by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Aug 1, 2021 | Opinion
By Dr. Tom Patterson |
In the recent Georgia debacle, the state’s CEOs successfully pushed MLB to punish the legislature by moving the All-Star game from Atlanta to Denver, after allegedly vote-suppressing legislation was passed. Senator Tim Scott asked six of the sanctimonious bullies what provisions they found offensive and why. None had a single answer.
Likewise, President Biden’s speech on “Republican anti-voting laws“ featured plenty of hyperbole. The reforms are “odious” “vicious,“ “unconscionable“ and “21st-century Jim Crow.“ But he failed to provide any examples for his wild accusations of anti-voting effect other than claiming they would legalize the intimidation of voters and the tossing of legal ballots.
In fairness, Biden should have his social media privileges suspended for spreading “misinformation.” Those are provable lies.
The racist voter suppression effort we keep hearing about from the left-wing echo chamber has occurred during a remarkable surge in voting nationally. According to the Census Buteau, nationwide turnout in 2020 was over 68%, the highest in 28 years, with minority voters making a particularly strong showing.
“Non-whites“ comprised a record high 29.0% of all votes cast, up from 20.8% in 2004. In Arizona, the “non-white” turn out surged 17% over 2016.
Yet Democrats insist that voter suppression is so extensive that our democracy is threatened. Photo ID requirements are exhibit A in the argument that Republicans are intentionally driving down minority turnout.
The ACLU claims “identification laws are part of an ongoing strategy to roll back decades of progress in voting rights“. A Washington Post columnist opined that “requiring ID at the polls pushes people into the absentee system, where there are plenty of real dangers.“ (Roger that last observation!)
But Americans are skeptical. They know photo ID is required for flying, drinking, entering certain buildings, picking up tickets and other normal activities. Many blacks feel it is condescending to claim that minority citizens are less able than others to obtain ID. And for those eligible voters who truly lack photo ID, why not provide a free – oh, wait, we already do that.
Evidence strongly suggests that strict ID requirements do not depress minority voting. Long-term studies at the Universities of Delaware, Nebraska and Missouri as well as Harvard all confirmed that “fears that strict ID requirements would disenfranchise disadvantaged populations have not materialized.”
North Carolina, Missouri and Iowa all saw increases in black voter turnout after passing photo ID laws, including a stunning 21% increase in Iowa. Maybe voters appreciate knowing their vote is taken seriously and won’t be canceled by fraud.
Undeterred, congressional Democrats this spring passed HR1, which bans all photo ID requirements, on a party-line vote. The bill federalizes election law. It is a fraudster’s dream.
It would force states to legalize ballot trafficking (a.k.a. “ballot harvesting“), to accept ballots up to 10 days after election day, to allow felons to vote, to accept ballots cast in the wrong precinct, and would bar officials from cleaning up voter rolls or reviewing voter eligibility.
By far the top priority for Pelosi and company is bulk mail voting, through which they have obtained mysteriously positive outcomes the past two elections. This practice, in which millions of ballots are mailed out to voters whether or not they were requested, is also mandated in the bill.
The effect is to remove all safeguards of voter identification and chain of custody. Elections are moved behind closed doors, beyond any supervision or security measures. When combined with ballot harvesting, political “street muscle” prevails. What could go wrong?
Americans aren’t buying the remedies for fake voter suppression. A recent Rasmussen poll found 70% of voters support photo ID, including 69% of blacks. Another survey found 87% opposed to ballot harvesting, 71% against accepting ballots after election day and 63% listing election integrity as a top issue.
The fact is that voting has never been easier. Our voting system is one of the most accessible in the free world. Democrats don’t produce cases of actual interference with voting rights to support their frenzied claims because they are vanishingly rare.
Democrats may wish for voter suppression to exist to support their agenda, but that doesn’t make it so.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Jul 30, 2021 | Education, Opinion
By the Free Enterprise Club |
Sometimes, it’s not just what the media says. It’s what they don’t say.
Last week, the Arizona Auditor General concluded its financial investigation into Higley Unified School District (HUSD). And the findings of the report are mind blowing.
The Auditor General found that HUSD’s former superintendent Dr. Denise Birdwell, may have conspired with employees of Education Facilities Development Services (EFDS), along with Hunt & Caraway’s former president, to circumvent school district procurement rules to improperly award Higley’s $2,557,125 Project development services contract to EFDS.
But if you thought that was bad, there’s more. The report also alleges that Dr. Birdwell misused public monies when she authorized or caused the unlawful use of $6 million in restricted public funds toward construction of two new schools. And to top it all off, Dr. Birdwell, along with Gary Aller and Steven Nielsen from EFDS, appear to have concealed their wrongdoing by certifying false information on Higley records.
A State Grand Jury indicted Dr. Birdwell on 18 felony counts. In addition, Gary Aller, Steven Nielsen, and Kay Hartwell Hunnicutt (who shared a home and checking account with Dr. Birdwell) were indicted on three felony counts each…
>>> READ MORE >>>
by Goldwater Institute | Jul 29, 2021 | Education, Opinion
By the Goldwater Institute |
The public’s business should be open to the public. And under Rhode Island law, it is. Yet when mom Nicole Solas sought to attend the meeting of a publicly funded committee that meets weekly to discuss and make recommendations on policies that apply across her daughter’s school district, she was told that the meeting was closed and parents were not welcome.
Now, the Goldwater Institute is pushing back: We’ve joined with the Stephen Hopkins Center for Civil Rights in Rhode Island to represent Nicole in a complaint before the state attorney general asserting that the school district has violated Rhode Island’s Open Meetings Act (OMA) by closing these meetings to the public.
Rhode Island’s OMA was enacted to ensure that “public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens be advised of and aware of the performance of public officials and the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy.” The presumption under that law is always in favor of public access.
Yet in March 2021, the South Kingstown School Committee signed an agreement with the South Kingstown BIPOC Advisory Board to hold weekly meetings where district policies ranging from student discipline to coaching to hiring would be discussed and where recommendations would be made on those issues by the Board to the School Committee. In other words, the Board was charged with advisory power by the School Committee over matters of significant public interest—the education of South Kingstown’s youth. The Board is also publicly funded with taxpayer dollars by the School Committee, and two members of the School Committee’s subcommittee on policy sit on the Board.
>>> READ MORE >>>
by Goldwater Institute | Jul 25, 2021 | Opinion
By Christina Sandefur of the Goldwater Institute |
Representing the owners of more than 50 properties, the Goldwater Institute has filed over $23 million in claims against the city of Flagstaff, Arizona, over an ordinance that went into effect in March that deprives residents of their property rights. That could be just the tip of the iceberg, as thousands more may have claims under state law.
In March, Flagstaff adopted a High Occupancy Housing Plan supposedly designed to address an increase in student housing. In actuality, the plan imposes sweeping regulations that deprive a wide variety of property owners, including families and small businesses, of their right to decide what to do with their land.
Flagstaff’s ordinance comes nearly two decades after the infamous Kelo v. New London U.S. Supreme Court decision of 2005, in which the Court gave state officials virtually carte blanche to seize private property for whatever reasons politicians consider worthwhile. But Arizona voters rejected the Court’s vast expansion of government power by adopting a ballot measure that creates some of the strongest protections for home and business owners in the country. Under Arizona’s Private Property Rights Protection Act (known as Prop 207), government must pay people whenever it takes away their right to use their property and thereby diminishes its value…
>>> READ MORE >>>
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Jul 23, 2021 | Opinion
By the Free Enterprise Club |
“We’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.”
Those were the words of White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki last week, and they should send chills up and down your spine. It’s bad enough that we already have Big Tech playing speech police on a daily basis. Now, the federal government is flagging “problematic posts” FOR Facebook?!?
This is outrageous, and it’s incredibly dangerous.
The federal government is supposed to uphold the U.S. Constitution, not actively aid social media companies in censoring Americans.
But it appears this is only the beginning of their plan…
>> READ MORE >>
by Loretta Hunnicutt | Jul 22, 2021 | Education, Opinion
By Loretta Hunnicutt |
After vigilant parents sounded the alarm about a consent form they were asked to sign electronically that would have asked their children highly personal questions, Scottsdale Unified School District leadership apologized.
The District’s leadership advised parents that they would not be asked to authorize the District to “complete an emotional health and wellness screening of my child and to collect personal information, medical history or medical information, mental health history or mental health information, and quality of home and interpersonal relationships, student biometric information, or illegal, antisocial or self-incriminating behavior critical appraisal of individuals within a close relationship and gun/ammunition ownership.
The District claims those issues were mentioned inadvertently in a portion of students’ annual verification packet:
On May 4, 2021, Scottsdale Unified School District’s (SUSD) administration recommended that the Governing Board approve the FastBridge program as a social emotional learning screener for students in Kindergarten through 12th grades. It was already being used as an academic screener for grades K through 3.
This social emotional screening program, which the Board voted to adopt, is used to evaluate students overall general behavior including but not limited to, social, academic and emotional behavior. Screening is typically completed within three minutes, with results available immediately to parents and staff. These findings enable our teachers, social worker and guidance counselor professionals to help identify students who may be in need of additional support and intervention programs and to make that support available as early as possible.
The screening tool is optional and one that parents have a choice to authorize for use with their children each school year.
Notwithstanding this, SUSD’s initial parent acknowledgment form incorrectly stated that the FastBridge screener might ask for personal information about income family matters, medical or family medical history, mental health history and other categories of private information.
To be clear, the FastBridge screener does not and has never sought this information. The waiver form that initially appeared in ParentVUE as part of the parents’ annual acknowledgment was a standard waiver form that had not yet been properly tailored to SUSD’s use. The form has since been amended to reflect the information that is actually collected. We apologize for this oversight and offer our services that SUSD does not support, endorse or collect any family personal information through FastBridge.
Leadership goes on to claim that Scottsdale parents “have stressed to us how important it is for schools to support their students social emotional learning.”
“Our sole goal in acquiring FastBridge,” wrote leadership, “is to be able to support the whole child and offer help to students sooner when we see that academic and behavioral issues in the classroom are limiting their opportunities to learn and grow.”
This “apology” raises too many questions and red flags. From the implication that a child’s social emotional well-being can be assessed in three minutes, to the claim that leadership is responding to parents’ pleas that the schools support their students’ social emotional learning, the missive misses the mark for any discerning reader.
Any educator who believes that they can assess a child in any meaningful way in three minutes is misguided at best and likely committing educational malpractice at worst.
The fact that our schools continue to cater to the fear-mongering teachers’ unions, thus strongly encouraging masks and vaccines for students K-8, clearly shows that they have put the students’ social and emotional well-being far down their list of priorities.
While the apology is appreciated by many parents, I fear that it will prompt them to drop their guard and not look carefully at the other consent forms they are asked to sign. There is also the danger that parents might assume that their children are not turning over this information in their classrooms at all when nothing could be further from the truth.
Parents need to be on guard at all times, and at all times they must assume that their children are products – the data they produce, the insights they give, the very supplies they prefer to bring to school are all of value to those who benefit – in one way or another – from the education industrial complex.
