The Arizona Court of Appeals will be asked to overturn a decision by the Arizona Department of Gaming which denied the state’s longest operating professional horse racing company a sports wagering license, AZ Free News has confirmed.
TP Racing LLLP, dba as Turf Paradise, contends the future of horse racing in Arizona is at risk if the company cannot securean Event Wagering Operator (EWO) License from the Arizona Department of Gaming.
Last month Judge Daniel J. Kiley of the Maricopa County Superior Court upheld the Department of Gaming’sdetermination that Turf Paradise in Phoenix did not meet the criteria of “an Arizona professional sports franchise” under the state’s new sports betting law. The company filed a notice of appeal with the Arizona Court of Appeals on March 8.
The criteria to obtain a EWO license requires an applicant to be either the owner of an Arizona professional sports team “or franchise,” an Arizona Indian tribe, or the operator of an in-state NASCAR race or PGA Tour event. The definition of a sports team or franchise as it pertains to the license is one which is “conducted at the highest level league or organizational play for its respective sport.”
The law then lists specific sports: baseball, basketball, football, golf, hockey, motorsports, and soccer.
Officials with the Department of Gaming rejected Turf Paradise’s argument last year that it was a sports franchise and that the Arizona Legislature had an opportunity to specifically exclude horse racing from eligibility for an EWO license if that the lawmakers’ intent. The department’s determination was backed up by an Arizona Administrative Law Judge who concurred Turf Paradise did not meet the criteria under current law.
TP Racing LLLP then appealed to superior court. A statement by the company at that time noted the facility “has been one of the premier destination racetracks for the highest-level professional thoroughbred and quarter horse racing in the nation” since 1956.
“By denying Turf Paradise’s license application while permitting others to operate sports betting throughout the State, the Department is threatening the very existence of the horse racing industry in Arizona,” the statement said.
However, Kiley’s Feb. 14 under advisement ruling noted Turf Paradise simply does not meet any of the relevant definitions written into the state’s current gaming law. The company must now follow-up its notice of appeal with formal opening appellate brief, after which the Department of Gaming will file an answer.
The appeals process could take months. However, court records show there is a more immediate option for resolving the EWO criteria dispute – the Arizona Legislature could amend the gaming statute to include horse racing facilities as a sports franchise.
House Minority Leader Reginald Bolding (D-Laveen) said that those elected officials celebrating the elimination of the income tax increase weren’t leaders in any sense of the word. The Maricopa County Superior Court ruled on Friday that the increased income tax, Prop 208, was unconstitutional because it exceeded the allowed spending limit for what the tax dollars would be purposed for: education.
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT: Standing on the table beating your chest because you were successful taking money from our classrooms & teachers (while overturning the will of voters) isn't leadership, it's a lack thereof! #Prop208
The remark came after Governor Doug Ducey tweeted that the court ruling was a “win for Arizona taxpayers.” Ducey did note that he anticipated the ruling would be appealed but expressed confidence that the Arizona Supreme Court would also find Prop 208 to be unconstitutional.
This ruling is a win for Arizona taxpayers. It’s another step in undoing the damage of Prop 208 and making sure we continue to benefit from having the lowest flat income tax rate in the nation. 1/
Bolding issued similar sentiments in 2018, vowing that Ducey’s support for the demise of a similar tax hike would cost him his election that year. Ducey won comfortably, earning 56 percent of the vote over the Democratic candidate, David Garcia, who earned under 42 percent of the vote.
Mark my words. Today is the day @dougducey loss the election for Governor of Arizona. Removing @investinedaz from the ballot and going against the will of the people and the #REDforED movement will have consequences. Our kids & communities shouldn't have to beg for resources.
Several Arizona legislators along with the Free Enterprise Club and the Goldwater Institute are celebrating a major court victory for Arizona taxpayers after a Maricopa County Superior Court judge struck down the largest tax hike in state history on Friday.
Today, @maricopacounty Superior Court Judge John Hannah ruled against Prop 208, determining that the $$ raised from the tax would exceed the constitutional spending limit for education.
Judge John Hannah’s ruling bars enforcement of Proposition 208, which imposed a significant income tax surcharge on small-business owners and individuals making over $250,000 a year. Prop 208, also called the Invest in Education Act, was narrowly passed by voters in November 2020 and was immediately challenged in court on multiple grounds, including a conflict with Arizona’s Constitution.
Governor Doug Ducey called Hannah’s ruling “a win for Arizona taxpayers,” adding that it is marks “another step in undoing the damage of Prop 208 and making sure we continue to benefit from having the lowest flat income tax rate in the nation.”
The Goldwater Institute-sponsored lawsuit was filed in February 2021 on behalf of numerous taxpayers, small business owners, and legislators. Last summer, the Arizona Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that the surcharge taxes from Prop 208 were considered “local revenues” subject to spending limits under the state’s Constitution. The Justices sent the case back Hannah for a determination of whether Prop 208’s Local Revenues Provision runs afoul of the Constitution’s Education Expenditure Clause by violating that limitation. In a decision today, the judge agreed that Proposition 208 violated the Constitution.
“This Court understands the remand order as a direction to declare Proposition 208 unconstitutional in its entirety, and to enjoin its operation permanently, if the Court finds as a fact that the annual education spending limits imposed by the Arizona Constitution will prevent Arizona’s public schools from spending a ‘material’ amount of Proposition 208 tax revenue in 2023,” Hannah wrote in his ruling. “On that basis, the Court is obligated to strike down Proposition 208.”
Reaction to the ruling came swiftly, despite a possibility the Justices may be asked by the losing parties to review Hannah’s order later this year.
“While we expect the ruling may be appealed, we are confident the Arizona Supreme Court will find 208 unconstitutional, as they did last year. Arizona is – and will remain – a state that knows how to prioritize education while keeping taxes low and attracting jobs,” Gov. Ducey said.
Senate President Karen Fann, one of the plaintiffs, called Friday’s ruling “a major victory” against an initiative she said misled voters by trying to get the tax-and-spend hike around the Constitution.
“Out-of-state special interests tried to deceive our voters,” Fann said after Hannah released his ruling. “We are thrilled that this job-killing tax hike won’t go into effect.”
Many attributed the success of the lawsuit to the work of the Goldwater Institute which pointed out concerns with Prop 208’s constitutionality well before Election Day in 2020.
“Today’s decision puts a nail in the coffin of the unconstitutional, job-killing Proposition 208, and it cements Arizona’s position as the national leader in lower taxes and building a stronger economy,” said Victor Riches, President and CEO of the Goldwater Institute.
On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee passed a bill to require proof of citizenship for those registering to vote, 5-3 along party lines. HB2492, which would require county recorders to search databases for a registrant’s citizenship proof, passed the House at the end of February.
Activists present were outspoken, interrupting the meeting multiple times to the point that Chairman Warren Petersen (R-Gilbert) had to remove an individual from the room and call a five minute recess.
SHAME ON THE COMMITTEE PASSING #HB2492!! We packed the room and told them that passing this would be unconstitutional yet they DO NOT LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY. pic.twitter.com/7kvSHRo48I
During public comment on HB2492 in committee, there was contention as to whether HB2492 violated the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) 2013 ruling in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. That ruling struck down Arizona’s law requiring voter registration applicants to be turned down if the registrant didn’t provide proof of citizenship, declaring that the federal voting laws established through the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993.
Arizona Association of Counties (AACo) Executive Director Jen Marson, quoted from SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in the 2013 ruling to argue that the ruling nullified HB2492. Marson insisted that passage of the law would effectively require counties to violate federal law.
“‘We hold that [NVRA] precludes Arizona from requiring a Federal Form applicant to submit information beyond that required by the form itself. Arizona may, however, request anew that the [Election Assistance Commission] EAC include such a requirement among the Federal Form’s state-specific instructions, and may seek judicial review of the EAC’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act,’” read Marson.
Those in favor of the bill argued that it complied with the SCOTUS ruling because voter registration would only be denied for those found to not be citizens, not those who merely lack citizenship proof.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club Deputy Director Greg Blackie rebutted that the bill wouldn’t violate the 2013 ruling because Scalia also said that the “NVRA doesn’t preclude states from denying registration based on information in their possession establishing the applicant’s ineligibility” — meaning, that those found to not be citizens could be rejected and those without any information confirming or denying their citizenship could be registered as federal-only voters.
“This bill carefully stays within the framework established by Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council,” insisted Blackie.
In addition to the nuance of compliance with SCOTUS, legislators emphasized that determining citizenship was a must-have for elections. Majority Whip Sonny Borrelli (R-Lake Havasu City) said that the bill had nothing to do with voter suppression.
“I don’t want somebody coming in here from a foreign country — particularly, you know, Italy for that matter — and just coming in and registering on a president-only vote, ballot, and they’re not even a US citizen. Because what that does, it nullifies the legal resident,” said Borrelli. “I don’t see the big burden here; I mean we want to make sure that a legal citizen has a right to vote and an illegal vote does not negate a legal vote. And that’s what it is, that’s about voter protection. It’s not about undermining the vote.”
Outspoken Democrats on the bill were rebuked by Petersen for going off the subject and impugning Republicans’ motives. Minority Whip Martin Quezada (D-Glendale) implied that Republicans were purposefully targeting individuals like the activists in attendance at the committee meeting because they feared them.
“What do those people look like? And why are those people being targeted if this bill passes? They’re afraid of you all right now. And this bill is targeting you all right now —” said Quezada.
“That’s absolutely ridiculous,” interjected Petersen. “Mr. Quezada, you’re impugning the motives of the sponsor of this bill and the members of the committee.”
Petersen stated that there are 36,000 people in Arizona registered to vote that haven’t proven citizenship status, noting that just recently an individual complained that the bill jeopardized their ability to vote in Arizona because they’re an illegal immigrant.
“I even saw a tweet from someone who said, ‘This bill is a risk to me! I’m a DACA person,’” stated Petersen. “We want everyone to vote, but we want citizens to vote. And it’s our job to make sure that happens.”
Call your AZ State Rep and deliver a message to save democracy in the state #HB2492 is threatening my ability as #DACA and the ability of #immigrants in AZ to help those eligible citizens to register to #VOTE Make a call now https://t.co/e2tMCn32Nj
Legislature Democrats expressed that they won’t vote to restore precinct committeemen (PC) elections this year unless Republicans kill a bill requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration, one railbird informed AZ Free News. The passage of that election integrity bill out of committee, HB2492, on Thursday appeared to be a setback for Republicans hoping to correct a mistake made last week with the passage of HB2839.
As AZ Free News reported earlier this week, HB2839 gave a political party’s local county committee the sole authority to determine who gets appointed as PC. The bill intended to alleviate candidates’ qualification deadlines for this year’s primary election under the new redistricting. However, a section that allowed PC candidates to skip signature gathering also allowed local committee members to choose the PC appointments.
Republicans need supermajority in both the House and Senate to pass the emergency measures effectively reversing HB2839 and restoring PC elections for this year, HB2840 and SB17200. PCs are responsible for helping their party by providing aid with voter registration and voter assistance during elections, as well as nominating candidates to fill county or state office vacancies.
HB2492 sponsor, State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek), sent out an email call-to-action acknowledging the murmurings that Democrats would kill PC restoration following the passage of his bill.
“Rumors are swirling at the Capitol that the Senate may try to trade HB2492 in exchange for Democrats voting for the PC election repeal so it gets an emergency clause,” wrote Hoffman. “We cannot horse trade with critical election integrity legislation!”
Reportedly, legislators failed to identify HB2839’s consequences for several reasons: some admitted to not reading the bill’s language and trusted their leadership’s take on the bill, while others just misread the bill completely.
The controversial proof-of-citizenship bill passed the Senate Judiciary Committee along party lines, 5-3. Those who showed up to oppose the bill shouted, “Shame!” repeatedly at the committee after they passed the bill.
SHAME ON THE COMMITTEE PASSING #HB2492!! We packed the room and told them that passing this would be unconstitutional yet they DO NOT LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY. pic.twitter.com/7kvSHRo48I
In response, State Senator Warren Petersen (R-Gilbert) thanked the crowd for making their approval of the bill easier.
“Thank you for showing us who you are,” said Petersen. “You’re making this easy, thank you.”
HB2492 caused a lot of chaos in the senate judiciary today. Every person should have to prove they are a citizen of the united states when voting. To the people who shouted and screamed at the committee today, you only embarrassed yourself. pic.twitter.com/iRMcAD8cJ0
Arizona attorneys may no longer have to have membership within the State Bar of Arizona in order to practice law in the state. On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Committee passed a bill prohibiting the Arizona Supreme Court from requiring attorneys to have any organization membership in order to become or remain a licensed attorney. Like the bill’s passage in the Senate, the bill passed along party lines in committee.
State Senator Vince Leach (R-Tucson), the bill sponsor, shared that Attorney General Mark Brnovich had to hire an attorney to litigate a case because his attorneys were under State Bar investigation due to complaints from Secretary of State Katie Hobbs. Leach said that the secretary of state was “weaponizing a tool within the legal system.” However, he noted that those 12 bar complaints disappeared after he introduced the bill.
Leach added that many attorneys who wanted to speak on the bill didn’t show up because they were afraid of upsetting the status quo.
“They won’t come here because the State Bar, which is designed to protect the industry, and — if this is a word, if it’s not a word, I’m still going to say it — lawyering to look out for the good of the legal profession. You have members that are forced to pay $500-and-some-odd, don’t want to come here and say ‘Yeah there’s a problem with the bar,’” said Leach.
Leach encouraged the committee to view the State Bar as a corporation, and to question their practices and lobbying activities.
State Representative Neal Carter (R-Queen Creek) asked Leach if union membership was required for the practice of other professions in the state, to which Leach replied no — Arizona is a right to work state.
State Bar of Arizona President Jennifer Rebholz expressed opposition to the bill, arguing that the Arizona Supreme Court should have its decision to require bar membership respected as a matter of separation of powers. The representative insisted that the state bar wasn’t a union, but rather a conduit for the will and disciplinary authority of the supreme court.
Carter recounted the history behind state bars, pointing to the feudalist systems which required a state bar of sorts to act as an intermediary between the courts and the people. He expressed concern about the fact that attorneys didn’t testify on the bill out of fear of retaliation from the State Bar.
“It seems to me the whole system was borne out of a kind of restricting access idea and that today it drives up cost for legal services, so that those who need it the most — indigent people, people accused of crimes and so on, particularly adversely affects minorities and others than those who have the money to pay for lawyers because it drives up costs,” said Carter. “I also think it makes it harder for those people to join the profession themselves. It really is a sort of anti-democratic, anti-American, anti-equality, anti-access to justice system.”
State Representative Mark Finchem (R-Oro Valley) insisted that individuals weaponize the bar and that it should function more as a service organization, not a labor union. State Representative Jacqueline Parker (R-Mesa) added that the State Bar was far from unbiased.
In their opposition, committee Democrats concurred with Rebholz’s perspective that the State Bar was crucial to the separation of powers.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
