by Daniel Stefanski | Aug 18, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona’s high court ruled on the ballot eligibility of a controversial measure on border security.
Last week, the Arizona Supreme Court decided that “HCR 2060 will appear on the ballot.”
The decision from the court follows months of legislating and legal wrangling over the legislation to send border security proposals to voters for November’s General Election. In the decision order from the Arizona Supreme Court, it stated that it “unanimously agrees with the superior court that Appellants have not met their burden to overcome the strong presumption that HCR 2060 is constitutional.”
The “X” account for the Arizona Senate Republicans reacted to the news, posting, “BREAKING: Another FAILURE for Democrats and special interests fighting to keep the Secure the Border Act off the ballot… and GREAT NEWS for the citizens of Arizona! Moments ago, the Arizona Supreme Court unanimously ruled: “HCR 2060 WILL appear on the ballot.” Arizona voters will have the opportunity to take border security into their own hands this November.”
Arizona State Senator Janae Shamp responded, “The People of AZ will decide November 5th!”
Republican State Representative John Gillette added, “Great news. The people have a say on how we can deal with our open border invasion, despite the vetoed Bills and the lack of federal leadership.”
HCR 2060 will appear on the ballot in the upcoming fall election as Proposition 314. If passed by voters, it would give local law enforcement additional resources to better protect their communities from the harms created by the border crisis that has swelled over the past few years.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Aug 16, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
On Wednesday the Arizona Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling, validating the use of the phrase “unborn human being” as an impartial descriptor for Proposition 139, the ballot measure to legalize abortion totally.
The court’s 5-2 decision was a mere three pages long. In it, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the Arizona legislature’s choice to use the phrase “unborn human being” rather than “fetus” meets the standard of substantial compliance required by law for drafting an impartial analysis of ballot measures.
That phrase, “unborn human being,” resides in existing state law as well, something the Arizona Supreme Court did note in its order.
Vice Chief Justice John Lopez didn’t elaborate on his analysis in this ruling, just that the phrase complied with the standards of the law. Lopez promised that the court would issue an opinion in the future to more fully explain the decision.
The Maricopa County Superior Court’s slightly longer ruling had determined that “unborn human being” couldn’t qualify as an impartial analysis of the ballot proposal making abortion a constitutional right because the phrase carried an “emotional and partisan meaning” for both supporters and opponents of abortion.
Contrary to the Arizona Supreme Court’s view, the superior court had determined that the existence of the phrase “unborn human being” in state law was irrelevant to the question of neutrality.
The offending phrase at the heart of this legal battle was part of the Arizona Legislative Council’s nonpartisan descriptor intended for the informational pamphlets given to voters about the Arizona Abortion Access Act and other ballot measures:
“Current state law prohibits a physician from performing an abortion if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being is more than 15 weeks, except when a pregnant woman’s medical condition necessitates an immediate abortion to avert the pregnant woman’s death or for which a delay creates a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”
An abortion does occur through the intentional killing and removal of an unborn human being from the womb of his or her mother.
The Arizona Abortion Access Act would create a fundamental, constitutional right to abortion up until birth, should a health care professional deem the abortion to be necessary to protect the mother’s life or health. The act would also impose a preemptive ban on any legislation seeking to punish those who assist mothers in obtaining abortions.
The group behind the proposal, Arizona for Abortion Access, said in a statement that describing an unborn child as an “unborn human being” was a manipulative ploy by anti-abortion advocates lacking “basis in medicine or science” or expert approval.
“This means that Arizona voters won’t get to learn about the questions on their ballot in a fair, neutral, and accurate way but will instead be subjected to biased, politically-charged words developed not by experts but by anti-abortion special interests to manipulate voters and spread misinformation,” said the group.
The group went on to urge voter support for the proposal; they didn’t indicate whether they planned on challenging the ruling.
Justice Clint Bolick recused himself from the case due to his wife, State Senator Shawnna Bolick, serving on the legislative council and crafting the contested language. Retired Justice John Pelander was selected by Chief Justice Ann Timmer to assume Bolick’s place; Pelander sided with the majority.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Jun 14, 2024 | Economy, News
By Matthew Holloway |
The owners of the businesses that power the economy of southern Arizona are about to see some long overdue relief from a 2018 excise tax which was struck down by the State Supreme Court in 2022. Affected businesses will be able to file for a waiver or refund of the tax by April 9, 2026 to recover at least $87 million that was unlawfully collected by the county with another $4 million in interest to be paid out proportionally. Unfortunately, consumers who paid the tax as part of a transaction, will be unable to seek a refund.
The Pinal County transportation excise tax was invalidated by the Arizona Supreme Court in Vangilder v. Arizona Department of Revenue, in which the court found that the Pinal County Board of Supervisors violated state law by adopting a “two-tiered retail transaction privilege tax (TPT) on tangible personal property as part of a transportation excise tax.” While the court held that the basis of the tax was lawful, it invalidated the two-tiered system where the first $10,000 of any one item was taxed at one rate and any in excess was taxed at zero percent.
Arizona Supreme Court Justice Kathryn H. King, a former Deputy General Counsel in the Office of Governor Doug Ducey and appointed by Ducey wrote for the court:
“For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that Pinal County complied with state law in adopting the transportation excise tax. We further conclude, however, that state law does not permit Pinal County to adopt a two-tiered retail TPT structure as part of a transportation excise tax, whereby the first $10,000 of any single item is taxed at one rate and any amount in excess is taxed at a rate of zero percent. For that reason, Pinal County’s two-tiered retail TPT structure in Proposition 417 is unlawful and invalid.
Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals’ opinion in part and vacate in part. We vacate paragraphs 2 and 23–30 of the court of appeals’ opinion. We affirm the superior court on other grounds. We deny Vangilder’s request for attorney fees.”
The filing opportunity was announced in a letter from the Arizona Auditor General on May 17 according to The Center Square. The letter detailed that approximately $87 million was collected through the excise tax which has earned $4 million in interest adding that the ‘applicable interests” would be paid out to those requesting a refund as well. However, the actual consumers who paid the 0.5% sales tax up to the first $10,000 have no such recourse because of the “transaction privilege tax” status of Arizona the outlet noted cited the Pinal County website.
The Auditor General wrote, “Between April 1, 2018, and February 28, 2024, the Pinal Regional Transportation Authority did not expend any of the 2018 Excise Tax revenues or accrued interest.”
The county website explained, “Specifically, taxpayers who will be able to request a refund or waiver of monies paid toward this invalidated tax are generally limited to those businesses that filed and paid tax to the Department for the April 2018 through March 2022 tax periods as part of their overall transaction privilege tax liability, for business activity that they conducted either in Pinal County or with Pinal County customers.”
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.
by Dr. Thomas Patterson | Jun 11, 2024 | Opinion
By Dr. Thomas Patterson |
When the Supreme Court was debating the landmark Dobbs abortion case, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer shouted threats (“you will reap the whirlwind…”) at them from the courthouse steps. Thus, the last doubt was obliterated that the unquestioned authority of the Court was under serious attack.
An independent judiciary is the key to maintaining our constitutional republic. It is the reckoning mechanism which keeps us on track, muting the potential excesses of popular democracy. Americans once understood this and valued our judiciary, even when it sometimes worked against their individual interests.
But the times, they are a’changin. Americans have now divided into warring classes who believe that in the pursuit of power and short-term goals, a conscientious judiciary is often in the way.
At least until recently, school children were taught that our founders, in order to dilute the power of centralized government, created three branches. The legislative makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the judiciary ensures that laws are enforced in accordance with statutes and the Constitution.
In the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt clashed with the Supreme Court when their rulings thwarted his plans to assert federal control over wide swaths of the American economy. The Justices could not find in the Constitution’s list of enumerated powers any which authorized the New Deal legislative barrage.
They were right, but Roosevelt’s response was to propose “packing the court,” expanding the number of Justices, and increasing his power. Roosevelt’s view of the court as an obstacle rather than a necessary guard rail shocked many Americans of the day. The plan eventually failed, although most of the New Deal was enacted anyway.
Yet the status of the judiciary branch in our federal system is showing deterioration today. Leftist ideologues conduct protests of court decisions in front of Justices’ residences when they render unpopular decisions. That’s clearly contrary to federal law yet they suffer no repercussions. The Biden Department of Justice simply ignores them.
Justices are personally harassed by activists. Angry partisans confront them and their families in restaurants and public spaces. The Justices, particularly those of the pro-Constitution persuasion, are faced with spurious charges of ethical violations and demands for recusal. That’s especially ironic in the case of Justice Clarence Thomas, who has a well-deserved reputation for willingness to vote against his own political positions.
The Arizona Supreme Court also passed down a controversial abortion decision, ruling that the Arizona legislature, following the reversal of Roe, had effectively reinstated a restrictive Civil War era law. In response, a special interest group known as “Vote Them Out” is attempting to remove justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King for failing to support their pro-abortion policy agenda.
In Arizona, Supreme Court Justices and most lower court judges are not elected but appointed and then undergo periodic retention elections which are intended to weed out incompetent or corrupt judges. Although few judges are not retained, the system works to depoliticize the judicial selection process and give voters input into keeping judges.
It is this retention system itself which Vote Them Out is attacking by forcing Bolick and King to, in effect, run for their own seats in a political style campaign. There are no credible arguments that either Justice is incompetent or corrupt or that they didn’t provide constitutional authority for their rulings. The issue, again, is simply that their decision was unpopular, at least with Vote Them Out.
As Justice Bolick pointed out in an Arizona Republic op-ed, judges in a merit system are handicapped in a politics-based election. They can’t personally raise funds or seek endorsements. They have strict ethical limits on what they can discuss. Their opponents have no such restraints.
It’s telling that justices at all levels are commonly referred to as “liberal” or “conservative.” Such political labels should only matter if justices are policymakers, which they are not. The critical descriptor which matters for justices is “pro-Constitution” versus “pro-some interest group’s opinion.”
Americans seem to have little regard for the values and institutions which are the foundations of our own national greatness. Our independent judiciary distinguishes us from corrupt autocracies everywhere and throughout time. We disrespect it at our own peril.
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 Daniel Stefanski | Jun 11, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell is attempting to bring justice for an Arizona victim but is meeting resistance from the state’s attorney general.
Earlier this month, the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office announced that it had “filed a motion with the Arizona Supreme Court in a move to ultimately seek a warrant of execution for Aaron Brian Gunches.”
Gunches has been sentenced to death twice over the murder of the ex-husband of his girlfriend in 2002.
“For nearly two years, we’ve seen delay after delay from the governor and the attorney general,” said Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell. “The commissioner’s report was expected at the end of 2023, but it never arrived. In a letter received by my office three weeks ago, I’m now told the report might be complete in early 2025. For almost 22 years, Ted Price’s family has been waiting for justice and closure. They’re not willing to wait any longer and neither am I.”
Attorney General Mayes pushed back against Mitchell’s legal effort, writing, “Only the Attorney General is authorized to seek warrants of execution. Despite what rogue Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell may believe, there is only one Attorney General at a time – and the voters decided who that was 18 months ago. Just three weeks ago, I notified County Attorney Mitchell about my plans for seeking warrants of execution a little over six months from now after the completion of the independent death penalty review. But apparently, conducting this cynical performance to look tough in her competitive re-election primary is more important to the County Attorney than following the law.”
Mayes added, “Make no mistake, I will vigorously defend the authority of this office – and will not stand by as the Maricopa County Attorney attempts to create chaos to save her political career. My office will next move to strike this motion and prevent County Attorney Mitchell from continuing her unauthorized actions related to the death penalty.”
Mitchell disagreed with Mayes’ assessment of her legal limitations in this matter. She said, “I believe that as an attorney who acts on behalf of the state, I also can appropriately ask the Supreme Court for a death warrant. The victims have asserted their rights to finality and seek this office’s assistance in protecting their constitutional rights to a prompt and final conclusion to this case.”
The saga over Gunches execution started in late-2022, when former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich asked the Arizona Supreme Court for a warrant of execution. After the January 2, 2023, transition of power to Katie Hobbs and new Attorney General Kris Mayes, the state desperately attempted to reverse the actions that set Gunches’ execution process into motion. These efforts proved to be unsuccessful, however, when the high court did, in fact, grant the warrant of execution, ordering the state to put Gunches to death on April 6, 2023. The governor refused to comply with the court-issued warrant, stating that the State would not be seeking to carry out the execution at this time. Hobbs’ decision triggered court filings from Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell and Republican leaders in the Arizona Legislature.
The Arizona Supreme Court declined to force the State of Arizona to carry out the issued warrant for Gunches but would not withdraw it either. The warrant expired last year, leading to County Attorney Mitchell’s attempt to seek this action before the state’s high court.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
