by Terri Jo Neff | Apr 25, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
Two judges, one from Maricopa County and the other an Associate Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, agreed Friday that the Senate Audit of Maricopa County’s 2020 General Election can move ahead for now. Both judges also ordered the parties to submit several court filings in the coming days.
Several hundred of the nearly 2.1 million ballots cast by Maricopa County voters were audited Friday and Saturday. The volunteer counters are looking only at the race for U.S. President and the contest between Mark Kelly and then-Sen. Martha McSally.
For a short time Friday it looked like no audit activities would take place after Judge Christopher Coury of the Maricopa Superior Court agreed to issue a stay requested by the Arizona Democratic Party and Steve Gallardo, the only Democrat on Maricopa County’s five-member Board of Supervisors.
But the stay order was contingent on the plaintiffs posting a $1 million bond in the event they lost their case. AZ Dems chair Raquel Teran announced Friday afternoon that no bond would be posted, meaning the audit can continue unimpeded, for now.
Two other orders issued by Coury are currently in force: that the Senate and its contracted audit team comply with state law and that no blue or black pens can be on the floor of the Veterans Memorial Coliseum where the audit is being conducted.
Coury will be a key player in the audit this coming week, as he ordered the parties back to court Monday morning for an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the lawsuit. The judge set several deadlines for the attorneys, including an order for the audit’s written policies and procedures to be filed by the Senate and general contractor Cyber Ninjas on Sunday.
Teran and Gallardo -who says he joined the lawsuit in his personal capacity as a Maricopa County voter- must decide how far they want to push their allegations about the audit operations, given the fact Senate President Karen Fann and the other defendants have petitioned to the Arizona Supreme Court, which has also ordered a series of legal briefings in the case.
Fann and Sen. Warren Petersen of the Senate Judiciary Committee are named as defendants along with former Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett who is serving as the Senate’s audit liaison. The other defendant is Cyber Ninjas, the company Fann contracted with to conduct the audit with help from three subcontractor.
The Senate defendants are represented by Kory Langhofer and Thomas Bastille, who have been involved in several of the election-related lawsuits filed since Nov. 3. Florida-based Cyber Ninjas and its owner Doug Logan have retained Phoenix attorney Alex Kolodin as their Arizona legal counsel.
Another key player is Associate Justice Clink Bolick of the Arizona Supreme Court, who affirmed Coury’s earlier orders during an emergency conference Friday afternoon. Bolick set separate deadlines for the Senate’s challenge to the legality of the lawsuit, with all those filings needing to be in by the end of business April 29.
Participating in the emergency conference with the justice was attorneys for Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, who has pushed back on Fann’s previous assurances that the Senate’s audit would be “independent” and “transparent.”
Hobbs has pointed to Rep. Mark Finchem’s admitted role with the audit in light of his repeated insistence that President Joe Biden really did not win the popular vote in Arizona, and thus was not entitled to the state’s electoral votes. She also wrote to Attorney General Mark Brnovich with concerns that auditors may not be complying with Arizona’s Elections Procedures Manual (EPM).
For his part, Brnovich was the first prominent Republican to insist after the general election that there was no fraud involved in Biden’s victory. He replied to Hobbs on Friday, suggesting she notify his office when she has “credible facts and not conjecture or politics” for him to investigate.
Another player who could impact next week’s audit operations is First Amendment attorney David Bodney, who warned Fann and Bennett that the audit team’s current refusal to allow journalists to report on audit activities from the main floor of the Veterans Memorial Coliseum.
Bennett, as the audit liaison, is requiring media representatives to sign up for a six-hour shift as an observer. However, observers are prohibited from having cellphones or even pen and paper on the floor.
“Requiring journalists to become active participants in the events on which they seek to report is as unprecedented as it is untenable in a representative democracy,” Bodney wrote. “It also violates the First Amendment, which compels that members of the press be allowed access to report on these public proceedings. “
Bodney also warned that legal action could be forthcoming.
“By making the proceedings accessible to some journalists, you cannot arbitrarily deny access to others or require that others satisfy peculiar conditions not imposed upon those whom you favor,” he wrote. “In the event the audit proceeds while barring the press, we are committed to pursuing all legal remedies we deem appropriate to secure our clients’ rights under the First Amendment,” Bodney said
by Corinne Murdock | Apr 25, 2021 | Education, News
By Corinne Murdock |
Both Arizona Senators voted down an amendment to prohibit discrimination against Asian Americans in higher education.
The amendment was introduced by U.S. Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX) and John Kennedy (R-LA) under Senate bill 937, the “COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act.”
Specifically, the amendment would prohibit federal funding for any college or university that discriminates against Asian-Americans during recruitment, applicant review, or admissions. The act itself seeks to prosecute hate crimes against Asians motivated by COVID-19. It proposes to implement an online hate crime reporting database and expand “culturally competent” education campaigns.
A study on universities and colleges from the 1990s to 2015 found that those who banned affirmative action programs saw their numbers of Black, Hispanic, and Native American minorities decline significantly. The findings implied that race heavily impacted admissions.
On the U.S. Senate floor, Cruz asserted that universities are actively discriminating against Asian Americans currently. He explained that the DOJ’s decision to drop the lawsuit against Yale University for discrimination against Asian Americans spurred this amendment.
“[T]his amendment is straightforward. It targets the ongoing discrimination that is being directed against Asian Americans by colleges and universities across the country, including preeminent institutions such as Yale and Harvard, which are denying admission to qualified Asian-American applicants in favor of underrepresented minority groups,” said Cruz. “The U.S. Department of Justice was suing Yale for its discrimination against Asian Americans until the Biden Administration dismissed that lawsuit.”
In follow-up remarks, Kennedy concurred with Cruz’s assessment. He said this was one baby step in the right direction, but that Congress needs to go further.
“Now, I know [these major universities] think they know how to discriminate in the right way, but discrimination is discrimination,” asserted Kennedy. “At one of these universities in 2013, Harvard admitted that if it admitted Asian Americans purely on the basis of academic achievement, it would have doubled the number of Asian Americans. Now, this is wrong; it is contemptible, it is odious.”
In opposition to the amendment, the sponsor of the bill – Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) – claimed that federal law already prohibits discrimination. She said that turning away Asian American applicants based on the number of Asian American students already at an institution of higher education was a longstanding, integral component of diversity initiatives within admissions policies.
“This amendment is a transparent and cynical attack on longstanding admission policies that serve to increase diversity and provide opportunity to students of color in our institutions of higher learning,” said Hirono. “This amendment also threatens colleges and universities with the loss of federal funding for pursuing or using policies that our courts have upheld repeatedly.”
The amendment to the bill failed, with 49 yeas and 48 yeas – 11 under the required minimum of 60 yeas for adoption.
Both Kelly and Sinema are in support of the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act as a whole.
Kelly condemned the surge in hate crimes against Asian Americans, or Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI), in February.
“As folks virtually gather to celebrate the #ChineseNewYear, let’s remember that, for some, this joyous celebration for Chinese Americans is being marred by the rise in hate crimes against our AAPI communities. We can’t let it go unanswered,” wrote Kelly.
Sinema hasn’t addressed the Asian hate crimes on her accounts.
The COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act passed the Senate earlier this week. It now heads to the House for consideration.
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.
by AZ Free News | Apr 24, 2021 | News
After two federal agencies recommended a pause in use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, the Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) announced on Friday it is advising providers to resume use of the one-dose vaccine.
The ADHS announcement follows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory expressing confidence that the vaccine is safe and effective in preventing COVID-19.
The two federal agencies had recommended a pause in use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine based on six reported U.S. cases, out of 6.8 million doses administered nationally, of a rare and severe type of blood clot in vaccinated individuals. The ADHS determination said available data suggest the chance of this reaction is very low, though the CDC and FDA said they will remain vigilant in continuing to investigate this risk.
So far in Arizona, 226,300 doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been allocated, of which approximately 122,000 have been administered.
Information provided with the vaccine will advise patients about extremely low potential for thrombosis-thrombocytopenia syndrome, which involves blood clots and low blood platelet counts. This very rare syndrome was identified primarily in females between the ages of 18 and 49.
Information about all vaccination sites across Arizona can be found at azhealth.gov/findvaccine.
by Terri Jo Neff | Apr 23, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
In a shocking twist to this year’s legislative session, a much debated election integrity bill that would cull the early voter list unexpectedly went onto life support Thursday when Republican Sen. Kelly Townsend voted against the bill.
Townsend initially cast the lone no vote of the Senate’s Republican caucus on SB1485, which would have died on a 15 to 15 vote. Her vote forced SB1485 sponsor Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita to vote against her own bill to preserve hopes of a future revote.
The bill which has the potential to remove about 207,000 voters from the permanent early voter list (PEVL) statewide for repeated non-use of the early ballots has been one of this session’s most talked about bills.
Ugenti-Rita and some other Republican legislators took part Monday in a press conference hosted by Heritage Action For America to push back on opponents who contend any changes to PEVL as acts of voter suppression. The bill then advanced out of the House on Wednesday and was assumed to be a sure bet when the Senate met Thursday for a final reading.
SB1485 sponsor Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita and some other Republican legislators took part Monday in a press conference hosted by Heritage Action For America to push back on opponents who contend any changes to PEVL as acts of voter suppression. The bill then advanced out of the House on Wednesday and was assumed to be a sure bet when the Senate met Thursday for a final reading.
Garrett Bess, Heritage Action’s vice president of government relations and communications, addressed the need to “safeguard against potential fraud, and save taxpayer dollars” by getting SB1485 to Gov. Doug Ducey’s desk. He said Townsend “shortsightedly” voted against the bill.
“Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, the bill’s sponsor, and other legislators have been working tirelessly to pass a number of bills that would strengthen the integrity of Arizona’s elections and improve voter trust in the system,” Bess stated. “No conservative should oppose these bills.”
SB1485 was the second version of a PEVL cleanup bill sponsored by Ugenti-Rita, the chairman of the Senate’s Committee on Government. For her part, Townsend introduced 18 election bills which went nowhere due to Ugenti-Rita “killing all my bills,” Townsend said.
Ugenti-Rita, who has been mentioned as a possible candidate for Arizona Secretary of State, suggested Townsend killed SB1485 “in a show of spite and in a rage,” adding that it was “unfortunate to be on the receiving end of someone’s temper tantrum.”
After the Senate adjourned until Monday, Townsend took to Facebook and Twitter to address voting against SB1485 even though she supports the bill. She also took a more personal swipe at Ugenti-Rita,.
“Michelle Ugenti-Rita feels that this move is a temper tantrum because she killed all my election reform bills in her committee,” Townsend said. “She went so far as to say I need to ‘get over my jealousy.’ I am anything but jealous of Michelle Ugenti-Rita. She has been nothing but scandal ridden from the time I have known her.”
Townsend contends it was hard to watch Ugenti-Rita talk about election integrity during the recent press conference. “Nevertheless that is not why I voted no and they knew it. I explained my vote on the floor.”
Townsend insists she advised Republican caucus leadership of her plan to not vote for any election bills until the current Senate audit of Maricopa County’s 2020 General Election process is complete.
“I am supportive of the bill, but I informed leadership and the caucus that I was a no on election related bills because we are in the middle of an audit and there is talk of the Senate voting Sine Die in (two) weeks,” she wrote.
Sine Die is the process by which the legislature is formally adjourned for the session and consideration of any unfinished business is ended.
“Once we vote Sine Die and go home, we will not be able to fix any issues prior to the next primary election. I was serious when I said I would not vote on any election bills until after the audit. I was not taken seriously,” Townsend said.
Ugenti-Rita made a floor motion to reconsider SB1485’s final reading at to be determined date. Her motion carried, but Townsend doubled down late Thursday on waiting until the Senate’s audit is complete.
“Mark my words, and my actions, I will not bend,” she said. “This bill can be brought back for reconsideration and I will vote yes, however only after the results of the audit and all issues resolved with it.”
Earlier this session Townsend lectured her colleagues on the need to cast votes based on the merits of a bill instead of as retaliation for any perceived slights. It left many senators puzzled by her derisive vote and public comments.
“It makes zero sense and is only about ego…” Sen. TJ Shope tweeted.
by AZ Free News | Apr 23, 2021 | News
A controversial pro-life bill passed out of both the House and Senate on Thursday along party lines. SB 1457, which had previously passed out of the full House and Senate along party lines, but failed to pass the final Senate vote now heads to the governor’s desk.
The vote came just days after a federal appeals court upheld a similar law in Ohio, providing more evidence of constitutionality for the prohibition of abortion based on a genetic condition like Down syndrome, according to the Center for Arizona Policy.
Supporters say SB 1457, sponsored by Sen. Nancy Barto, is a “commonsense bill that prohibits abortion based on the diagnosis of a genetic abnormality, except for those with a lethal fetal condition.” Opponents say the bill is an assault on women’s reproductive rights and “ignores the complexities of high-risk pregnancies.”
The bill also repeals a pre-Roe law that punishes women who have abortions, and it establishes Arizona laws will be interpreted in the context of valuing all human life. It also prohibits public institutions from performing abortions or experimenting with aborted human remains.
by Corinne Murdock | Apr 22, 2021 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The Arizona Supreme Court convened on Tuesday to hear arguements in the case, Karen Fann, et al v State of Arizona, et al. In making their decision, the court will consider two main questions:
- Can Proposition 208 a statutory initiative, exempt itself from the expenditure limitations for school districts imposed by article IX, section 21 of the Arizona Constitution, and, if it cannot, would rational voters have adopted the Proposition’s tax knowing that its revenues could not be spent?
- Can the Proposition impose a new tax without a supermajority vote of both houses of the legislature, as required by article IX, section 22 of the Arizona Constitution?
Prop 208 was a statutory initiative that sought to become a constitutional amendment. The voter referendum proposed a new income tax of 3.5% on anyone who makes over $250,000 individually or anyone making $500,000 jointly in order to fund public education. The referendum passed on Election Day last year.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Dominic Draye with Greenberg Traurig asserted that the proposition has problems squaring up with the Arizona Constitution. Specifically, regarding its proposed spending patterns.
“It’s attempted to declare itself exempt from a portion of the constitution fails out of the gate. So its backers turn to the grant gift exemption,” stated Dray.
Attorney for the state Andy Gaona argued that the bill didn’t have problematic spending patterns. He said that the intent of Prop 208’s drafters was to provide “a permanent, dedicated funding source” for schools. Additionally, Gaona likened Prop 208 to other state funding.
“[It’s not unconstitutional in] the same way that there’s nothing inherently unconstitutional about state aid and state appropriations that may go towards the expenditure cap, that may ultimately cause the expenditure cap to be exceeded,” said Gaona. “In the same way there was nothing inherently unconstitutional about the fact that Prop 208 spending in a particular year may cause the expenditure cap to be exceeded. The truth is that, if there’s a conclusion that not only does the grant exception not apply [… then] there’s a process that’s in place already, and has been in place for years, that dictates how the expenditure cap will be dealt with.”
On behalf of the state, a spokesperson for the Arizona Department of Revenue explained to the judges that the anti-injunction act hasn’t ever been used in the contest of a personal income tax.
“Our research hasn’t revealed that the anti-injunction act hasn’t applied directly to a personal income tax issue, nor has there been any sort of ruling that the statute has been ineligible for application,” stated Bergen. “There is a bit of vacuum there. All instances of the law that we’ve seen have been applied to the context of property taxes.”
In closing, Draye reiterated that Prop 208 would be unconstitutional – partly for the expenditure limits outlined in the Arizona Constitution, but mainly for the reason that it imposes a new tax without legislative approval.
“The offending act is not the expenditure of funds in violation of the cap – I want to be clear about that. The thing that’s unconstitutional about this statute – well there are two things – there’s a section 22 part we haven’t talked about, which I think is fairly straightforward,” stated Draye. “The problem there is [that] a portion of the Arizona Constitution doesn’t apply to Prop 208. That has happened already – that is not true and will never be true.”
Draye said that Prop 208 invited taxes to be created by mob rule in the state.
“This is not a case where you have the legislature versus the people, or something like that. This is the people acting in their capacity as amenders of the Constitution to bind themselves so that bare majorities can’t grow the size of government and impose new taxes,” added Draye.
Immediately following the election, private citizens requested a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to stop the tax. Groups including the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Goldwater Institute joined the suit.
The court promised to issue its ruling at a later date.
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.
