There are plenty of problems with the Arizona Commerce Authority. Since its inception in 2011, criticisms were raised concerning its freewheeling powers to dole out taxpayer money with practically no legislative oversight and broad exemptions from important guardrails such as the prohibition of using outside counsel (rather than the Attorney General’s office.) These issues have resurfaced over the years in critical Auditor General reports that have highlighted the insufficient reporting and record keeping for the administration of grants and awards provided by the agency to private businesses. This led to a mere 2-year extension of the agency in 2016, and a controversial reauthorization in 2018 when Republicans and Democrats alike banged the table for reforms. And most recently, the agency has come under fire by the Attorney General herself, for unconstitutional gifts in the way of wining and dining and Super Bowl tickets for CEOs.
Despite consistent criticism across the aisle and over the years, the ACA has evaded any real substantial reforms. That could very well change this year.
There now seems to be bipartisan interest in reining in an unaccountable agency with a $226M budget and a multi-million-dollar slush fund…
When the Supreme Court was debating the landmark Dobbs abortion case, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer shouted threats (“you will reap the whirlwind…”) at them from the courthouse steps. Thus, the last doubt was obliterated that the unquestioned authority of the Court was under serious attack.
An independent judiciary is the key to maintaining our constitutional republic. It is the reckoning mechanism which keeps us on track, muting the potential excesses of popular democracy. Americans once understood this and valued our judiciary, even when it sometimes worked against their individual interests.
But the times, they are a’changin. Americans have now divided into warring classes who believe that in the pursuit of power and short-term goals, a conscientious judiciary is often in the way.
At least until recently, school children were taught that our founders, in order to dilute the power of centralized government, created three branches. The legislative makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judiciary ensures that laws are enforced in accordance with statutes and the Constitution.
In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt clashed with the Supreme Court when their rulings thwarted his plans to assert federal control over wide swaths of the American economy. The Justices could not find in the Constitution’s list of enumerated powers any which authorized the New Deal legislative barrage.
They were right, but Roosevelt’s response was to propose “packing the court,” expanding the number of Justices, and increasing his power. Roosevelt’s view of the court as an obstacle rather than a necessary guard rail shocked many Americans of the day. The plan eventually failed, although most of the New Deal was enacted anyway.
Yet the status of the judiciary branch in our federal system is showing deterioration today. Leftist ideologues conduct protests of court decisions in front of Justices’ residences when they render unpopular decisions. That’s clearly contrary to federal law yet they suffer no repercussions. The Biden Department of Justice simply ignores them.
Justices are personally harassed by activists. Angry partisans confront them and their families in restaurants and public spaces. The Justices, particularly those of the pro-Constitution persuasion, are faced with spurious charges of ethical violations and demands for recusal. That’s especially ironic in the case of Justice Clarence Thomas, who has a well-deserved reputation for willingness to vote against his own political positions.
The Arizona Supreme Court also passed down a controversial abortion decision, ruling that the Arizona legislature, following the reversal of Roe, had effectively reinstated a restrictive Civil War era law. In response, a special interest group known as “Vote Them Out” is attempting to remove justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King for failing to support their pro-abortion policy agenda.
In Arizona, Supreme Court Justices and most lower court judges are not elected but appointed and then undergo periodic retention elections which are intended to weed out incompetent or corrupt judges. Although few judges are not retained, the system works to depoliticize the judicial selection process and give voters input into keeping judges.
It is this retention system itself which Vote Them Out is attacking by forcing Bolick and King to, in effect, run for their own seats in a political style campaign. There are no credible arguments that either Justice is incompetent or corrupt or that they didn’t provide constitutional authority for their rulings. The issue, again, is simply that their decision was unpopular, at least with Vote Them Out.
As Justice Bolick pointed out in an Arizona Republic op-ed, judges in a merit system are handicapped in a politics-based election. They can’t personally raise funds or seek endorsements. They have strict ethical limits on what they can discuss. Their opponents have no such restraints.
It’s telling that justices at all levels are commonly referred to as “liberal” or “conservative.” Such political labels should only matter if justices are policymakers, which they are not. The critical descriptor which matters for justices is “pro-Constitution” versus “pro-some interest group’s opinion.”
Americans seem to have little regard for the values and institutions which are the foundations of our own national greatness. Our independent judiciary distinguishes us from corrupt autocracies everywhere and throughout time. We disrespect it at our own peril.
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.
The Peoria Unified School District (PUSD) is seeking federal funds to renew the Mental Health Service Professionals (MHSP) Demonstration Grant through the Department of Education (ED). The grant would enable the district to expand its program for unlicensed behavioral health workers. The grant application includes assertions to garner sympathy and support, such as highlighting low student-to-behavioral health worker ratios, funding cuts, and increased student academic issues post-COVID. There is just one problem: the initiative is flawed and poorly justified when scrutinized, raising several critical concerns.
If renewed, the MHSP grant would enable PUSD to hire additional counselors and social workers, asserting that they will assist students deemed to have mental health issues that purportedly hinder academic performance. A primary concern is the qualification of these personnel and the poor track record in this type of intervention in improving academic proficiency.
In a recent Substack piece, Attorney Chris Evans points out that the district refers to the personnel to be hired as “mental health professionals,” which Evans argues is “a title inflation for a person with no license from a professional board, no regulatory oversight, but is certified by the Arizona Department of Education to work in schools with zero scope of practice limitations.” This raises grave concerns about the effectiveness of mental health assistance and the safety of children under the care of these individuals.
PUSD staff and board members persist in claiming that behavioral health services enhance academic outcomes. However, the evidence to support this assertion is lacking. Robust independent research indicates this claim is false and seems to justify seeking federal funds rather than being a fact-based strategy.
For example, a close examination of PUSD academic assessments from 2017-2018 to 2023 reveals minimal improvement over five years in attempting to integrate behavioral health services into its schools; the expected improvements in academic performance have not materialized. During the first grant period, state assessment scores show no significant progress, and in subjects like math, the scores have declined. This stagnation indicates the lack of effectiveness of the rationale for the project’s federal funding and suggests that the behavioral health program has not delivered the promised academic benefits. If these programs cannot demonstrate a clear, positive impact on student achievement, their expansion, and current presence in schools are suspicious.
The ideological motivations behind this push for more behavioral health services cannot be ignored. The emphasis on social justice and equity indicated in the grant application may overshadow the primary goal of educational institutions: to enhance academic achievement. The current approach appears to conflate these objectives, potentially at the expense of educational quality.
The current justification for renewing this grant employed by PUSD is misguided. At the May 29 meeting, board President Becky Proudfit asked the grant administrator if the first grant initiated in 2019 had been effective and what the effect had been on the students in the district. During his response, the administrator admitted that he thinks, “It’s just really important to note that it’s hard to determine the overall success of the grant.” And still, the PUSD board voted 4-1 to renew the Mental Health Service Professionals (MHSP) Demonstration Grant for another five years.
It is time for PUSD to reevaluate its priorities and ensure that any funded programs are accountable and effective. Most importantly, addressing mental health in students is important, yet fundamentally within the authority and responsibility of parents and guardians, not schools.
Tamra Farah has a twenty-year career in public policy and politics. Her role as director and senior advisor at Americans for Prosperity, FreedomWorks, and Arizona Women of Action and her expertise in PR and communications demonstrates her ability to create engagement and transformation in her efforts. Tamra has appeared on Fox News, America’s Voice, Newsmax, and Victory Channel and is quoted in major publications like The New York Times and Washington Post.
In February 2023, pro-life activist Maison DesChamps, known to many as the “Pro-Life Spiderman,” free-climbed the Chase Tower in Phoenix, Arizona—no ropes or extensions, just his hands and a bag of chalk. His mission was to bring attention to the grave evil of abortion and advocate for women facing crisis pregnancies. Many, like Maison, understand it as a moral atrocity, a modern-day holocaust. Not only does abortion take innocent lives, but it also leaves lasting emotional scars on women who undergo the procedure.
Maison’s daring climb, reaching the peak of the tallest building in Arizona, was a heartfelt plea for life and a call to action for humanity. His aim was to expose the brutal truth about abortion, shedding light on the horrific dismemberment of unborn infants—a grim reality often shrouded in secrecy and deceit.
In addition to his activism, DesChamps founded the nonprofit organization Anti-Abortion-Front, dedicated to rescuing those “being led away to death” and holding back those “staggering toward slaughter” (Proverbs 24:11).
In stark contrast to DesChamps’ fight against abortion, the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment could soon be up for a vote. The final decision on whether it will appear on the November 2024 ballot will be made on July 3rd, after it is determined if the campaign has collected enough signatures. This initiative seeks to enshrine the right to abortion until birth in the Arizona State Constitution. This amounts to the legalized murder of children who could otherwise survive outside the womb.
DesChamps’ actions challenge the public to realize the truth—that murder is murder regardless of how old a human is. But the difference between his punishment for a peaceful protest and the potential legalization of late-term abortion highlights a profound hypocrisy, and it prompts a critical reflection on justice and morality in a country that is supposed to be the freest in the world.
Despite the peaceful nature of his protest, authorities charged DesChamps with trespassing. As of Tuesday, June 4, Maison was admitted into a Maricopa County jail, where he is expected to spend the next week. Supporters argue that his imprisonment is a gross injustice, as his actions were driven by a deep sense of compassion and a desire to advocate for those who cannot speak for themselves.
Maison DesChamps now faces significant legal fees and associated costs, and there’s even a GiveSendGo campaign to help cover these expenses. But Maison would be the first to say it’s worth it to highlight the unparalleled need to defend innocent babies in the womb. If our society can imprison someone for peacefully protesting to protect life while allowing the potential for laws like the Arizona Abortion Access Amendment that permit killing a baby right before birth, we face a grave hypocrisy. Maison’s climb is a passionate plea for humanity to recognize that abortion is murder and that we cannot stand idly by. We have a responsibility to take action against it.
WATCH: ‘Pro-life Spiderman’ shares why he scaled 40-story Chase Tower
Katarina White serves as Legislative District Co-Chair for Arizona Right to Life. To get involved and stay informed with the “Decline to Sign” initiative, visit the Arizona Right to Life website. Katarina also delves deeper into the proposed amendment through the “Conservative Seoul Show,” where she presents the “Sanctity Unveiled” segment. You can join her as she explores the challenges faced by the sanctity of life in the State of Arizona here.
Like a lot of Arizona residents, I was drawn to the state by its natural beauty, economic opportunities, and conservative values. In the 15 years my husband Gary and I have called Mesa home, we’ve seen a lot of growth and some exciting opportunities for our community and the citizens of District 2. Unfortunately, we’ve also seen some significant erosion of Mesa’s conservative values as well as questionable zoning and purchase decisions by the Mesa City Council. I believe we can, and should, do better. That’s why I’m running for City Council!
As a city council member, I’ll work to represent my District with the values and needs of my constituents instead of personal opinions. Take, for example, the purchase last year of the Arizona Grand Hotel by the City Council which is slated to be converted to a homeless shelter. In addition to overpaying for the property by $1 million, the annual operating cost paid by the city is estimated to be $3.5 million, which will be a permanent burden to Mesa taxpayers. The city council approved the sale over strenuous objections of adjacent businesses and homeowners.
Homelessness is a serious issue in our state, but there are better alternatives for properties not located adjacent to a residential area. Unfortunately, the current District 2 councilperson chose to vote her values against the wishes of her constituents.
Over the past 15 years, we’ve had a moderate increase in economic development activity in our district, but we’ve continued to be a bedroom community. It is the “actions over words” that have me concerned. While the Council says they want to bring in more high wage jobs, they continue to approve of more and more residential and multi-family projects. We have a vibrant airport at Falcon Field, but instead of protecting this valuable asset from residential encroachment, the council has turned a blind eye and put the airport in jeopardy. The same thing has happened to Boeing and Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport. The council’s actions have not mirrored what the council has set as their Strategic Plan. We need to refocus the council and balance residential needs with economic development.
Another area that I believe we are lacking in is police and fire. Response times for our police have risen from 3.64 minutes in 2017 to 4 minutes today. That may not seem like much, but those extra seconds can mean the difference between the bad guy getting away or being caught. It can also be the difference between life and death. We need to make sure we have adequate personnel and equipment to ensure our public safety officials show up in a timelier manner.
Finally, I feel as though the city has left its lane and ventured into areas outside the City’s Charter. The city isn’t responsible for ensuring homeless people have shelter. I’m not trying to be dismissive of the need for humanity, I just feel as though the City should focus on potholes and allow the many not-for-profit entities and the religious communities across Mesa to share in the compassion. Citizens’ tax dollars should go exactly where Mesa’s founding fathers outlined in the Charter so many years ago: to ensure we have clean, potable water, a safe and reliable natural gas and electric system, clean streets that are pothole free, great outdoor parks and trails for public recreation, and public safety that continues to be one of the best in the nation.
I’ll work hard every day to represent the citizens of District 2, so that you will truly have a voice at the City. If you are tired of the status quo, let’s build our community together!
Melody Whetstone is candidate for Mesa City Council. You can find out more about her campaign at Melody4Mesa.com.
Last Friday, the AZ Free Enterprise Club filed a lawsuit in federal court against Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes for failing to comply with the National Voter Registration Act’s (NVRA) mandate that he maintain accurate and updated voter registration records. Why? The data shows that there are 500,000 unaccounted for registered voters who are not qualified either due to death or moving out of the state, and in total, up to more than a million voters on the rolls who should not be registered.
Clean and accurate voter rolls are the bedrock of elections run with integrity. Ensuring only those eligible to vote may register and are on the rolls means that only eligible voters may vote in an election. It’s a basic principle: garbage in, garbage out. If we begin with bad data – ineligible individuals on the rolls – the system is susceptible to allowing ineligible ballots to be cast.
That’s why in 2022 we championed two landmark pieces of legislation to accomplish just that, and why, unsurprisingly, Marc Elias and the left’s lawfare machine immediately sued to stop these commonsense safeguards from going into effect. HB2492 ensures only eligible citizens who have provided proof of citizenship can register to vote and HB2243 requires regular and routine voter roll maintenance using several databases of information, with regular reports to the legislature of the results.
Both these laws are consistent with the NVRA’s mandate that states maintain accurate voter registration lists. But right now, Adrian Fontes is failing in his obligations under both, and that’s why we have filed a lawsuit in federal court to force him to do his job.
Four Counties Have More Registered Voters Than People
How do we know? According to the most recent census and voter registration data, more than 90% of the voting age population in Arizona is purportedly registered to vote. The national average is 69.1%. Why would Arizonans register to vote at an absurdly higher rate than the rest of the country? The only answer is that the state and counties are failing to adequately remove individuals who are no longer eligible, leading to bloated rolls…
