by Corinne Murdock | Dec 13, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer said that early mail-in ballots are less problematic than in-person voting.
Richer made the remark during last month’s rowdy Board of Supervisors’ meeting to certify the election results. Richer said that this year’s early voting process had few issues, which he assured were remedied quickly.
“The early voting process is safe. It is secure, it is trackable, and it is subject to fewer of the caprices of in-person voting,” stated Richer.
The county recorder disclosed that preference at the end of his summary report on the county’s election processes and relevant data. He also took a swipe at critics.
“We can spend the next two years as we’ve spent the last two: fighting over conspiracy theories as promoted on social media by people who know nothing about elections,” stated Richer.
That line prompted loud, angry outcries from the audience. Gates pleaded calm, remarking that “the world is watching” as the audience shouted at Richer.
Richer continued, insisting that people should stop focusing on issues like splunk logs and ballot mules, and instead focus on legislative efforts like speeding up early vote processing.
Richer assured those present and the tens of thousands viewing the live stream of the meeting that the election was run efficiently despite Election Day hiccups with tabulators stemming from printer settings. Richer noted that political observers representing all parties were present throughout the election process.
Richer reported that Election Day voter registration totaled around 2.4 million. Approximately 77 percent of those were on the Active Early Voting List (AEVL); the county reportedly mailed out just under 1.9 million ballots.
There were 6,836 Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) votes. Over 1.3 million million early ballots were returned early: 806,000 came through USPS. Of the 461,000 early ballots dropped off at drop box early voting locations, 290,000 were dropped off on Election Day. Richer remarked that the number of early ballots dropped off on Election Day were a significant increase, despite his “best efforts” to dissuade voters from doing that.
Richer walked through the early ballot review process. He dispelled rumors that the county uses artificial intelligence for signature verification.
Richer reported that on the day before Election Day, the county had processed all early ballots received by Saturday. By Wednesday morning they processed all early ballots they received by Sunday, Monday, or by mail on Tuesday.
Richer emphasized that the county didn’t compromise any aspect of their early ballot processing because of the “stink” raised by the community concerning signature verification over the last few years.
He reported that the Sunday after Election Day, the early vote team had to review provisional ballots and cure ballots. Approximately 16,000 ballots had “bad” signatures, and all were cured except about 1,800.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Dec 12, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Illegal immigration may hit another all-time monthly high for the Biden administration. That’s in addition to the current historic record of over 4.1 million encounters, excluding “gotaways.”
Over the last few weeks, Border Patrol (BP) has observed a sharp increase in illegal border crossings in the Tucson Sector. Chief John Modlin highlighted the encounters of “large groups” throughout the week. In all, Modlin documented seven large groups totaling over 1,000 illegal immigrants.
The first week of December, Modlin reported that these large groups accounted for hundreds of migrants at a time.
The week after Thanksgiving, the Tucson Sector reported over 5,700 apprehensions.
The heightened migration surge doesn’t just include those seeking refuge from cartels and oppressive governments. On an almost weekly basis, BP officials document the arrests of illegal immigrants with prior criminal convictions.
For fiscal year 2022 (FY2022: Oct. 2021 – Sept. 30 2022), the number of illegal immigrants apprehended with one or more prior criminal convictions swelled to over 12,000.
The last time that the country experienced similar numbers was during the final months of the Obama administration and the first few months of Trump’s administration (over 12,800 in FY16). Throughout Trump’s administration, these numbers dropped steadily by several thousand every year: FY2017, over 8,500; FY18, about 6,700; FY19, over 4,200; FY20, over 2,400.
For FY2021, there were over 10,700 criminal illegal immigrants apprehended. At this trend, there could be around 14,000 criminal illegal immigrants arrested for FY23.
Percentagewise, the most notable increases in criminal conviction types concerned those convicted of homicide or manslaughter.
Despite the continuing surge of illegal immigration, President Joe Biden commented ahead of his first-ever visit to Arizona during his term that the border wasn’t important.
Based on the current average monthly encounters, there will be over 8.8 million illegal immigrants coming into the country by the end of Biden’s term. That’s more encounters than former Presidents Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and George Bush’s last two years combined.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Terri Jo Neff | Dec 12, 2022 | Economy, Education, News
By Terri Jo Neff |
In the last year, Arizona has added nearly 15,000 manufacturing jobs. But the demand for skilled workers to fill those jobs along with thousands of others across the state which require specialized training is drawing attention to the importance of ensuring students have access to trade or vocational schools.
The Imagine America Foundation (IAF) is focused on promoting the value of specialized career education and helping students get the hands-on training they need. One category the IAF concentrates on is the skilled trades, which includes a variety of occupations running the gamut from production, installation, maintenance, and repair.
“Because the world runs on machines and energy, those able to service them will always be in demand,” according to a recent IAF report titled Pandemic-Proof Careers in Skilled Trades. “Through economic downturns, pandemics, or other natural disasters, keeping these pieces moving will always be crucial to keeping society moving.”
The growth in demand for skilled trade jobs across Arizona is being powered by emerging technologies, a concerted effort by Gov. Doug Ducey to attract certain industries, and an aging workforce set to retire in the next few years.
“For young people deciding on a career or those looking to make a career change that better aligns with the stability, demand, flexibility, and ROI they seek, this growth comes at the perfect time,” the IAF report notes.
IAE recently highlighted several “hot emerging skilled trades” which can offer a more pandemic-proof career. Those jobs include:
- Aircraft and avionics equipment mechanic / technician
- Electrician
- Heating, air conditioning, and refrigeration mechanic / installer
- Heavy vehicle and mobile equipment service technician
- Industrial machinery mechanic, machinery maintenance, or millwright
- Machinist or tool and die maker
- Medical equipment repairer
- Solar photovoltaic installer
- Welder
- Wind turbine service technician
Scholarships and other tuition assistance for vocational and trade schools has also become more common in the last few years, with the Arizona Community Foundation leading the way away from a college-only mindset.
That example is now being followed by one of Cochise County’s largest employers, which has created a new scholarship for high school seniors interested in obtaining the training needed for a skilled trade job.
The program announced last month by Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative (SSVEC) Foundation will award $4,000 to five students who plan to attend a trade school, skilled job training program, or apprentice program in 2023 instead of seeking a traditional higher education degree.
“Our Directors recognized the importance of encouraging, and providing resources, to students who plan to attend a trade school or certified program rather than a degree from a college or university,” said Marcus Harston, SSVEC’s Community Relations Manager.
More information on the SSVEC Foundation Trade Scholarship Program is available here.
Some companies across Arizona are getting even more involved in training the new employees they need. Several, including Boeing and Gulfstream Aerospace Corp., are now working directly with educational institutions to ensure a quality workforce.
For instance, Gulfstream has partnered with Arizona State University and Chandler-Gilbert Community College to turn out maintenance specialists for the company’s fleet of luxury jets.
In addition, the Governor’s Office recently featured Prescott-based CP Technologies which has joined forces with Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and Yavapai College to train and hire upwards of 200 employees.
Another example is battery manufacturer KORE Power, which is working with Rio Salado College and West-MEC to facilitate training for the advanced manufacturing workers needed at the company’s Buckeye facility.
And Boeing has partnered with Mesa Community College to offer a boot camp for students interested in various electrical wiring technician jobs. Since 2019, more than 350 students have graduated from the boot camp with over 200 getting hired at Boeing, according to the Governor’s Office.
Terri Jo Neff is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or send her news tips here.
by Corinne Murdock | Dec 11, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Arizona State University (ASU) researchers grapple with some of the most pressing questions of our modern political landscape — most recently, whether “Shark Week” is guilty of a racism that perpetuates negative perception of sharks.
One of the study co-authors, ASU Postdoctoral Scholar David Shiffman, speculated to The Washington Post that the lack of diversity was purposeful. He pointed out that there were more white male experts and commentators than women, specifically men named “Mike.”
“When there are hundreds of people of color interested who work in this field, [and] when my field is more than half women, maybe it’s not an accident anymore that they’re only featuring white men,” stated Shiffman.
The study noted that shark conservation efforts were hindered, in part, by presenting inaccurate facts, fearmongering, bias, and inaccurate representations of scientists.
“In addition to the logistical difficulties of effectively conserving wide-ranging marine species, shark conservation is believed to have been hindered in the past by public perceptions of sharks as dangerous to humans,” stated the study. “Shark Week is a high-profile, international programming event that has potentially enormous influence on public perceptions of sharks, shark research, shark researchers, and shark conservation.”
The study went on to posit that white men were partly to blame for negative perceptions and limited conservation messaging concerning sharks. Shiffman and five other researchers analyzed 32 years of Shark Week documentaries (272 episodes) to draw their conclusions.
“Shark Week’s depictions of research and of experts are biased towards a small set of (typically visual and expensive) research methodologies and (mostly white, mostly male) experts, including presentation of many white male non-scientists as scientific experts,” stated the study’s abstract. “While sharks are more often portrayed negatively than positively, limited conservation messaging does appear in 53% of episodes analyzed. Results suggest that as a whole, while Shark Week is likely contributing to the collective public perception of sharks as bad, even relatively small alterations to programming decisions could substantially improve the presentation of sharks and shark science and conservation issues.”
The study broke down “Shark Week” episodes by the rhetoric used, themes, and incorporated research methods, in addition to the demographics of featured experts and commentators. The publication noted that the show often presented non-scientists or those without peer-reviewed publications as experts.
The study also noted that none of the featured hosts or experts used non-binary pronouns or were publicly identified as transgender.
“Inclusion of all identities is critical for the future of STEM and shark science specifically,” stated the study.
AZ Free News reached out to Shiffman for comment. Specifically, we asked for his thoughts on criticisms that correlation doesn’t necessitate causation, if the negative perception of sharks in some way was connected to implicit bias and/or racism, and if his nature as a white man was impacted by the study’s findings.
Shiffman responded that he had no comment, but that he would encourage a read of the entire study rather than “ignorant alt-right criticism” of the Washington Post coverage.
The coverage and content of the study did draw sharp criticism from right-wing circles.
Shiffman also published another diversity-based study in May focusing on representation in a prominent shark and fish academic group: the American Elasmobranch Society. Shiffman discovered in this study that more than half of group members were women, but that over 70 percent of group leadership consisted of men.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Dec 11, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
During oral arguments last Monday, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) appeared to side with a Christian website designer who is challenging a Colorado law that would force her to create websites celebrating same-sex weddings. The final ruling is forthcoming.
Counsel in the case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, is the Scottsdale-based Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). At issue: whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment.
Attorney Kristen Waggoner argued that SCOTUS precedent rejects government-compelled speech like what the state of Colorado wants to impose on graphic artist and website designer Lorie Smith with the threat of “pain of investigation, fine, and reeducation.”
Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson argued that the free speech clause exemption wouldn’t just apply to sincerely held religious beliefs, but “all sorts of racist, sexist, and bigoted views.” Olson claimed that such protections would allow a tech company to refuse to serve 303 Creative LLC because of Smith’s religious beliefs.
Near the end of arguments, U.S. Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher stated that he wanted the Court to find religious business owner discrimination against same-sex unions to be as odious and invalid of First Amendment protections as racism.
“I don’t mean to equate those who have different views of marriage to racists, but the reason why I rely on those hypotheticals is because this court’s First Amendment jurisprudence does not distinguish between views we find odious and those we respect,” stated Fletcher. “The same principles apply in both places, and if the principles lead to unacceptable places when we consider them in light of odious views, then I think we have to reject those principles even in the case where we sympathize with and respect the views.”
The three liberal justices of the court — Elena Kagan, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Sonia Sotomayor — argued that website designers don’t speak through their product. They also argued that extending protection to speech arising from religious beliefs of true marriage would lead to protections for speech arising from discrimination against interracial or disabled couples.
The six conservative justices — Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and John Roberts — repeatedly revisited the distinction between personalized, custom, commissioned products and goods and services served generally to the public.
Kagan claimed that websites weren’t particularly ideological or religious if there was an absence of explicitly written scripture or ideology. Waggoner disagreed, pointing to the context and message of the speech.
“When you switch out those names, you’re switching out the concept and the message that is in this website,” stated Waggoner. “The same words can convey different meanings.”
Sotomayor insisted that a creator wasn’t issuing speech by merely creating a product like a wedding invitation, but that only the distributor of the invitation was engaging in speech. Sotomayor further indicated that Smith’s work could only be viewed as her speech if she had stated expressly on her business website that her creations constituted her speech. Waggoner disagreed.
“In the same way that is the ghostwriter who writes an anonymous press release or a book. It is still that writer’s speech,” said Waggoner. “I don’t understand. How is this [the creator’s] story? It’s their story. […] It’s the story of the couple.”
Sotomayor questioned if there was a limit to compelling speech, citing examples of marriages between interracial couples or disabled persons. Waggoner said that was different, saying that it was “highly unlikely” that creators would serve certain races of people in certain contexts but not in a marriage.
“You’re not basing it on the nature of the message, you’re basing it on who you’re serving,” argued Sotomayor.
Waggoner contended that Smith has LGBTQ clients for other products, but can’t support same-sex marriage due to her Christian beliefs.
Sotomayor conflated Biblical and non-Biblical issues repeatedly, such as race and ability, insisting that creating content to display representation of a homosexual couple’s relationship wasn’t compelled speech. She compared Smith’s refusal to create a same-sex wedding website to a restaurant owner offering a limited menu to black individuals.
Waggoner said that book authors, newspaper editors, and writers for other types of publications were issuing their speech. Jackson interjected to say that those publication types weren’t “public accommodations in the same way.”
Jackson asked whether a caterer providing food to only Protestant customers would enjoy the same speech protections. She argued that conduct equated speech. Waggoner said no, drawing a distinction between speech and the messaging conveyed through conduct.
Alito questioned whether “plug and play” websites, essentially templates, imposed the same compelled speech issue. Waggoner said that was not the case because a creator wouldn’t be creating speech for the couple.
Barrett asked several hypotheticals: whether Smith would publish a site for a couple who describe their sexuality in a Biblically ambiguous way — “cisgender” and “heterosexual” — or a couple who admitted that they were marrying after cheating on their respective spouses. Waggoner said that Smith wouldn’t.
Waggoner argued that the court offers broad protections for speech arising from personal convictions.
“I think what’s important is the message she’s being asked to create,” stated Waggoner. “She believes that same-sex weddings contradict Scripture. And she’s announcing a concept of marriage that she believes to be false.”
Barrett asked why Smith couldn’t give a homosexual couple a website that was already created for a heterosexual couple. Waggoner said that it wouldn’t be the “same” since Smith would have to incorporate details and photos of the same-sex couple into the site.
“We know context changes meaning, just as Ginsburg said in Yates v. United States,” stated Waggoner.
Barrett asked whether the same could be said of a songwriter licensing an already-published song to a same-sex wedding. Waggoner said that the artist couldn’t because it was already in the stream of commerce, but admitted unfamiliarity with licensing procedures. She clarified that it would be different if the artist were to sing the song at or for the wedding.
Jackson argued that there’s no precedent for this type of case; Olson concurred. Thomas asked Olson to summarize any tradition of public accommodation laws, cases, or common law tradition applying to speech.
“The complicating factor here is this is not a hotel or a restaurant or a riverboat or a train. I’m interested in the intersection of public accommodations law and speech,” said Thomas.
Olson claimed that public accommodation laws don’t carve out exceptions for speech. He said there wasn’t a history of cases in which people asked for these exceptions.
Olson affirmed Sotomayor’s assertion that Smith’s business would be the first public accommodation that could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.
Kagan asked whether Colorado would allow Smith to refuse a same-sex couple’s request to quote Obergefell v. Hodges on their website: the SCOTUS case requiring states to recognize same-sex marriage. Olson said yes, since she would be denying that request for all customers. Then Kagan asked whether Colorado would allow Smith to refuse a same-sex couple’s request to put “God blesses this union” on their website. Olson said that was different because it implicates free exercise of religion concerns.
“It is a statement of opinion about the nature of this marriage,” said Kagan.
Roberts asked why an individualized, subjective, multi-factor determination in foster care and adoption wouldn’t be the same as a seat on a bus or room in a hotel. Olson said that since Smith engages with customers as a public accommodation, she needs to be held to that discrimination-free standard. Olson characterized Smith’s religious dissent as a “status-based discrimination.”
Olson said that Smith’s business would suffer because she would lose opposite-sex couples upset by her refusal to serve same-sex unions. Alito questioned if businesses were allowed to exercise any kind of selectivity; Olson responded that Alito’s hypothetical required a fact-based analysis.
Alito asked further if selectivity conferred a public service status to businesses. Olson affirmed on the stipulation that selectivity was the only factor in their decision-making, noting that selectivity based on protected characteristics like race or sexual orientation wasn’t allowable.
“The more selective and curated the process is, the less likely it is to be a public accommodation,” stated Olson.
Alito asked whether Jewish photographers could be compelled to photograph for customers using the pictures on the website facilitating affairs, Ashley Madison, which prompted laughter. Olson said they could.
“The website designer can choose to put on their websites whatever they want,” said Olson. “But they just can’t refuse to sell — if they’re a public accommodation — they can’t refuse to sell that website to someone solely because of the customer or couple’s religion.”
Alito then asked if it was fair to equate opposition to same-sex marriage with interracial marriage. Olson responded affirmatively.
“Of course honorable people have different views on this issue,” said Olson. “The way to honor that requirement is as this court has set forth in Fulton, in Masterpiece, is to have a rigorous interrogation to make sure that there are neutral and generally-applicable laws applied in fact that way that don’t single out religion.”
Alito then asked if writers could be forced to write customized wedding vows or speeches containing speech that they loathe. Olson said no, because the speech wouldn’t contain offenses against protected classes. He said that “things that people loathe” wasn’t protected like sex, gender, religion, or discrimination.
Gorsuch asserted that Smith’s customized and personalized products were different from offering general services. Olson argued that allowing Smith that freedom of creation would result in every single same-sex couple being turned away, but Gorsuch disagreed.
“Well, they can ask for what they want but what they get might be another thing,” responded Gorsuch.
Gorsuch asked if speechwriters would be held to the same standard as Smith. Olson said Colorado wouldn’t compel that speechwriter to produce work to which they object.
“You can choose the content of what you say, you just can’t choose who you sell to,” stated Olson.
Gorsuch challenged why a speechwriter would be any different from Smith’s company. Olson claimed that Smith wouldn’t sell a wedding site promoting homosexual unions to same-sex couples, but Gorsuch contended that Smith was refusing to sell sites promoting that content to any customer.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Terri Jo Neff | Dec 10, 2022 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
Within hours of U.S. Senator Kyrsten Sinema’s announcement on Friday that she is now a registered independent voter, posturing began for the 2024 election as the public learned just how deep the divide is within the Arizona Democratic Party.
Sinema took part in multiple media appearances to explain her decision, stressing her bipartisan efforts and focus on being an “independent voice” as Arizona’s senior senator despite being the Democratic nominee in 2018 against then-Sen. Martha McSally.
“Removing myself from the partisan structure — not only is it true to who I am and how I operate, I also think it’ll provide a place of belonging for many folks across the state and the country, who also are tired of the partisanship,” Sinema said.
In another statement Friday, Sinema noted her independent minded approach “is rare in Washington and has upset partisans in both parties,” but she believes it is “an approach that has delivered lasting results for Arizona.”
Sinema’s sentiment that she has well-served her constituents is not universally shared by Democrats back home, where her lack of enthusiastic support for many Democratic candidates in the 2022 election cycle, including Secretary of State Katie Hobbs’ run for governor, caused frustration for the Arizona Democratic Party.
Friday’s defection announcement was met by a good riddance style statement from state party leaders, who said everything except don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
“Senator Sinema may now be registered as an Independent, but she has shown she answers to corporations and billionaires, not Arizonans,” the statement read. “Senator Sinema’s party registration means nothing if she continues to not listen to her constituents.”
Some of Sinema’s votes in past years vexed key party leaders, but the discontent remained mostly under the surface until January. That is when the Arizona Democratic Party’s executive board censured Sinema for opposing changes to the Senate’s filibuster rules so that Democrats could push through voting rights legislation in advance of the 2022 election cycle.
Over the last two election cycles, the number of Arizona voters now registered as independents or no-party designated is almost equal to the number of registered Republicans, while independents outnumber registered Democrats by about 110,000 voters.
If Sinema seeks reelection in 2024, a run as an independent allows her to avoid a rough primary such as one U.S. Representative Ruben Gallego has been suggesting for months that he plans to put forth. Gallego issued a statement Friday that promoted his donation webpage while criticizing Sinema.
Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Greg Stanton decried suggestions that Sinema’s decision was somehow connected to a “post-partisan epiphany.” Instead, the former Phoenix mayor said it was “about political preservation” in light of Sinema’s recent polling numbers.
However, Sinema’s move was applauded by many Conservatives, including Larry Elder, former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and Twitter CEO Elon Musk.
Sinema’s voter registration switch ensures far-left Democrats will lose any foothold they expected to have after the recent Georgia runoff gave Democrats a slim 51 to 49 majority in the Senate. However, she is expected to retain all of her committee assignments from Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the Senate’s top-ranking Democrats.
Unlike fellow independents Sen. Angus King (Maine) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vermont) who formally caucus with Democrats, Sinema says she does not plan to caucus with any party.
Terri Jo Neff is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or send her news tips here.
