NFL Alumni Association chaplain and Phoenix-based pastor Drew Anderson addressed the Senate Education Committee in favor of a bill to expand Arizona’s school choice system, SB1657, calling school choice the “civil rights movement of our era” and condemning the modern K-12 public school system as “educational slavery.” He insisted that the current education system fails the black and brown community.
“There is nothing more important to humanity right now than school choice,” said Anderson. “In 1865, it was an unpopular decision for a lot of legislators to get together to end a system that was as American as apple pie,” said Anderson. “But here we are in 2022, asking a group of legislators once again to make an unpopular decision, which is to end educational slavery.”
SB1657 would expand eligibility for Arizona’s school choice system, the Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program, by allowing students with: disabilities identified by public school systems in other states; a parent that is a veteran, first responder, or full-time health professional; income that qualifies for federal free and reduced-price lunch programs; a household that receives benefits from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or Section 8 Public Housing Assistance; participation in federal Title I services for low-income students under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA); residence in the attendance boundary of a school that qualifies for schoolwide Title I Program funding under ESSA or whose governing board submitted a plan to the School Facilities Oversight Board within the last two years requesting additional construction or funding due to exceeding existing capacity; or current or past participation in the Education Recovery Benefit Program, Open for Learning Recovery Benefit Program, or any successor state grant program.
The Senate Education Committee passed the bill along party lines, 5-3. Even Anderson’s testimony on how the current education system fails the children of his community, and how school choice initiatives helped him escape a life of crime, poverty, and even early death wasn’t enough to persuade the three committee Democrats.
State Senator Paul Boyer (R-Glendale), the bill’s sponsor, explained that voters overwhelmingly showed bipartisan support for school choice expansion.
“I just have to mention this — and I don’t normally talk about voters in the chamber — but it’s been brought up twice now,” stated Boyer. “I have a poll from last year, Signal, considered the most accurate pollster by the New York Times. Once voters heard the description of this particular bill last year, they supported this. Seventy percent support. That was last year. This year, again when the particulars of this program were described, 74 percent. It’s an increase of four percent just this year, with strong majorities among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. This is simply what the public wants and what the parents want.”
During his testimony, Anderson challenged the rhetoric that systems needed to end and funding needed to increase or be left untouched, pointing out that the current system of public funding trapping and hurting minority children was steeped in financial self-interest. He said that the school-to-prison pipeline was the elephant in the room.
“We have school districts who sit and complain about losing funding while all these black and brown kids are going to prison. Nobody complains about public funds going to private prisons to incarcerate black souls, but everybody wants to complain about public funds going to educate black minds,” asserted Anderson. “Why is it okay for public dollars to go to private prisons, but it’s not okay for public dollars to go to private schools?”
Anderson argued further that the $31,000 spent by the state on each prisoner could be mitigated by allowing the $15,000 it would take to offer a student school choice.
“We need a lifeline in the black community right now,” said Anderson. “In 1864 we were chained to plantations, but in 2022 we’re chained to failing schools.”
Boyer asked if Anderson had personally seen ESAs help minority children. Anderson revealed that he had, and was also one of those children who benefited from school choice. The pastor described how he was able to avoid being recruited for selling crack cocaine because he received a scholarship to attend an elite private school in Chicago, Illinois — one that his mother couldn’t dream of affording, though she worked three jobs. Anderson recounted how that education set him on a path to playing for the NFL and eventually earning enough money to ensure his mother didn’t have to work again. Anderson added that of his five childhood friends, three were in prison and two were dead by the time he graduated high school.
“I’m not here because of what I heard. I’m here because of what an ESA did for me,” explained Anderson. “We talk all the time about funds, we talk all the time about test scores. You know what we need to talk about? These private schools that are offering our black and brown kids a 98 percent graduation rate and a 90 percent continuation rate. I’m not worried about an AzMerit score. To hell with that! What I’m worried about is, if I send my kid to Brophy [Preparatory School], 98 percent of those kids are graduating. If I send my kid to Brophy, 90-odd percent of those kids are going to college. Men lie, women lie, but numbers don’t.”
Senator Theresa Hatathalie (D-Coal Mine Canyon) expressed concern that there weren’t accountability measures for the academic progress of ESA students. Boyer reiterated what Anderson pointed out: that private schools have better graduation rates and other indicators of success than public schools have shown.
Anderson brought up data that the graduation rates at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) were higher for students coming from private schools than those from public schools. He said that it wasn’t just about the success metrics, but safety. Anderson described how, just that morning, he witnessed eight black elementary school children exposing themselves to danger because they had to walk to their public school in South Phoenix before daybreak.
“If you’re going to a school where 98 percent of the people are graduating, there’s no other proof, there’s no other test you could give somebody to say the school is succeeding,” said Anderson. “I’ve never watched the news and it says, ‘Harvard graduates rob Circle K, details at six.’ That’s not what you see. But what you do see is, ‘South Mountain High School dropout mugs lady, details at six.’ So instead of test scores, why don’t we worry about graduation rates and continuation rates? If black and brown kids are going to college, that means they’re not going to penitentiaries.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Shiry Sapir, a mother of three who decided to run for public office after enduring the current state of K-12 schools in Arizona, became the first Clean Elections candidate for this year.
Sapir’s filing stands as one of the earliest submissions for any candidate, and reportedly the earliest for an Arizona Republican running for a statewide office. A Clean Elections qualification requires candidates don’t receive special interest or high-dollar contributions; for Sapir’s campaign, she had to raise $2,500 worth of $5 contributions. In addition to the clout, candidates may access the Citizens Clean Elections Fund.
?CAMPAIGN ALERT: Shiry is officially the first state-wide Republican candidate to submit all required petition signatures & $5 donations for clean election funds while far exceeding all goals!
Lookout 2022 – parents are out in full force! ????
Sapir’s qualification occurred despite Secretary of State Katie Hobbs shutting down the E-Qual system, which allows candidates the easier option of collecting contributions electronically.
In the primaries for the superintendent’s seat, Sapir would be contending with the likes of State Representative Michelle Udall (R-Mesa), who stands firm with the GOP on masking, vaccinations, and critical race theory, but departs on unfettered school choice.
Sapir announced her campaign for state superintendent last July. Since then, she’s earned the endorsements of State Representative and congressional candidate Walt Blackman (R-Snowflake); Andy Biggs’ wife, Cindy Biggs; Arizona Corporate Commission (ACC) Commissioner Jim O’Connor; and the AZ Coalition for Medical Freedom.
Incumbent Superintendent Kathy Hoffman ran her initial campaign as a Clean Elections candidate, and pledged last August to do the same this go around.
I’m honored to have been elected as a Clean Elections candidate & will continue to run clean in my re-election campaign.
Now, I need your help in collecting $5 contributions from 1500 AZ voters to qualify for state funding.
I am thrilled that nearly 1,000 voters have donated to my Clean Elections ? Just $5 from you could mean quality public education for ALL Arizona students ?Please support this vision and my campaign for Superintendent by making a $5 donation today +RT! https://t.co/ORF7lWxYrCpic.twitter.com/ob5ze87NTN
Sapir appeared before the House Education Committee last month to advocate for HB2495, citing the incident in Paradise Valley Unified School District (PVUSD) reported on by AZ Free News, in which two English teachers assigned a book laden with pornographic and other explicit material, “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed.”
“To me, this has nothing to do with homosexuality. It really doesn’t. I have nothing against homosexuality. I just don’t want any kind of sexuality coming in front of minors,” said Sapir.
State Representative Daniel Hernandez (D-Tucson) appeared flustered by Sapir’s stance and testimony, offering a backhanded compliment that Sapir would trust State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek) because he was “obviously an expert in this [issue],” eliciting a chiding response from Udall, the committee chair. Hernandez then asked Sapir if she’s ever “had to defend her straight-ness as a person.” Udall intervened again, deeming Hernandez’s question irrelevant to the bill.
The House passed that bill that spurred Sapir’s back-and-forth with Hernandez last week.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Certain House Republicans have decided to shift from the defensive to the offensive concerning their opposition to school choice as proposed by the rest of their party.
Superintendent of Public Instruction candidate and State Representative Michelle Udall (R-Mesa) introduced HB2185, a bill to require annual standardized testing for Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) recipients from grades 3-12. It would also require schools to post an aggregate of the test scores on their website, organized by grade level. The bill would exempt students with disabilities. State Representatives Joel John (R-Buckeye) and Joanne Osborne (R-Goodyear) signed on as cosponsors.
The bill continues the three legislators’ arguments that ESAs needed greater oversight. Udall stated last October that she’s not opposed to school choice outright if it comes with “appropriate accountability measures.” Udall explained that charter schools initially had the same problems that plague certain schools receiving ESAs currently.
“The issue I have with ESAs is the lack of accountability. When I tried speaking to proponents about appropriate accountability, they walked away from the conversation (on multiple occasions),” tweeted Udall. “When we first started charter schools, we had the same problem. The lack of accountability led to subpar education for many. We had to add accountability over the years. Our students can’t afford to repeat that mistake again with private schools that have even less accountability. Children at subpar public schools (D/F letter grades) already have access to ESAs. And when I submitted a proposal with some modest accountability and a restriction that children eligible for the expansion could only use ESAs to attend high achieving schools, they walked away.”
I’m not opposed to school choice with appropriate accountability measures. The issue I have with ESAs is the lack of accountability. When I tried speaking to proponents about appropriate accountability, they walked away from the conversation (on multiple occasions).
Udall’s latest bill was assigned to the House Education Committee, but hasn’t been given a date for review.
Last December, there were talks that the Maricopa County Republican Party would censure Udall, John, and Osborne for voting against State Representative Shawnna Bolick’s (R-Phoenix) expansion of the ESA program as part of the summer budget bill. The party passed the resolution to oppose the three legislators in their campaigns — “In Support of Parental Involvement and Choice in Education,” introduced by former State Senate President Russell Pearce — with nine votes in favor, one against, and one abstention. The following is the text of Pearce’s resolution:
“Whereas Republicans, like most Americans, believe that parents, not bureaucrats, should be making decisions for their children’s education; Whereas it is a core conservative belief that the people who matter most in our schools are our students and our teachers, even though liberals believe it is the administrators, diversity training officers, and vaccine mandate supervisors; and
Whereas what remains of the old public school monopoly continues to fight to obstruct efforts to
expand school choice in Arizona, because they are desperate to hang on to as much money and control as they can for as long as possible; and Whereas today’s Democrat Party is targeting parents and has weaponized the Department of Justice to pursue parents who oppose radical curriculum like Critical Race Theory; and Whereas Arizona parents know what is best for their children and deserve as many education options as possible; now, therefore, be it Resolved, that the Maricopa County Republican Party remains 100% committed to expanding
school choice options for students and parents; and further be it Resolved, that the Maricopa County Republican Party encourages parents to rise up, run for school board offices, and make their voices heard, and that the Maricopa County Republican Party will support those efforts whenever possible; and further be it Resolved, that the Maricopa County Republican Party calls attention to, and opposes Republicans who campaign as conservatives while voting against school choice and against the best interests of students and parents – specifically Representatives Joanne Osborne, Michelle Udall, and Joel John.”
The party also opted to pass a resolution to hold Udall accountable for her voting record.
Udall aligns neatly with her party on other school-related issues: opposition to masking and vaccination mandates, and critical race theory, to name a few. On the topic of school choice, however, Udall disagrees, coming from the perspective of an educator and candidate for the state’s superintendent of education.
I'm a mom. I'm a teacher. And I'm running for Superintendent of Public Education. Because our kids can't afford 4 more yrs of school closures, contentious mandates, and Critical Race Theory.https://t.co/kgB6uqCYm3
A total of seven out of election integrity bills considered by the Arizona Senate Government Committee on Monday were passed; due to time constraints, an additional six bills were held for later discussion. The committee passed the bills 4-3, every time along party lines, with the exception of State Senator Martín Quezada’s (D-Glendale) vote for SB1411.
Among those passed were SB1362, requiring every county recorder to tabulate early ballots at a polling place or voting center by 2024; SB1404, repealing the Active Early Voting List (AEVL) and limiting early ballot voting eligibility to those who expect to be absent from their precinct at the time of the election, are physically unable to go to the polls, are 65 or older, whose residence is over 15 miles from the polling place or precinct, can’t attend to polls on election day due to their religion, have a visual impairment, or qualifies as eligible via the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act; SB1411, requiring counties with over 100,000 citizens provide an early ballot tracking system for their citizens by 2024; SB1357, prohibiting elections machines or devices that were certified by laboratories not accredited at time of certification; SB1358, requiring ballots from counties with voting centers to be separated and grouped by precinct; SB1457, requiring the Secretary of State (SOS) to ensure election machines meet standards such as no internet access, ability to sustain and track multiple users with unique credentials, and updated operating systems and software that match U.S. Department of Homeland Security standards; and SB1474, declaring primary and general election days as state holidays, prohibiting voting locations from being used as on-site early voting, and establishing voting on election day only.
For SB1357, State Senator Hatathlie said she couldn’t vote for the bill because nobody had answered whether or not the machines that were used during the last election were certified.
State Senator Kelly Townsend (R-Mesa) reminded the floor that there was testimony addressing Hatathlie’s concerns; she said that she also learned the EAC missed members so that they couldn’t vote.
“I’m not sure if that’s why they let the accreditation lapse for some of these groups, but at the time that they certified these machines they did not have a valid accreditation. Therefore it’s in question whether or not they certified [the machines] legally,” said Townsend.
The Arizona Association of Counties (AACo) spoke out against several bills, including: SB1358, SB1457, and SB1474.
AACo Executive Director Jennifer Marson argued that SB1358’s requirement to separate ballots by precinct would take counties backwards. Townsend rebutted that vote centers made it more difficult to weed out “bad actors” stuffing ballots and overvoting, versus tabulations that take place at the precinct level. Marson then argued that centers have the ability to access precinct totals and other pertinent organizational information through election management software. Townsend responded that compiling all the ballots together without separation for precinct would make review of them difficult if not impossible after initial counting, especially for audits. She used the example of her time at the retail clothing chain, Miller’s Outpost, prior to electronic filing, meaning she relied on an expansive paper filing system to check customers’ credit card information. Similar to ballots, Townsend argued, the necessity of breaking down all of that stored information into categories and subcategories made it easier to locate and review.
As for SB1457, AACo Senior Legislative Associate Megan Kintner informed the committee that their equipment wouldn’t allow for their operations to create individualized codes for every single poll worker. She added that the bill’s requirement for additional observers would be difficult to satisfy because they already had a hard time securing volunteers. Kittner also noted that the bill didn’t address what counties should do when volunteers don’t show up. Townsend responded that Kittner’s colleague, Marson, told her that the unique log-ins were possible to do, with the exception of volunteers checking people in for poll books, and suggested that Kittner check back in with Marson on that information. Majority Whip Sonny Borrelli (R-Lake Havasu City) ignored Kintner’s concerns of logistics, emphasizing the greater need for accountability. Borrelli also challenged the general notion that no backdoor access was possible with election machines.
“Nothing is ‘not hackable,’ so let’s put as much prevention in it as possible. I’ve said this before: keep locks on your doors, keep honest people honest,” insisted Borrelli. “The intent is, whoever’s going to log into the system, we need to know who they are,”
SB1457 may receive some additional language; Borrelli was open to a suggestion from Townsend on adding an accountability aspect for video streams that get interrupted, such as a requirement to stop counting. Borrelli noted that even the legislature has to pause its operations when their streaming system goes down.
Townsend said that the bill would ward off bad actors relying on ease of access through community log-ins. She referenced the Miller’s Outpost operations again, noting that they had unique log-ins for their employees.
Marson said that voting machines have existed in America since 1881, and that states back then could select their own election day. The referenced voting machine relied on push button and interlock mechanics to select only single candidates per race and then reset for a new vote after the voter left the booth. When Townsend asked how long it took precincts to count votes when they counted by hand only, Marson said she didn’t know and couldn’t find the answer. However, Marson said that records reflected that states had several months to file their results, meaning they didn’t have a rush to complete their work in a day.
“I think this just underscores the idea that we should do a lot of research to see what can be restored, and what makes sense and what doesn’t,” said Townsend.
Although the committee denied Quezada’s amendment to SB1474 removing language about prohibiting voting locations from being used as on-site early voting, Townsend revealed that some within the Republican caucus oppose the bill, meaning she’ll have to make inroads with
“I still think that precinct voting on the day of and having a holiday is better, but we have to get it on the governor’s desk,” said Townsend.
Marson spoke up again to question how the elections would be conducted if public bodies were ordered to be closed, and asked when elections officials running the elections would have time to vote. Her questions weren’t addressed. Committee Democrats insisted that there wasn’t evidence of widespread fraud that necessitated this bill.
Due to time constraints, Townsend held the other bills for review another day: SB1058, prohibiting drive-up voting and voting through a drop box outside of a polling place, voting center, or the offices of either the county recorder or elections department; SB1343, requiring all early, provisional, and conditional provisional ballots to be separated, tabulated, and recorded by their precinct and category; SB1359, requiring all elections workers to have a unique password for accessing any election system, which would be changed every two weeks; SB1360, expanding rights for election observers such as documenting their observations, appealing an ejection from the election location, and asking questions of election officials; SB1380, requiring county recorders to use USPS National Change of Address (NCOA) information to weed out voters whose address changed; and SB1477, requiring the Secretary of State (SOS) to notify county recorders of relevant felony convictions every month.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The State of Arizona is getting no support from the White House against an ongoing invasion by Mexican cartels, which gives Gov. Doug Ducey the authority to deploy the Arizona National Guard in self-defense, according to a legal opinion released by Arizona Attorney Mark Brnovich on Monday.
“The federal government’s failure to secure the border and protect Arizona from invasion is dangerous and unprecedented,” the 25-page opinion states. “Thankfully, the Founders foresaw that States might need to protect themselves from invasion and made clear in the Constitution that States retain the sovereign power to defend themselves within their own territory.”
The attorney general’s opinion was prompted by an inquiry submitted in October by Rep. Jake Hoffman (R-LD12) about whether the Biden Administration “has failed –intentionally or unintentionally– to uphold its obligations” under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution to protect Arizona from invasion.
The opinion contends the federal government “has lost or severely degraded its operational control” of Arizona’s 372-mile border with Mexico, where cartels and gangs are openly trafficking in drugs, weapons, and human beings while engaging in attacks on Arizonans and acting “as if they are above the law.”
Among the issues the attorney general examined in response to Hoffman’s inquiry was the definitions of “actually invaded” and “invasion” as used in the State Self-Defense Clause and the Invasion Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 10
“…No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
The examination also included whether a state has constitutional power to defend itself from “hostile non-state actors” such as armed cartels or only an invasion by a foreign power. Finally, the attorney general had to determine whether the current crisis at the Arizona / Mexico border satisfies the definitions of “actually invaded” and “invasion.”
“The violence and lawlessness at the border caused by transnational cartels and gangs satisfies the definition of an ‘invasion’ under the U.S. Constitution, and Arizona therefore has the power to defend itself from this invasion under the Governor’s authority as Commander-in-Chief,” the opinion states, adding that an invasion “permits the State to engage in defensive actions within its own territory.”
The legal questions addressed by the attorney general have not been adjudicated in court with factors similar to the situation in Arizona. However, the opinion was welcomed by Hoffman, who called on Ducey to utilize the powers afforded to him by the U.S. Constitution to immediately secure the border.
“I’m glad to see that Attorney General Brnovich today agreed with my assessment that the crisis occurring on our southern border constitutes an invasion and a total failure by the Biden administration to fulfill its constitutional obligation to protect the people of Arizona,” Hoffman said.“The human smuggling, cartel drugs and violence, sex trafficking, and other illicit activity must end.”
Ducey’s office did not issue a formal comment on whether the governor agrees with the opinion’s legal conclusions of his authority as commander-in-chief. Since April 2021, several dozen National Guard soldiers have been rotated in and out of border county sheriff’s offices to perform administrative, non-law enforcement functions.
This has been well-received by the sheriffs as it frees up deputies to respond to the increase in reported crimes along the border.
With telehealth services growing in popularity and necessity during the pandemic, U.S. Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) has signed a letter with several members of Congress calling on House and Senate leadership to include an extension of Medicare pandemic telehealth authorities in upcoming government funding legislation.
The letter acknowledges that telehealth—or telemedicine as it is also called—has become an essential part of the health care system, especially in rural communities. Congress recognized the importance of such services when it passed COVID-19 legislation to increase access to telehealth services for Medicare beneficiaries.
Telehealth services allows a physician or a specialist to provide healthcare without an in-person office visit. It also allows remote monitoring of a patient’s vital signs or other information, and provides for secure messaging or email with medical personnel.
But expanded access and funding for Medicare beneficiaries to utilize the services is temporary as it is tied to the COVID-19 public health emergency declaration, which is renewed in three-month increments.
According to the Jan. 28 letter, extending the current coverage of Medicare telehealth services would provide much-needed certainty to health care providers and patients. It would also give Congress time to enact permanent telehealth legislation to keep up with the burgeoning industry.
“Ramping up telehealth requires significant costs and resources from health care providers,” the letter to Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy states. “Without more definitive knowledge about the duration of the pandemic and Medicare’s long-term coverage of telehealth, many organizations have been hesitant to fully invest in telehealth.”
Permanent legislative reforms to telehealth services are included in various current bills under consideration, including the CONNECT for Health Act which has bipartisan support from over 170 members of Congress. Such long-term solutions are imperative to increase access to care, reduce costs, and improve health outcomes, the letter states.
“An extension of the telehealth authorities would provide assurance that the investments will be sustainable over the long term. It would also reassure patients that their care will not end abruptly,” it states.
Nearly four dozen lawmakers signed the letter supporting a telehealth pandemic extension. The signers run the gamut of political ideology, including Schweikert and fellow Representatives Bill Johnson (R-OH), Cheri Bustos (D-IL.), and Don Bacon (R-NE).
Signers from the U.S. Senate include Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), and Marco Rubio (R-FL). Both of Arizona’s Senators also signed.
