by Corinne Murdock | Oct 29, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The secretary of state’s office lacks the processes in place to remove about 78,000 potential noncitizens and nonresidents from its voter rolls.
In its last two quarterly reports issued to the state legislature in May and August, respectively, the department reported that it had received reports of but not acted on over 78,200 potentially invalid voters. The secretary of state’s office didn’t respond to our inquiry as to whether they have since put in place any processes to remove those potentially invalid voters from the voter rolls.
Through the beginning of August, the secretary of state received reports of over 53,200 persons reported to have been issued a driver’s license or equivalent of an Arizona nonoperating ID license in another state; over 1,300 persons who admitted to not being a citizen on a jury questionnaire; and over 23,600 persons who admitted to not being a resident of a county on a jury questionnaire. In those cases, the secretary of state’s office disclosed that a process for sending notices, placing voter registrations on inactive status, or canceling voter registrations was “in development.”
These reports were included as exhibits in a Monday filing by Attorney General Kris Mayes in the case Mi Familia Vota v. Adrian Fontes, a case seeking to nullify state election integrity laws requiring stricter standards for voter proof of citizenship and voter roll cleanups.
These reports were previously believed to have not been submitted to the legislature, per previous reporters’ accounts of an inability to obtain the records. According to the exhibits, the two reports were submitted to Sen. President Warren Petersen (R-AZ-14) and House Speaker Ben Toma (R-AZ-27).
Last month, the Democratic Party-backed activist groups secured a partial win in a ruling from Arizona District Court Judge Susan Bolton. The judge determined that the proof of citizenship requirement set forth by the two laws in question, HB 2492 and HB 2243, posed too great a burden on voters.
Several questions remain before the Arizona District Court in the case.
One concerns whether HB 2492’s requirement that voters provide their place of birth, referred to as the birthplace requirement, violates 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(B), referred to as the materiality provision.
“No person acting under color of law shall – deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election,” states the federal statute.
Last week, the Biden administration issued a brief declaring that birthplace wasn’t material to determining voter eligibility. Kristen Clarke, Civil Rights Division assistant attorney general, and Gary Restaino, Arizona District attorney, argued that certain individuals born in the U.S. can be noncitizens such as those with diplomat parents, those who later renounce their citizenship, and those born outside the country to U.S. citizen parents.
Another question concerns whether the voter list maintenance programs set forth by HB 2492 and HB 2243 violate 52 U.S.C. § 10101(a)(2)(A), referred to as the discrimination provision, or violate the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
“No person acting under color of law shall – in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law or laws to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found by State officials to be qualified to vote,” states the federal statute.
Another concerns whether the NVRA requirement that states accept and use the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) federal voter registration form preempts HB 2243’s voter list maintenance program.
The case is scheduled to go to trial on Nov. 6.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Oct 7, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The District of Columbia attorney general is investigating Arabella Advisors, the dark money giant operating a national funding network for leftist nonprofits, including in Arizona.
The Washington Free Beacon discovered that the DC attorney general issued subpoenas last month to Arabella Advisors, as well as its largest clients, concerning investigative reporting about tax law aversion and illegal profiteering.
Arabella Advisors manages five nonprofits that funnel dark money funds into other leftist nonprofits and initiatives: New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Hopewell Fund, Windward Fund, and the North Fund. Their influence is expansive, both nationally and in Arizona.
The five nonprofits all funded One Arizona, a coalition of leftist nonprofits, who in turn funded Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), Chispa AZ, Arizona Advocacy Network, ProgressNow AZ, and Mi Familia Vota. Those nonprofits used that funding to advance their causes in Arizona’s elections.
An outgrowth of the New Venture Fund’s front initiative, We Mean Business Coalition, collaborated with the Carbon Disclosure Project and World Resources Institute to create the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). Last November, the Biden administration proposed granting decision-making power on defense contracts to SBTi. In February a key initiative of SBTi, the Advanced and Indirect Mitigation (AIM) Platform, launched at GreenBiz 23 in Scottsdale.
Another New Venture Fund initiative, Campus Vote Project, has a presence across 41 states. In Arizona, the initiative coordinates with Arizona State University, Mesa Community College, South Mountain Community College, Northern Arizona University, Eastern Arizona College, Cochise College, Chandler-Gilbert Community College, and Phoenix College to increase voter turnout among college students.
Prior to the 2020 election, only Mesa Community College and South Mountain Community College were recognized by the dark money-originating initiative.
Also concerning higher education, the New Venture Fund created a scholarship program fund that partnered with Northern Arizona University (NAU) last year to pay illegal immigrant students’ tuition.
The Sixteen Thirty Fund was a major funder to the nonprofit Way to Win, which spent $110 million in key states, including in Arizona, to ensure Democratic victories in 2020. Way to Win served as the sponsor to Progress Arizona (formerly ProgressNow Arizona), who was led by Gov. Katie Hobbs’ ousted spokeswoman, Josselyn Berry, until at least 2021.
Those listed as running Progress Arizona, according to their latest available tax return (2021), were:
- Emily Kirkland (executive director): Arizona Education Association communications director; former senior political strategist for the Colibri Collective; former director of Organizing for 350 Massachusetts and communications coordinator for Better Future Project
- Ariel Reyes (director): Instituto political director; former Arizona Wins political director; former lobbyist for the Torres Consulting and Law Group
- Elsa O’Callaghan (director): consultant with Prickly Pear Consulting; executive director of Arizona Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee; former staffer for California Rep. Karen Bass (D); and former Planned Parenthood Los Angeles staffer
- Belen Sisa (director): unemployed DACA recipient; former Democracy Initiative campaign manager; former communications staffer for Democratic congressional candidates Victor Reyes (New Mexico) and Mike Siegal (Texas), independent presidential candidate Bernie Sanders; and former staffer for Arizona Wins and Mi Familia Vota
- Alexa-Rio Osaki (director): director of Arizona Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (AZ AANHPI) Advocates; Arizona Coalition for Change communications director
- Josselyn Berry (chairman)
The Hopewell Fund and Sixteen Thirty Fund have issued much of the funding for Opportunity Arizona. Until 2021, one of the individuals behind that organization was Dacey Montoya: a principal player in many of the dark money groups, Democratic candidates, and progressive initiatives in Arizona.
Those listed running the organization, according to their latest available tax return, were:
- Ben Scheel (executive director): director of Bright Phoenix; former deputy campaign manager for Phoenix city council candidate Karlene Parks
- Ed Hermes (board president): attorney; Osborn Elementary School District governing board president; vice chair of the city of Phoenix’s Vision Zero Committee; Maricopa County Superior Court judge pro tempore; and Move Osborne Forward treasurer
- Josh Zaragoza (board member): political consultant involved in Phoenix City Councilwoman Yassamin Ansari’s council campaign and ongoing congressional campaign; former chief of staff to Phoenix Councilwoman Laura Pastor; and former Human Rights Campaign organizer
- Monica Pimentel (board member): Arizona Latino School Board Association president; Glendale Elementary School District governing board member; Maricopa County Deferred Compensation Committee member; and former Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanx de Aztlan (MEChA) vice president
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Sep 19, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The Democratic Party’s go-to election lawyer that played a principal role in Hillary Clinton’s Russiagate hoax scored a victory against two Arizona laws requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Judge Susan Bolton — appointed by Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton — issued the ruling last week.
Bolton ruled in the Arizona District Court case Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes that the two laws, HB 2492 and HB 2243, asked too much of voters by requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote. Bolton said the requirement constituted an “additional burden” that “disadvantages” voters.
Elias called proof of citizenship requirements “voter suppression.”
Whether or not the judge had ruled in favor of the state laws, the secretary of state’s office has apparently been ignoring certain reporting requirements in one of the contested laws. The Arizona Daily Independent reported that the legislature received neither of the required quarterly records on canceled voter registrations due to deaths, driver’s licenses in other states, jury questionnaire answers, and inactive voting history.
Bolton determined that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the federal voter registration requirements and policies signed into law by Clinton, preempted both state laws. The NVRA requires states to register voters for federal elections using the federal government’s form; this form doesn’t require proof of citizenship, yet individuals may still cast votes in federal elections.
After the Supreme Court told Arizona in a 2013 ruling that it couldn’t reject NVRAs based on its lack of citizenship proof, then-Secretary of State Ken Bennett split the voter registration system to require proof of citizenship in statewide and local races, while offering the NVRA as an option to vote in federal races only. Those voters who capitalize on the latter are known as “federal-only” voters.
AZ Free News reported in 2021 that there were over 11,600 federal-only voters in the 2020 election based on limited vote data from several counties, most of which came from Maricopa County. That’s compared to the 1,700 federal-only votes cast in the 2018 election. At the time of our 2021 reporting, not all counties were publicly posting their federal-only ballots cast despite state law requiring the disclosure.
“[A]fter each general election, [the county recorder] shall post on the recorder’s website the number of ballots cast by those persons who were eligible to vote a ballot containing federal offices only,” states the law.
It appears that the state’s two largest counties neglected to adhere to the federal-only ballot disclosure law for the 2022 election.
Maricopa County didn’t publish a file like they did in 2020 disclosing the number of federal-only ballots cast for the 2022 election.
Pima County displayed the number of federal-only ballots cast for 2020, but it didn’t issue an update or similar public display for last year’s election. The county recorder only disclosed the number of provisional ballots it accepted or denied based on federal-only status in its December after-action report: 51, compared to the 107 provisional federal-only ballots accepted in the 2020 election and 108 provisional federal-only ballots accepted in the 2018 election.
Most of these federal-only ballots are likely absentee. About 89 percent of all voters in Arizona cast their vote by mail-in ballot.
In last week’s ruling, Bolton opined that the NVRA only allows states to place limits on mail-in voting when it comes to first-time voters, and not under any additional circumstances, like requiring proof of citizenship.
“Had Congress intended to permit states that allow absentee voting to require in-person voting under additional circumstances — including when a registrant fails to provide DPOC — it could have said so in the NVRA,” wrote Bolton. “Not only does the statute exclude failure to provide DPOC among the reasons a state may require an individual to vote in person, but as explained below, the purpose of the NVRA supports an interference that Congress meant to limit the number of circumstances in which a state could prevent an individual from voting by mail.”
The court addressed whether the laws were conducive to enhancing the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for federal office. The Fifteenth Amendment expressly assigns the right to vote with U.S. citizens, with the definition of citizenship provided in the amendment immediately preceding, the Fourteenth Amendment.
Bolton also ruled that the state failed to limit its systemic purges of voter rolls from occurring within 90 days of an election. She rejected arguments from the state that this 90-day window didn’t apply to voters who were found to be noncitizens. Meaning, individuals not qualified to vote can’t be purged from voter rolls in a systematic manner if they’re discovered as ineligible within 90 days of an election; these removals may only occur on a strictly individual basis.
“While the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the State may still conduct individualized voter removals within the 90-day window, the systematic removal program mandated by HB 2243 violates Section 8(c)(2) of the NVRA,” stated Bolton.
Bolton opted not to rule yet on several issues. Two concerned the state’s requirement of investigations and cancellations of the voter registrations of those noncitizens identified through various government databases. Another concerned the state’s requirement of an individual to disclose their citizenship and birthplace, which Bolton noted were only in violation of the Materiality Provision when also providing the state with DPOC.
“The Checkbox Requirement violates the Materiality Provision when an applicant provides satisfactory evidence of citizenship,” stated Bolton.
Ruling on those questions will be issued sometime after the November trial.
Elias was joined in the lawsuit against the laws by the Department of Justice (DOJ) last summer.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Sep 6, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Last week, a superior court judge ruled that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and his predecessor, now-Gov. Katie Hobbs, enforced an Election Procedures Manual (EPM) that ran afoul of voter signature verification law. The problematic EPM in question was crafted by Hobbs in 2019.
The ruling came in the case Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes. Contrary to the law, Fontes claimed to the court that the term “registration record” was ambiguous and up for interpretation — meaning, he could decide what constituted a valid signature record for the purposes of verifying the validity of a ballot signature. For that reason, Fontes said that the lawsuit against his administration should be dismissed.
Judge John Napper disagreed, rejecting the motion to dismiss last Friday; he stated that only a voter’s signature used to register to vote was valid. Napper ordered Fontes to adhere to the definition of “registration record” for the purposes of signature verification.
“Here, the langu[ag]e of the statute is clear and unambiguous. The statute requires the recorder to review the voter’s registration record. The common meaning of ‘registration’ in the English language is to sign up to participate in an activity,” wrote Napper. “No English speaker would linguistically confuse the act of signing up to participate in an event with the act of participating in the event [….] Applying the plain and obvious meaning of ‘registration,’ the legislature intended for the recorder to attempt to match the signature on the outside of the envelope to the signature on the documents the putative voter used to register.” (original emphasis included)
Fontes petitioned the court to interpret the law to mean that other documents could be included in the definition of “registration record” based on a change of the law from reading “registration form” to “registration record.” Fontes argued that “record” was a more expansive term meant to encompass a greater set of documents than “form.” Fontes also argued that the term was ambiguous and therefore up to interpretation.
Napper rejected these arguments. The judge explained that the term change only expanded the “volume of documents” for signature verification to allow for review of multiple forms comprising a registration record. Napper also declared that the statute wasn’t ambiguous at all.
“That limitation remains the same, documents are part of the ‘registration record’ only if they involved the voter’s ‘registration,’” stated Napper. “[T]he recorder is to compare the signature on the envelope to the voter’s prior registrations (the record).”
Napper also declared that the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) correctly defined “registration record,” unlike Fontes and former Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (now governor) per her 2019 EPM. Napper ruled that Hobbs’ 2019 EPM violated the law.
“The 2019 EPM creates a process that contradicts the plain language of A.R.S. §16-550(A),” stated Napper. “Therefore, this portion of the EPM and the instruction from the Secretary do ‘not have the force of law.’”
Napper’s ruling acknowledges a major issue: in the four years of its use, Hobbs’ unlawful 2019 EPM signature verification instruction has carried “the weight of the law.”
Mi Familia Vota also intervened in the case and requested dismissal of AFEC’s lawsuit. They claimed that any real or existing issues with the EPM didn’t matter because Fontes would produce a new EPM this December that could potentially adhere to state law. Napper also rejected this argument. The judge pointed out that those in the executive branch, including Hobbs, have consistently failed to produce a valid EPM, including in 2021.
“While the production of a new EPM is statutorily required, the multiple offices of the executive branch have not consistently adhered to the statute’s dictates,” said Napper. “They were unable to produce an EPM in 2021. This is why the 2019 manual carries the force of law to this day. The Court has been unable to find any authority suggesting a case is not ripe for decision because a government actor may choose a different course of conduct in the future.” (emphasis added)
The case is ongoing, with a status conference scheduled later this month.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Aug 29, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The Biden administration and the dark left money network are demanding access to nonparty conservative organizations’ private documents in two lawsuits against election integrity laws requiring proof of citizenship and voter roll cleanups.
In the case Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes (2:22-cv-00509) the Department of Justice (DOJ), Democratic National Committee (DNC), Arizona Democratic Party, and leftist dark money groups including: Mi Familia Vota, Living United For Change Arizona (LUCHA), and Voto Latino are challenging the election integrity bills HB2243 and HB2492. In the case Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes (2:21-cv-01423), the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, League of Conservation Voters, LUCHA, Mi Familia Vota, and Arizona Coalition for Change are challenging SB1485.
Any individuals or organizations that aren’t party in a lawsuit are considered “nonparty.” Federal law allows for nonparty individuals and organizations to be brought into a case and be compelled to disclose evidence requested. In these cases challenging Arizona’s three election integrity laws, that means conservative organizations are being asked to hand over private documents, communications, legislative correspondence, lobbying strategy, and information on contributions and expenditures.
Those issued nonparty subpoenas include the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) and the Republican Party of Arizona. No court has issued an injunction on the contested laws to date.
The Goldwater Institute is representing AFEC in their defense against the subpoenas. In a motion to quash the subpoenas, the organization argued that private opinions have no bearing on the validity of a challenged law, citing precedent set by Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021), and that the subpoenas threaten the rights to free speech and privacy.
“The Supreme Court has stated time and again that individual legislators’ opinions about a statute reveal little or nothing about the law’s meaning and validity,” read the motion. “It is thus all the more true that the statements and opinions of private parties, several degrees removed from any official government action, have no bearing on the question of whether a state law is consistent with federal law.”
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, declared in a report that the budding leftist practice of filing nonparty subpoenas against conservative individuals and organizations constitutes a weaponization of federal law to intimidate and silence conservatives.
AFEC’s subpoena came from the Arizona Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander for Equity Coalition (AZ AANHPI for Equity). While that organization argues for total transparency of its ideological opponent, it is shrouded in mystery itself.
AANHPI for Equity and AZ AANHPI Advocates have independent websites, social media pages, and staff, yet the pair are presented as one entity in multiple locations (for example, on the AZ AANHPI for Equity “about us” page). Both were founded in July 2020 by Jennifer Chau, who has served as the director for AZ AANHPI for Equity, an unspecified nonprofit, and executive director for AZ AANHPI Advocates, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, since their inception according to her LinkedIn page.
According to the IRS, AZ AANHPI Advocates had its federal tax exempt status automatically revoked in mid-May for not filing any tax forms in the entire three years of its existence (EIN:85-2344934). The IRS issued its revocation posting earlier this month. No IRS records exist for AZ AANHPI for Equity.
Yet, both organizations’ websites continue to solicit donations and market themselves as nonprofits. The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) awarded AZ AANHPI Advocates good standing for its status as a nonprofit in mid-July as well. No ACC records exist for AZ AANHPI for Equity.
On its website, AZ AANHPI Advocates discloses that it receives funding from top leftist dark money organizations The Future We Need and Arizona Wins!. The listed address for The Future We Need is the same address for the Arizona Education Association and Progress Now Arizona (now Progress Arizona); yet, no such organization as “The Future We Need” exists per ACC, the IRS, the Federal Election Commission (FEC), or the secretary of state’s campaign finance databases. There does exist a similarly-named dark left political action committee (PAC) entity, “The Future We Want.”
In their entire three years of advocacy and fundraising, only AZ AANHPI Advocates had any campaign finance records filed within the state: just one receipt of $10,000 from Invest in Arizona in August 2021, for “signature gathering.” According to the secretary of state’s campaign finance database, AZ AANHPI has never filed any reports on their contributions or expenditures.
Invest in Arizona and Arizona Wins both had one top Democratic dark money handler in common: Dacey Montoya. (Gov. Katie Hobbs’ controversial former press secretary, Josselyn Berry, worked as the program manager for Arizona Wins from 2015 to 2016 and executive director for ProgressNow from 2016 to 2019; Hobbs’ gubernatorial campaign used the same mailing address as both organizations; and Montoya’s consulting firm was involved in both Hobbs’ secretary of state and gubernatorial campaigns). Montoya is now the treasurer for the organization behind the ballot initiative to legalize any and all abortion up to birth, Arizona for Abortion Access.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
