Another election integrity bill has cleared the Arizona Legislature and is awaiting final action from Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs.
On Monday, HB 2560, sponsored by Speaker Ben Toma, passed out of the Arizona House of Representatives with a party-line 31-27 vote (with one Democrat not voting and one vacant seat). The proposal “directs the County Recorder to transmit to the Secretary of State to post on a secure website: a list of all registered voters before an election, a list of all persons who voted in the election, the unaltered images of ballots used to tabulate election results and the cast vote record in a sortable format.” The Senate then substituted SB 1324 with the House version Monday, giving the legislation the green light, 19-9 (with two Democrats not voting).
Earlier in the session, the bill had been approved by the House Municipal Oversight and Elections Committee along partisan lines (6-4).
The bill had previously garnered the support of Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Republican Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer. On April 7, as he was about to mark his 100th day in office, Fontes’ office released a statement on the legislative proposal, writing: “Additionally, Secretary Fontes has been a strong proponent of SB 1324, a bipartisan piece of legislation concerning ballot imaging sponsored by former Secretary of State and current State Senator, Ken Bennett. An identical bill was introduced in the House as HB 2560. The bill, which is similar to legislation passed in other states such as Colorado, would allow people to compare ballot images to a cast vote record and would help restore confidence for some voters in our elections.”
Richer had issued a statement earlier in the year on February 13, saying, “Elections work when there is openness and transparency. SB 1324 does that by creating a system where each county recorder can inform voters before and after every election about who is eligible to vote while protecting voter confidentiality. All three – the list of eligible voters, the list of who voted, and the cast vote record – will be available to anyone who wants them. SB 1324 and Speaker Ben Toma’s legislation, HB 2560, contain similar language and will further strengthen our elections by enshrining the kind of transparency that can build public trust in our elections.”
After the bill received the go-ahead from the Senate on Monday, Senator Wendy Rogers tweeted, “Great effort to restore accountability in our elections.”
Legislation to increase Americans’ First Amendment rights at Arizona colleges and universities appears to be obtaining more bipartisan appeal as it moves towards the Governor’s Office.
On Monday, the Arizona House of Representatives passed SB 1013, which deals with free speech zones on state universities and colleges. The proposal, sponsored by Senator John Kavanaugh, “allows a person to engage in expressive activity in any area on a public university or community college campus where they are lawfully present, and modifies the state aid amounts from a community college district that exceeds its expenditure limitation in FY’s 2024 and 2025.” SB 1013 passed 57-1 (with one Democrat not voting and one seat vacant).
Kavanaugh’s bill first passed the Arizona Senate on February 28 with a 16-14 vote along party lines – after clearing the Education Committee with a 5-2 tally. When the legislation was transmitted to the House, it was assigned to the Education Committee as well, where it received a unanimous 8-0 approval (with two Democrats voting ‘present’).
The bill was amended twice – once in the Senate and another time in the House. The first amendment came from Senator Kavanaugh, specifying “that the authorization for a person to engage in expressive activity on a public university or community college campus in any area where the person is lawfully present does not prohibit a university or community college from regulating economic activity on the campus.” The House amendment, sponsored by Representative David Livingston, set “penalties for a community college district that exceeds its expenditure limitation;” and also limited “the maximum penalty that can be withheld from a provisional community college district established before December 31, 2015, located in a county with a population less than 300,000, which exceeds its expenditure limitation.”
Days after his bill passed the Arizona Senate, Kavanaugh recorded a video to explain his reasoning for introducing the legislation, saying, “If you’re on a college campus, and you have a legal right to be where you’re at – and you’re not blocking people and you’re not disrupting anything, then you can do and say whatever you want that’s legal. We’re going to restore the First Amendment to our universities. It’s long overdue.”
Since the House amended the Senate’s version of SB 1013, the Senate will have to concur with the changes in the coming weeks. On Tuesday, the bill was sent back to the Senate to await further action.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Abe Hamadeh argued for a new trial on Tuesday before the Mohave County Superior Court.
The judge, Lee Jantzen, seemed interested in sampling the evidence presented by Hamadeh’s team in the case, Boyd v. Mayes, despite multiple objections from opposition. Arguments presented by the opposition — the attorney general, secretary of state, and Maricopa and Pima counties — mainly focused on the amount of time that’s transpired since the election and Hamadeh’s December trial. Arguments presented by Hamadeh’s team focused on evidence of allegedly disenfranchised voters, claiming that hundreds of “lost” (uncounted) votes from undervotes and provisional ballots proved that Hamadeh won the race.
Lawyers present for the oral arguments included former assistant attorney general Jen Wright, State Rep. Alex Kolodin (R-LD03), and James Sabalos for Hamadeh; Alexis Danneman and Paul Eckstein for Attorney General Kris Mayes; Craig Morgan for Secretary of State Adrian Fontes; Daniel Jurkowitz for Pima County; and Joseph La Rue for Maricopa County.
Sabalos opened up the oral arguments, quoting Thomas Jefferson and summarizing general discoveries in the course of their months-long review of voter data as a precursor to Wright’s arguments.
“We do not have a government by the majority; we have a government by the majority who vote,” quoted Sabalos.
Sabalos insisted their case wasn’t about fraud, but about the evidence and facts supporting the reality of Hamadeh as the winner of last November’s election contest. He claimed that Gov. Katie Hobbs, in her former capacity as secretary of state, was aware of and neglected to immediately publicize 63 Pinal County undervotes that lent to Hamadeh’s claims last December of lost votes.
Sabalos said this intentional concealment of facts served to handicap their team’s due diligence of reviewing election data for the courts. Sabalos further claimed that there were 76,339 votes counted as undervotes in the attorney general’s contest. Of the approximately 2,000 ballots they inspected, 14 were misread (.61 percent). With that percentage applied to the larger total of undervotes statewide, Sabalos said that amounted to 466 or more votes — more than the 288-vote lead Mayes holds over Hamadeh.
Sabalos then claimed that there were uncounted provisional ballots that constituted legal votes, and that the majority of those would’ve turned in favor of Hamadeh.
“We don’t come today with hyperbole or speculation. We come with some reasonably solid evidence, and we need a heck of a lot more for this judge and this court to get its hands around,” said Sabalos.
Wright followed up Sabalos’ arguments by first focusing on Hobbs. She said that Hobbs didn’t fulfill her duty of being a neutral, nominal party, since Hobbs argued heavily that Hamadeh had no evidence to support his claims, while allegedly knowing of the dozens of undervotes recovered during the recount, and pushed for his case to be dismissed. Wright further noted that Maricopa County Elections Director Scott Jarrett admitted during the December trial that he wasn’t sure why certain votes weren’t counted, and instead counted as undervotes.
Wright expanded on Sabalos’ claim of the 63 undervotes, noting that they were counted as valid during the recount. Wright asserted that Hobbs knew of this fact, which she said rendered Hamadeh’s claims during the December trial valid. Wright also dismissed Hobbs’ claim that she was under an order preventing her from disclosing the undervotes, since the order only applied to counties discussing the recount results from vote totals. Wright claimed that the judge would’ve permitted Hamadeh a review of the evidence had Hobbs been forthright all those months ago.
“I find it questionable that a government agent would take support of or opposition to a candidate in an election contest,” said Wright.
Wright further noted that Hamadeh was unable to obtain the provisional ballot data from Maricopa County until days after the trial occurred, further hindering his ability to meet statutory deadlines.
When Wright attempted to discuss the evidentiary numbers on undervotes, both Mayes and Fontes’ legal teams raised objections. The judge overruled their objections, however.
Wright claimed that their team interviewed hundreds of high-propensity voters affected by statewide computer system changes, which allegedly altered their registration address without their consent and therefore deprived them of the right to vote. She claimed that over 1,100 Election Day provisional voters were disenfranchised.
Election Day votes went overwhelmingly for Hamadeh: over 69 percent to nearly 29 percent for Mayes. Wright said that this would mean about 760 of provisional ballots would be for Hamadeh, and 316 for Mayes. By Wright’s math, Hamadeh would prevail on the provisional ballot issue alone by 165 votes.
Wright further noted that their team had collected sworn affidavits of hundreds of voters claiming disenfranchisement due to bureaucratic failures. When she attempted to read the account of one allegedly disenfranchised voter, Mayes’ team raised an objection. The judge promptly overruled.
The allegedly disenfranchised Maricopa County voter, Marlena, attempted to vote on Election Day but was denied. Marlena had reportedly experienced issues with the county’s registration system for months: earlier that year, she discovered that her registration had changed without her knowledge and consent. Wright presented evidence that on October 10, 2022, Marlena attempted to correct her voter registration before the deadline. Wright also presented evidence from Maricopa County confirming Marlena’s registration. Yet, she was denied on Election Day.
Danneman, Mayes’ lawyer, said Hamadeh’s claims were speculative and based on unsworn opinions. She emphasized repeatedly the timeliness of his contest, noting that it has been over five months since the December trial and that their team could only present an argument that they needed more time to look for votes.
Danneman further rejected the argument that Hamadeh should be granted a new trial to undertake further investigation. She said that evidence must be material, in existence at the time of trial, and not be discovered with reasonable diligence.
She added that Hamadeh’s request for a more complete ballot inspection proved there wasn’t any newly-discovered evidence warranting a new trial.
The provisional voters list didn’t hold much weight in Danneman’s view. She claimed Hamadeh was undertaking a “fishing expedition” for evidence, which she pointed out was prohibited by court precedent.
“This list of names proves nothing,” said Danneman. “The plaintiffs had their day in court.”
Morgan, with Fontes, added that it was “long past time” for this election contest to end. He said that Hamadeh’s challenge impugns the validity of election processes as well as the integrity of election officials.
La Rue with Maricopa County concurred. Jurkowitz with Pima County argued further that statute time bars any further contest.
Following the hearing, Hamadeh expressed optimism that the oral arguments ultimately were in his favor.
As the border crisis continues to worsen after the end of Title 42, Arizona House Republicans are crying out for action and assistance.
Last week, Arizona House Republicans used the Title 42 news from the border to highlight the need for more federal and state efforts to enforce the nation’s laws and defend innocent American families and communities. The House Republican Majority issued a statement demanding that “federal leaders end the border crisis and protect states.” Then five Representatives sent a letter to Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs, “urging her to take immediate action and activate all available state resources to keep communities safe from the dangerous and unprecedented threats presented by an unsecure southern border.”
In the statement to the federal government, the House Majority leaders shared what Arizona had enacted to secure the border over the past three fiscal years:
🚨FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE🚨
Arizona House Republicans Demand Federal Leaders End Border Crisis, Protect States
"With each passing day, illegal immigration grows, more deadly fentanyl pours through our borders, more young girls are pushed into border-related sex trafficking, and… pic.twitter.com/Ysk2Tq4UJk
— Arizona House Republicans (@AZHouseGOP) May 11, 2023
“In 2021, House Republicans passed a Border Security Fund, which was used to help prevent human trafficking and illegal entry into the country, to solidify infrastructure, aid local prosecution efforts, and other necessary activities to protect Arizona citizens.
Last year we put over $500 million into the fund and allocated over $209 million for a variety of state and local border enforcement activities. About $240 million remains in the fund, which the state can use to counteract the federal government’s negligence on the border and the harm it has in our communities.
In the new state budget passed this week, we included:
– Maintaining a $30 million program that provides additional support to local law enforcement facing border-related crimes. (Border Drug and Interdiction Fund; Local Border Support – formerly known as the Border Strike Force)
– Adding $10 million to human trafficking prevention efforts.
– Adding $3 million for additional fentanyl prosecution efforts.”
In the letter to Governor Hobbs, the state representatives (Gail Griffin, Tim Dunn, Lupe Diaz, Michael Carbone, and Michele Peña) referenced former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s legal opinion on “the federal government’s failure to uphold its duty to defend the States from invasion;” and a May 2022 Arizona House Legislative Proclamation, declaring that “an uncontrolled border is a security and humanitarian crisis,” and that “the smuggling of illegal drugs, weapons, and human beings poses a direct threat to our communities and innocent Americans.”
— Arizona House Republicans (@AZHouseGOP) May 12, 2023
The five lawmakers wrote that “the State of Emergency in Arizona’s border counties that former Governor Ducey declared on April 20, 2021, is still in effect and continues as long as these conditions exist. And over $240 million remains in the Border Security Fund, which the Legislature established to prevent illegal entry into the country, solidify infrastructure, and combat other harms at the border.” They requested the governor “take immediate action and activate all available state resources to keep our communities safe from these dangerous and unprecedented threats.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The 2024 Presidential Primary is already testing the unity of the Arizona Republican Party as former and current officials take sides months ahead of the state’s preference election.
Late last week, a group of Arizona Republicans wrote a letter to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, asking him “to seek the presidential nomination of our Grand Old Party.” The letter came as DeSantis was embarking on a high-profile to the important primary state of Iowa and as rumors have indicated he may be close to jumping into the presidential race on the Republican side.
The letter, entitled “Arizona Republicans Ready to Win in 2024,” was headlined by Speaker of the House Ben Toma, and former East Valley Congressman Matt Salmon. House Majority Whip Teresa Martinez, Senator Ken Bennett, Senator Frank Carroll, Senator Steve Kaiser, Senator J.D. Mesnard, Senator TJ Shope, Representative David Cook, Representative Lupe Diaz, Representative Kevin Payne, Representative Beverly Pingerelli, Representative Justin Wilmeth, City Councilwoman Vicki Gillis; and former officials Frank Riggs, Shawnna Bolick, Regina Cobb, Jeff Dial, Sandra Dowling, Nora Ellen, Eddie Farnsworth, Robert Garcia, Rick Gray, Vince Leach, Jeff Weninger, and Steve Yarbrough.
The plea for DeSantis to join the presidential field was driven by the “damage being done to (Arizona) by the reckless policies of the Biden Administration.” The officials highlighted “the strains that open borders are placing on (Arizona’s) health, education, and public welfare systems;” “reckless overspending” and “rampant inflation;” “liberal attacks on our first responders and public safety programs;” America’s deteriorating “standing in the world;” and “political correctness and its many cousins, like censorship, Critical Race Theory, SEL, ESG scores.”
After listing the primary areas where President Joe Biden’s policies are bringing harm to their state, the Arizona signatories wrote, “These are just a few of the many reasons why Republicans must retake the White House in 2024 and why we must be led in that effort by someone who knows right from wrong, is not afraid to speak truth to power, will not be bullied by the left or their accomplices in the media, who has a track record of successful governance, and who can assemble the required national coalition of voters needed to win the Presidency and bring along strong majorities in the House and Senate.”
They added, “We believe you are the right candidate at the right time, with the required combination of personal attributes we will require to unite our passionate party.”
If DeSantis joins the growing list of Republican contenders for the White House, these Republican endorsements of his candidacy will be vital in a state that has featured some of the top national supporters of former President Donald J. Trump from 2015 to present. When Arizona Republicans voted in the March 2016 Presidential Preference Election, the top two candidates at that stage in the national endeavor for the most delegates were Trump and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz. Trump beat out Cruz by almost 7,000 votes. The eventual nominee for the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, handily defeated U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders in the Grand Canyon State.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
On Monday, the Biden administration announced that Mohave Valley Elementary School District received over $586,000 for mental health program funding. The funds will pay for up to 22 new positions.
This latest round of funding was part of over $95 million issued across 35 states. In total, the Department of Education (ED) has awarded $286 million to 264 grantees in 48 states for mental health programs.
The funding originated from the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) enacted last June as part of the Biden administration’s National Mental Health Strategy. The BSCA’s primary initial purpose was to reduce gun violence in schools and surrounding communities.
Last September, the Biden administration issued nearly $1 billion through BSCA for more mental health program funding. Arizona received an allocation of over $20.8 million.
The Biden administration also issued $122 billion in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding to hire more school psychologists, counselors, and mental health professionals in K-12 schools. ED reported that, compared to pre-pandemic staffing numbers, school social workers have increased by 48 percent, school counselors have increased by 10 percent, school nurses have increased 42 percent, and school psychologists have increased 10 percent.
The Biden administration earmarked these funds for “high-need” local education agencies (LEAs), such as those with high rates of poverty as well as high student-to-mental health professional ratio, high rates of chronic absenteeism, exclusionary discipline (e.g. suspension, expulsion, seclusion, or restraint), referrals to the juvenile justice system, bullying or harassment, community and school violence, or substance use. High-need could also include those who experienced a natural or man-made disaster, or a traumatic event.
Buried within the ED guidance on usage of these funds, the agency encouraged a total overhaul of traditional disciplinary practices.
“Rather than focusing on changing behavior through punishment or removal from the learning environment, school leaders should consider adopting practices that will help educators support students by identifying the root cause of the behavior and developing effective strategies to eliminate or mitigate it,” stated ED. “Building a school culture of curiosity and growth mindset that prioritizes solution-based thinking may encourage pro-social behavior.”
Some of the punishment alternatives included “art program, mindfulness, and body movement activities.” ED also suggested that non-violent behavior be met with conflict resolution training and programs rather than exclusionary discipline.
The Biden administration left it up to each state’s education authority to determine what constituted “high need.” However, the administration noted that the state may require LEAs to describe how they promote meaningful cultural and linguistic engagement. ED further noted that school-based violence prevention programs must be “culturally affirming” in addition to supporting positive relationships, resilience, self-control, empathy, and persistence.
“SEAs may also require LEAs to describe their process for meaningful culturally and linguistically centered student, parent, family, educator, staff, and community engagement and evidence of how that engagement informed their school safety and climate plans, related policies, and strategies,” stated ED.
The ED noted that the permitted use of funds wasn’t limited to improving students’ mental health. ED noted that permitted fund usage included educator and school staff surveys, convenings, and educator outreach efforts.
ED also encouraged funds to be used to prevent and address identity-based bullying. The Biden administration now recognizes sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under anti-discrimination law.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
