by Staff Reporter | May 5, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the Republican Party of Arizona (AZ GOP) won’t be punished for challenging the 2020 election. The court vacated the attorney fees awards issued by the trial court and court of appeals, and vacated the court of appeals’ opinion.
“Petitioners’ claim was not groundless and arguably was made in good faith,” ruled the court. “‘Raising questions’ by petitioning our courts to clarify the meaning and application of our laws and noting the potential consequences of the failure to do so — particularly in the context of our elections — is never a threat to the rule of law, even if the claims are charitably characterized as ‘long shots.’”
In a press release, the AZ GOP said the ruling was a victory for election integrity. The case concerned the party’s lawsuit against Maricopa County election officials’ administration of the mandatory hand count of ballots following the 2020 general election.
“This ruling reaffirms the fundamental legal principles that raising questions about the interpretation and application of election laws is a legitimate use of the judicial system, not a groundless or bad faith action,” stated the party.
The AZ GOP’s lawsuit against the county sought declaration that the 2019 Election Procedures Manual (EPM), passed under then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, violated state law directing precincts to be the sampling source for the hand count, rather than voting centers.
The AZ GOP sued to prevent the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors from canvassing the votes before the late November deadline.
In the ruling, authored by Justice John Lopez, the court determined the AZ GOP hadn’t brought a groundless claim, and that therefore the trial court and court of appeals had erred in awarding attorney fees against the AZ GOP.
The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court was wrong to find the AZ GOP’s claim was groundless over several criteria: the party failing to name the secretary of state as a defendant, seeking mandamus relief unavailable as a matter of law, and improperly contesting a pre-election procedure.
“It is untenable to invoke an alleged procedural defect like the one in this case — readily remediable and, in fact, remedied one day after the complaint was filed — to irrevocably mar a complaint as groundless,” wrote Lopez. “Whatever the Secretary’s interest in Petitioners’ declaratory action, it was fairly debatable whether Petitioners’ naming of the County as a defendant in their complaint was adequate, and, regardless, the parties agreed to the Secretary’s intervention just one day after the complaint was filed.”
Lopez wrote that the requested mandamus relief was fairly debatable, not groundless.
“Thus, because the Maricopa County election officials enjoyed no discretion in the discharge of their hand-count duties — a prerequisite to mandamus relief rather than a legal disqualifier — the trial court erred,” wrote Lopez. “[W]e only hold that Petitioners’ requested mandamus relief was not groundless because it was at least fairly debatable, even if a ‘long shot,’ whether the County was obligated to conduct a hand count consistent with [the law] or an arguably conflicting EPM provision.”
Lopez further wrote that the trial court erroneously assumed that the challenged hand count constituted a pre-election procedure subject to the election-law time bar. The judge noted that the 2019 EPM also doesn’t include hand count among its pre-election procedures.
“[T]he hand-count protocol continues past the election’s conclusion. In fact, although the statute directs the sampling from precincts, the actual selection of polling places does not commence until after the election,” wrote Lopez. “The merits of Petitioners’ claim are not before us; therefore, we need not determine whether, or to what extent, the election-law time bar applies to a procedure, like the hand count, that straddles the election. We merely conclude that Petitioners’ post-election claim was not groundless because whether their claim was time-barred by our jurisprudential election-law procedural rule is at least ‘fairly debatable.’”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Mar 1, 2024 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
Legislative Republicans in Arizona are advancing a bill to terminate your right to vote…well at least from the “comfort of your kitchen table,” according to Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts. Arizona’s beleaguered voters would instead have to “schlep down” to actual polling places.
But wait – it gets worse! The bill also eliminates the ability to cast your vote anywhere you choose, or it won’t count. Of course, in the real world you would’ve been repeatedly notified of your polling station, and if you went to the wrong one anyway, poll workers would helpfully direct you to the correct one.
Why are Democrats motivated to concoct these exaggerated arguments against in-person voting, which has always worked just fine for Americans? It began in the age of COVID when, to prevent unnecessary mingling, voting in-person was discouraged. Voters instead were sent a ballot which they could return at their leisure
Then, magic happened. Suddenly, Democrats became more likely to win. Close elections turned blue at the last minute, sometimes even after the official account was completed. Underdog candidates, almost always Democrats, begin to eke out victories.
In-person voting came to be depicted as an onerous infringement on our fictitious right to convenience, much more difficult than a trip to the grocery store or a doctor’s office. Exceptions were readily granted for the elderly, infirm, or geographically unavailable. Still, requiring the able-bodied to vote in-person was nothing more than voter suppression, barely more tolerable than Jim Crow.
What difference does it make where you vote? Most Americans don’t realize elections must be rigorously protected from fraud. The election process to a political grifter is like a bank to a thief. Within lies wealth and influence if you can crack it. Every election produces mountains of anecdotal evidence of widespread fraud, although unfortunately no official statistics are kept.
Moreover, all this activity occurs in a system with no systematic method for detecting fraud. When it is sought, the results can be shocking. The multiple irregularities found too late in the 2005 Rossi/Gregoire gubernatorial election in Washington and the ineligible votes cast in Al Franken’s 2010 senatorial election in both cases would have been more than enough to change the outcome.
American elections in the last century have been designed to ensure security of the ballot. On election day, registered voters not claiming a hardship exemption present themselves to a local polling place with a signed photo ID. They are physically protected from inappropriate influence both inside and outside the polling booth. They would drop their completed ballot into a secured receptacle, the contents of which would be delivered to local election officers under strict chain-of-evidence protocols.
With bulk-mail voting, all the precautions vanish. Millions of unsolicited ballots are mailed to poorly maintained lists of voters, many of whom have moved or don’t exist. Nobody knows or can know what happens to the ballots until they are returned by mail. The notably unreliable signature verification process is the lone fraud protection.
Whether the ballot actually reached the intended recipient, who actually filled out the ballot, and whether any illegal aid was supplied to the voter are all categorical unknowns.
Still think bulk-mail voting is basically reliable? Read on.
A Rasmussen poll of 1,085 voters after the 2020 election revealed that fully 21% admitted to filling out a ballot on behalf of another voter. Also,17% said they voted in a state where they were not a permanent resident, and another 17% said they signed a ballot for someone else. Remember, too, the 2020 election was touted as our “most secure of all time,” and these survey numbers were obtained directly from voters who were unlikely to over-report themselves.
Up to 80% of Americans doubt our elections are secure. Some are conspiracy kooks fighting the wrong battle at the wrong time. But many others have justifiable concerns about a system increasingly dependent on bulk-mail voting.
Deep doubts about election validity are not healthy in a democracy. Although bulk-mail voting is popular, convenience-loving Americans should rethink their choice. Casting your ballot in person is a small price to pay for ensuring our republic.
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 Elizabeth Troutman | Jan 23, 2024 | News
By Elizabeth Troutman |
Arizona State University’s McCain Institute hosted a discussion on the 2020 election on Jan. 6, 2023.
The organization, which claims to be nonpartisan, invited CBS News Chief Washington Correspondent Major Garrett and left-leaning election law advocate David Becker to discuss their 2022 book, “The Big Truth: Upholding Democracy in the Age of ‘The Big Lie,’” with Executive Director of the McCain Institute Evelyn Farkas.
“This book, although it was written in 2022, is incredibly timely… because right now… we have the former president of the United States in D.C.’s court of appeals sitting there listening to an argument about whether he should have immunity for actions that he took, things that he said in the 2020 election,” Farkas said.
In 2020, the election process was “placed under more pressure than ever since the Civil War” and “was carried out with the highest turnout ever, the most diverse populace ever to participate in a presidential election in our history,” according to Garrett.
“Those things are signs of success, not failure,” Garrett continued.
The discussion fell on the third anniversary of the Jan. 6, 2021, breach at the U.S. Capitol and focused on “what actually happened in the 2020 election.” The speakers discussed the “misinformation” designed to “con and beguile Americans into chasing phantom allegations of election crimes.”
“People who spread disinformation don’t necessarily have to convince you of the lie, they just have to convince you that nothing is true,” Becker said at the event.
The election “was an impressive example of democracy at work, despite attempts to overshadow its success,” according to the McCain Institute.
The McCain Institute has a history of dwelling on the 2020 election years after the fact. The ASU center hosted a panel discussing “election denialism” and former President Donald Trump’s “Big Lie” about the 2020 election in February.
Inspired by Senator John McCain and his family, the McCain Institute is part of Arizona State University and based in Washington, D.C. The book discussion was part of the institute’s Authors and Insights book talk series, which started in 2020.
Elizabeth Troutman is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send her news tips using this link.
by Corinne Murdock | Oct 11, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
In a since-deleted article, “Three Women-Led Organizations That Helped Flip Arizona Blue,” principal actors behind several of the most powerful leftist dark money organizations in the state bragged about engineering Democratic voter turnout in the 2020 election.
Vianey Olivarria, then-communications director and current executive director for Chispa AZ, credited work done by her organization and others to turn out Democratic voters. Olivarria also served as a director of Activate 48, a coalition of Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) organizations.
“Arizona turning blue is a victory a decade in the making and owed to the tireless work and dedication of Black, Brown, and Indigenous people who organize for justice and liberation,” stated Olivarria.
(Original article linked here; archived article linked here).
Chispa AZ is a 501(c)(4) project of the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), another 501(c)(4), and sponsored by Way to Win, a national donor network aimed at defeating Republican candidates. Way to Win served as the sponsor to Progress Arizona, formerly and once again led by Gov. Katie Hobbs’ ousted spokeswoman Josselyn Berry.
Per the IRS, a 501(c)(4) organization may engage in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to candidates so long as those activities aren’t the organization’s primary activity.
Discrepancies exist in various organizations’ tax returns disclosing contributions to Chispa AZ’s political arm, Chispa AZ PAC. Neither “Chispa AZ” or “Chispa AZ PAC” exist within the IRS database. Also, Chispa AZ has claimed the same EIN as LCV publicly; however, different organizations’ tax returns have cited multiple, nonexistent EINs for Chispa AZ.
In their 2018, 2019, and 2020 tax returns, LCV listed an EIN number for Chispa AZ PAC that yielded no results in the IRS Tax Exempt Organization database. In their 2019 tax return, LCV listed an organization called Fuerte Arts Movement for the Chispa AZ PAC’s address, and listed the same EIN number from 2018. They used the EIN again in their tax return.
In the 2019, 2020, and 2021 tax returns from the California-based Grove Action Fund, a different address and EIN number from that used by LCV were listed for Chispa AZ PAC. The listed address was the correct address for Chispa AZ; however, the EIN listed also doesn’t exist in the IRS database.
Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona’s 2020 tax return listed that same nonexistent EIN number as well, and offered the Fuerte Arts Movement address.
Tax returns from the Green Advocacy Project (2020) and the Wilderness Society Action Fund (2019) also listed the nonexistent EIN given by LCV, but listed the correct address.
Publicly collected data reflects that Chispa AZ PAC has managed at least around $8.5 million in contributions since 2017. Yet, Chispa AZ has claimed to have total revenues of nearly $26.9 million, net assets of over $18.4 million, and expenses of over $18.9 million.
Chispa AZ is also part of MiAZ, a coalition of nonprofits focused on turning out minority voters.
Other Chispa organizations exist in Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Nevada, and Texas.
Chispa AZ isn’t the only dark money entity lacking a clear IRS status to have an outsized impact for Democrats in recent elections. There’s also the two Arizona Asian American Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (AZ AANHPI) related organizations: AZ AANHPI for Equity and AZ AANHPI Advocates. Although AZ AANHPI wasn’t featured in the deleted 2020 article, their communications director was: Alexa Rio-Osaki. She spoke on behalf of a different dark money nonprofit also part of MiAZ: Our Voice, Our Vote.
“We’re doing what we can to ensure everyone’s represented,” said Rio-Osaki.
Rio-Osaki has her hands in multiple leftist dark money organizations: in addition to AZ AANHPI and Our Voice, Our Vote, Rio-Osaki served as the director of Progress Arizona.
Recently, AZ AANHPI for Equity has engaged in lawfare against non-party conservative organizations, demanding transparency of private documents while operating in the dark 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.
Like Chispa AZ, AZ AANHPI has used EIN numbers of another organization in receipt of funds. In 2021, AZ AANHPI for Equity received $25,000 from Solidago Foundation and gave the EIN belonging to One Arizona, the 30-nonprofit coalition to which all five Arabella Advisors nonprofit arms issued funds. Also that year, AZ AANHPI made its name synonymous with “One Arizona” and used its EIN in its receipt of $35,000 in funding from Asian Americans Advancing Justice.
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.
The deleted article was published by Supermajority News: a project of Supermajority and the Supermajority Education Fund, the latter a project of the Arabella Advisors’ New Venture Fund. Arabella Advisors is behind one of the biggest dark money funding networks in the nation; their shadowy dealings prompted the District of Columbia attorney general to issue subpoenas to the organization last month.
Along with their Arizona-based compatriots, Supermajority will also be working to turn out more Democratic voters in the upcoming 2024 election.
Last year, Supermajority reported turning out over 959,000 voters: nearly 116,200 in Arizona. The organization had over 8,000 active members in Arizona. Supermajority reported that they ensured the turnout of 30 percent of women ages 18 to 35 years old, specifically to ensure the re-election of Sen. Mark Kelly and election of Gov. Katie Hobbs. The organization disclosed that their approach consisted of contacting female Democrat voters that sporadically voted in presidential elections but hadn’t voted in midterm elections.
“At the state level, we were able to help elect and support progressive governors who would protect and expand women’s freedoms in their states,” stated Supermajority.
Supermajority took credit for Kelly’s re-election and Hobbs’ election, declaring that 92 percent of Kelly’s margin of victory was made up of their voters and that their 116,200-voter turnout far surpassed Hobbs’ 17,100-vote margin.
The organization also noted its plans for the upcoming 2024 election: contacting 432,300 female Arizona voters who didn’t vote last year, overcoming the projected 10,500-vote victory margin, and electing a Democratic senator to take independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s seat. The organization also plans to target Georgia and North Carolina.
“We need a Democratic senator in AZ who will work alongside Sen. Mark Kelley [sic],” stated Supermajority.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Dec 20, 2021 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Recent IRS filings revealed that Arizona received nearly $5.17 million during the 2020 election from the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), pumped with over $350 million from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to funnel into election offices nationwide. The Zuckerberg funds were intended to provide COVID-19 relief; in large part, they funded controversial election methods like ballot drop-boxes. The Capital Research Center (CRC) first announced the CTCL IRS filings.
The CTCL numbers concurred with AZ Free News reporting earlier this year on CRC data, which reported that CTCL spent just over $5 million in Arizona. In fact, the CRC estimate turned out to be slightly lower.
According to the IRS filings, CTCL’s biggest grant was Maricopa County at over $1.84 million. The runner-up grant amounted to over $950,400 awarded to Pima County. Several counties received slightly under or over half a million each: Navajo County received over $593,700, Apache County received nearly $589,700, Coconino County received over $524,500, and Pinal County received over $472,500.
Yuma County still received a six-figure grant: over $180,700. La Paz County was the odd man out with a $17,500 grant.
President Joe Biden won the following counties funded by CTCL grants: Maricopa (50.3 percent), Apache (66.2 percent), Coconino (60.9 percent), Pima (58.6 percent). Biden also won Santa Cruz (67.2 percent), which had no CTCL grants.
Pima County Supervisors Ally Miller and Steve Christy voted against certifying the 2020 election over the Zuckerberg grants, as Miller explained in an opinion piece published in the Arizona Daily Independent last month. The supervisors didn’t believe the grant money was helping to secure the election.
Of those counties he won, Biden flipped Maricopa from the 2016 election — which Hillary Clinton lost by over four points. He also earned about four percent more of the votes than Clinton in the counties they both won.
Biden lost the following counties funded by CTCL grants: Navajo (45.2 percent), Pinal (40.6 percent), and La Paz (30 percent). However, he lost by a smaller margin than Clinton did, gaining an average of two more points in both counties.
CRC’s reported grants varied slightly from those given in the filings: they reported learning of nearly $3 million to Maricopa County, over $806,000 to Pinal County, nearly $614,700 to Coconino County, and over $593,200 to Apache County. Their estimate of La Paz County’s grant was accurate. CRC didn’t have data on the grants awarded to Navajo, Yuma, or Pima counties.
AZ Free News reached out to Maricopa County about the grant total discrepancy. They didn’t respond by press time.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
