by Daniel Stefanski | Aug 25, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
The Arizona Supreme Court may have rendered a significant blow to the future of a key ballot measure for the upcoming General Election.
On Friday, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an order in Smith v. Fontes, which was a challenge over the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act (Proposition 140). The court ruled that Prop 140 “will appear on the ballot, assuming ballots are indeed printed in the early morning hours of August 23.” However, the state’s high court projected that if a majority of its justices were to later “disqualif[y] the Initiative, the court should issue an injunction precluding any votes for the measure from being counted.”
The issue at hand involves a challenge to the signatures submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State by the committee supportive of the ballot measure. The parties contesting the submission have argued that there are 40,000 duplicative signatures in the batch, which, if discarded, would bring the initiative under the minimum number required for placement on the ballot.
Proposition 140 is an attempt from the Make Elections Fair PAC to remake the Arizona elections systems through this constitutional amendment on the ballot.
“I am grateful for this thoughtful decision from the Arizona Supreme Court,” said Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. “At no time did the trial court judge or the committee in favor of the initiative provide evidence as to why these signatures were not duplicates, but instead relied on a strategy of obstruction to run out the clock. The lateness of this challenge did not have to be the case if the lower court had only adhered to the Supreme Court’s earlier directive for all duplicates to be removed from the qualifying count. For any ballot measure – but especially one that would fundamentally transform our elections systems – Arizonans deserve complete confidence that our courts are applying all laws fairly and justly.”
Mussi added, “This isn’t a debate about dubious matches or concerns of same family members with the same name being confused as a duplicate. All the duplicates submitted to be removed were exact name and address matches that aligned with what was on the voter file. Under state law, you are only allowed to sign a petition once, so they should have been removed. Instead, thousands of people were allowed to sign the initiative petition sheets multiple times, and those signatures were counted.”
In its order, the Court wrote, “There is no statutory directive that a court resolve an election challenge like this one before the ballot printing deadline. Regardless, this Court, and indeed the trial court, has consistently endeavored to resolve initiative challenges before the ballot printing deadline… But the courts’ role is to dispense justice. Courts cannot be forced to rule rashly to meet a ballot printing deadline or provide the parties with certainty.”
According to the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, this measure “is seeking to enact a California-style election scheme built around ranked choice voting and jungle primaries.” On the other hand, an advocate for the Make Elections Fair Act recently maintained that Prop 140 “represents an opportunity to improve both our elections and our state government.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
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.
