The public relations and legal fallout continues after the nonprofit which accepted donations for Gov. Katie Hobbs’ public inauguration ceremony released the names of donors and the amount of each donation.
Hobbs was officially sworn in Jan. 2 during a private ceremony. She then held a public inauguration ceremony on Jan. 5. The information about who paid for that ceremony via the Katie Hobbs Inaugural Fund was finally released several days later, after attorney Tim La Sota threatened to sue Hobbs for violating public records laws.
The Katie Hobbs Inaugural Fund was registered with the Arizona Corporation Commission on Dec. 13 by Hobbs’ campaign manager Nicole DeMont as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit social welfare organization. DeMont is currently listed as the only director on ACC records.
DeMont and Hobbs have come under scrutiny for accepting $1.5 million from roughly 120 donors, including $250,000 from utility giant Pinnacle West Capital Corp., the owner of Arizona Public Service Co. (APS). But the event cost less than $210,000, according to public records.
Government transparency watchdogs are calling for an investigation into whether Hobbs’ inauguration team had a pre-event budget worked out and whether more money was intentionally accepted than needed. But La Sota says there also remains a question of whether Hobbs violated another Arizona law by using the state’s website to solicit money for her inauguration.
“That’s definitely a no-no,” La Sota told KFYI’s James T. Harris this week. “That’s no different hardly than just putting a link on the governor’s official state website to her campaign account and saying, ‘hey you know do you want to support me politically, go to my campaign.’”
La Sota also told Harris that donations to DeMont’s nonprofit reportedly entitled donors to preferred access and seating at Hobbs’ inauguration event held on public property.
Questions surrounding the inaugural fund have also led some Democrats across Arizona to express dismay, behind the scenes, that Hobbs put them in the position of having to publicly ignore the $1.5 million controversy, just years after leaders of the Democratic Party called for an investigation into the funding of Donald Trump’s inauguration.
There is also growing pushback to utility companies like APS getting so heavily involved in politics; public records show APS donated $850,000 to the failed gubernatorial campaign of Kari Lake.
APS responded to criticisms about its donation to the Katie Hobbs Inaugural Fund with a statement that the money came from shareholder funds and not from customer payments. However, the company’s image has taken a hit in the court of public opinion given the fact APS is currently seeking a rate increase.
Another large donor to the inauguration was Blue Cross Blue Shield, which anted up $100,000, as did the lobby arm of the National Association of Realtors along with Arizona Realtors. There was also $100,000 donated by Sunshine Residential Homes Inc., a for-profit company that contracts with the State of Arizona to provide some child welfare services.
The rest of the donations ranged from $10 to $50,000; several were from entities like Union Pacific, the Arizona Dispensary Association, and Salt River Project which have dealing with various state agencies.
So what happens to the $1 million plus left on the books of the nonprofit created for Hobbs inauguration?
According to the IRS, the money can be spent on anything DeMont desires, provided it falls under the very broad category of promoting social welfare within the IRS code for a 501(c)(4).
“To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements),” according to the IRS.
In addition, seeking legislation germane to the nonprofits programs is a permissible means of attaining social welfare purposes.
“Thus, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status,” the IRS rules state.
There has been much public consternation that DeMont will use some of the inaugural fund donations for political activities. This is permissible under IRS rules provided engaging in politics is not the “primary activity” of 501(c)(4).
The only other stated restriction under IRS Code is that the political activity cannot involve “direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.”
The code makes no mention of restrictions to referendum or initiative measures that might come before voters.
Therefore, it is possible that donors to the Hobbs’ inauguration could end up seeing DeMont use their money against own their political interests.
Terri Jo Neff is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or send her news tips here.
Attorneys siding with embattled GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake are insisting that Maricopa County’s mass Election Day failures were purposeful.
Mark Sonnenklar, a roving attorney with the Republican National Committee (RNC), told AZ Free News that the county experienced few of the issues during the primary election that suddenly metastasized on Election Day: faulty printer settings and incorrect ballot paper size.
Sonnenklar said that out of the 11 vote centers he visited on the primary election day, only one had major problems with tabulation: the North Phoenix Baptist Church location.
“My theory is that the county was on a trial run for the general. I believe in my heart, my gut tells me, that they planned to create this chaos on general Election Day,” said Sonnenklar. “They were testing methods to create that kind of chaos during the primary. That’s when they were figuring out how to do that.”
None have produced evidence that the Election Day failures were intentional.
Although tabulators were the initial suspect for the mass Election Day failures across the county, it turned out to be administrative errors prior to tabulation. Sonnenklar pointed out that it wouldn’t make sense for these issues to multiply due to the sheer amount of in-person voters, since printer settings and paper size wouldn’t be affected.
On Election Day, Sonnenklar said he witnessed mass tabulator issues at six of the 10 vote centers. The widespread failures were so pervasive that Sonnenklar, alarmed, reached out to other roving attorneys across the county to gather their experiences while fresh. Many reported witnessing the same failures, which lasted around eight hours and forced thousands of affected voters to cast ballots into a “door 3” slot to be manually tabulated later.
Maricopa County largely dismissed voter concerns, assuring that door 3 ballots would be tabulated properly and opting to push off a review of the chaos for a post-certification investigation. An estimated 71 sites (44 percent) out of the 211 vote centers were impacted (Lake’s attorneys claim that 132 sites were impacted, or 59 percent).
“I was receiving calls from everyone I knew in the Valley,” said Sonnenklar. “I knew there was a massive problem.”
Poll worker testimonies of election machine issues leading up to Election Day, given during the election certification in late November, aligned with Sonnenklar’s evidence gathered. Similar testimonies were also given during the Maricopa County Superior Court hearing in Lake’s lawsuit challenging the 2022 election results.
Sonnenklar stated that there were at least three primary causes of the tabulator malfunctions: timing marks and small white specks, which were uncovered before Lake’s trial, and incorrect ballot paper size, which was revealed during the trial.
Sonnenklar claimed that he spoke with election officials at various vote centers about the tabulator issue. He cited one example from a Mountain View vote center inspector who reportedly showed him that the timing marks weren’t printing correctly. The inspector backed up her claim with nearly 200 ballots fed into box 3 with faulty timing marks.
“She was definitive. She said that the problem was the timing marks on the ballot not printing dark enough,” said Sonnenklar. “She had 175 ballots that she had taken out of box 3. She showed me every one of those ballots and they were gray, they weren’t black. They hadn’t printed dark enough. All 175 of the ballots rejected by the tabulators had gray timing marks instead of black timing marks.”
As for the white specks: Sonnenklar said that another poll worker noticed that the bubbles indicating the chosen candidates weren’t filled in completely. They appeared to have little white specks where the printer failed to fill them in.
“He asked the voter if they would be willing to color in the white spec with the felt-tipped Pentel pens,” said Sonnenklar. “Every single time that the voter did that, it went through the tabulator just fine.”
The third issue, the ballot paper size, was discussed by Lake’s witness Clay Parikh, an information security officer, during the trial. Parikh testified that ballots from six of the six vote centers he inspected the day before Election Day printed 20-inch ballots on 19-inch paper. Sonnenklar noted that these six vote centers were selected randomly, and expressed concern that this represented a rate of 100 percent of vote centers being problematic.
Maricopa County didn’t dispute the erroneous ballot paper size, noting that it was a recurring issue over the last few years. However, they did dispute the number of affected vote centers (three versus Parikh’s sworn six) and pressed Parikh to admit that these ballots could be duplicated and counted. Parikh noted that those reprinted ballots could be counted, if done correctly. Sonnenklar questioned why the county didn’t solve the problem completely.
“The county maintained that the 19-inch paper on 20-inch ballots only occurred at three vote centers and that they knew about that problem from three prior elections,” said Sonnenklar. “Bottom line is, we think there were multiple reasons why the tabulators failed. In one case it was printers not printed properly. And in another case it was 19-inch paper printing 20-inch ballots.”
Sonnenklar insisted that the court wrongly dismissed Lake’s case because the judge, Peter Thompson, failed to consider whether the affected voters could’ve changed the outcome of the election. He said the judge only considered one legal standard, whether fraud occurred, but didn’t address if there was enough misconduct to render the election outcome “uncertain.” Sonnenklar contended that the judge created a high legal standard inconsistent with legal precedent.
Lake lost by over 17,100 votes, around the same number of voters affected by mass Election Day failures. Though this margin may seem slim, another race was even closer. Hamadeh, also contesting his election, lost by just over 500 votes.
“We just had to prove that the number of votes in the election could have changed the outcome of the election. I don’t think the defendants ever countered that,” said Sonnenklar. “On the legal front, I think we have a very strong grounds for appeal here. I think we made a pretty good case for overturning the decision of the trial court.”
Sonnenklar will be filing a reply brief to the county and Hobbs’ responsive briefs.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Gov. Katie Hobbs assumed that the California mass shooting responsible for 10 deaths on the Chinese New Year was a hate crime against Asians. The suspected shooter was an Asian man, later found dead from self-inflicted gunshot wounds in a white van.
Though Hobbs apparently was unaware of the shooter’s race when she issued her Sunday morning statement, the governor assumed that the perpetrator was a non-Asian man committing a hate crime.
“These mass shootings can’t continue, and Arizona stands united with the AAPI community against hate,” wrote Hobbs.
Devastated by the news out of Monterey Park. My heart breaks for the victims, their families & friends, and all those impacted by this gun violence during Lunar New Year celebrations These mass shootings can't continue, and Arizona stands united w/ the AAPI community against hate
GOP legislators criticized Hobbs’ response as a knee-jerk default to perceived racism.
Gun violence, racism, whatever…..
Politicize in 3,2,1 and go…
How about we wait a few days and let the facts come out and then make an educated statement. Would that be so hard? 🤦♂️ #Shamefulhttps://t.co/Ge6Gw4sO3l
Law enforcement issued a description of the suspected shooter on Sunday morning: a 5’10”, 150 lb Asian man, approximately 30 to 50 years old. The shooter killed 10 and wounded 10 after opening fire in a Monterey Park, California ballroom late Saturday night.
Breaking: The Los Angeles Sheriff's Office has released a photograph of the #MontereyPark mass shooting suspect. He is a middle-aged Asian male. Leftist activists and Democrats had immediately blamed the deadly shooting, which killed at least 10, on white supremacy & racism. pic.twitter.com/WveyKZEQ3a
Police believe that the suspected shooter attempted to open fire at a second dance hall less than half an hour later, but those inside took the gun away from the suspect.
The LA County Sheriff says that the Monterey Park suspect has been described as an Asian male pic.twitter.com/dSh690qJ3E
This isn’t the first time that Hobbs falsely claimed that a crime was motivated by hate. In October, after Hobbs’ campaign office was broken into, Hobbs’ campaign manager Nicole DeMont accused the perpetrator of being a political activist radicalized by her Republican opponent, Kari Lake.
“The threats against Arizonans attempting to exercise their constitutional rights and their attacks on elected officials are the direct result of a concerted campaign of lies and intimidation,” state Hobbs.
In reality, the burglar turned out to be a 36-year-old homeless illegal immigrant.
Though Hobbs has been outspoken about crimes that were or were perceived to be racially-motivated against non-white individuals, Hobbs has remained silent on hate crimes against white individuals. Hobbs didn’t issue any public statements regarding the Christmas parade massacre that killed six in Waukesha, Wisconsin in November 2021.
We lost ten beautiful lives yesterday in an act of white supremacy. My heart goes out to the victims and their families.
We must address the rise in racially motivated extremism. Every American deserves to be safe in their homes, schools, supermarkets, and everywhere else.
The University of Arizona (UArizona) doesn’t believe that traditional law school entry tests are equitable enough, bolstering their push for an LSAT alternative.
UArizona James E. Rogers College of Law wants law school applicants to take JD-Next, an online prep course that concludes with an exam. UArizona issued a study in defense of their proposed LSAT replacement, claiming that it wouldn’t be “picking winners and losers through testing” but rather providing a way to “recognize and produce capability” — namely, for racial minorities.
“Especially for underrepresented students, the goal is to measure not just the accumulated knowledge and skills that they would bring to a new academic program, but also their ability to grow and learn through the program,” read the study. “[T]he JD-Next exam holds promise as a new law school admissions pathway, both to better predict success in law school and to help diversify the populations of students in law school.
The @NationalJurist article in support of increasing diversity in the legal profession suggests aspiring law students enroll in Arizona Law's online JD-Next Program to develop skills and experience.
The study tracked incoming students across dozens of law schools to determine whether the JD-Next exam was predictive of student performance. The study included data from two separate cohorts in 2019 and 2020.
The 2019 cohort tweaked its representation of students by oversampling minorities: 60 percent of nearly 11,600 invited participants were a minority. 24 percent were Black or African American, 21 percent were Hispanic, 14 percent were Asian, and one percent were Native American or Native Hawaiian. As a result of the oversampling, only 43.5 percent of participants were white.
The study also disclosed that students who identified as both White and Asian were coded as multi-race, but not classified as “underrepresented groups,” or “URG.”
However, the 2020 cohort more similarly reflected the makeup of law schools across the country: 61 percent white.
Regents Professor of Law Rebecca Tsosie discusses the legal profession’s diversity challenges with @Reuters.
The study noted that it focused on race as a factor in testing in order to determine diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in higher education. It claimed that the JD-Next exams resulted in smaller disparities in test results between different races than the LSAT.
“These questions about score disparities are important because admissions tests can impact efforts to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in law schools,” stated the study. “If admissions officers rely on these tests to decide which applicants to reject, and lower test scores are associated with some races or ethnicities, then students with those identities are more likely to be rejected, and overall representation in law school and the legal profession is thereby reduced.”
"Unfortunately, the legal profession is one that hasn't been as diverse as we would like it to become, so increasing diversity is an important initiative for the University of Arizona law school," said @jessfin79.
This wouldn’t be UArizona’s first foray into modifying admissions test standards. The university successfully pushed for the acceptance of the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) General Test for law school admissions in 2021. Prior to that, the GRE General Test was used for admission to graduate schools.
The American Bar Association (ABA) mandates that law schools require an admission test in order to be accredited. However, the ABA Council voted last November to abolish this requirement beginning in the fall semester of 2025.
Authors of the UArizona study included Jessica Findley, a research scholar with UArizona Office of Diversity & Inclusion and an assistant clinical professor at the law school; Adriana Cimetta, associate educational psychology research professor in UArizona College of Education; Heidi Legg Burross, interim department head, educational psychology professor, and research assistant professor in the College of Education; Katherine C. Cheng, assistant educational psychology research professor in the College of Education; Matt Charles, designer of curriculum for the law school; Cayley Balser, Innovation for Justice post-graduate fellow; Ran Li, graduate student in educational psychology; Christopher Robertson, adjunct law professor.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
It sounds simple enough – repeal any sales tax on the purchase of food for home consumption currently being imposed by two-thirds of Arizona’s municipalities and thereby provide relief for residents against the ongoing effects of inflation, high fuel prices, and increases in utility costs.
That is the purpose behind House Bill 2061 introduced earlier this month by House Majority Leader Leo Biasiucci along with 35 co-sponsors. Sales taxes in Arizona are formally known as a transaction privilege tax (TPT).
Today I introduced HB2061, a bill that removes the grocery food tax in Arizona. With 35 cosponsors, this is a bill that all Arizonans should get behind! 🇺🇲 pic.twitter.com/CF1CKD2QHM
Arizona does not have a state TPT for the sale of food for home consumption. But supporters of Biasiucci’s bill note that without a change, those who shop in a city or town with a municipal TPT on food will continue to be hit with a double whammy – more TPT being paid along with increasing grocery prices.
Sponsored by @Leo4AzHouse, HB2061 repeals the municipal food sales tax. Cities are reaping the benefits of inflation with record high sales tax revenues, all while Arizonans struggle. It’s time to provide inflation relief to Arizonans by repealing the food tax. We support HB2061 pic.twitter.com/PgjzfJKWbE
There is, of course, a quiet benefactor to those inflation-driven higher grocery prices – the 65 of Arizona’s 91 incorporated cities and towns which tax food for home consumption. The higher the prices, the greater their revenues.
Several municipalities have gone on record against HB2061, including the cities of Apache Junction, Avondale, Buckeye, Chandler, Coolidge, Glendale, Globe, Goodyear, Litchfield Park, Page, Prescott, Scottsdale, and Tempe, as well as the towns of Florence, Fountain Hills, and Gilbert.
Two other cities – Phoenix and Tucson – which do not even have a city sales tax on food for home consumption still oppose HB2061, as do lobbyists such as the League of Arizona Cities & Towns, the Professional Firefighters of Arizona, and Arizona AFL-CIO.
HB2061 cleared its first hurdle last week with a 6 to 4 vote in the House Ways & Means Committee. All four no votes came from Democrats on the committee. One lawmaker who advocated for the legislation during the committee vote was Rep. Travis Grantham (R-Scottdale).
“It’s unthinkable to me that people can stand up and justify taxing something people need to survive on a day to day basis,” Grantham said.
HB2061 is slated to be considered by the House Rules Committee on Monday. It will then be debated by the House, where many lawmakers expect to hear complaints that cities and towns will have to cut services if the bill passes.
It is an argument Biasiucci (R-Lake Havasu City) refuted last week, pointing out that the roughly one-third of Arizona’s cities and towns without a sales tax on food for home consumption are still able to offer municipal services.
Do the 27 cities in Arizona that do not have a food tax have Police? Ask Phoenix, Tucson, Lake Havasu, Kingman and get back to me with your answer.
If passed into law, the elimination of the food sales tax would take effect later this year. However, there is nothing in state law preventing any municipality that currently has such a tax from repealing it on their own.
The Joint Legislative Budget Committee estimates HB2061 could save Arizonans nearly $160 million in Fiscal Year 2022 and potentially growing to a savings of more than $195 million in FY 2026.
Democrats in the Arizona Legislature just voted NO to cut taxes on groceries! EVERY REPUBLICAN VOTED YES!! #HB2061
On Tuesday, lawmakers asked Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to reject the Election Procedure Manuals (EPM) drafted by Governor Katie Hobbs when she was the secretary of state, per recent court decisions.
The dubious EPMs were the 2019 and 2021 versions drafted by Governor Katie Hobbs during her service as secretary of state. Court decisions in Brnovich v. Hobbs, McKenna v. Soto, Leach v. Hobbs, and Leibsohn v. Hobbs declared that these EPMs weren’t in line with state law.
In a joint statement issued Tuesday, State Reps. Jacqueline Parker (R-LD15) and Alex Kolodin (R-LD03) insisted to Fontes that the court decisions merited review of the EPMs. Parker chairs the House Committee on Municipal Oversight & Elections, and Kolodin serves as the vice chair.
“Recent Arizona court decisions give us serious concerns about the lawfulness of former Secretary Hobbs’ 2019 EPM and 2021 draft EPM,” said Parker and Kolodin. “Arizona law purports to authorize the EPM to achieve and maintain the maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, uniformity and efficiency in voting procedures throughout the state. But we question whether these mandates have been followed. We hope Secretary Fontes more fully evaluates where the prior Secretary overstepped her bounds and look forward to hearing how those errors will be corrected.”
State Reps. @electjacqparker & @Alex4Arizona seek answers from new Arizona Secretary of State on Elections Procedures Manual & express serious concerns over errors and mishandling by former Secretary Hobbs.
Parker and Kolodin asked Fontes to include them in the stakeholder input process. They asked Fontes whether he would disregard Hobbs’ 2021 draft EPM; if he believed the 2019 EPM followed and carried the enforcement of state statute; and for his supplementation of any guidance, statements, emails, or directives that Hobbs or her agents gave to county election officials concerning the 2022 General Election not written in the 2019 EPM.
The duo also asked Fontes for copies of any and all drafts of the 2023 EPM, as well as communications regarding third-party input or proposals. They set next Tuesday, Jan. 24, as their deadline.
Brnovich v. Hobbs ruled that the 2021 draft EPM failed to meet statute deadline. McKenna v. Soto and Leach v. Hobbs determined that the 2019 EPM language added onto statute language and was therefore impermissible. Finally, Leibsohn v. Hobbs ruled that Hobbs’ electronic registration process for signature gathering was deficient and non-compliant with state statute.
When former attorney general Mark Brnovich rejected the 2021 draft EPM over concerns later confirmed by court decisions, Hobbs insisted that his grievances had no merit.
AG Brnovich now claims that his prior unethical behavior prohibits him from performing his current statutory duties.
The Elections Procedures Manual is an important part of election integrity in Arizona. It’s unfortunate for all voters that AG Brnovich refuses to do his job. pic.twitter.com/KJQnerd9Ve
The Elections Procedures Manual ensures that elections throughout AZ are run uniformly.
Unfortunately, it appears AG Brnovich prefers political posturing over performing his duty to review and approve the Manual. It’s time for him to work in good faith on behalf of all voters. pic.twitter.com/7ImW91mS6V
It appears that Fontes wouldn’t disregard Hobbs’ EPMs, regardless of court decisions. Fontes supported the Arizona Supreme Court decision upholding the 2019 EPM in McKenna v. Soto.
“This effectively shifts the burden from the petitioner (voter) to the government, maximizing all voters’ voices in the process,” stated Fontes. “This is a MASSIVE WIN for voters!”
Also, at Par20 of the opinion, the Court affirms that only the enumerated parts of ARS16-542 appearing in the AZ Election Procedures Manual have the force and effect of law. This is a MASSIVE WIN for voters!#ProtectDemocracy 3/
Fontes’ office didn’t issue an immediate public response to the request letter. However, he did advertise an upcoming panel with Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer.
I'm really looking forward to this friendly exchange of ideas with my colleague @stephen_richer. We don't agree on everything but having smart, civil, and informative conversations about improving our systems is what makes our democracy stronger. pic.twitter.com/6tLky19d8N
