PHOENIX – Arizona’s Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has amended its February 3rd lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) over its immigration policy that halts nearly all deportations for 100 days, even for those charged with or convicted of crimes.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen has also joined the Arizona lawsuit on behalf of the State of Montana. Arizona and Montana also filed a motion for preliminary injunction asking the court to stop the DHS policies from being implemented.
The original complaint challenged the DHS Memorandum issued on the first day of the Biden Administration, called the “immediate 100-day Pause on Removals.” In addition to the DHS policy, Arizona and Montana are also now challenging the “Interim Guidance” issued by the Acting Director of ICE on February 18, 2021, which tries to supersede the original Memorandum but does not substantively change the policy to pause nearly all deportations of those who entered the country before November 1, 2020.
The amended complaint alleges that the original Memorandum and the Interim Guidance were promulgated without providing notice to Arizona and Montana, in violation of each State’s Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with DHS. Additionally, both policies are in direct violation of federal law, 8 U.S.C. § 1231, that requires an alien, who has received a final deportation order, to be removed from the United States within 90 days.
The DHS Memorandum states it is to be in effect for 100 days, and the Interim Guidance states it is to be in effect for 90 days, but no apparent limiting factor is explained. If this action is permitted to stand, DHS could implement these polices for a longer period or even indefinitely, thus allowing the current Administration to unilaterally amend immigration laws without the required congressional action.
Law enforcement officials also are telling the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) that DHS is releasing undocumented aliens without testing them for COVID-19. Many are worried hospitals and medical centers, which have been operating at or near full-capacity due to the pandemic, could be overwhelmed. Possibly even more disturbing, the AGO has learned DHS is releasing potentially dangerous individuals without any coordination with local law enforcement.
The preliminary injunction notes that DHS did not engage in any prior consultation with anyone—inside or outside the federal government—about the anticipated effects and costs of the Removal Moratorium, including the number of aliens with final removal orders who will be released from ICE custody and the detrimental impacts on public safety, health, and state and local finances from such releases. Further, DHS made no attempt to follow the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice-and-comment procedures in issuing the Memorandum/Removal Moratorium.
The motion includes declarations from Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb, Cochise County Sheriff’s Office Chief of Staff Mark Napier, President for the Yuma Medical Center Dr. Robert Trenschel, and Administrator of the Division of Criminal Investigation at the Montana Department of Justice Bryan Lockerby. These declarations illustrate the harms Arizona and Montana will suffer under the new DHS policies, including unreimbursed costs related to incarceration and healthcare costs.
While much of the spirited debate about election legislation has centered on what happens after the polls close, several bills have been introduced to change the process of how and when a voter can receive and cast a ballot. And at least two new felony offenses would be created as a result.
A bill sponsored by Rep. Jake Hoffman (R-LD12) would make a felon out of any city or town clerk, or county recorder or other election official who provides an early ballot to a voter did not request it at least 93 days before an election, unless the voter is on the permanent early voting list.
Hoffman’s bill, HB2792, prohibits sending out an early ballot unless the voter complies with all early voting laws, including the request deadline. The intent, according to Hoffman, is to avoid situations seen in many states in the 2020 General Election when election officials mailed out ballots under the guise of avoiding COVID-19 contact at polling places.
Knowingly issuing unauthorized early ballots would be a Class 5 felony, subject to a prison sentence of up to 2.5 years, comparable to the sentence for facilitating prostitution and aggravated assault on a peace officer. Hoffman’s bill cleared the House last week on a 31-28 margin and is now under consideration by the Senate.
Another bill, SB1106, passed the Senate by a 16 to 14 margin last week. It makes it a Class 6 felony for a person who knowingly registers to vote in Arizona “solely for the purpose of voting in an election in this state and without the requisite intent to remain.”
SB1106 sponsored by Sen. J.D. Mesnard (R-LD17) would amend ARS § 16-182, which currently requires a voter in Arizona to be a resident of the state for 29 days preceding an election and to have been registered to vote for the same period. It is now a Class 6 felony for someone to register to vote or to actually vote if the person knew they were not entitled to do so.
But under Mesnard’s bill, a new voter who moves away at some undefined amount of time after an election could have their voting action challenges and then have to prove at trial what their intent was at the time they voted.
A Class 6 felony is punishable by up to two years in prison as well as loss of several rights, including the ability to possess or own firearms. Comparable offenses are witness tampering, possession of drug paraphernalia, and theft of property less than $2,000.
Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-LD23) has had success with several election-related bills, including SB1002 which requires election officials to ensure that the envelopes used by voters to return early ballots do not reveal the voter’s political party affiliation. Her bill easily cleared the Senate on a 20 to 9 margin and is expected to be taken up by the House on Tuesday.
On Monday, the Senate transmitted SB1713, also by Mesnard, to the House on a 16 to 14 margin. The bill adds steps to the vote-by-mail process, so a voter cannot simply sign the affidavit on the ballot envelope and put it in the mailing envelope with the ballot.
SB1713 would also require the voter to include their date of birth on the affidavit and write their driver’s license or an acceptable government-issued ID number on the affidavit before placing it and the ballot in the mailing envelope. There would be a more complicated process for voters who do not have an acceptable government ID card.
If the bill passes, failure to follow any of the new affidavit requirements would cause the submitted ballot to be rejected.
Meanwhile, the House approved a bill last week that requires voters whose polling place uses paper ballots be offered a “ballot privacy folder” when given their ballot, although they do not have to use it. The bill, HB2362 by Rep. John Kavanagh (R-LD23), is now assigned to the Senate Committee on Government.
PHOENIX – Arizona’s Attorney General has joined a coalition of 12 states in filing a lawsuit against President Joe Biden’s administration over a massive expansion of federal regulations through executive order.
The lawsuit challenges President Biden’s Executive Order 13990, titled “Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis.” The states allege that the Biden Administration did not have the authority to issue binding numbers for the social costs of greenhouse gases to be used in federal regulations, and that the potential stringency of federal regulations that could come from this executive order will stifle manufacturing, harm agriculture, and have serious economic impacts across the country.
Two industries that will be impacted by President Biden’s executive order are manufacturing and agriculture. According to the Arizona Department of Agriculture, the agriculture industry provides $23.3 billion to Arizona’s economy, resulting in 138,000 jobs. Manufacturing is also a key sector and an economic driver in Arizona. In 2019, manufacturers in Arizona produced approximately $31 billion worth of economic output – accounting for 8.4% of the state’s total GDP, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. Additionally, the industry has seen strong job growth. As of 2019, there were 177,300 manufacturing jobs in Arizona.
The lawsuit notes that the President’s interagency working group place the social cost of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide at approximately $9.5 trillion; $269 billion for carbon dioxide, $990 billion for methane, and $8.24 trillion for nitrous oxide (assuming similar rates of emission between 2019 and 2020 in the United States, and a discount rate of 3%).
The states argue in the lawsuit that using these interim values could massively expand the scope and reach of the regulatory power of the federal government, potentially impacting the United States’ economy and every household in America.
In arguing that President Biden’s administration did not have the authority to enact this executive order and that this action should be taken by Congress, the lawsuit points to several reasons, including that the executive order did not have statutory authorization to create the working group, nor did the working group have statutory authority to set values for the social costs of carbon, methane, and nitrous oxide that “shall be used by regulatory agencies administering statutes pursuant to statutory delegation of authority enacted by congress.”
Further, the lawsuit states that dictating binding values for the social costs of carbon, nitrous oxide, and methane is a legislative action “that the Constitution vests exclusively in Congress through the vesting clause of Article I, § 1 of the Constitution.” The President’s exercise of this legislative authority thus violates the separation of powers, the most fundamental bulwark of liberty.
The lawsuit also alleges that the working group violated the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit points to the fact that there was no public notice or opportunity for public comment before publishing interim estimates, and that the proper weight was not given to the positive benefits of “affordable and reliable domestic energy and agricultural production.”
In addition to Arizona, state attorneys general from Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Utah joined the suit.
A Senate Concurrent Resolution that could terminate Gov. Doug Ducey’s March 11, 2020 declaration of emergency will be considered on Monday by the full Senate.
Currently under state law, a non-war state of emergency can only be ended by proclamation of the governor “or by concurrent resolution of the legislature declaring it at an end.” As Ducey has not put forth a plan for termination the current COVID-19 state of emergency any time soon, Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-LD23) seeks to end it with SCR1001.
According to SCR1001, Arizona’s government “was established to protect and maintain individual rights and must frequently return to these principles to secure these rights and the perpetuity of our free government” but that Ducey’s year-old declaration and executive orders have “drastically restricted and suppressed the individual freedoms and economic prosperity of Arizonans.”
SCR1001 cites the fact Arizonans have been “personally responsible and have exceeded expectations in slowing community spread through their own individual behaviors and actions, accepting personal restrictions as a civic duty to prevent disease transmission.”
If SCR1001 clears its Third Reading on Monday it will be transmitted to the House. It would take immediate effect upon passage in the House.
However, legislators have been forewarned by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich on Feb. 17 that Ducey could simply declare a new state of emergency, and even re-institute prior measures, “so long as the conditions for the existence of a state of emergency” are satisfied in accordance with the emergency powers statue.
While Ugenti-Rita’s effort would end the current state of emergency, another Third Reading is slated for Monday for SCR1010 which would require a governor to call a special session of the Legislature at the same time a state of emergency declaration is issued.
But even if Sen. Kelly Townsend’s SCR1010 passes out of the legislature, it must still be approved by voters before the changes to Arizona’s emergency powers law take affect. The Secretary of State would put the issue on the ballot for the next general election.
In fact voters could be asked to choose between Townsend’s immediate legislative special session option and one which gives a governor a few days before needing to call a special session after issuing an emergency proclamation.
SCR1003 sponsored by Sen. Warren Petersen (R-LD12) was approved last month by the Senate. It would terminate a governor’s state of emergency 30 days after issuance unless extended by a Concurrent Resolution of the Legislature. It also requires a legislative session to be called within 10 days if the legislature is not already in session.
Petersen’s SCR1003 has already been transmitted to the House where it awaits committee assignment by the House Speaker Rusty Bowers. As with SCR1010, it would be up to Arizona’s voters whether or not to make the change to a governor’s current emergency powers.
In the opening lines of a behemoth post-election analysis, Time Magazine tipped their hats to the “business titans” for their help in securing the election for President Joe Biden.
Amongst those titans are the ones controlling a majority of modern social interactions, transactions, and entertainment – Big Tech.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi stated that Democrats have become the home party for Big Tech.
“In general, everybody’s frustrated and angry about what’s going on here. Everything’s clearly to silence and target conservative ideologies and beliefs. The Democrat Party has become the party of Big Tech, and Big Tech is gladly going along with them because they share their beliefs. I don’t think there’s been a silver bullet solution that anyone’s come up with.”
Mussi noted that these companies align with the Democratic Party because of where they originated and how their business models run.
“I think it was more so where it originated and located at. You saw this develop out of Silicon Valley, California. I also think that the success related to Big Tech wasn’t the typical small business startup. A lot of what exists is venture capital money. [Basically:] ‘we come up with some hot new idea, it doesn’t matter if we make any money on it but let’s grow this thing and turn around and sell it to make a profit.’ There’s no family-run businesses in tech. They’re generally all left-of-center. It drives the culture in these firms.”
Mussi attributed Big Tech’s sweetheart deal with Democrats for causing their party to flip their outward narrative when it comes to big business.
“Democrats live and breathe trashing the big guys. That’s been their bread and butter for 100 years, and now it’s been an open embrace by and large publicly,” stated Mussi. “[Big Tech is] accomplishing their goals – silencing conservatives.”
Zuckerberg pumped the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) with over $350 million for the 2020 elections. Those funds went on to the local elections offices in counties nationwide. Arizona received $5 million, with a $3 million chunk alloted to the county that handed Biden the state: Maricopa County.
Biden won Maricopa despite Trump netting around 400,000 more votes than in 2016. And, Biden received nearly 511,000 more votes than Clinton did in 2016, and over 740,474 more votes than Obama in 2012.
As previously reported, research indicated that CTCL funds swayed the election results in one political direction significantly.
The spending power of Big Tech moguls like Zuckerberg has influenced states to alter their voting systems and laws. Their millions go toward increasing voting turnout efforts in blue areas, while ignoring red ones.
Funding is just one part of their agenda. Big Tech also meddles with the manipulation of information to the public.
A whistleblower has been leaking video discussions from Facebook executives in which they admit to interfering with elections through the control of information – or, as the Vice President of Integrity Guy Rosen phrased it, “efforts to protect the election.” That information becoming transparent wasn’t approved by Big Tech, however. Within days, Twitter banned Project Veritas from their platform.
Silicon Valley has grown more sophisticated in their process of squelching any opposition of thought, especially concerning elections.
In what appeared to be a coordinated effort, some of the biggest players in Big Tech banished and dismantled an entire platform from online existence. Parler, marketed as a safe haven for conservatives and open dialogue, was targeted following the January 6 Capitol riot.
Over the course of several days, Parler was yanked from both Apple and Google’s app stores. Individuals who’d downloaded the app before this revocation were limited further, once both app hosts rendered Parler defunct through system updates. Then, Amazon stepped in and dealt the death blow: they removed Parler from their servers so users couldn’t even access the platform online.
Arizona legislators are approaching the Big Tech elephant with one-bite approaches. In this session, several bills propose solutions to scale back Big Tech’s influence.
Most recently, the House has passed a bill that would impact Big Tech’s funding of election offices. If passed by the Senate, the bill would likely scale back those partisan advantages gained from billionaires’ funding.
The House is also considering a bill currently that would loosen Big Tech companies’ grasp on the market. Naturally, lobbyists for Apple and Google took to the state capitol to work against the bill.
However, those are just a few measures that would curb Big Tech’s sway on the election. Mussi acknowledged that these state-level measures were a start, but indicated that the federal government would have to step in as well.
“The question is what you do about it and how you handle it. Because at the state level, I don’t know if there is a silver bullet.”
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
On the same day he announced increased steps to open the state, Governor Doug Ducey announced the retirement of one of the key players in state’s efforts to tackle the pandemic, Maj. Gen. Michael T. McGuire. McGuire serves on the Governor’s cabinet as both the Director of the Arizona Department of Emergency and Military Affairs and as the Adjutant General for the state.
“General McGuire’s solid leadership and expertise has been critical, especially during the COVID-19 emergency response,” said Governor Ducey in the announcement. “Arizona is grateful for General McGuire’s exceptional service to the state and nation.”
McGuire has served in the role since 2013. He planned to retire last year but extended his service because of the pandemic. His last day will be April 10.
McGuire is responsible for managing the day-to-day activities of a nearly 8,300-member department, which includes the Arizona’s Army and Air National Guard, Joint Programs, and the Division of Emergency Management.
