The Foothills Library plans to host a “He/She/They: Why Pronouns Matter” event next week with funding from the Arizona State Library and Arizona Humanities.
The Arizona State Library is a division of Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ office; Arizona Humanities is a nonprofit affiliate of the independent federal agency, the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH).
According to the event summary, the pronouns lecture will focus on defining pronouns, the relations between pronouns and gender identity, and explaining various gender identities. The library rated the event as for adults on their events calendar.
The event is one in a series of “FRANK Talks,” produced in partnership with Arizona Humanities and the Arizona State Library.
There are 14 FRANK Talks topics across categories of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI); Civics; Education; and Environment. “He/She/They: Why Pronouns Matter” is categorized as a DEI topic, along with:
“Decolonizing Beauty: Who is Considered Beautiful?”: a critique of the privileges and advantages given to “Western standards of beauty” defined as “blondness, fairness, blue-eyes, and slender figures (in women).”
“What Does Language Tell Us About Society?”: how to ensure respect and inclusivity in language related to social categories of gender and race.
“Jocks and Nerds: Stereotypes in Our Everyday Lives”: how to recognize and prevent the stereotypes that lead to both conscious and unconscious, or implicit, biases.
“The Road to Inequity: Understanding the Wealth Gap”: a historical review of federal policies and discriminatory practices, such as redlining and the “current gender wage gap,” that persist today in the form of social and economic inequities, and how to practice equity (not equality) to counter those systems.
“Then and Now: What is White Nationalism?” (virtual only): defining and identifying modern white nationalism, or white supremacy, groups and individuals.
“What Happens When Social Movements and Social Justice Collide?” (virtual only): discussing the importance of social justice movements like Black Lives Matter (BLM), LGBTQ+, and #MeToo, as well as concepts like intersectionality.
The speaker for next week’s pronouns lecture is listed as FRANK Talks host Erick Tanchez. Tanchez is a self-described “Queer Xicano” that identifies both as a “he” and a “they.” Tanchez has served as a program specialist for Maricopa County Community Colleges and president of Equality Maricopa.
.@mesacc’s Erick Tanchez shares a special graduation message on behalf of Equality Maricopa. Congratulations Class of 2020, continue to follow your dreams and lead with love! pic.twitter.com/8e6G9sUO7L
— Maricopa Community Colleges (@mcccd) June 13, 2020
Tanchez is an Arizona State University (ASU) alumni, where he served as the executive director of CollegetownUSA@ASU, the college program of the national anti-gun and social justice group, Anytown USA.
Tanchez also hosts speeches for the FRANK Talks topic “Undocumented Americans: Who Gets to Go to College?”, in which he advocates for the equal treatment of illegal immigrants in college admissions.
The other FRANK Talk speakers are Kaari Aubrey, founder of a LGBTQ+ and BIPOC-only digital publishing company and former teacher; Andrea Christelle, vice provost for research at the Navajo Nation’s Diné College, founder of Philosophy in the Public Interest at Northern Arizona University; Derek Keith, a senior project manager at Arizona State University’s (ASU) Learning Enterprise responsible for internal DEI committees and trainings, and a former California educator who incorporated diversity and social justice into curriculum through courses like Social Justice literature; Mathew Nevarez, board member for the Alhambra Elementary School, alumni of AZ Leading For Change Fellowship; Gail Rhodes, PhD student and adjunct professor at ASU, former reporter for Fox Sports Network; Matthew C. Whitaker, founder of the ASU Center for the Study of Race and Democracy; and R.J. Shannon, a community activist with involvement including the founding of Healing Racism, former board membership for the Arizona ACLU, chairmanship and state liaisonship of the local committee for the anti-gun group Moms Demand Action, and planner for an indigenous LGBTQ+ conference.
On Wednesday, Arizona Humanities also hosted “The Art of Drag,” featuring Arizona State University (ASU) English professor and Drag Story Hour president David Boyles to discuss the history of drag and the experiences of modern drag performers.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A required biennial training program for Arizona State University (ASU) employees and faculty violates state law, per a complaint letter submitted by the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute.
In a letter to the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) on Tuesday, the organization alleged that the ASU Inclusive Communities, a required biennial training program for all employees and faculty, violates a new law passed last year, A.R.S. § 41-1494.
The law prohibits public funding for training that promulgates “blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex.” The department of administration is required to submit an annual report listing all state agencies complying with the law to the governor, the state senate president, the house speaker, and the secretary of state.
Per the law, “blame or judgment” qualifies as declaring that race, ethnic group, or sex determines inherent moral superiority, racism, sexism, oppression over another race, ethnic group, or sex. It also qualifies as concepts declaring an individual’s race, ethnic group, or sex as definitive of their moral character, endowing responsibility for the actions of others within their shared biological traits, insisting on negative, self-conscious feelings such as guilt or anguish with regard to their biological traits, and meriting discrimination or adverse treatment against them.
“Blame or judgment” also includes the concept that meritocracy or traits such as hard work are racist, sexist, or created by members of a particular race, ethnic group, or sex to oppress members of another race, ethnic group, or sex.
In their complaint letter, the Goldwater Institute noted that the ASU training does impart blame or judgment based on race, ethnicity, or sex.
“The statute makes clear that while the state may, of course, teach that such ideas exist, it may not promulgate these messages of blame or judgment in any official sense, or mandate the participation of employees at any session where these ideas are promulgated,” said the organization. “The ‘ASU Inclusive Communities’ training, however, is premised on the ‘blame or judgment’ referred to in this statute.”
The organization included the following quotes from obtained training materials reportedly promulgating the concepts that white people are inherently privileged, racist, and supremacist, regardless of intent or consciousness, and that heterosexuals are inherently privileged and maintaining power over other “sexual identities”:
“[A]cknowledging the history of white supremacy and the social conditions for it to exist as a structural phenomenon”
“How is white supremacy normalized in society”
“[G]iven the socio-historial [sic] legacy of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of structural inequality, perceptions of authority and control are not always granted to minoritized [sic] faculty.”
“White Fragility”
“What is White Privilege, Really”
“Explaining White privilege to a broke white person […]”
“7 Ways White People Can Combat Their Privilege”
“Racism […] can take the form of […] and include seemly innocuous questions or comments, such as asking people of color where they are from […]”
“Sexual identities are linked to power, and heterosexuality, the dominant sexual identity in American culture, is privileged by going on largely unquestioned.”
“[I]t scares people to talk about white supremacy or to be called a white supremacist. But if we start thinking about it in terms of whiteness as something that is culturally neutral and we’re moving it from that neutral space into a critical space.”
“[W]e have to open the space to critique whiteness.”
“[W]hite supremacy […] referring to here is the period between the 1500’s and the 1800’s that encompasses both Spanish colonization and Euro-American colonization. And what colonization did, was it really created this system of binary thinking. There were folks that were inherently good and folks that were inherently bad, and that led to the systems of superiority that were then written into the foundational documents of our Nation.”
The Goldwater Institute requested ABOR to direct ASU to cease spending any public monies on its Inclusive Communities training, or make the training optional rather than mandatory.
Additionally, the organization suggested that ABOR audit ASU’s other courses and the activities and courses of the University of Arizona (UArizona) and Northern Arizona University (NAU) to ensure compliance. As examples of potential anti-discriminatory violations, the organization linked to the UArizona Office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion trainings, the UArizona Eller College of Management Diversity, Equity and Inclusion training, and the NAU employee and faculty training.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
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.”
In New Mexico, the governor is limiting 2nd Amendment rights. That shouldn't happen. Our letter of concern here: pic.twitter.com/n8PXrDZxHK
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.
— County Attorney Rachel Mitchell (@Rachel1Mitchell) September 9, 2023
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.
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.
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.
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.”
🚨BREAKING: Federal Court BLOCKS key portions of Arizona voter suppression law requiring strict proof of citizenship to vote. Congratulations to our clients @votolatino and @MiFamiliaVota and the ELG team. Remaining parts go trial trial in November.https://t.co/nsXzORw1iY
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.
