Maricopa County Transportation Tax Passes Arizona Legislature

Maricopa County Transportation Tax Passes Arizona Legislature

By Corinne Murdock |

The Arizona legislature approved the Maricopa County transportation tax on Monday along bipartisan lines, 43-14 in the House and 19-7 in the Senate.

The bill, SB1102, would allow voters to decide whether to maintain the current transportation excise tax: Proposition 400, set to expire at the end of 2025. It doesn’t maintain the original reformation desired by Republican lawmakers: a choice to separate roads and commuter rail when it comes to funding. Prop 400 binds the two together as a package deal.

The legislature convened to consider SB1102 after Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed the version of the bill splitting the Prop 400 question (SB1246) last month.

The 14 House legislators who opposed the bill were State Reps. Neal Carter (R-LD15), Joseph Chaplik (R-LD03), Justin Heap (R-LD10), Laurin Hendrix (R-LD14), Rachel Jones (R-LD17), Alexander Kolodin (R-LD03), David Marshall (R-LD07), Cory McGarr (R-LD17), Steve Montenegro (R-LD29), Barbara Parker (R-LD10), Jacqueline Parker (R-LD15), Michael Peña (R-LD23), Beverly Pingerelli (R-LD28), and Austin Smith (R-LD29). The seven Senate legislators who opposed the bill were State Sens. Shawnna Bolick (R-LD02), Sally Ann Gonzales (D-LD20), Jake Hoffman (R-LD15), Anthony Kern (R-LD27), J.D. Mesnard (R-LD13), Wendy Rogers (R-LD07), and Justine Wadsack (R-LD17).

The bill’s passage marked a divide among Republican lawmakers as leadership declared it a win. Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD12) said in a press release that the bill would ensure infrastructure development to counter the rising rates of vehicle congestion and travel times on the road while preventing ineffective environmentalist policies.

Sen. Frank Carroll (R-LD28) noted that the bill restricted any level of Arizonan government from restricting the use or sale of a vehicle based on its energy source, and required mass transit to recoup at least 10 percent of costs from farebox revenues beginning in 2027, and then 20 percent by 2031.

Opponents disagreed that the bill constituted a win. Kolodin argued during the floor vote that the bill denied voters true choice. Kolodin estimated that Prop 400’s continuation would halve road funding in order to pay for other commuter projects used by one percent of the population. He noted that SB1102 further bled roads funding by allowing those funds to be used for other projects, like bicyclist paths and sidewalks.

“This bill denies voters of Maricopa County a real choice. It holds road funding hostage in order that the voters, who would otherwise not vote in favor of spending 40 percent of the money of this new tax on transit projects that less than one percent of them use, that they choose to vote for them anyway to get the roads,” said Kolodin. “A tax extension is a tax increase.”

Rogers said the bill constituted a tax far too expensive and weak for her taste.

Democrats championed the bill as a necessity for achieving equity.

State Rep. Marcelino Quiñonez (D-LD11) said that Prop 400 was the “responsibility” of the legislature to pass.

Heap called the bill “disappointing.”

Heap and Jones predicted that the bill’s passage marked a major win for the Democratic Party and the Hobbs administration, one that would carry into the 2024 election.

State Rep. Matthew Gress (R-LD04), who voted in favor of the bill, said it would ensure the restoration of State Route 51 and other critical pavement rehabilitation. Gress said that the 3.5 percent cap on the existing light rail system, a contingency for Hobbs’ approval, constituted a win since it was far less than other proposed rates.

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) voiced opposition to the plan on Sunday, warning that the bill wouldn’t prevent road diets, Vision Zero projects, and progressive air quality control measures. AFEC offered a side-by-side comparison of SB1102 and the predecessor vetoed by Hobbs last month, SB1246.

AFEC further assessed that SB1102 would enable the Maricopa Association of Governments to enact its 2050 Momentum Plan.

Prop 400 will appear on the November 2024 ballot for final voter approval. The tax was set to expire at the end of 2025.

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

Maricopa County Board Of Supervisors Pick Bolick To Replace Kaiser

Maricopa County Board Of Supervisors Pick Bolick To Replace Kaiser

By Daniel Stefanski |

The Arizona Legislature has a new member.

On Wednesday, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors selected Shawnna Bolick to fill the vacancy in the state legislature, which was left by former Senator Steve Kaiser.

Bolick quickly responded to the news, tweeting, “Thank you to the elected precinct committeemen of Legislative District 2 for placing me on a list of three names sent to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors last month to fill Senator Steve Kaiser’s vacancy. This morning, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors selected me to fill the remainder of Senator Kaiser’s term, and I will do so honorably. Thank you to everyone who contacted the precinct committeemen and the Board of Supervisors on my behalf. I very much look forward to getting to work for the people in Arizona as I demonstrated in my previous tenure in the House. I will always be one of the strongest advocates for freedom and liberty.”

The selection of Bolick brings the Phoenix lawmaker back to the Legislature, where she served for two terms in the state house (2019-2023). She did not run for re-election during the 2022 cycle, opting instead to campaign in the Republican primary for Secretary of State.

Senate President Warren Petersen welcomed the newest member of his majority caucus, saying, “We believe Ms. Bolick will be an incredible asset to her constituents, Maricopa County, and the state as a whole. Her experience in working with lawmakers of all backgrounds for the common good of our citizens will be a valuable resource to our Caucus as we continue our mission to keep Arizona a free state from the heavy hand of excessive government control. We thank Senator Kaiser for his passion and efforts in tackling some of the toughest issues our state is facing, and we are certain Ms. Bolick will be able to pick up right where he left off.”

Legislative District 2 is expected to be very competitive in November 2024, and at least one Democrat is already eyeing the Senate seat in the next General Election. Representative Judy Schwiebert wasted little time in staking a claim to a run for the Arizona Senate, tweeting on June 16 that she would be throwing her name into the Democrat primary for this district.

The Senate Republican Caucus noted that Bolick would likely be sworn into office on Friday at 2:30pm. Bolick will be joining a Legislature in the middle of summer and still in session with outstanding items to resolve, including agency nominations and a Prop 400 deal with the Governor’s Office.

Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.

Lawmakers Launch Investigation Into Alleged Censorship At ASU

Lawmakers Launch Investigation Into Alleged Censorship At ASU

By Corinne Murdock |

On Tuesday, a joint committee of the Arizona legislature launched an investigation into allegations of censorship at Arizona State University (ASU). Lawmakers issued a 60-day deadline to conduct the investigation.

The directive arose from the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Freedom of Expression at Arizona’s Public Universities hearing concerning the T.W. Lewis Center, shuttered this year after the revocation of $400,000 in annual funding from its namesake, Tom Lewis, who cited “left-wing hostility and activism” as his reason for defunding the program.

Lewis’ contention arose from the efforts of 37 Barrett Honors College faculty members, who launched a coordinated campaign to prevent an event featuring prominent conservative speakers Dennis Prager and Charlie Kirk. Prager testified at Tuesday’s hearing; he also published an opinion piece on the event ahead of the hearing.

State Sens. Anthony Kern, co-chair (R-LD27), Frank Carroll (R-LD28), Sally Ann Gonzales (D-LD20), Christine Marsh (D-LD04), and J.D. Mesnard (R-LD13) served on the committee, as did State Reps. Quang Nguyen (R-LD01), Lorena Austin (D-LD09), Analise Ortiz (D-LD24), Beverly Pingerelli (R-LD28), and Austin Smith (R-LD29). Kern and Nguyen served as co-chairs.

“This is to get to the bottom of a state-funded university that is not meeting its obligation to freedom of expression and freedom of speech,” said Kern.

The center relied on an annual budget of around $1 million; ASU representatives explained that the center would live on through the classes taught, though the actual center itself and the executive director at its helm, Ann Atkinson, would be gone. 

ASU Vice President of Legal Affairs Kim Demarchi explained that Lewis’ funding provided for career development and education. Demarchi testified that ASU considered what programs it could continue without Lewis’ funding, and declared that they could only sustain the faculty without Lewis’ funding. Demarchi also shared that the Barrett Honors faculty weren’t punished in any way for the letter or allegations of intimidation.

“It is possible it [their letter] has a chilling effect,” said Demarchi.

However, Demarchi clarified that a professor would have to explicitly threaten a student’s grade in order to be in violation of university policy.

Atkinson went public with the closure of the Lewis Center last month. (See the response from ASU). She told AZ Free News that the university turned down alternative funding sources that would make up for the loss of Lewis’ funding necessary to keep the Lewis Center running.

Nguyen opened up the hearing by recounting his survival of Vietnam’s communist regime as a child, and comparing that regime’s hostility to free speech to the actions of Barrett Honors College faculty. 

“My understanding is that there is an effort to prevent conservative voices from being heard,” said Nguyen. “I crossed 12,000 miles to look for freedom, to seek freedom.”

Nguyen expressed disappointment that none of the 37 faculty members that signed onto the letter showed up to testify in the hearing. He said if he accused someone, he would show up to testify.

Democratic members of the committee contended that the event occurred and therefore censorship hadn’t taken place. Kern said the occurrence of the event doesn’t resolve whether freedom of speech was truly permitted, citing the closure of the Lewis Center.

ASU Executive Vice Provost Pat Kenney emphasized the importance of freedom of expression as critical to a free nation. Nguyen asked whether Kenney read the Barrett letter, and agreed to it. Kenney said the letter was freedom of expression. He claimed the letter didn’t seek cancellation of the event. 

“When faculty speak out on their own like that, they’re covered on the same topic we’re here about, which is free speech,” said Kenney.

ASU representatives claimed near the beginning of the hearing that Lewis and ASU President Michael Crow had discussed the withdrawal of funding. However, toward the end of the hearing Kern announced that he’d received information from a Lewis representative that the pair hadn’t discussed the funding, and accused ASU representatives of lying.

Ortiz called the anonymous complaints from students hypotheticals because no formal complaints were lodged. She also claimed that the hearing was merely an attempt to delegitimize public and higher education. Marsh claimed that lawmakers shouldn’t consider the claims of student fears of retaliation because the students should’ve gone to ASU directly.

Nguyen asked whether ASU would defend guest speakers, such as himself, if ASU faculty were to lodge claims of white nationalism. Kenney said that, in a personal capacity, ASU faculty were free to make their claims, but not if they spoke out on ASU’s behalf.

Atkinson contested with the characterization that the Barrett faculty spoke out in their personal capacity. She pointed out that Barrett faculty signed the letter in their capacity as ASU faculty, emailed her using their ASU emails, and sent communications to students about opposing the event using ASU technology.

Ortiz announced receipt of a letter from the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) on the outcome of the requested investigation into the incident, the results of which Kern and the rest of the committee appeared to not have been made aware, determining that no free speech violations took place at ASU.

Marsh speculated that the professors didn’t show up because they faced death threats, citing media attention and conservative speaker Charlie Kirk’s Professor Watchlist. Kern said that would be a “lame excuse.” He also pointed out that the professors launched a national campaign and initialized bringing themselves into a bigger spotlight.

“You’re making excuses where we don’t know that’s the case,” said Kern. 

Atkinson said that she could provide “dozens, if not hundreds” of students that could testify to experiencing faculty intimidation. She also claimed that Williams told her to avoid booking speakers that were political. 

“We allow the speaker but you have to take the consequences,” said Atkinson, reportedly quoting Williams. 

Atkinson testified that TV screen ads were removed and flyers were torn down following the Barrett Honors faculty letter. She also said she shared the information for the person responsible on June 13, yet it appears ASU took no action. ASU said they weren’t aware of any advertising for the event pulled. 

Additionally, Atkinson testified that Williams pressured her to postpone the event “indefinitely.” She noted that Williams interpreted ASU’s policy of not promoting political campaigns as not allowing political speech at all.

“We were in an environment telling us that this was ‘hate speech,’” said Atkinson.

Atkinson said she was directed by leadership ahead of the event to issue a preliminary warning that the event contained potentially dangerous speech. 

Gonzales told Atkinson that hate speech doesn’t qualify as constitutionally protected speech. However, the rules attorney corrected her that the Supreme Court ruled hate speech as protected.

ASU professor Owen Anderson also testified. He said that he’s previously had to get the free speech rights organization Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIR) involved twice due to faculty attempts to suppress free speech. Anderson also said that faculty have attempted to restrict speech by adding anti-racism and DEI to policy on class content and annual reviews of professors. 

“Insults abound, but rational dialogue is rare. What we need are administrators that call these faculty to higher conduct,” said Anderson.

In closing, Kern said he doesn’t trust ASU, the University of Arizona, or ABOR. He argued that ABOR hadn’t issued a real investigation and called their report “typical government fluff [and] garbage.” Kern also called for the firing of Barrett Honors College Dean Tara Williams.

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

LD2 Precinct Committeemen Choose 3 Nominees To Replace Kaiser

LD2 Precinct Committeemen Choose 3 Nominees To Replace Kaiser

By Daniel Stefanski |

Arizona’s Legislature is about to have a new member within its ranks.

This week, Arizona Republican Party Chairman Jeff DeWit sent a letter to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, informing them that “on Monday, June 26, 2023, the elected Precinct Committeemen of Legislative District 2 convened a meeting to nominate three qualified electors to fill a vacancy in the legislature.”

DeWit revealed that the nominees were Shawnna Bolick, Josh Barnett, and Paul Carver.

Carver, the chairman of the Legislative District 2 Republicans, posted on his Facebook account that he is “honored to be among those chosen,” adding that “the meeting ran smooth and our LD did not disappoint with the Nominees. We are blessed in our LD to have so many amazing Patriots.”

Bolick, who served in the Arizona House before an unsuccessful run for the Republican nomination for Secretary of State in 2022, thanked the precinct committeemen who nominated her as one of the individuals for this vacancy, writing, “I honorably served my constituents at the Capitol for four years. I know what it takes to win. I am the only candidate who can hit the ground running on day one. While I was at the Capitol, I led the charge in so many policy areas with many of my bills earning bipartisan support and becoming law making me the best nominee to effectively represent LD2. I look forward to meeting with the Board of Supervisors to discuss with them why I would be the best replacement to represent Legislative District 2.”

Before he earned a coveted nomination, Barnett, who had previously run for U.S. Congress in the 2022 Republican Primary, tweeted, “I’m the one that can win in 2024 and defeat Judy Schweibert. I have the knowledge, wherewithal, & grit to get things done for the People. Some have already lost to Schweibert in past races and some have no real understanding of our 51 Constitutions. I am asking for your vote tonight to let me show you what can happen when someone is actually standing up against corruption and unapologetically using the Constitution to its fullest extent to our advantage.”

The legislative vacancy came about due to the sudden resignation of former Senator Steve Kaiser, who announced his plans to step down from his seat earlier this month. Kaiser’s resignation was official on June 22, giving Republican precinct committeemen in Arizona Legislative District 2 the opportunity to handpick nominees for consideration by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.

Legislative District 2 is expected to be very competitive in November 2024, and at least one Democrat is already eyeing the Senate seat in the next General Election. Representative Judy Schwiebert wasted little time in staking a claim to a run for the Arizona Senate, tweeting on June 16 that she would be throwing her name into the Democrat primary for this district.

The Arizona Republican Party’s Chairman thanked Carver and the precinct committeemen “for their professionalism, hard work, and dedication to ensuring a smooth, fair, and transparent process.” DeWit stated that “we anticipate a prompt appointment by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors so that the work of the Legislature can continue.”

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors’ role in selecting replacements for legislative vacancies has been a point of contention between them and some Republicans in the state legislature. Earlier this year, Senator J.D. Mesnard took to the floor of his chamber to address the Maricopa County Supervisors’ ongoing consideration of two legislative vacancies in both the House and the Senate. Mesnard’s frustrations boiled over on the Senate floor as he laid out his charge against the Supervisors’ alleged delay in filling the two vacancies for 19 (Senate vacancy) and 20 (House vacancy) days. He informed his colleagues that “the length of these vacancies is the longest, while we’ve been in session, in half a century – 56 years!” The East Valley lawmaker also said that 8.76 days is the historical average to fill the vacancy.

Senator Mesnard hinted that maybe his colleagues should take future action to change the statute to force the county board of supervisors to act with more urgency when filling vacancies during a legislative session.

The hint of legislation from Mesnard may be a reality in short order. On June 25, Arizona Senator Justine Wadsack tweeted, “I plan to introduce legislation that removes the power of the County BOS from choosing people to replace legislators who are Expelled or Resign. We must put the power in the hands of the PCs, who’s authority currently ends at presenting (3) candidates for the BOS to choose from.”

Freshman Representative Austin Smith suggested that this proposal could be presented to Arizona voters as a constitutional amendment – especially due to a Democrat governor who could be hostile to this idea from Republican legislators.

Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.

Arizona Gives $5 Million To Test Psychedelic Mushrooms On Mentally Ill

Arizona Gives $5 Million To Test Psychedelic Mushrooms On Mentally Ill

By Corinne Murdock |

The state of Arizona set aside $5 million to research the impact of psychedelic mushrooms on those suffering from mental illnesses like PTSD and drug addiction.

The funds provided by the Arizona legislature in this past session will go to the Scottsdale Research Institute (SRI), the only Arizona facility authorized by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to grow psilocybin mushrooms. Sue Sisley, SRI president, revealed to ABC 15 that this would be the first study of its kind on human subjects.

“Real natural psilocybin mushrooms have never been evaluated in a controlled trial, can you believe that?” said Sisley. “It works its way into that part of the brain and activates some of the neurocircuits that haven’t been enlivened in a while. It starts to enable the brain to kind of be recalibrated.”

Sisley said that all of the data — both positive and negative — would be published in medical journals for public review. Trials are anticipated to begin within the year. 

Sisley was also known for being the principal investigator for the only Federal Drug Administration (FDA)-approved trial in the world to examine the safety and efficacy of marijuana smoking in combat veterans with severe PTSD. The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) granted the approval in March 2014. At the time, Sisley was a professor at the the University of Arizona (UArizona) College of Medicine. 

The DEA gave Sisley approval for another study on the efficacy and safety of marijuana to treat PTSD in April 2016. 

In addition to being licensed for medical-grade cannabis growth, SRI has been licensed to make and issue MDMA and LSD for study.

In 2020, NIDA warned that marijuana usage is linked to an increased risk of earlier onset of psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia. 

Shortly after NIDA’s approval, UArizona terminated Sisley. Sisley claimed that she was terminated by the university for her political activity: specifically, involvement with a recall campaign against then-State Sen. Kimberly Yee, currently the state treasurer. Sisley also claimed that UArizona was opposed to her medicinal marijuana research.

UArizona rejected Sisley’s claims, pointing to legislation they supported the prior year enabling marijuana research to be executed on college campuses. 

“The University of Arizona does not comment on personnel issues. In regard to marijuana research, in general, in 2013, the UA championed state legislation to ensure that universities could perform medical marijuana research on campus,” stated the university. “The UA has not received political pressure to terminate any employee as has been suggested in some media and other reports.”

At the time of the federal research approvals through the present, Sisley has served as a medical director for a medical marijuana dispensary, White Mountain Health. 

All of the mind-altering drugs in Sisley’s research — psilocybin mushrooms, marijuana, LSD, and MDMA — were the basis of study for the CIA’s covert “mind control” experimentation program, MK-ULTRA, and its predecessors: Project Bluebird and Project ARTICHOKE.

These experiments were inspired by Japanese and Nazi doctors’ practices of using mescaline on prisoners in the Auschwitz and Dachau concentration camps. MK-ULTRA consisted of psychological torture, resulting in numerous deaths and permanent mental damage. 

The CIA destroyed most of the documents pertaining to MK-ULTRA in 1973 following the Watergate scandal. About 20,000 documents were spared due to erroneous filing in a financial records building. The following year, The New York Times began to uncover the program, prompting a congressional investigation. 

The researcher that started and ran MK-ULTRA, Sidney Gottlieb, was awarded by the CIA for his work. 

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