The Arizona Daily Independent reported that the legislature received neither of the required quarterly records on canceled voter registrations due to deaths, driver’s licenses in other states, jury questionnaire answers, and inactive voting history.
Bolton determined that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the federal voter registration requirements and policies signed into law by Clinton, preempted both state laws. The NVRA requires states to register voters for federal elections using the federal government’s form; this form doesn’t require proof of citizenship, yet individuals may still cast votes in federal elections.
After the Supreme Court told Arizona in a 2013 ruling that it couldn’t reject NVRAs based on its lack of citizenship proof, then-Secretary of State Ken Bennett split the voter registration system to require proof of citizenship in statewide and local races, while offering the NVRA as an option to vote in federal races only. Those voters who capitalize on the latter are known as “federal-only” voters.
AZ Free News reported in 2021 that there were over 11,600 federal-only voters in the 2020 election based on limited vote data from several counties, most of which came from Maricopa County. That’s compared to the 1,700 federal-only votes cast in the 2018 election. At the time of our 2021 reporting, not all counties were publicly posting their federal-only ballots cast despite state law requiring the disclosure.
“[A]fter each general election, [the county recorder] shall post on the recorder’s website the number of ballots cast by those persons who were eligible to vote a ballot containing federal offices only,” states the law.
It appears that the state’s two largest counties neglected to adhere to the federal-only ballot disclosure law for the 2022 election.
Maricopa County didn’t publish a file like they did in 2020 disclosing the number of federal-only ballots cast for the 2022 election.
Pima County displayed the number of federal-only ballots cast for 2020, but it didn’t issue an update or similar public display for last year’s election. The county recorder only disclosed the number of provisional ballots it accepted or denied based on federal-only status in its December after-action report: 51, compared to the 107 provisional federal-only ballots accepted in the 2020 election and 108 provisional federal-only ballots accepted in the 2018 election.
Most of these federal-only ballots are likely absentee. About 89 percent of all voters in Arizona cast their vote by mail-in ballot.
In last week’s ruling, Bolton opined that the NVRA only allows states to place limits on mail-in voting when it comes to first-time voters, and not under any additional circumstances, like requiring proof of citizenship.
“Had Congress intended to permit states that allow absentee voting to require in-person voting under additional circumstances — including when a registrant fails to provide DPOC — it could have said so in the NVRA,” wrote Bolton. “Not only does the statute exclude failure to provide DPOC among the reasons a state may require an individual to vote in person, but as explained below, the purpose of the NVRA supports an interference that Congress meant to limit the number of circumstances in which a state could prevent an individual from voting by mail.”
The court addressed whether the laws were conducive to enhancing the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for federal office. The Fifteenth Amendment expressly assigns the right to vote with U.S. citizens, with the definition of citizenship provided in the amendment immediately preceding, the Fourteenth Amendment.
Bolton also ruled that the state failed to limit its systemic purges of voter rolls from occurring within 90 days of an election. She rejected arguments from the state that this 90-day window didn’t apply to voters who were found to be noncitizens. Meaning, individuals not qualified to vote can’t be purged from voter rolls in a systematic manner if they’re discovered as ineligible within 90 days of an election; these removals may only occur on a strictly individual basis.
“While the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the State may still conduct individualized voter removals within the 90-day window, the systematic removal program mandated by HB 2243 violates Section 8(c)(2) of the NVRA,” stated Bolton.
Bolton opted not to rule yet on several issues. Two concerned the state’s requirement of investigations and cancellations of the voter registrations of those noncitizens identified through various government databases. Another concerned the state’s requirement of an individual to disclose their citizenship and birthplace, which Bolton noted were only in violation of the Materiality Provision when also providing the state with DPOC.
“The Checkbox Requirement violates the Materiality Provision when an applicant provides satisfactory evidence of citizenship,” stated Bolton.
Ruling on those questions will be issued sometime after the November trial.
Elias was joined in the lawsuit against the laws by the Department of Justice (DOJ) last summer.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Daniel Stefanski | Sep 18, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
The 2023 Super Bowl may be long over, but political fallout is continuing into the start of the next football season.
On Thursday night, veteran Arizona reporter Dennis Welch and one of his colleagues released a story that “according to public records, the Arizona Office of Tourism gifted the Governor’s Office twelve tickets (to the Super Bowl)” and that “members of Hobbs’ staff used the remaining half dozen… worth tens of thousands of dollars.”
Two of the six Hobbs’ staffers who reportedly received tickets to the Super Bowl in Glendale, Arizona are no longer with the office, having departed earlier this year.
The Arizona’s Family journalists shared the existence of A.R.S. 41-1232.08, which bars “elected officials and public servants from accepting (the free tickets).” The statute reads, “A state officer or state employee shall not accept an expenditure or single expenditure for entertainment from a principal, designated lobbyist, authorized lobbyist, lobbyist for compensation, public body, designated public lobbyist or authorized public lobbyist or any other person acting on that person’s behalf.”
Republican legislators were quick to react to the breaking news, The Arizona Freedom Caucus posted, “Corruption in Governor Hobbs’ administration! Katie Hobbs’ staff accepted free Super Bowl tickets estimated to cost $7,000 per ticket. AZ has laws that make it ILLEGAL for Public Servants and Elected Officials to accept gifts over $25.00 in value. This is flat out corruption.”
Senate President Pro Tempore T.J. Shope wrote, “I purchased my nosebleed seats and these folks go for free in I’m sure way better seats than what I paid for? Cool scam for them eh Dennis Welch? Rules for thee and none for me is the mantra of the Governor Hobbs’ Administration I suppose…”
Freshman Representative Cory McGarr opined, “I’m sure we will see a full Hunter Biden investigation. Nothing to see here.”
Shope also responded to an account that had attempted to argue that the Governor’s Office reported actions were “perks of being in a high office,” saying, “Huh breaking the law is NOT ‘one of the perks’ of being in high office, nor should it be. Why would I want to break the law when I can pay for them honestly. I’m sure that’s difficult to understand for some but being ethical is something three generations of elected Shope’s have had in common. These are the people educating your kids folks…people who think people in high office have a right to break the law.”
In their report, the journalists revealed that “the previous Governor, Doug Ducey, received twenty tickets to the 2015 Super Bowl in Glendale,” and that they were told “Ducey paid face value for his ticket and distributed the remaining tickets to veterans groups.” The journalists added that “at the time, Ducey prohibited his staff from taking free tickets over concerns it was against the law.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Corinne Murdock | Sep 18, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ-04) and Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego will host a re-election campaign fundraiser for President Joe Biden later this month.
The reception will take place Sept. 28 through the Biden Victory Fund. Tickets range from a $3,300 minimum to $100,000. The location of the event is confidential, for attendees only.
The fundraiser will occur the day after the first Republican Party presidential debate in Simi Valley, California.
The contact for the event, Guicela Sandoval-Lopez, is a political consultant with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Susie T. Buell Foundation.
Gallego told reporters that she’s confident Arizona will remain a blue state in 2024.
The pair are also on the campaign trail defending their incumbency. Though Stanton entertained a challenge to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), he announced at the start of the year that he intended on remaining in the House.
The mayor and her council — along with her former husband and Stanton’s fellow congressman, Ruben Gallego (D-AZ-03) — have been petitioning for the Biden administration to declare the desert heat as an emergency. Such a declaration would ensure a consistent and ample source of federal funding for various municipal projects.
The Biden administration appears to be heeding that request. In July, Biden issued several heat relief directives in a joint call with Gallego and San Antonio, Texas Mayor Ron Nirenberg.
Biden’s directives resulted in a Heat Hazard Alert outlining federal heat-related protections, as well as increased enforcement mechanisms by the Labor Department.
Despite those actions and the administration’s estimation of $50 billion in funding to counter heat due to climate change, Gallego told Biden that Phoenix needed more.
“We would love it if Congress would give you the ability to declare heat a disaster,” said Gallego. “We think that could really save additional aid, and that would even more multiply the impact of FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance and Building Resistant — Resilience Infrastructure — the BRIC programs, which are a good start to building long-term solutions, such as energy redundancy for cooling centers.”
The Phoenix mayor has remained a steadfast supporter of the president. She helped his initial campaign as well.
In 2021, Gallego was one of eight mayors invited to the White House to weigh in on proposed infrastructure funding, some of which reportedly went to combating climate change.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
