by Terri Jo Neff | May 3, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
When Gov. Doug Ducey pledged $25 million last month to deploy the Arizona National Guard to the Mexico border he did so after the Biden Administration ignored pleas from state and local law enforcement officials to address the influx of immigrants and smugglers making it unhindered across the border.
The governor noted the National Guard troops would be on State Active Duty to assist with medical operations in detention centers, help with installation and maintenance of border cameras, monitor and collect data from the cameras, and analyze the situation at the border to identify trends in smuggling corridors.
The deployment was well received by two border sheriffs -Cochise County’s Mark Dannels and Yuma County’s Leon Wilmot- who spent the last three months trying to get federal authorities to come up with a plan for the escalating public safety threat and humanitarian crisis at and well beyond the international border.
However, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos has insisted his agency does not need National Guard support even though the county shares nearly 130 hundred miles of border with Mexico. The same “no thanks” approach was expressed by Sheriff David Hathaway of Santa Cruz County.
The difference in the positions of the sheriffs falls across political lines – Dannels and Wilmot are registered Republicans, while Hathaway and Nanos are Democrats.
The same political division is reflected in an April 21 letter signed by one county supervisor from each of the border counties in which they chastised Ducey for not asking for their input about the border situation. The signers -all of whom as Democrats- serve as their counties’ representatives on the Arizona Border Counties Coalition.
“We are disappointed that you failed to consult with the various Boards of Supervisors of each border county on this matter,” the Coalition letter states. “If asked, we would have requested assistance for transportation services, specifically buses and drivers, to provide those transportation services that we are now left to arrange on our own.”
The letter was signed by Sharon Bronson, Pima County; Ann English, Cochise County; Bruce Bracker, Santa Cruz County; and Tony Reyes, Yuma County.
Chief of Staff Mark Napier of the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) serves as his county’s point of contact with the Arizona National Guard. Last Thursday more than 30 troops arrived in Cochise County to perform a variety of non-law enforcement duties, including working with an extensive camera system utilized by the Southeastern Arizona Border Region Enforcement (SABRE) team to monitor cross-border traffic.
The troops are also providing support in CCSO’s jail and other clerical activities which allows sheriff’s personnel to deal with “other service demands and address the increase in challenges associated with the border crisis we currently face,” Napier explained.
On Friday, Napier told AZ Free News he and Sheriff Dannels had no advance notice that Supervisor English was signing the letter to Ducey, but they do not see the supervisor’s stance about deployment as being in conflict with CCSO’s position that the border crisis “presents a public safety, national security and human rights issue” which must be addressed in collaboration with federal, state, and local partners.
“The letter expresses some frustration over the lack of engagement between the Governor and Supervisors with respect to the deployment of AZNG personnel,” Napier said. “That is a matter between those Supervisors and the Governor.”
Napier added the Coalition’s letter also states border security is a responsibility of the federal government, “which in fact it is.” And the letter does not deny there is a public safety concern related to the current conditions along the border, he noted.
The Coalition’s letter makes no mention of the frequency or cost of transportation services any of the counties have had to provide or arrange for.
by Corinne Murdock | May 3, 2021 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Last week, Governor Doug Ducey signed a bill into law making it a misdemeanor to remove, alter, or deface political signs up to 15 days after a primary or general election. Previously, the law prohibited those actions only up to a week after an election. This would apply to any political signage or materials posted by citizens – not just those put up by candidates.
Nearly all Democrats voted against the bill. All Democrats in both the House and Senate voted no, with the exception of State Senator Sean Bowie (D-Chandler).
The bill was introduced by State Senator Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-Scottsdale). Ugenti-Rita explained in committee that this statutory change was prompted by discrepancies existing in law, where individuals have the right to leave up political signage for up to 15 days after an election. This law would ensure that this right receives protection in the event of a theft or vandalism.
State Senator Juan Mendez (D-Tempe) asked why Ugenti-Rita didn’t choose to limit the amount of time individuals could keep up political signs instead.
“My constituents hate signs,” explained Mendes. “They hate that they need to keep signs up a day after the election.”
Ugenti-Rita explained that her focus was mainly on making the stipulations in current law consistent. She said that she didn’t have any issue with the amount of days allowed for political signage to remain up. In fact, Ugenti-Rita said she agreed with Mesnard’s constituents that political signs were an “eye-sore” and that people should be managing them responsibly.
During the final vote on the Senate floor, Mendez explained that he voted against this bill because he thought candidates should remove their signs within a week.
“Members, if you’re not able to take down your campaign signs in the already-allotted time, then you shouldn’t be putting up so many campaign signs,” said Mendez. “The public is only doing us a favor by removing your litter if you don’t remove it yourself. And there’s no reason they should be sentenced to jail time for doing us all a favor when you’re not capable of taking down your own signs, so this is just uncalled for.”
State Senator Rosanna Gabaldon (D-Green Valley) originally voted for the bill. After Mendez’s explanation, she changed her vote.
Senate President Karen Fann (R-Prescott) supported the bill. She explained that the district she represents is large, and that a week-long timeline is difficult to adhere to when removing signage.
House Democrats offered similar reasons for opposing the bill during their final vote.
State Representative Athena Salman (D-Tempe) said that citizens shouldn’t be punished for acting on a desire to remove signs after a week. She berated her colleagues to take more responsibility for their signage, and claimed that this legislation only benefitted politicians.
“We believe in personal responsibility, and we think it is the responsibility of candidates and politicians – including the politicians that sit in this body – to remove their signs in a timely manner,” said Salman.
The legislation was signed into law on Monday, along with four other bills.
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 Corinne Murdock | May 2, 2021 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
A report from NewsGuild, the newspaper union, assessed that The Arizona Republic and 13 other newsrooms had gender and racial pay gaps. Outcry arose after it was claimed by the study that not only were those findings true, but The Arizona Republic had the largest gender and racial pay gaps of all the papers researched.
https://twitter.com/azrepublicguild/status/1387074221663145985
The research summarized that under The Arizona Republic, women made nearly $30,000 less than their male counterparts, whereas people of color earned $25,000 less than white employees.
On Thursday, Gannett issued a response saying that the NewsGuild research was a “misinformation campaign.”
.@Gannett issued a response to @newsguild and their misinformation campaign re: the ‘study’ of 14 out of our 250+ newsrooms. We address the facts that were not disclosed. Gannett is on a journey. We’ve been transparent about our goals. #facts[,]” wrote USA Today Network PR.
https://twitter.com/USATODAY_PR/status/1387772365808050197
Gannett explained that the research conclusions were made through a small sample size, and not the full set of the population. Further, information like job titles wasn’t included in the study.
“The sweeping generalizations used in your document are misleading,” wrote the company. “The fact is that data can be skewed to support any narrative – which is the tactic the Guild is using to share misinformation,” stated Gannett.
Indigenous affairs reporter Shondiin Silverman complained that The Arizona Republic that she should be earning more than $40,000 because of her master’s degree and decades of experience.
“It’s infuriating to see that the newsroom I have dedicated so much time and energy to doesn’t see my work as valuable as the other journalists in the room,” wrote Silversmith. “I have given more than enough to prove my worth. The fact that this newsroom does nothing to respect that is ridiculous.”
https://twitter.com/DiannaNanez/status/1387256917450362884
Some white reporters who’d previously worked for the paper confirmed what Silverman said.
Previous Arizona Republic reporter Bree Burkitt attested that she was earning $10,000 more than Silverman did to do the same job, despite not having a master’s degree or more years in job experience.
Other journalists with The Arizona Republic testified that the newspaper wasn’t diverse or inclusive.
Investigative reporter and The Arizona Republic Diversity Committee Chair Dianna Náñez said that in just over her dozen years, she’d never seen more inequality for minority reporters than under their paper’s current editor.
“Spent 15 yrs w/@azcentral. I love journalism/truth/my communities.Worked for 4 exec editors & w/all @gannett equity/inclusion efforts to make a diff[erence]. Believe me: Under current top editor, I saw [Silversmith], too many POC, women, LGBTQ journos devalued/discriminated against,” wrote Náñez.
In mid-April, The Arizona Republic Executive Editor Greg Burton issued a report stating that the paper is nearing its goal of matching community diversity. Burton described how over 75 percent of new hires were journalists of color, a great majority of which were women.
This month, Burton reported that The Arizona Republic would have 37 percent journalists of color. In 2016, that number was 20 percent. Additionally, 39 percent of managers are people of color – a nearly ten percent increase from last August.
“Our goal is to match a community that’s 44 percent people of color. We’re not there yet, but we’re making progress, and doing so while hiring the most skilled and promising journalists on the job market,” wrote Burton.
This mirrors a similar initiative announced by Gannett last year when it issued its “2020 Inclusion Report.” The company pledged to match the diversity of each paper’s community by 2025.
Per a 2019 analysis, circulation numbers for The Arizona Republic dropped below 100,000. The research noted that the paper had declined over 30 percent since 2017.
The Arizona population totals around 7.3 million people.
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 Terri Jo Neff | May 2, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
As the State Senate’s audit of Maricopa County’s 2020 General Election results and procedures continues, the majority of House Republicans signed a letter last week proclaiming their support of Senate President Karen Fann’s efforts.
“Each of us remains steadfast and focused on working to safeguard against potential ballot tampering, voter fraud and other voting irregularities,” the April 29 letter states. “We firmly believe our elections must be lawfully conducted under the Constitution, as well as with federal and state election law.”
The signees include Reps. Brenda Barton, Leo Biasucci, Walt Blackman, Shawna Bolick, Judy Burges, Frank Carroll, Joseph Chaplik, David Cook, Timothy Dunn, John Filmore, Mark Finchem, Travis Grantham, Jake Hoffman, Steve Kaiser, John Kavanagh, Quang Nguyen, Joanne Osborne, Jacqueline Parker, Beverly Pingerelli, Jeff Weninger, and Justin Wilmeth.
According to the letter, the representatives are “fully committed to sorting through the verified evidence” once the Senate Audit is done and the auditors’ reports are available. Then they will work “to remedy verified irregularities” with the intent to increase voter trust.
In the meantime, the signers told Fann it “is paramount” to pass other pending election integrity legislation such as SB1485, which would require all 15 counties to remove voters from the early ballot mailing list if those voters fail to utilize early voting for two full election cycles. About 207,000 voters could drop off the early ballot list, a process which does not impact a voter’s registration status.
Cleaning up the list will save counties money on printing and postage, according to SB1485 supporters, while also reducing opportunities for election misconduct by ensuring early ballots are only being sent to voters who intend to use them.
SB1485 has already cleared the House but is held up in the Senate due to a revolt in the Republican caucus by Sen. Kelly Townsend, who alleges bill sponsor Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita was responsible for “killing” more than a dozen of Townsend’s election-related bills.
The representatives’ April 29 letter was issued the same day the House voted 31 to 29 along party lines to approve SB1003, another bill sponsored by Ugenti-Rita, which will ensure counties follow the same process -and same deadline of 7 p.m. on election day- for curing early ballots received without the statutorily required signature on the voter affidavit.
Most counties reported a very small number of unsigned early ballot affidavits in the 2020 General Election, but the bill is one of several that Republicans say are necessary to promote consistency and voter confidence in election procedures used statewide.
by AZ Free News | May 1, 2021 | News
Arizona is one of twenty-one states that filed a comment letter opposing the use of “Social Cost of Carbon” analysis by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in certification decisions related to interstate natural gas pipeline construction.
The executive order has potentially devastating impacts, according to Alaska’s Attorney General Treg Taylor, who said it would allow “the federal government to assign vague and arbitrary costs to everyday regulatory and business activity.”
The comment letter, which was filed this week, argues that neither the Natural Gas Act (NGA) or the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) authorize FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission) to use the “Social Cost of Carbon” in consideration of certification applications, that the “Social Cost of Carbon” analysis is speculative and scientifically flawed, and that FERC should adhere to its previous position that “Social Cost of Carbon” analysis is not appropriate for NEPA analysis.
FERC is charged by Congress with reviewing and certifying applications for interstate natural gas pipeline projects proposed by private companies.
The letter argues that FERC applying “Social Cost of Carbon” analysis to certifications is not authorized by the NGA. The letter states, “Congress’s subsequent actions further show that the ‘public interest’ in the NGA is concerned with keeping natural gas widely available and affordable.” To that point, the letter says, “In the NGA, Congress did not vest FERC with the authority of an international commission to mitigate global climate change, and certainly no statute contains a ‘clear’ statement of such an extraordinary delegation of authority. Utilizing the SCC or SCM is not authorized under the NGA because it would only serve to increase costs (whether regulatory burdens or other costs) based on speculation about future global damages, instead of rendering natural gas abundant and affordable.”
Similarly, as it relates to NEPA, the letter contends, “Likewise, NEPA does not mandate or permit FERC to use the SCC for pipeline certifications. Like the NGA, NEPA does not contain any clear statement of Congress delegating authority to FERC to anticipate and mitigate global climate change under the aegis of promoting abundant and affordable natural gas,” and states later, “NEPA does not authorize the Commission to use the SCC values because NEPA’s hard look requirement and proximate cause standard does not permit agencies to rely on speculative conclusions or conclusions that the agency knows reflect substandard and outdated science.
Additionally, the letter states that “Social Cost of Carbon” analysis is speculative and not based on science, specifically because the letter contends that:
- Global damages are not reasonably foreseeable and do not have a close causal relationship to any project
- Damages from the year 2300 are too speculative, attenuated, and arbitrary to survive hard-look review under NEPA
- The SCC’s choice of discount rates is arbitrary and lacks a scientific basis
- The SCC is based on outdated scenarios and ignores science without justification
by AZ Free News | May 1, 2021 | News
Arizona is leading a coalition of 13 states to defend the Public Charge Rule, a federal immigration policy that ensures noncitizens can financially support themselves to become U.S. citizens or obtain green cards. Joining Arizona are attorneys general from the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia.
In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) created a rule that expanded the definition of “public charges” to include anyone who received certain government benefits (like Medicaid or food stamps) for more than 12 months over a three-year period. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) stopped applying the Public Charge Final Rule to all pending applications and petitions on March 9, 2021. USCIS removed content related to the vacated 2019 Public Charge Final Rule from the affected USCIS forms and has posted updated versions of affected forms.
The states are asking the Supreme Court of the United States to allow them to intervene in a lawsuit challenging the policy after the Biden Administration abandoned defense of the rule earlier this year. Arizona led a coalition of 13 states in March at the Ninth Circuit to intervene in the lawsuit but was denied.
Arizona and the other states are also asking Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to grant review of a Ninth Circuit decision that invalidated the Public Charge Rule. Previously, SCOTUS granted review of a case involving the same issues. But, after SCOTUS agreed to hear the case, the Biden Administration abruptly shifted course. Without any notice or warning—and breaking established norms—it sprung an unprecedented, coordinated, and multi-court gambit to dismiss all pending cases pursuant to a settlement. Attorney General Brnovich believes that the validity of the Public Charge Rule should be decided on its legal merits, not pervasive strategic surrenders by the Biden Administration.
Congress has had a Public Charge requirement in one form or another for over a century according to the Attorney General’s Office. Under existing federal immigration law, noncitizens are not eligible to receive a green card if they are reliant upon government assistance, otherwise known as a “public charge.”
Arizona and the other states claim to have a significant interest in upholding the Public Charge Rule because it reduces demand on already over-stretched government assistance programs. The federal government only pays a portion of the costs involved in many of the programs at issue, therefore increasing the strain on over-stretched state assistance programs. It is estimated the rule will save the states $1.01 billion annually in direct payments. For example:
- In 2019 Arizona spent $3,059,000,000 on Medicaid benefits. Increasing the number of Medicaid participants would increase the State’s spending on Medicaid (the costs of which typically exceed State general fund growth) and would require the State to make budget adjustments elsewhere.
- Arizona paid $85 million in maintenance-of-effort costs for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) programs in 2019. TANF resources are limited. In 2016, less than a quarter of eligible impoverished families received this assistance.
- States incur administrative costs for each Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipient. For FY 2016, Arizona paid $77,730,088 in administrative costs for administering SNAP. By admitting aliens who are unlikely to depend on this resource, the State will save money that would have otherwise gone to fund administrative costs for aliens who would depend on the program.
