Green Party Will Offer Eight Write-In Candidates On The November Ballot

Green Party Will Offer Eight Write-In Candidates On The November Ballot

By Matthew Holloway |

A Saturday night announcement from Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes confirmed that the radical-left, “Eco-Socialist” Green Party’s eight candidates will be moving ahead with a write-in strategy for the November general election.

According to its website the Green Party advocates for “a just transition to a democratically controlled eco-socialist economy through a Green New Deal,” as well as “’Degrowth’ policies to reduce overproduction, overconsumption, and waste,” and espouses “Social Justice & Equality For All,” as well as “Feminism And Gender Equity.”

As reported by the Arizona Daily Independent, the write-in candidates were not included in the official Arizona primary canvass owing to a clerical error, citing an Aug. 17th  press release from the Secretary of State’s office.

“A write-in candidate for a newly recognized political party must receive a plurality of the votes of the party for the office for which the candidate is competing for,” reads the press release. “A party with continued representation requires at least as many votes as they would have had petition signatures. The winning candidates in the Primary all receive certificates of nomination in the days after the canvass and these Green candidates who won their party nomination are included.”

Secretary Fontes also ran afoul of the Green Party earlier this month when he declared the wrong Green Party winner in the U.S. Senate primary as reported by KJZZ.

Green Party write-in candidate Eduardo Quintana said at the time, “We’re supposed to be able to run for office when we disagree on certain policies, and the public compares our opinions and decides who to vote for, and we’re elected in a Democratic way.”

The Green Party at present has just 100 elected officials in office nationwide, and Arizona has never had a Green Party candidate win an election for state or federal office.

Green party write-in candidates moving on to general election:

  • Eduardo Quintana, U.S. Senate – Eduardo Quitaro is running for the Arizona U.S. Senator open seat against Republican Kari Lake and Democrat Ruben Gallego. According to Quintana’s campaign website, he is running with the Arizona Green Party to “offer a political choice outside our failed two-party system careening towards nuclear war and environmental catastrophe.” Quintana’s priorities include ending the Israeli/Palestinian war, phasing out the burning of fossil fuels and replacing them with renewable energy sources, and transitioning to an eco-socialist economy, among others.
  • Vincent Beck-Jones, Congressional District 4 U.S. Representative – Vincent Beck-Jones will be running for Congressional District 4 U.S. Representative. He will face incumbent Democrat Greg Stanton and Republican Kelly Cooper. According to Cooper’s campaign website, he is firmly standing on a Green Party platform. “Our country was once based on ideals of freedom and choice,” reads his website. “But, for 237 years we have been held to an Us vs Them system. A duopoly of politics where the two parties are merely just opposite sides of a single coin. We are left choosing which option seems less detrimental to us. This isn’t a real choice. Without choice we have no freedom.”
  • Athena Eastwood, Congressional District 6 U.S. Representative – Write-in Green Party Candidate Athena Eastwood will be moving on to the general election running for U.S. representative for Congressional District 6. She will go up against Republican Juan Ciscomani and Democrat Kirsten Engel.
  • Tre Rook, Legislative District 8 State Representative – Tre Rook is running as a write-in Green Party candidate in the general election. Two candidates will be elected for each legislative district and Rook will be going up against Republican Caden Darrow and Democrats Brian Garcia and Janeen Connolly in the general election.
  • Cody Hannah, Legislative District 3 State Representative – Cody Hannah, a student and activist, is one of the youngest people running for a legislative office in Arizona. He is running on the Green Party platform and will be moving on to the general election where he will be running against Republican Jeff Weninger and Democrat Brandy Reese. “Cody is a committed advocate for people, planet, and peace, and he is ready to both work with and stand against the Democrats and Republicans in the AZ Legislature in order to fight for the needs of working class Arizonans and our environment,” reads Hannah’s campaign website.
  • Scott Menor, Legislative District 14 State Representative – Scott Menor, a write-in Green Party candidate, will be running against Republicans Laurin Hendrix and Khyl Powell in the general election. Menor said that by running for LD 14 state representative, he hopes to “break the duopoly. I can represent you and give you an outsized voice as a tipping-point-independent in the Arizona State House,” reads his campaign website. Menor’s other priorities include electoral reform, universal healthcare, education, basic needs such as food, shelter, clothing, housing, mobility and autonomy, and access to abortion.
  • Mike Cease & Nina Luxenberg, Corporation Commission – Mike Cease and Nina Luxenberg are the Green Party candidates running for one of the three open seats as Arizona corporation commissioner. The other candidates they will be running against include Republicans Rachel Walden, Rene Lopez, and Lea Marquez Peterson, and Democrats Ylenia Aguilar, Jonathan Hill, and Joshua Polacheck.

Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.

Arizona 2024 Republican Primary Roundup – Southern AZ House Of Representatives Races

Arizona 2024 Republican Primary Roundup – Southern AZ House Of Representatives Races

By Matthew Holloway |

The 2024 Arizona Primary Election for Southern Arizona’s seats in the U.S. House of Representatives involved races that were mostly uncontested or lightly contested with the notable exception of District 6. That race, between incumbent Republican Congressman Juan Ciscomani and challenger Kathleen Winn, was more energetic, and will now be followed by what could be a staunch challenge from Democrat Kirsten Engel.

While the results are not finalized in many of the races, according to state and county officials, the unofficial results stand thusly as of noon on July 31 according to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office.

Jeff Zink won the Arizona Congressional Primary for District 3, vacated by Democrat Rep. Ruben Gallego, against Jesus David Mendoza, 65.6%-34.4%, by a margin of 3,720 votes.

Zink is expected to face off against Yassamin Ansari who defeated Raquel Terán to win the Democratic nomination in a close 46.1%-42.7% race by a margin of 1,185.

According to Cook Political, District 3 leans heavily Democrat D+24

Republican Kelly Cooper defeated Dr. Zuhdi Jasser in a six-point race, 32.2%-26.8%, with a margin of 2,692 in Democrat-held District 4.

Cooper will challenge incumbent Congressman Greg Stanton who ran unopposed.

According to Cook Political, District 2 is solidly Democrat but only holds a D+2 rating, indicating a possible vulnerability for House Democrats. Cooper was previously defeated by Stanton in 2022 in a 12-point race by a margin of 32,420 votes, a massive decrease from Stanton’s 2020 23-point, six-figure margin prior to redistricting.

Dr. Jasser posted to X Thursday acknowledging his defeat in the race and issued a full statement. He wrote, “A humble thank you to all our supporters after a hard fought primary election battle for Arizona’s 4th Congressional District. I congratulate @KellyCooperAZ and wish him and his family the best in retiring the empty suited Biden rubber stamper @RepGregStanton from office.”

Cooper replied, “It was honor to run against you, I know we have the same goals, make Arizona better. I look forward to bringing unity to the Republican Party and winning in November!”

Reps. Andy Biggs, a Republican, and Katrina Schaffner, a Democrat, won their respective nominations in unopposed District 5 primaries and will face off in the general election.

According to Cook Political, District 5 is solidly Republican R+11

Incumbent Congressman Juan Ciscomani defeated challenger Kathleen Winn in a 59.4%-40.6% race by a margin of 16,344.

Ciscomani will be challenged by Democrat Kirsten Engel in November who won the Democratic nomination unopposed.

Cook Political, considers District 6 to be a Republican Toss-up R+3

Forecasting from The Hill gives Ciscomani a 71% chance of retaining his seat.

Republican Daniel Butierez, Sr., and incumbent Democrat Congressman Raúl Grijalva, were unopposed in their District 7 primaries and will face each other in the general election.

Cook Political, has District 7 projected as solidly Democratic at D+15

Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.

ASU Professor Claps Back Against Substack Troll Defending Communist Philosopher

ASU Professor Claps Back Against Substack Troll Defending Communist Philosopher

By Matthew Holloway |

Dr. Owen Anderson, a professor at Arizona State University’s Center for the Study of Religion and Conflict, offered an analysis of the philosophy of early communist thinker Friedrich Engels in a video posted to his Substack on July 8. He described it as “a sustained attack on the Christian family.” What resulted from this academic critique of Engels, which directly quotes his widely acknowledged public work, were a series of attacks on the professor and defenses of the communist thinker from what Anderson dubbed “anonymous (usually brand new) accounts,” and “trolls.” One of these commenters, under the screenname “RD,” replied to Dr. Anderson’s initial post claiming, in part, that Engels, “discusses in the same section of the book, that arrangement describes Greek and Roman pagan marriages as well as later Christian ones. Since these predate and do not depend on Christian ideas, he’s not attacking Christianity per se.”

Check out Dr. Anderson’s initial post here.

The commenter continued, “As for ‘radical leftists at state universities’ — the vast majority of university professors are in monogamous relationships roughly of the kind Engels describes, with the important caveat that in our time there are far greater legal protections for wives (a fantastic improvement since Engels’ writing). It’s not at all clear that they ‘hate’ this form of the family or ‘teach’ this hatred regularly. In other words, as usual, either you don’t know what you’re talking about or you have disingenuously ripped a statement out of context in order to increase your own sense of victimhood.”

Anderson responded to the commenter that he doesn’t engage with “anonymous trolls” and added rather congenially, “If you’d like to be honest about who you are I’d be happy to discuss these points. You’re mistaken about the purpose of Engels and what it means to hate.”

In response, “RD” accused the professor of being “litigious” and “thin skinned” with ASU and his colleagues citing as evidence “your very public statements on this blog, where you constantly whine about mundane matters to agents of the state.”

He added, “Only a fool would risk having you file a frivolous lawsuit over a blog post. It is enough for me that your readers would double-check your ‘work’ against the evidence of Engels’ own text, where they would very quickly see that you don’t know what you’re talking about.”

He claimed to disagree with Engels and accused Dr. Anderson of “not reading these texts honestly and accurately, the duty of any intellectual.”

WATCH MORE

In a subsequent paid post, Dr. Anderson stated in part,

“One of the surprising not surprising things I’ve experienced since calling out bias against Christians at state universities is that those who want to attack me hide behind anonymous (usually brand new) accounts. I know the internet is full of such trolls. That isn’t what surprises me. What surprises me is that these cowards claim to be either professors or know how to defend professors. They want your tax money to teach your children, but they won’t be honest about what they believe.”

He added, “If they can’t be honest about who they are then I don’t engage with them. They need to own their arguments. If they want to engage in the public square and they believe their cause is just and true, then they should be eager to attach their name to it. But they won’t. This one went on to tell me I’m thin skinned! Imagine insulting any other religion and then telling that person they are thin skinned if they call you out.” He then bid the commenter “Bye, bye.”

Anderson’s determined commenter still wasn’t finished though and launched into a criticism of the professor for his work at ASU combating academic cancel culture referring to the pervasive anti-Christian bias the professor has striven against as “free of speech,” and accusing him of “a very public campaign with Arizona legislators trying to get your colleagues fired.” He further alleged that Anderson, “constantly snitch-tag(s) politicians and media influencers on twitter, including actors like Charlie Kirk whose purpose is to intimidate and harass college professors.“

The pseudonymous “RD” concluded, “You suggested that ASU should discipline your colleague for a social media post that you claim mocks (your understanding of) Christianity, and you think politicians should concern themselves with the (non-required) recommended reading list of a program at your institution. In short, you have no respect either for free speech or for academic freedom, and so you shouldn’t be surprised when no one wants to talk to you. That’s all from me.”

In what appears to be the final exchange between the two, Dr. Anderson incisively cut to the core of the commenter’s argument and eviscerated it noting: “This post is a present. Thank you. You’ve admitted that academics don’t have to keep their own standards about sensitivity and not insulting other religions (in the name of free speech and academic freedom). I’m looking forward to seeing you apply this. No wonder you want to stay anonymous.”

“Dr. A,” to use his sobriquet from his Substack, concluded by highlighting the aforementioned exchange with a few key notes:

1. “RD didn’t respect my boundary. I said I won’t engage with anonymous trolls. RD didn’t dispute that title, but insisted I must listen to more insults. That is called stalking. It is a behavior ASU prohibits.

2. RD calls me a snitch. Is this the third grade playground? What RD doesn’t like is that I’m a whistleblower and that those he is defending are guilty of the very thing they preach against. They preach sensitivity but want to ban Christians and conservatives from campus. RD calls this freedom. He calls me defending the right for Christians and conservatives to speak on campus ‘snitching.’ The truth is I am a whistleblower and have protected rights under federal and state law as well as the ASU faculty manual. RD knows that coming at a whistleblower will result in trouble and so wants to be anonymous.

3. RD insults me for ‘snitching’ on a colleague who insulted Christians on social media. Imagine if this was any other group than Christians. RD would help fill out the disciplinary form and hand it in to ASU.

4. What hasn’t happened. I have had a handful of ASU professors come at me to insult me since I began speaking publicly about abusive behavior towards Christians. I haven’t heard them say, ‘we should examine our behavior.’ They very clearly teach that it is wrong to insult a person’s religion. However, they want to get away with doing so toward Christians. They want freedom of speech protected for their radical leftist beliefs, but they deny that same thing to conservatives.”

The professor signed off the post with a promise that he would continue to call out his critics on their hypocrisy adding, “If that means they call me names then I’m looking forward to it.” And left his readers with a quote from Socrates writing, “When one of his disciples asked Socrates, ‘aren’t you worried what people will think of you?’ he replied, ‘I only care what thoughtful people who take time to investigate the situation will think.’”

When reached for comment by AZ Free News, Dr. Anderson confirmed that the commenter “RD” has made no further effort to contact him, and they have not revealed their identity. You can subscribe to Dr. Anderson’s Substack here, to read about his ongoing work to expose academia’s hostility toward Christianity.

Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.

Attorney General Adds Five Progressive Democrats To ‘Politically Balanced’ Civil Rights Board

Attorney General Adds Five Progressive Democrats To ‘Politically Balanced’ Civil Rights Board

By Staff Reporter |

Attorney General Kris Mayes’ five new selections to the Arizona Civil Rights Advisory Board (ACRAB) are all progressive Democrats, challenging her characterization of the board as “politically balanced.” 

These latest ACRAB additions are Heather Ross, Enrique Davis-Mazlum, Justin Weinstein-Tull, Holli Ploog, and Lydia Peirce Linsmeier.

Ross and Weinstein-Tull are Arizona State University professors. Ross specializes in health equity and policy, while Weinstein-Tull specializes in constitutional law, state and local courts and governments, and election law. However, both were highly supportive of centralized COVID-19 government responses and oversight. 

As a special advisor to Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego from 2019 to 2022, Ross was principally behind the mask mandates and ordinances. Ross also advocated for an expansive COVID-19 contact tracing team to ensure quarantining. In a 2022 paper, Weinstein-Tull advocated for increasing the power of the federal government, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as justification. 

Ross is also, notably, an elected precinct committee person and state party delegate for the Arizona Democratic Party, and was a Democratic congressional candidate in 2018.

During her 2018 run, Ross advocated for progressive policies such as stricter gun control, expanding Medicare and Medicaid, and expanding clean energy. 

Ross also chairs both the Arizona Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Phoenix Women’s Commission. 

Weinstein-Tull signed onto a letter opposing now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the highest court, along with 13 other ASU professors.

Weinstein-Tull formerly served as a DOJ Civil Rights Division trial attorney and clerked with Ninth Circuit Justice Sidney Thomas.

Davis-Mazlum holds a doctorate in Gender Equality in Politics, noted for his defense of secularism while promoting gender equality and human rights. Davis-Mazlum has led several prominent progressive organizations: he was Arizona State Director for UnidosUS and UnidosUS Action Fund, campaign director for LUCHA Blue Campaign, and organizer for Voter Choice Arizona.

Through these groups, Davis-Mazlum has advanced progressive agendas, such as legalizing illegal immigration and abortion, and backed Democratic candidates for office: President Joe Biden, along with congressional candidates Ruben Gallego, Raquel Teran, and Kirsten Engel.

Holli Ploog is the vice mayor of Sedona, endorsed by pro-abortion Democratic organization Arizona List. Ploog is on the Democrats of the Red Rocks Board of Directors, and a supporter of progressive policies to address climate change. 

On her reelection website, Ploog is seen posing with Governor Katie Hobbs. Ploog also pledged her support for Senator Mark Kelly back in 2020 during his reelection bid.

Ploog was the sole dissenting vote on a council plan allowing the homeless with full-time jobs to sleep in their cars in a parking lot at Sedona Cultural Park. Ploog voted against the plan due to the uproar from constituents. 

Peirce Linsmeier works as an attorney specializing in fair housing, and serves as a board member for Disability Rights Arizona. Concerning disabilities, Peirce Linsmeier recently defended President Joe Biden’s reelection bid: she compared 32nd president Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s physical disability (paralyzation from polio necessitating a wheelchair) to Biden’s apparent mental disability (a cognitive impairment resembling dementia). 

“FDR used a wheelchair, and he did a pretty good job as president. Mobility aids have nothing to do with competence. #ableism,” wrote Peirce Linsmeier on LinkedIn.

In a press release, Mayes explained that these five additions provided much-needed expertise to ACRAB. 

“Their contributions will be invaluable as we work together to advance justice for all Arizonans,” said Mayes.

AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.

Democratic Congressional Candidate Claims President Trump’s ‘Bloodbath’ Metaphor A Call To Violence

Democratic Congressional Candidate Claims President Trump’s ‘Bloodbath’ Metaphor A Call To Violence

By Corinne Murdock |

Arizona Democratic congressional candidate Kirsten Engel implied that Trump’s recent use of the common “bloodbath” metaphor was a call to violence.

The congressional candidate didn’t come to the conclusion on her own. Engel played off viral claims made in the media by the Biden-Harris campaign and top Democrats. She used the media storm on the former president as an opportunity to condemn her opponent, incumbent Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ-06), for not rebuking Trump’s rhetoric. Ciscomani endorsed Trump earlier this month. 

“Just one week after my opponent endorsed him, President Trump warns of a ‘bloodbath’ if he’s not elected in Nov,” said Engel. “Predictably my opponent remains silent. Time and again he’s demonstrated an unwillingness to stand up to extremism. #AZ06 deserves better.”

Democrats and legacy media claimed that Trump mentioned a “bloodbath” in a political rally Saturday night as a promise of violence should he lose the election, many comparing the rhetoric to the 2021 Capitol breach. However, the former president was warning that his loss in the upcoming presidential race would result in a “bloodbath” for the country’s auto industry, as well as the entire economy.

“Those big monster car manufacturing plants that you’re building in Mexico right now, and you think you’re gonna get that, you’re gonna not hire Americans and you’re gonna sell the cars to us. No, we’re going to put a 100 percent tariff on every single car that comes across the line. And you’re not gonna be able to sell those cars; if I get elected. Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the whole – that’s gonna be the least of it, it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it. But they’re not going to sell those cars; they’re building massive factories.”

The “bloodbath” metaphor is a popular one employed often by politicians, and even the same outlets that have now criticized Trump for its usage. 

The Biden-Harris campaign also accused Trump of eliciting violence. James Singer, the campaign’s spokesman, passed on a statement to numerous outlets from a press release claiming that Trump was trying to start another January 6 incident.

“This is who Donald Trump is: a loser who gets beat by over 7 million votes and then instead of appealing to a wider mainstream audience doubles down on his threats of political violence,” said Singer. “He wants another January 6, but the American people are going to give him another electoral defeat this November because they continue to reject his extremism, his affection for violence, and his thirst for revenge.”

Biden’s team also issued a response directly from him with a similar accusation.

“It’s clear this guy wants another January 6,” stated Biden. 

The campaign’s communications director, Michael Tyler, also put out the accusation in an interview with former White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki.

Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.