While denying any wrongdoing, Ford Motor Company recently offered up more than $19 million to settle allegations brought by several states including Arizona that the company made false advertising claims about its C-MAX vehicles, model years 2011 to 2015.
But Ford Motor consumers who may have been misled by the advertising will not share in the payout. Instead, the money will be split among the attorney generals of 39 states and the District of Columbia.
Court documents filed in Maricopa County Superior Court show the portion allocated to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office is $884,364.40, of which $200,000 will be used for attorneys’ fees and costs. The other $684,364.40 will be deposited into Arizona’s Consumer Protection – Consumer Fraud Revolving Fund for use at the discretion of Attorney General Mark Brnovich as provided by law.
The Consent Judgment notes Ford specifically denies it has violated any federal or state laws. And nothing in the agreement precludes consumers from pursing claims against Ford on an individual or class action basis. However, such legal efforts would not be taken up by the State, according to the May 18 agreement approved by Brnovich.
“Only the Attorney General may seek enforcement of this Consent Judgment,” the document states. “Nothing herein is intended to create a private right of action by other parties; however, this Consent Judgment does not limit the rights of any private party to pursue any remedies allowed by law.”
In addition to the monetary payout, Ford agreed to be “enjoined, restrained, and prohibited” from making false or misleading advertising claims concerning the estimated Fuel Economy and Payload Capacity of any new motor vehicles.
The attorney generals of six states—Arizona, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon, Texas, and Vermont—were part of the executive committee which led the investigative action against Ford Motor Company’s C-MAX advertising.
The other attorney generals who will benefit are Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Arizona schools that prohibit students from using bathrooms or locker rooms, or joining sports teams designated for the opposite sex, will likely lose their federal funds for school meals. Federal dollars reimburse schools for qualifying meals, and give low-income students free or reduced-price meals. Throughout the pandemic, schools were able to provide free meals to all students and receive greater reimbursements.
The policy change came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) announcement last month, clarifying that protected classes within anti-discrimination policy included sexual orientation and gender identity. Schools that fail to update policies and signage to comply with the USDA policy would result in the loss of FNS funding.
The USDA claimed that the move aligned with President Joe Biden’s Executive Order on Preventing and Combatting Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation.
Although the USDA notification made no mention of bathrooms, locker rooms, or sports teams, Biden’s executive order did in its first few lines.
“Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports,” read Biden’s order.
According to the latest reports from the Arizona Department of Education (ADE), about half of Arizona’s children rely on free or reduced lunches. It is likely that number increased with the financial stresses due to the pandemic and hiking inflation, as well as the influx of migrant children due to the border crisis.
Children are eligible for free meals if their family income is at or below 130 percent of the federal poverty level, while reduced meals are available to children with family incomes between 130 and 185 percent of the federal poverty level.
The Arizona Senate Republican leadership issued a joint press release denouncing the USDA’s latest action. They criticized the Biden administration for prioritizing a political agenda above the wellbeing of children. The leaders contended further that no evidence existed for schools discriminating against children by denying them food over their sexual orientation or gender identity.
“The federal government is literally threatening to stop feeding the poorest of children if schools don’t allow boys in girls’ bathrooms, boys in girls’ showers, or boys on girls’ sports teams,” stated the Senate Republicans.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Extremist Biden Agenda Threatens School Lunches for Arizona's Poorest Kids Unless Boys Are Let into Girls' Bathrooms ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/MIOdgjwase
Arizona Senate Democrats responded that the Republicans’ dismay over children’s food supplies was really another opportunity to vilify transgender children. They insinuated that children were more worried about guns than they were their next meal.
“Vilifying trans kids during pride month is very on brand for Republicans but this is just a distraction,” stated the Democrats. “Children are worried about getting shot in their classrooms [sic] not their classmates [sic] gender identity.”
Vilifying trans kids during pride month is very on brand for Republicans but this is just a distraction.
🚨Children are worried about getting shot in their classrooms not their classmates gender identity. https://t.co/HeknfXlQeQ
— Arizona Senate Democrats (@AZSenateDems) June 3, 2022
This is seriously sick and pathetic. Trying to divide and conquer poor and trans kids during #PrideMonth2022. Thank goodness our kids see through this bullsh*t. https://t.co/xQtOBkNsaT
— Sen. Martín Quezada (@SenQuezada29) June 3, 2022
Earlier this year, Arizona banned males from competing in female sports. The law applies to both private and public K-12 schools, colleges, and universities in the state.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A judge in Mohave County is expected to rule by noon on Monday whether Arizonans could lose their ability to vote by mail without providing an excuse.
Judge Lee Jantzen is being asked by the Arizona Republican Party and its chair, Kelli Ward, to declare the state’s no-excuse voting by mail “system” unconstitutional despite the fact the system has been in effect for three decades. The judge heard arguments last Friday to issue a preliminary injunction to ban no-excuse voting by mail effective with the upcoming Nov. 8 General Election.
About 85 percent of all ballots cast in the 2020 General Election—including Ward’s ballot—were mailed out to voters in advance of the election. But the AZGOP contends the law passed by the Legislature in 1991 violates the constitutional requirement that Arizona’s elections be held in such a way to ensure “secrecy in voting.”
The lawsuit argues the only ballots which should be accepted through the mail are those from voters who provide a satisfactory excuse—such as military service, a disability that makes it a burden to vote in person, or being out of town on Election Day.
(The AZGOP acknowledged in their May 17 lawsuit that there is not enough time to outlaw no-excuse voting for the Aug. 2 Primary Election as ballots are in the process of being printed so they can be in voters’ mailboxes in early July.).
Attorneys for Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs and several county election officials argued to Jantzen that there is nothing unconstitutional with Arizona’s no-excuse voting by mail system. They also advised the judge of the practical problems with trying to ban a practice after 30 years without much advance notice to voters and those responsible for running each county’s elections.
One such problem involves the Active Early Voter List, from which ballots are sent to voters who have signed up to receive them by mail. Those voters recently received a reminder notice from their respective county recorder with the 2022 election schedule and confirming the voters will receive ballots by mail for the primary and general elections.
The AZGOP argued to Jantzen that counties can be forced to accommodate changes in time for the General Election, even if it requires hiring thousands more poll workers and election staff across the state, scrounging to find enough voting machines and other election-related equipment, and locating facilities which can accommodate millions more in-person voters than have turned out in years.
That argument was pushed back on during Friday’s hearing by an attorney for seven of Arizona’s 15 county recorders responsible for the voting by mail process and county election directors who are responsible for election day voting and ballot tabulation.
“They cannot conjure polling places or poll workers out of nothing,” Karen Hartman-Tellez of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office told Jantzen.
Whatever order Jantzen issues in response to the AZGOP’s preliminary injunction request is likely to be appealed. But even if no-excuse voting by mail is allowed to take place this year, the AZGOP’s constitutional challenge does not die.
Instead, the litigation will move forward to a trial under civil court rules, same as any other lawsuit.
As the fallout from the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion determining the constitutionality of abortion transitions into anticipation for the final, official opinion on the case later in June, pro-life billboards catch the eye of passerby across the Valley.
Those behind the billboards are part of the Arizona Life Coalition (ALC), a nonprofit pro-life organization. They provide direct financial support to pregnancy help centers, crisis shelters for pregnant women, maternity housing, adoption, foster care, post-abortive care, and post-abortive counseling.
ALC established the billboards about eight weeks ago, according to their executive director, Garrett Riley. He told AZ Free News that they’ve received only positive feedback from the community.
The billboards display rotating messages that read, “God Doesn’t Make Mistakes,” “Choose Life!,” and “Unplanned — Maybe, Unwanted — Never.” They appear on the I-17 near Thunderbird Road, the I-10 near Baseline Road, and the I-17 along Camelback Road.
Riley stated in a press release that the billboards serve as a platform to share the truth on abortion.
“Abortion is not a women’s rights issue, it is a human rights issue. And it is not about women’s health care or reproductive health either, because health care aims to heal, preserve, and save life — not end life,” said Riley.
Politico received the leaked draft opinion from someone inside the court, speculated to be one of the justices’ clerks. The outlet reported on the draft at the beginning of last month.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Friday, Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) introduced legislation proposing U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO). The “WHO Withdrawal Act” would also prohibit U.S. funds from being given to the WHO or any of its successor organizations.
Biggs’ proposal would continue previous efforts by former President Donald Trump in 2020 over the WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. President Joe Biden reversed those efforts upon assuming office.
Biggs echoed Trump’s sentiments on the WHO as an unreliable hotbed of “mismanagement, cover-ups, and failures” warranting U.S. secession.
“For years, the WHO has undermined American interests and remains one of the most corrupt and ineffective international institutions,” remarked Biggs.
Today, I introduced the WHO Withdrawal Act.
It requires the President to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), repeals the law that originally authorized the U.S. to join the WHO, and prevents taxpayer money from being spent to participate in it.
Biggs further accused the WHO of doing the bidding of the Chinese government, as well as ruining public health investigations such as the one discerning the origins of COVID-19 in Wuhan, China.
The World Health Organization has been compromised by China and has sabotaged many public health investigations – including the COVID investigation in Wuhan.
17 other congressmen signed on as cosponsors to Biggs’ proposal, including Congressman Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04).
Gosar responded that the bill was of “America First” caliber, alluding to Trump’s popular presidential slogan.
THREAD:
My WHO Withdrawal Act is necessary more than ever.
The World Health Organization has undermined American interests, remains one of the most corrupt international institutions, and has been compromised by China.
Though Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (R-AZ-08) was absent from the list of cosponsors on Biggs’ bill, she did sign onto a similar bill introduced by Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX-21) last January. That legislation would prohibit the U.S. from funding the WHO. It hasn’t made it out of committee.
An hour after Biggs announced his WHO Withdrawal Act, Lesko reminded constituents of her support for Roy’s legislation.
I’m proud to cosponsor @RepChipRoy's No Taxpayer Funding for the World Health Organization Act to PROHIBIT our nation from financially supporting the WHO, which promotes the Chinese Communist Party‘s lies about COVID-19.
— Congresswoman Debbie Lesko (@RepDLesko) June 3, 2022
Historically, the U.S. was the largest funder of the WHO. At present, this country ranks as the third-largest contributor. Both Germany and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation contributed more to the WHO from 2020 to 2021. Germany gave nearly 1.27 billion, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation gave $751 million, and the U.S. gave $693 million.
WHO was founded in 1948 as an international health work agency within the United Nations (UN).
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Thursday, Attorney General Mark Brnovich co-led a 20-state coalition in filing an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case deciding the speech rights of business owners. The coalition filed their amicus brief the day after Pride Month began.
At the heart of the case — 303 Creative v. Elenis — is Colorado businesswoman Lorie Smith, a graphic artist and website designer who refused to design wedding websites for same-sex couples per her religious beliefs. Colorado law C.R.S. 24-34-601 prohibits businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, even due to religion. The state considers any business that sells to the public or offers services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public as a “place of public accommodation” and therefore beholden to their anti-discrimination law.
The amicus brief pointed out that Smith provided other services to LGBTQ+ customers, but that her Christian religion prevented her from providing wedding-related services to those customers. It also pointed out that Smith’s hesitation concerned the message she would convey in being forced to do so; in other words, her speech and not the status of a customer.
The Christian Bible dictates that marriage is the union between one man and one woman, and that homosexuality is a sin.
“Colorado interprets its public-accommodation law to forbid Smith from expressing her desired messages about marriage. In its view, graphic artists who create websites celebrating opposite-sex marriages must do the same for same-sex marriages, and refusing to do so subjects those artists to punishment,” read the amicus brief. “By adopting this position, Colorado violates the constitutional rights of its citizens, because the First amendment prohibits States from forcing individuals, including people who create custom speech for a living, to speak in favor of same-sex marriage.”
In a press release, Brnovich asserted that business owners like Smith have a constitutional right to discern speech as part of their business.
“Owners of small companies do not give up their constitutional rights as a cost of doing business,” said Brnovich. “Freedoms of speech, belief, and expression are at the core of who we are as Americans, and our government is out of line to infringe on them.”
“As a Christian artist, I was really excited to step into the wedding industry and use my artistic talents. Except, there’s a Colorado law that prevents me from continuing my work and forces me to violate my beliefs and speak messages I don’t agree with,” stated Smith. “Every American should have the right to control the content of their own speech.”
Nebraska, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia joined Arizona in the amicus brief.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
