Arizona’s Senate President is working to defend state laws and to elect President Donald J. Trump to the White House.
Last week, Senator Warren Petersen, the leader of his chamber, issued a statement after sitting in depositions for legal cases that he is a part of, involving two laws passed by the Arizona Legislature – a citizens-only voting law and the Save Women’s Sports Act.
In his statement, Petersen asserted that he intervened in the defense of both these laws because of the refusal of Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes to do so. He also said, “You might ask why I have to sit through a grueling deposition when I have legislative immunity. The answer is that the liberal 9th Circuit Court does not believe I enjoy that constitutional right. It is hard to believe they could get something so simple wrong but this is a perfect example of why they are the most overturned circuit in the nation.”
Petersen promised to appeal both of the cases to the Supreme Court of the United States, adding, “I am confident we will prevail. The 9th Circuit may not know what a woman is but most of the Supreme Court still does. The 9th Circuit may no longer believe that only citizens should vote but the majority of the Supreme court does. I am also confident the Supreme Court will rule that elected officials are not subject to such depositions.”
He finished by highlighting the necessity of electing former President Donald J. Trump to the White House, writing, “Just another reminder to me of why we need President Trump. He will appoint more judges that believe in the original intent of the Constitution.”
Petersen’s statement was greeted by praise for his efforts from many of his followers. State Senator Sylvia Allen said, “Thanks Senator for standing strong on behalf of the citizens of Arizona.” Another grassroots activist replied, “Warren Petersen for Attorney General 2026!!”
The Senate President’s prolific defense of state and federal laws over the past two years in the Arizona Legislature has launched him into a conversation for state Attorney General as politicos start to look at the fast-approaching 2026 cycle. Petersen has joined several briefs and lawsuits from Republican attorneys general around the country in lieu of Mayes’ involvement, giving him first-hand experience in the world of a state’s top prosecutor for select issues. If he would run for the post, it is unknown who – if anyone – might contend with him for the primary election nomination.
Mayes is expected to run for re-election as Attorney General, yet her public and private disagreements with Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs have led some to wonder if there could be a significant Democrat primary election brewing for the office of the state’s chief executive.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
On Wednesday, U.S. Senators Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema heaped praise on the Biden-Harris Administration for the nomination of Sharad Desai as a U.S. District Court judge.
Sharad is the brother of a sitting 9th Circuit Court Judge, Roopali Desai.
Sharad, Vice President and General Counsel for defense contractor Honeywell, worked as a civil litigator for Arizona law firm Osborn Maledon. At Honeywell, he focused on IT, Digital, and Strategic matters as well as Supply Chain and Electronic Solutions, according to his LinkedIn profile. Prior to his civil practice he worked as a law clerk for now-retired Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch during her 13-year tenure as Vice Chief Justice.
In a joint press release, Sinema said, “Sharad Desai possesses the experience, integrity, and intellect to serve as a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. I’m proud to have recommended his nomination to the White House and I look forward to securing his bipartisan confirmation by the United States Senate.”
Kelly added, “The President has nominated Mr. Desai, who is experienced and well-regarded by Arizona’s legal community, to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.” He added, “I congratulate him on this important nomination and look forward to working towards his confirmation in the United States Senate.”
As reported by Reuters, Sharad was in attendance at his sister’s confirmation hearing where she told the Senate Judiciary Committee that her brother and sister, who is an Arizona law professor, are her “biggest cheerleaders.” The outlet also noted that Roopali Desai was an election lawyer prior to her appointment and has worked for Sen. Sinema’s political campaigns.
While both Desais are highly experienced attorneys with impressive qualifications, the political significance of Roopali Desai’s work in recent years cannot be overstated, or overlooked. And whether the political efforts of then-counselor Desai influenced the nomination of one or both of them will very likely play into Sharad Desai’s confirmation hearing, along with any potential nominations that University of Arizona Law Professor Shefali Milczarek-Desai might see in the future.
Obviously, it’s illegal for non-citizens to vote. The real question is whether voters must prove their citizenship prior to voting. This discussion has culminated in the U.S. House passing the SAVE Act earlier this month. But with near unanimous Democrat opposition, a federal proof of citizenship requirement has stalled in Congress.
As both a border and swing state, Arizona is center stage in this national discussion. Even Elon Musk chimed in by sharing an image of our voter registration form that clearly states “proof of citizenship” is not required to vote.
However, Arizona has done far more than any other state to tackle the issue of illegals voting.
In Arizona, if someone registers without proof of citizenship, they are registered as a “Federal Only Voter” and they receive a different ballot with only federal races. This means that: 1) we know exactly who and how many have registered without proof; and 2) they don’t get to influence any of our state or local elections.
In all 49 other states, proof of citizenship is not only not required, but they are all blended onto one list, and they get to vote in every election. So those states have no idea who or how many there even are! Their problem could be far bigger, and they would never know it.
Arizona’s Republican legislative leaders scored a significant legal victory as the clock runs out on 2023.
On Thursday, a panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order against the Biden Administration’s Contractor Vaccine Mandate in Mayes v. Biden, vacating its earlier opinion for mootness. According to the Ninth Circuit, the president rescinded his Executive Order in May, following the Ninth Circuit’s decision to reverse and vacate the district court’s grant of a permanent injunction; and earlier this month, the nation’s high court “vacated as moot the judgment in three cases concerning vaccine mandates.” The U.S. Supreme Court’s action was the final straw for the federal contractor vaccine mandate at stake in the Arizona case.
The news came months after the 56th Arizona Legislature had filed an Emergency Application to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case, arguing that “the Ninth Circuit overreached when it disturbed the status quo and stayed the district court’s injunction sua sponte.” After filing the application, Petersen said, “The Legislature’s intervention in this lawsuit against President Biden is critical in protecting the sovereignty of our state and the rights of all Arizonans.”
Both the Arizona Senate and House Republican Caucuses championed the December order from the federal appeals court. The Arizona Senate Republicans “X” account posted, “MAJOR win this week for Arizona Legislative Republicans in protecting you against a FORCED COVID-19 VACCINE!!… President [Warren Petersen] immediately fought back at this unconstitutional overreach and didn’t stop even after Biden revoked his emergency order at the end of the pandemic.”
MAJOR win this week for Arizona Legislative Republicans in protecting you against a FORCED COVID-19 VACCINE!!⁰⁰Earlier this year, Biden issued a mandate that anyone who is employed by a federal contractor (which includes state government workers) is required to get the… pic.twitter.com/3Raect5TjE
The Arizona House Republicans wrote, “BIG WIN! The 9th Circuit today vacated its opinion that upheld Biden’s unconstitutional vaccine mandate for federal contractors. Thanks to [Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma] for intervening to protect Arizonans’ medical freedoms!”
🚨BIG WIN!🚨 The 9th Circuit today vacated its opinion that upheld Biden’s unconstitutional vaccine mandate for federal contractors. Thanks to @AZHouseGOP Speaker @RepBenToma for intervening to protect Arizonans’ medical freedoms!
The case began as Brnovich v. Biden in 2021, when former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed the first lawsuit in the nation against the president’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates. At the time, Brnovich said that “the federal government cannot force people to get the COVID-19 vaccine,” and that “the Biden Administration is once again flouting our laws and precedents to push their radical agenda.” Brnovich’s suit was heard before U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi, who later, in February 2022, issued a permanent injunction against the president’s mandate for federal contractors.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
On Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a lawsuit arguing against the state’s ban on abortions solely for genetic defects.
In the case, Isaacson v. Mayes, pro-abortion doctors and groups appealed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against Arizona’s ban on abortions based on genetic defects.
The legislature passed the ban, SB 1457, back in 2021.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the ban are abortionists Paul Isaacson and Eric Reuss, along with the National Council of Jewish Women, Arizona National Organization For Women, and Arizona Medical Association.
Isaacson was a Phoenix-based abortionist with Family Planning Associates. Reuss was a Scottsdale-based OBGYN and former board member for Planned Parenthood of Arizona.
Judges Roopali Desai, Ronald Gould, and Andrew Hurwitz heard the oral arguments. While Desai and Hurwitz were engaged in the arguments with their questions, Gould hardly spoke except to request an adjustment of the livestream audio.
In March, House Speaker Ben Toma (R-LD27) and Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) stepped up to defend the ban after Attorney General Kris Mayes said she would refuse to enforce the law. Mayes is acting as the defense in the lawsuit currently.
During Monday’s oral arguments, the main question at hand was whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing. Article III of the Constitution, as held by the Supreme Court, requires plaintiffs to prove an actual or imminent alleged injury that is concrete and particularized.
Jessica Sklarsky with the Center for Reproductive Rights argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that they suffer undisputed economic harms and threat of prosecution due to the abortion ban. The district court determined that the plaintiffs failed to meet the standard set by the 2014 Supreme Court case Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, which determined that pre-enforcement challenges satisfy the Article III standard and are justiciable when a statute’s enforcement is sufficiently imminent.
Sklarksy also argued that the abortion ban qualified as a vague law, and therefore violated due process rights.
“Vague laws force those they govern to either avoid doing anything that is arguably covered by the law, or to engage in that conduct with the constant threat of arbitrary enforcement,” said Sklarsky.
Denise Harle with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), counsel on behalf of Toma and Petersen, countered that no Article III injury exists due to the lack of a credible threat of enforcement.
Harle pointed out that all 15 county attorneys have acceded their authority to Mayes, and that Mayes has disavowed enforcement of abortion law. Harle also pointed out Gov. Katie Hobbs’ executive order in June usurping all county attorneys’ authority on abortion law and conferring it to Mayes.
Hurwitz and Desai pushed back against Harle’s reference to Mayes and Hobbs’ conduct, arguing that Mayes didn’t issue a disclaimer in this case specifically detailing her intent to not enforce the law.
Hurwitz indicated that Toma and Petersen’s support of the law, as well as the private enforcement aspect of the law, indicated a credible threat of enforcement.
“Does the law really require that a credible threat be communicated? If the state of Arizona passes a statute and the two leaders of the legislature are here defending its constitutionality, isn’t that enough to show there is a credible not a certain but a credible threat of enforcement?” asked Hurwitz.
Harle disagreed, saying the potential for private enforcement constituted a hypothetical. She alluded to the arrangement by Hobbs and Mayes to not enforce abortion law.
“[T]he theoretical possibility of an injury sometime in the future is too conjectural when it’s not imminent,” said Harle.
Desai followed up by stating that the court’s decision in Tingley v. Fergusoncould apply to this case. In that case, a family counselor challenged the state of Washington’s ban on conversion therapy as a violation of free speech and religious practice. Harle responded that the existence of a law alone wasn’t sufficient for direct injury.
“Virtually anyone could look at a law, say ‘I’m not sure what that means, I’m going to do something or not do something’ [and] that would be enough for a federal court to weigh in and adjudicate the merits of that claim on a facial challenge,” said Harle.
Watch the full hearing here:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
