The Arizona Supreme Court granted sanctions against 2022 Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, declaring that her lawyer issued false statements to the court.
Chief Justice Robert Brutinel issued the sanctions on Thursday in Lake v. Hobbs, totaling $2,000 for that improper conduct. Brutinel rejected Gov. Katie Hobbs and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ request for attorneys fees sanctions. He also remanded the unresolved issue of faulty signature verification to the trial court.
Lake alleged that Maricopa County violated A.R.S. § 16-550(A); she claimed that a material number of early ballots were transmitted in envelopes containing an affidavit signature that election officials accepted despite determining that it didn’t match the signature on that voter’s registration record.
This $2,000 in sanctions narrowly concerned the conduct of Lake’s attorney, specifically the claim that additional ballots were added into the final vote count.
The court called Lake’s claims of ballot chain-of-custody claims “colorable,” remarking that Lake continued to promote these claims despite the court’s rejection of them.
Brutinel noted that there was leeway for political rhetoric, but that upholding attorney ethics remained necessary. Brutinel noted that he was careful to approve punitive measures that would appear politically vindictive.
“Sometimes campaigns and their attendant hyperbole spill over into legal challenges. But once a contest enters the judicial arena, rules of attorney ethics apply,” wrote Brutinel. “Although we must ensure that legal sanctions are never wielded against candidates or their attorneys for asserting their legal rights in good faith, we also must diligently enforce the rules of ethics in which public confidence in our judicial system depends and where the truth-seeking function of our adjudicative process is unjustifiably hindered.”
In an April fundraising email, Fontes had called for Lake to be punished in such a way as others wouldn’t file similar legal challenges in the future.
“This [lawsuit] justifies the imposition of sanctions, or some kind of admonishment, so others will not follow suit,” stated the response. “If this Court sits silent in the face of what has occurred, then those who would due [sic] our union harm will continue to malign and erode the foundations upon which our great state stands.”
Fontes celebrated the $2,000 sanctions against Lake, though they fell far short of the initial ask by his and Hobbs’ teams.
Lake’s team has continued to claim as an “undisputed” fact that over 35,500 ballots were added or “injected” at Runbeck Election Services’ processing, the third-party vendor. The court stated that this wasn’t true because election officials have disputed her claims.
“Not only is that allegation strongly disputed by the other parties, this Court concluded and expressly stated that the assertion was unsupported by the record, and nothing in Lake’s Motion for Leave to file a motion for reconsideration provides reason to revisit that issue,” stated the court. “Although Lake may have permissibly argued that an inference could be made that some ballots were added, there is no evidence that 35,563 ballots were, and more to the point here, this was certainly disputed by the Respondents. The representation that this was an ‘undisputed fact’ is therefore unequivocally false.”
Lake championed Tuesday’s ruling as an overall win, focusing on the court’s order to review her claims of faulty signature verification processes.
Here's the latest on our court case!
"AZ Supreme Court orders hearing on Kari Lake's signature verification issue, denies attorney fees."https://t.co/lNMWgQp11P
One of the least transparent administrations in Arizona history has become even less transparent.
On Tuesday, veteran Arizona reporter Dennis Welch shared a video he captured of Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs avoiding questions from reporters as she raced to an awaiting suburban. A Hobbs aide was overheard saying, “We’re not taking questions today; I’m very sorry.”
The Hobbs Dodge: Footage from @GovernorHobbs yesterday ducking questions from the press, again. The move has increasingly become standard operating procedure for a governor who promised an open relationship with the media at the start of her administration. #azfamilypic.twitter.com/dfCxEXBzov
In sharing the video, Welch wrote, “The Hobbs Dodge: Footage from Governor Hobbs yesterday ducking questions from the press, again. The move has increasingly become standard operating procedure for a governor who promised an open relationship with the media at the start of her administration.”
The tweet has over half a million views.
Senate President Pro Tempore T.J. Shope told AZ Free News, “Governor Hobbs promised to run a transparent administration but from the beginning, it’s been clear that those were just talking points. From taking weeks to disclose donors to her inaugural events, vetoing bills without reaching out to members, and now running away from reporters, the only thing transparent has been her desire to walk herself off from the public.”
Representative Cory McGarr reacted to the video shortly after it hit the social media platform, tweeting, “If I couldn’t defend any of my insane actions as governor I would probably run from the press too.”
If I couldn’t defend any of my insane actions as governor I would probably run from the press too. https://t.co/ZQfrPnWQsU
Representative Austin Smith tweeted, “Why would she need to talk to the media? Y’all carry water for her anyway. She’s not beholden to you. She owns you.”
Why would she need to talk to the media?
Y’all carry water for her anyway. She’s not beholden to you. She owns you. https://t.co/UuHqyGoXzk
Members of the Arizona press also piled on to express their frustrations with Hobbs’ refusal to answer questions. Laurie Roberts, a columnist with the Arizona Republic, stated, “This is a bad look for a governor…”
Nick Phillips, a reporter with the Arizona Capitol Times, wrote, “Last time Governor Hobbs answered journalists’ questions was in March, before 2 high-profile departures from her comms team.”
Jeremy Duda, a reporter with Axios Phoenix, said, “This is an annual event and I don’t ever recall a governor not doing a gaggle with the press afterward. It wouldn’t be as much of an issue if Hobbs hadn’t halted the weekly press conferences she was doing during her first few months in office.”
This is an annual event and I don't ever recall a governor not doing a gaggle with the press afterward. It wouldn't be as much of an issue if Hobbs hadn't halted the weekly press conferences she was doing during her first few months in office. https://t.co/bJb5DeZUBK
After posting his video of Hobbs, Welch added, “It’s been 2 weeks since Governor Hobbs vetoed the so-called tamale bill. She still hasn’t said what changes she wants to get her support. Unlikely to get answers soon. Her schedule shows she’ll be in DC & Sedona (an off the record event) for the rest of the week.”
It’s been 2 weeks since @GovernorHobbs vetoed the so-called tamale bill. She still hasn’t said what changes she wants to get her support. Unlikely to get answers soon. Her schedule shows she’ll be in DC & Sedona (an off the record event) for the rest of the week. #azfamilyhttps://t.co/BZkrk5SLg1pic.twitter.com/g9wm1iN7i2
Attorney General Kris Mayes has issued another challenge to keep accessibility of the controversial abortion drug mifepristone.
In a press release issued Tuesday, Mayes announced that she’d joined an amicus brief against the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruling blocking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of mifepristone. Mayes accused Texas federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of being an “extremist” opposing medical consensus.
“We cannot allow anti-abortion activists and an extremist judge to undo over two decades of medical consensus. Mifepristone is safe and effective and has been used by millions of Americans over the past two decades,” said Mayes.
The efficacy and safety of mifepristone remains dubious. In the ruling challenged by Mayes, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, Kacsmaryk noted the hundreds of known cases of infections and deaths arising from the drug’s usage. Kacsmaryk cited a 2006 hearing and report by the U.S. House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, which noted at least 8 women’s deaths, 9 life-threatening illnesses, 232 hospitalizations, 116 blood transfusions, and 88 cases of infection; overall, over 950 adverse event cases from the drug out of 575,000 prescriptions.
Kacsmaryk also noted that the FDA took nearly 14 years to reject a petition from multiple medical professional coalitions challenging their approval of the drug. The judge further noted that, on the same day of their rejection of the petition, the FDA expanded allowed usage for the abortion drug, changed the dosage, reduced the number of required in-person office visits, allowed non-doctors to prescribe and administer the drug, and eliminated the requirement for prescribers to report non-fatal adverse events from the drug.
In the ruling, Kacsmaryk shared that there are likely far more than the known 4,200 adverse events from chemical abortion drugs due to the FDA’s rule change eliminating non-fatal adverse reporting requirements and emergency rooms miscoding over 60 percent of women’s emergency room visits for adverse abortion drug reactions as miscarriages.
What’s more, Kacsmaryk rejected the main justification for the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug: reclassifying pregnancy as a “serious or life-threatening illness” and therefore justifying mifepristone as a “meaningful therapeutic benefit.”
“Pregnancy is a normal physiological state most women experience one or more times during their childbearing years — a natural process essential to perpetuating life,” stated Kacsmaryk. “Nothing in the [FDA] Final Rule supports the interpretation that pregnancy is a serious or life-threatening illness.”
Kacsmaryk also pointed out that the FDA had neglected to apply its logic to expedited treatments for other, less politicized ailments.
“[C]ategorizing complications or negative psychological experiences arising from pregnancy as ‘illnesses’ is materially different than classifying pregnancy itself as a serious or life-threatening illness,” stated Kascmaryk. “Tellingly, [the] FDA never explains how or why a ‘condition’ would not qualify as a ‘serious or life-threatening illness.’ Suppose that a woman experiences depression because of lower back pain that inhibits her mobility. Under FDA’s reading, a new drug used to treat lower back pain — which can cause depression, just like unplanned pregnancy — could obtain accelerated approval [per the FDA’s rationale].”
The FDA approval took place during the Clinton administration. Similar to Kacsmaryk, the Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) noted in 2008 that medical professionals critical of the abortion drug’s approval questioned the reclassification of the abortion drug as warranted.
“Critics have argued that unwanted pregnancy should not be considered a serious or life-threatening illness.”
The Texas federal court ruling doesn’t impact Arizona at present; it may later on, based on pending future rulings in higher courts.
SCOTUS agreed to an application for a stay by the FDA of the Texas district court ruling, filed early last month. SCOTUS issued the stay late last month, allowing mifepristone to be made widely available while the appeals process plays out in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Joining Mayes in the amicus brief are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) voted Tuesday to halve its public meetings for the upcoming school year, reducing special meetings to every other month. The reduction results in a five-meeting difference from this year to the next.
Superintendent Scott Menzel said that the changes arose after several board members had indicated that their meetings required more work than the board should have to handle, and that public meetings ran too long. Menzel said he initially opposed proposed reductions to the calendar. However, Menzel said he countered with the currently-adopted calendar: a “hybrid” solution that took away five public meetings.
“I didn’t think it would be possible to go to one meeting a month, for multiple reasons. One reason is that there are statutory deadlines that we would miss if we only had one meeting a month,” said Menzel.
Vice President Carine Werner opposed the measure. She said it saddened her that there were complaints from her fellow members about the amount of work they had to do, and that the proposed changes hurt transparency. Werner pointed out that they haven’t even discussed all of the work they needed to do under the current schedule with more meetings.
“I understand it’s a lot of work, but it’s also part of everyone’s jobs, just like it’s our jobs to be here to do the work that our governing board does,” said Werner.
Transparency has been a hot-button issue for the SUSD community over the last few years. Just last summer, the district opted to publish the names of those who file public records requests, but redact educators’ names. The push for greater transparency has come in the wake of discoveries that SUSD allowed and defended educators promoting sexualized and race-focused agendas in the classroom.
Werner added that she found it interesting that fellow board members wanted to reduce meetings, yet was willing to add meetings for the academy attended by administrators.
“I can only imagine the amount of work that’s gone into creating the academy and then fulfilling the work for the 40 applicants that get elected to participate in the program,” said Werner.
Werner also noted that parents and community members had expressed grievances over the proposed calendar change.
— Scottsdale Unites for Educational Integrity (@ScottsdaleUnite) May 3, 2023
Board member Amy Carney pointed out that, by that point in Tuesday’s meeting, they’d been there two hours discussing key issues — an opportunity not possible in the adopted schedule with fewer meetings.
“We’ve got a lot of work to do. I can’t understand how we can cut meetings,” said Carney. “One of the critical places for school boards to work, to retain informed trust of the communities is the conduct of meetings.”
Carney asked whether SUSD had ever cut meetings this drastically. Menzel said he wasn’t aware, deferring to Board President Julie Cieniawski. Cieniawski said that, in the past, the board had held more non-public meetings.
Cieniawski also claimed that the addition of town halls were sufficient for the reduction of public meetings.
“This isn’t anyone’s voice being limited or taken away,” said Cieniawski.
Cieniawski contended with Carney’s insistence that the changes would erode community trust, and claimed that community trust came from engagement with local schools, not the board.
Carney attempted to respond to Cieniawski, who ignored and spoke over her and filed a motion to vote on the calendar. Board member Libby Hart-Wells, who appeared remotely for the meeting, seconded Cieniawski’s motion.
Menzel said that regular meetings should concern core business of the district, and that this calendar would free up the board to voluntarily call special meetings with at least 24-hour notice to focus on specific issues as needed. Menzel noted that he didn’t believe special meetings should take place every month, either.
“I don’t see the calendar as taking away from being able to conduct the work of the district, I think it actually enhances and keeps us focused in a way that the current calendar drifted away from, with the way the schedule is at the present time,” said Menzel.
Hart-Wells said she hadn’t heard any concerns from the community about the meeting restructuring.
Arizona law only requires school boards to have a minimum of one meeting per month.
Watch discussion of the board meeting reduction here:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The animosity and distrust between the Maricopa Board of Supervisors and the Republican-led Arizona Legislature continues to deepen with a new issue finding a wedge between the two sides.
On Wednesday, Arizona Senator J.D. Mesnard took to the floor of his chamber to address the Maricopa County Supervisors’ ongoing consideration of two legislative vacancies in both the House and the Senate.
"The length of time of these vacancies is the longest, while we've been in session, in a half a century! 56 years!"
One of the vacancies is due to an expulsion of a Republican member of the Arizona House of Representatives. The other for a resignation of a Democrat member of the State Senate.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors is statutorily required by law to select the replacement for the vacancy from a pool of three same-party nominees chosen by their party. Republican precinct committeemen transmitted three names for the open House seat (Liz Harris, Julie Willoughby, and Steve Steele) as did the Democrats for the Senate seat (Representatives Cesar Aguilar and Flavio Bravio in addition to Quant’a Crews).
Mesnard’s frustrations boiled over on the Senate floor as he laid out his charge against the Supervisors’ alleged delay in filling the two vacancies for 19 (Senate) and 20 (House) days. He informed his colleagues “the length of these vacancies is the longest, while we’ve been in session, in a half a century – 56 years!” The East Valley lawmaker also said that 8.76 days is the historical average to fill the vacancy.
What seemed to bring Senator Mesnard to this point were some of the rumors he recounted hearing about for the reasons in the delay to fulfill the vacancies. According to the senator, “one of the rumors is there may be a belief that the county can reject all three of the nominees put forward.” The other rumor “is that (the supervisors) just want to sit on this for a while and hold out for some piece of legislation that they want to see passed” – in other words, “leverage” on the Arizona Legislature.
Senator Mesnard spoke on behalf of the 120 Republican precinct committeemen who rearranged their schedule back in April to nominate the three individuals to fill the open House seat. He bemoaned the fact that such a lengthy delay was not previously an issue, and he hinted that maybe his colleagues should take future action to change the statute to force the county board of supervisors to act with more urgency when filling vacancies during a legislative session. He stated that the “Board of Supervisors should have held a special meeting to hasten what should be an important priority for them.”
The members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors were definitely paying attention to Senator Mesnard’s words. Supervisor Steve Gallardo quickly responded on Twitter, writing, “Thanks for taking us all the way back to the 70s Senator. We didn’t receive nominees until the 4/18. Some didn’t respond right away to request for background info. Board is performing due diligence. As always, Arizona Senate Republicans are ignoring the facts.”
Thanks for taking us all the way back to the 70s Senator. We didn’t receive nominees until the 4/18. Some didn’t respond right away to request for background info. Board is performing due diligence. As always @AZSenateGOP are ignoring the facts. 🤣 https://t.co/JiRXnWLj0C
— Supervisor Steve Gallardo (@Steve_Gallardo) May 3, 2023
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
As budget negotiations between Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs and the Republican leaders of the Arizona Legislature continue to inch closer toward a summer deadline, the Senate President and Speaker of the House are finding other endeavors to do the people’s business.
On Monday, the Arizona State Senate Republican Caucus announced an action taken by President Warren Petersen “to defend the Save Women’s Sports Act in court.”
That action was a Motion to Intervene in the case of Jane Doe, et al. v Thomas C. Horne, et al., which Petersen and Speaker Ben Toma filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Tucson Division “to protect a state law banning biological males from competing in women’s and girls’ athletic events at Arizona public schools, colleges and universities.” The newly enacted policy was SB 1165, which was signed into law by former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey on March 30, 2022.
Petersen released the following quote to accompany the news of his court filing: “Senate and House Republicans stand in solidarity to protect women and girls from the injustices being attempted against them by the extreme left. Female athletes deserve equal opportunities in sporting events, which will not happen so long as males are allowed to compete against them. Science is clear that male athletes have many inherent physical advantages over females, including greater size, stronger muscles and larger bone structure. By allowing males to compete against females, we’re essentially subjecting young girls to greater risk of injury, as well as stripping them of athletic opportunities their female predecessors have long fought for. 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.”
According to the Senate Republican’s press release, “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.”
The transfer of power from Republican Mark Brnovich to Democrat Kris Mayes in the Attorney General’s Office has forced the Republican-led Arizona Legislature into the lead role when it comes to litigation of federal and state lawsuits. Both legislative generals figure to take many more legal actions over the next year and a half with Democrats occupying the Governor’s and Attorney General’s Office in the Grand Canyon State.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
