by AZ Free News | Jul 3, 2021 | News
This week, the Department of the Air Force announced much anticipated plans to move Close Air Support (CAS) and rescue missions, including A-10 Thunderbolt II and HH-60 Pave Hawk weapons schools and test squadrons, to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base beginning in fiscal year 2022.
The proposed plan would transfer rescue and attack missions, aircraft and personnel to Davis-Monthan AFB as part of the Air Force’s vision of making the base the Center of Excellence for CAS and rescue missions.
Moving the A-10 and HH-60 aircraft squadrons, one maintenance squadron and all the supporting personnel from Nellis AFB, Nevada will result in a small personnel increase at Davis-Monthan AFB.
The first phase of the proposed plan, released as part of the Department of the Air Force’s fiscal year 2022 budget request , is contingent on congressional approval of the retirement of 42 A-10 aircraft, 35 of which are at Davis-Monthan AFB. Retiring these aircraft will create the fiscal and manpower flexibility required to design and field the future force needed to meet combatant commander requirements. Retiring the older A-10s in 2022 would allow Davis-Monthan AFB to receive the new missions.
The A-10 Weapons Instructor Course and Test and Evaluation operations will transition in 2022. The HH-60 WIC, Test and combat-coded units to include the 88th Test and Evaluation Squadron, 66th Rescue Squadron, 58th Rescue Squadron, the 34th Weapons Squadron, and the 855th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron will move beginning in 2024.
The Air Force will complete the required environmental analysis before the moves.
The A-10 Thunderbolt Advanced Continuation Kitting wing replacement contract, which was awarded in August 2019, included the purchase of wings for 218 aircraft. The Air Force has invested $880 million in A-10 re-winging and avionics modernization efforts, enabling the fleet to fly well into the 2030s.
by AZ Free News | Jul 3, 2021 | News
On Friday, Gov. Doug Ducey rescinded a series of executive orders issued during the coronavirus pandemic. The governor said the orders were no longer needed because the Legislature put them into law.
The governor said some of the orders would remain in place until legislation takes effect in 90 days. Those include orders preventing cities, towns and counties from issuing orders for businesses that are more stringent than those Ducey issues. Other orders ending after new legislation takes effect are ones barring universities from requiring COVID-19 vaccines or masks for unvaccinated students.
The governor ordered:
Effective July 1, 2021, the following Executive Orders related to the public health emergency will be rescinded:
- Executive Order 2020-17 deferred requirements to renew state agency and board licenses that had an expiration date between March 1, 2020 and September 1, 2020 by six months from the expiration date, unless those requirements could be completed online. The timeframe for the deferrals lapsed on March 1, 2021.
- Executive Order 2020-28 was enacted to address critical demand for nursing home and long-term care facility staff, allowing caregiver trainees to utilize on-the-job training to meet a certification program. This policy was codified through legislation in 2020.
- Executive Order 2020-58 ensured cost-sharing requirements, such as co-pays and co-insurance, for the COVID-19 vaccine are waived. This policy was codified by congress through the CARES Act.
- Executive Order 2021-04 required schools to return in-person, teacher-led instruction by March 15, 2020. In-person, teacher led instruction will continue to be required beyond the March 15, 2020 deadline.
Effective July 9, 2021, the following Executive Orders related to the public health emergency will be rescinded:
- Executive Orders 2020-08 & 2020-53 extended standard driver licenses that originally expired between March 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020, in an effort to limit visits to the state Motor Vehicle division. An expiration deferral issued as a result of this order remains valid and in effect.
- Executive Order 2020-20 allowed pharmacists to dispense emergency refills of maintenance medications for up to 180 days, minimizing unnecessary trips to the doctor. With legislation expanding availability of telemedicine, obtaining refills is now more accessible.
- Executive Order 2020-25 allowed struggling Arizona restaurants to repackage and sell grocery items they have on hand, including items not normally packaged and labeled for resale. Arizona restaurants can now fully resume operations.
Effective September 29, 2021, the following Executive Orders related to the public health emergency will be rescinded upon enactment of legislation to codify the policies:
- Executive Order 2020-12 was a proactive and administrative measure to ensure consistent mitigation guidance across the state, and prohibited any county, city or town to issue an order, rule or regulation that restricts or prohibits any essential service.
- Executive Order 2021-05 lifted occupancy limits that were implemented due to COVID-19.
- Executive Order 2021-06 transitioned COVID-19 mitigation requirements for businesses to recommendations.
- Executive Order 2021-09 banned “vaccine passports” and prevented state and local governments from requiring Arizonans to provide their COVID-19 vaccination status to receive service or enter an area.
- Executive Order 2021-10 rescinded orders related to K-12 health guidance.
- Executive Order 2021-15 ensured students of public higher education institutions cannot be mandated to take the COVID-19 vaccine or submit COVID-19 vaccination documents, and prohibited mandatory testing and mask usage for students.
The following will be repealed on a date determined by the Arizona Department of Health Services:
- Executive Orders 2020-13, 2020-23, 2020-30, 2020-37, 2020-48, 2020-54, 2020-56, 2020-57, 2021-01, 2021-07, 2021-14, identified as Enhanced Surveillance Advisory Orders. The State Legislature provided authority to the Arizona Department of Health Services to continue requiring hospitals, testing laboratories and other health facilities to provide detailed information and data related to COVID-19.
by AZ Free News | Jul 2, 2021 | News
On Thursday, the National Federation of Independent Business released its monthly Jobs Report, which found that Arizona is well-positioned to beat its neighbors to full economic recovery.
“Early legislative action this year to enact COVID-19 liability protection for businesses followed by recently adopted, historic tax reforms for income and property taxpayers will feed the flames of optimism and build confidence in business owners–leading to more investment, hiring and growth of small businesses in Arizona,” said Chad Heinrich, Arizona state director for National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). “While small-business owners remain in a struggle to fill open jobs, in Arizona our small businesses are seeing the support that comes from having a pro-small-business Legislature as our elected officials wrap up business at the State Capitol.”
According to NFIB’s report, 46% of small business owners reported job openings they could not fill in the current period, down two points from May but still above the 48-year historical average of 22%. Small business owners continue to struggle to find qualified workers for their open positions while raising compensation at a record high level.
A net 39% (seasonally adjusted) of owners reported raising compensation (up five points), a record high. A net 26% plan to raise compensation in the next three months (up four points), according to the report.
“In the busy summer season, many firms haven’t been able to hire enough workers to efficiently run their businesses, which has restricted sales and output,” said NFIB Chief Economist Bill Dunkelberg. “In June, we saw a record high percent of owners raising compensation to help attract needed employees and job creation plans also remain at record highs. Owners are doing everything they can to get back to a full, productive staff.”
According to NFIB, “the Jobs Report is a national snapshot not broken down by state. The results were based on 592 respondents to the June survey of a random sample of NFIB’s member firms, surveyed through 6/28/2021.”
by AZ Free News | Jul 2, 2021 | News
On Friday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, struck down California’s demand that nonprofit advocacy groups turn over confidential information about their donors. The 6-3 ruling in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta is considered a major victory for First Amendment advocates.
At issue was a dispute that began in 2014, when the Thomas More Law Center and the Americans for Prosperity Foundation went to federal court to challenge California’s rule.
“The case ends more than a decade of litigation that began when then-Attorney General Kamala Harris abruptly ended the practice that allowed nonprofits to turn in their annual reports with private information redacted, as a security measure. That had been allowed for many years, since if the Attorney General’s office ever actually needed such information, it could easily get it in many other ways—such as a subpoena or audit,” explains Timothy Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute in a blog post. “But in 2010, Harris ordered any nonprofit that collected money in California to hand over copies of their unredacted IRS paperwork. That information would be placed into a government database that Harris promised would be kept confidential. Of course, it wasn’t—a trial judge later found almost 2,000 instances in which Harris’s office allowed this information to be publicly circulated. (The Goldwater Institute received such a demand, but refused to disclose this information.)”
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion which reverses the 9th Circuit Court opinion.
In his blog post, Sandefur says the Court’s ruling “vindicates the privacy rights of millions of Americans who choose to contribute to nonprofit organizations that articulate the political, cultural, or religious values they hold dear. That choice is guaranteed by the First Amendment—yet many federal, state, and local officials continue to devote their powers to stripping donors of their privacy rights whenever they exercise that constitutional freedom. This is often done under the guise of “transparency,” but transparency is for government—privacy is for people. Today’s decision is a victory for the free speech rights of all Americans, whatever their ideological background—and we look forward to continuing the fight for freedom of speech and privacy at the federal, state, and local levels.”
by AZ Free News | Jul 2, 2021 | News
The Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management is asking the public to avoid using fireworks this Fourth of July due to the fact that more than half of the state remains dry and fire activity continues.
Fireworks are regulated in Arizona under ARS § 36-1606. Under state law, fireworks sales are restricted to the 4th of July and New Year holidays with only certain types allowed to be sold. Firecrackers, bottle and sky rockets, roman candles, and any type of aerial firework are illegal in Arizona.
While certain fireworks are legal, they can still start wildfires. Just as recent as last year, DFFM fire investigators ruled fireworks as the ignition source of the 260-acre Stage Fire off I-17, northwest of New River. This year’s fine fuel load across the Sonoran Desert remains extremely dry and any spark into that vegetation type can start a fast-moving wildfire. Due to fire activity, resource availability, the drought-stressed fuels, and firefighter and public safety concerns, closures and Stage II fire restrictions remain in place. Fireworks are not allowed on State Trust Land at any time of the year, regardless of restrictions or closures. While precipitation is in the forecast, it will take quite a bit of continual moisture to pull the state out of its drought status and decrease fire activity.
“It’s a matter of situational awareness and personal responsibility. We are in the heart of our fire season and current conditions have prompted closures as a proactive measure to decrease the chance of new wildfire starts. Fireworks have proven to be an ignition source for fires on our lands and what we are asking is that the public understand the threat, make good choices, and if possible, partake in alternative 4th of July activities. Our prevention team will be out again patrolling and making sure everyone is being safe and abiding by restrictions and closures,” said DFFM Prevention Officer Aaron Casem in a press release.
To date, 1,090 wildfires have burned nearly 526,000 acres throughout Arizona on all land jurisdictions.
by Terri Jo Neff | Jul 1, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
In a 6-3 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Arizona election laws were not “enacted with a racially discriminatory purpose.”
The Court also found that “Arizona law generally makes it very easy to vote. Voters may cast their ballots on election day in person at a traditional precinct or a ‘voting center’ in their county of residence.”
Justice Samuel Alito authored the 44-page opinion for the majority on two cases which were ruled on together. Justice Neil Gorsuch, with Justice Clarence Thomas joining, concurred with Alito’s opinion but tagged on a one-paragraph notation about an issue involving the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which was assumed in the majority opinion but had not been decided in the Arizona cases.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissent on behalf of herself and Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
The case involved Arizona’s election laws related to ballot harvesting and to out-of-precinct voting. Specifically, the justices ruled on a law passed by the Legislature in 2016 which makes it illegal for organizations to “harvest” or collect voters’ mail-in ballots and then deliver them to election officials.
The other law requires election officials to invalidate, or not count, ballots that are cast by voters outside their registered precinct.
Gov. Doug Ducey called the ruling “big victory for Arizona voters, the rule of law and the integrity of our elections.”
As reported by AFN earlier this month:
Two Yuma County women charged by the Arizona Attorney General’s Office with ballot fraud are scheduled to be back in court next month, two local election integrity watchdogs say the problem in their county runs much deeper, and it has garnered the attention of the FBI.
Gary Garcia Snyder and David Lara revealed in a radio interview with Sergio Arellano that they utilized hidden cameras to record ballot harvesting incidents at two San Luis polling stations on Aug. 4, 2020, which was primary election day. The city of 33,000 is in the far southwest corner of Arizona on the Mexico border.
RELATED ARTICLE: Concerned Citizens Provided FBI With Videos Of Ballot Abuse, Harvesting In Yuma County
The Court on Thursday found:
Arizona law generally makes it very easy to vote. Voters may cast their ballots on election day in person at a traditional precinct or a “voting center” in their county of residence. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §16–411(B)(4). Arizonans also may cast an “early ballot” by mail up to 27 days before an election, §§16–541, 16–542(C), and they also may vote in person at an early voting location in each county, §§16–542(A), (E). These cases involve challenges under §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) to aspects of the State’s regulations governing precinct-based election day voting and early mail-in voting. First, Arizonans who vote in person on election day in a county that uses the precinct system must vote in the precinct to which they are assigned based on their address. If a voter votes in the wrong precinct, the vote is not counted.
Second, for Arizonans who vote early by mail, Arizona House Bill 2023 (HB 2023) makes it a crime for any person other than a postal worker, an elections official, or a voter’s caregiver, family member, or household member to knowingly collect an early ballot— either before or after it has been completed. §§16–1005(H)–(I).
[View Court’s Opinion Here]
The Democratic National Committee and certain affiliates filed suit, alleging that both the State’s refusal to count ballots cast in the wrong precinct and its ballot-collection restriction had an adverse and disparate effect on the State’s American Indian, Hispanic, and African-American citizens in violation of §2 of the VRA. Additionally, they alleged that the ballot-collection restriction was “enacted with discriminatory intent” and thus violated both §2 of the VRA and the Fifteenth Amendment. The District Court rejected all of the plaintiffs’ claims. The court found that the out-of-precinct policy had no “meaningfully disparate impact” on minority voters’ opportunities to elect representatives of their choice. Turning to the ballot-collection restriction, the court found that it was unlikely to cause “a meaningful inequality” in minority voters’ electoral opportunities and that it had not been enacted with discriminatory intent. A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, but the en banc court reversed. It first concluded that both the out-of-precinct policy and the ballot-collection restriction imposed a disparate burden on minority voters because they were more likely to be adversely affected by those rules. The en banc court also held that the District Court had committed clear error in finding that the ballot-collection law was not enacted with discriminatory intent.
