by Daniel Stefanski | Oct 22, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona Legislative Republicans aren’t finished with the City of Phoenix’s action to donate firearms to Ukraine.
Last week, three Arizona State Representatives sent a letter to Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, calling on the prosecutor to “immediately undertake a criminal and civil investigation of City of Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego and City Councilmembers for their intentional and flagrant violation of state law in connection with their actions surrounding the City’s Ordinance S-50010.”
The letter from Representatives Travis Grantham, Quang Nguyen, and Selina Bliss, follows a response from Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes regarding a 1487 complaint for “a recently passed City of Phoenix ordinance allowing the illegal donation of 599 unclaimed firearms to Ukraine’s national police force.” Mayes’ report found that “Arizona law requires cities to dispose of unclaimed firearms by selling them in the manner provided by statute, yet the Ordinance provides for Phoenix to dispose of its unclaimed firearms by donating them to Ukraine via an export company. Because a ‘donation’ is not a ‘sale’ – and because the Ordinance conflicts with A.R.S. 12-945 in other related respects – it violates that statute, and therefore also violates A.R.S. 13-3108(A) and A.R.S. 12-943.”
Attorney General Mayes’ findings forced the City of Phoenix to repeal the Ordinance, as the lawmakers admitted in their letter to Mitchell. However, the legislators noted some “alarming details” contained in Mayes’ report “that confirm the City Council’s lawlessness and egregious disregard for state law.” One of those details was that when faced with the threat of the Attorney General’s investigation, the City’s counsel disclosed that the City has already completed the firearms transfer contemplated by the Ordinance and the Agreement.
The three state lawmakers argue that “neither the AG’s Report nor the City’s repeal of its Ordinance absolves the City Mayor or Councilmembers of criminal or civil liability for their misconduct,” hoping that the County Attorney could determine “the extent to which the City’s elected officials conspired to: (1) knowingly and repeatedly violate state law – particularly after we alerted them to the illegality of their conduct; (2) conceal their conduct; and (3) interfere with, coerce, or thwart the Attorney General’s S.B. 1487 investigation through improper means or communications.”
At the end of the letter, the legislators wrote, “In a free society, it is critical that our elected officials follow the rule of law, even when they may disagree with the underlying policy of the law. Citizens in our state are held to this standard every day. Arizonans reasonably expect – and the law demands – that government leaders likewise comply with state law or risk serious consequences for their intentional disregard of the law.” They added their collective hope that “the Mayor and City Councilmembers must also be held fully accountable for facilitating crimes of others through their illegal transfer of weapons, including but not limited to domestic civil offenses, war crimes, and organized crimes defined in Chapter 23 of Title 13.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Corinne Murdock | Oct 21, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes is facing a lawsuit over the use of unstaffed drop boxes to collect mail-in ballots.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in the Yavapai County Superior Court.
AFEC argued that Arizona law requires drop boxes for mail-in ballots — or, early voted ballots — must be located at polling places and monitored by election workers. Based on that reading of statute, AFEC declared that the current Election Procedures Manual (EPM), enacted in 2019 by the former secretary of state and now-Gov. Katie Hobbs, and Fontes’ draft EPM unlawfully allowed unstaffed drop boxes.
“With no basis in statute, and supported by nothing more than executive fiat, the Secretary has authorized election officials throughout the state to employ unstaffed drop-boxes as another manner by which voters may cast their votes early,” said AFEC.
AFEC noted that the EPM provisions on the drop boxes contained zero citations to Arizona law, although the EPM issued over 1,000 citations across its pages elsewhere. AFEC said the omission was purposeful.
“The EPM’s omission of citations to Arizona’s statutes was surely not an oversight. When a statute supports an EPM regulation, the EPM cites it,” said AFEC. “Apparently, though, the EPM’s authors could find no enabling statute supporting unstaffed drop-boxes.”
Since the EPM doesn’t require these unstaffed drop boxes to be located at or near an election official’s building, they have been established at locations like churches, elementary schools, restaurants, humane societies, libraries, fire departments, and community centers. It also doesn’t place any restraints on the number or geographic distribution of the drop boxes per county.
According to AFEC, state law only allows two destinations and two entities for ballot submissions: the office of a designated election official, usually the county recorder, or a polling place, and a federal postal worker or voter’s designated agent. AFEC said that unstaffed drop boxes were therefore an impermissible intermediary in the chain of custody.
Unlike U.S. Postal Service (USPS) mail collection boxes, unstaffed drop boxes don’t have federal legal protections that impart prison sentences for crimes such as obstruction of mail passage, destruction of mail, and vandalism of a mailbox. Unstaffed drop boxes also don’t enjoy a specialized law enforcement division dedicated to investigating postal crimes, like the USPS.
Additionally, unstaffed drop boxes aren’t required to have locks: they may be secured with a “tamper-evident seal.”
Unlike the USPS, which requires the swearing-in of mail carriers, any individual designated by election officials as a “ballot retriever” may transport the contents of unstaffed drop boxes. Also, drop box contents aren’t scanned, counted, or entered into a record of sorts like their USPS counterparts.
AFEC also argued that USPS mailboxes offer an additional level of security through the untold diversity of their contents, whereas election drop boxes are clearly known to contain only ballots and theoretically become susceptible to bad actors.
“A USPS mailbox is further likely to contain different varieties of mail at any given time. From the outside, it is impossible to determine whether a particular mailbox contains early voted ballots,” said AFEC. “By contrast, an unstaffed drop-box contains only completed ballots. From the outside, one can know with certainty that the contents of a ballot drop-box are completed ballots, likely a significant number of them.”
Additionally, AFEC claimed that unstaffed drop boxes increased the likelihood of voter intimidation by independent actors seeking to prevent illegal ballot submissions.
AFEC President Scott Mussi said in a statement that unstaffed drop boxes jeopardize the safety and security of elections.
“Our lawsuit contends that state statute limits the use of drop boxes to locations that are monitored by election workers, which can include existing polling locations and the county elections office. Despite this limitation, election officials and the existing election procedure manual are ignoring statute and have been setting up unmanned drop boxes all throughout the state,” said Mussi. “We believe the use of drop boxes must be in accordance with state law, and we are hopeful that our lawsuit will result in election officials ending their use at illegal locations for the 2024 election.”
An expansive interpretation of state law concerning elections wouldn’t be an unusual trait of the Hobbs EPM. In September, the Yavapai County Superior Court ruled that Fontes was perpetuating an incorrect interpretation of “registration record.” AFEC also sued in that case.
Fontes had argued that the term “registration record” in voter signature verification law meant that other documents in a voter’s record besides the registration form could be used to verify signatures. The court invalidated the expansive interpretation of the term, thereby invalidating the corresponding portion of the Hobbs EPM.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Daniel Stefanski | Oct 21, 2023 | Education, News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona’s Republican legislative leaders continue to come to the unwavering aid of the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) Program.
After the ESA program sustained another political attack from Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs, House Speaker Ben Toma released a statement in support of the landmark school choice expansion for the state. Toma said, “Governor Hobbs continues to blast the ESA program as unsustainable and exceeding estimates. Neither are true. We remind the Governor that she leads the entire state of Arizona, and if she seeks changes to the ESA program, she ought to propose serious policies, not tweet vague threats. The State Legislature has yet to see any policy proposals from her office. Arizona will continue to responsibly fund students, not systems.”
According to the Speaker’s press release, “the Department of Education reported on October 4 that the budget is currently on pace to have a year-end surplus of roughly $77 million,” adding that “the budget estimate of 68,000 total users (in the ESA program) is within 1% of the current program enrollment.”
The Speaker’s defense of ESAs came soon after Hobbs unleashed another attack against it, claiming that the program “threatens to decimate our state’s budget.” In a post on the platform “X,” Governor Hobbs stated, “The school voucher program is unaccountable and unsustainable. It does not save taxpayers money, and it does not provide a better education for Arizona students…I call on Superintendent Horne, Speaker Toma, and President Petersen to join with bipartisan leaders to pass accountability and transparency measures, and bring an end to this wasteful, runaway spending.”
Horne and Petersen also took time to respond to the governor’s assertions, pushing back against her allegations and supporting the integrity of the program. Horne said, “The Governor’s calculation is in error. She is counting the $7,200 paid for each ESA student without offsetting the $13,000 paid per student that would otherwise be spent for that student to attend a public school. The overall numbers bear this out as the expenditures for all public-school spending, including the ESA program are $72 million below budget.”
Petersen added, “Arizona families want choices for their children’s education. ESAs are one of many choices the Legislature is prioritizing. The fact is, we budgeted for the 68,000 kids currently enrolled and have responsibly planned for incremental spending increases for this program in the years to come, as we do with a variety of other programs in our overall budget. We’re always open to improving our state’s programs, but for the sake of Arizona families who want to choose the best educational settings to meet their children’s needs, ESAs are here to stay.”
Since failing to address ESA changes in the state’s budget, which was passed earlier this year, Governor Hobbs has increased her political volleys against the program, joining allies who were enraged at her perceived capitulation to Republican lawmakers. As a new legislative session nears, Hobbs and her staff will likely be more focused on exacting some concessions when the next round of budget negotiations resume in 2024. Ultimately, Arizona voters will have a significant role in determining the direction of the state’s ESA program, whether by changes to the political party make-up of the legislature or through a yet-to-be-filed ballot initiative.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Oct 17, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
An environmental watchdog organization is suing the Biden Administration to increase regulatory oversight of Arizona and other states.
Earlier this month, the Sierra Club filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Michael S. Regan, “has failed to perform his nondiscretionary duty under the Clean Air Act to issue a finding of failure by thirteen states…to submit complete revised nonattainment area state implementation plans and publish notice of that action in the Federal Register no later than six months after the January 1, 2023 deadline by which each of these states was required to submit a nonattainment SIP for the 2015 primary ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).”
The states targeted in the complaint by the Sierra Club were Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.”
Sari Amiel, an Associate Attorney for the Sierra Club, released the following statement in conjunction with the legal filing: “More than 100 million people reside in counties receiving failing grades for smog pollution, with Black, Hispanic, and Asian Americans disproportionately exposed to all forms of air pollution. States’ refusal to comply with common-sense air pollution standards is already harmful, but EPA’s failure to hold them accountable adds insult to injury. EPA must fulfill its obligations under the Clean Air Act and take swift action to protect communities from the harmful effects of smog pollution.”
Scot Mussi, the President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, also weighed in on the challenge, telling AZ Free News, “This lawsuit is an attempt by the Sierra Club to force Arizona to adopt their radical environmental agenda. They know that ozone levels in Maricopa County are lower today than twenty years ago and that most of the ozone in the region is either naturally occurring or coming from China. But since they couldn’t convince us to ban gas cars and gas stoves, they hope the EPA or a friendly liberal judge will do it for them.”
The 2015 rule has been the focus of many lawsuits since it was initiated under the Obama-Biden Administration. In October 2015, then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich led a small coalition of states (Arkansas, the Environmental Department on behalf of New Mexico, North Dakota, and Oklahoma) in filing a lawsuit to challenge the Final Rule. At the time, Brnovich said, “We all want clean air, however, reducing the ozone standards to 70 parts per billion will be nearly impossible for Arizona to attain. The new Rule completely ignores Congress’ intent that the EPA set ozone levels for the states that are actually attainable. The financial stakes for this state are enormous if we are unable to comply and I am going to do everything within my power as attorney general to protect Arizona.”
During the Trump Administration, the EPA was not empowered to raise the standards set under the Obama-Biden Administration. After the decision in 2020, then-EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler explained the reasoning, saying, “The EPA under the Trump Administration has continued America’s leadership in clean air, lowering our particulate matter levels to well below those of many of our global competitors. Maintaining these important standards will ensure Americans can continue to breathe some of the cleanest air on the planet.”
A change in administrations, however, had drastic consequences for this policy. President Joe Biden signed an executive order in 2021, ordering the environmental agency to review a number of actions initiated under the previous administration, including the NAAQS Decision in 2020. Not long after the executive order was signed, the EPA announced its intent to “reconsider the December 2020 decision because available scientific evidence and technical information indicate that the current standards may not be adequate to protect public health and welfare, as required by the Clean Air Act.” At the beginning of this year, the EPA released its proposed revision to the NAAQS, which increased standards from the Obama-Biden administration, prompting various reactions from a number of states around the country.
In March of this year, a group of Democrat attorneys general, led by the State of California, submitted a comment letter to the EPA, urging the Biden Administration to “adopt stringent standards under the Clean Air Act that protect public health against particulate matter pollution.” Attorney General Bonta stated, “High particulate matter pollution levels are a serious threat to public health, particularly for underserved and vulnerable populations. Today’s comment letter urges the EPA to set adequate standards to ensure that all Californians can breathe clean air. The adoption of stronger standards will aid all of California’s communities, but especially communities experiencing environmental injustices, that are disproportionately affected by air pollution. At the California Department of Justice, we will continue advocating for stronger pollution control measures for the wellbeing of all Californians.”
California was joined by the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia and the City of New York, in the letter.
On the other side of the political aisle, Republican attorneys general have pushed back this year against the EPA’s attempt to cement and expand the NAAQS. In March, Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron spearheaded a 19-state coalition with a letter to the EPA to oppose its updated rule. Cameron said, “As Americans face record-high inflation, the Biden Administration is pushing extreme policies that would harm the economies of energy states like Kentucky. The United States has some of the cleanest air in the industrialized world, and this regulation prioritizes President Biden’s radical climate agenda ahead of the livelihoods of hard-working Americans.”
Joining Kentucky on this letter to the EPA were the States of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Oct 10, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Concerned Arizonans continue to take action to defend the future of women’s sports in their state.
Last month, the Arizona Women of Action filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Doe v. Horne. This case concerns a challenge to the Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act, which was passed by the state legislature in 2022 and signed into law by former Governor Doug Ducey.
Kim Miller, the Founder and Director of Arizona Women of Action, said, “On behalf of Arizona parents and their student-athlete daughters, Arizona Women of Action strongly supports the Save Women’s Sports Act to ensure the safety and level playing field of female athletics. The facts and statistics don’t lie – the differences between males and females are real, even before puberty, and AZWOA stands with Superintendent Tom Horne and the Arizona Legislators to protect women’s sports here in Arizona.”
In their brief, the Arizona Women of Action make three arguments for the west coast appeals court to consider. First, that “the Arizona Legislature’s findings were thorough and based on sound evidence.” Second, that “the Arizona Legislature enacted the Save Women’s Sports Act for a legitimate purpose and to address a real problem.” And finally, that “the District Court improperly ignored the harm to biological females when biological males participate in girls’ sports.”
Earlier this summer, District Court Judge Jennifer Zipps granted a preliminary injunction against SB 1165, the Save Women’s Sports Act, which blocked the law from going into effect. At that time, Arizona’s Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, the defendant in the case, promised to appeal the ruling, saying, “This will ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court, and they will rule in our favor. The Plaintiffs in this case claimed that this only involves pre-pubescent boys, but we presented peer-reviewed studies that show pre-pubescent boys have an advantage over girls in sports. The only expert presented by the Plaintiffs was a medical doctor who makes his money doing sex transition treatments on children and who has exactly zero peer-reviewed studies to support his opinion.”
Joining Horne as defendants in the case are Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma, who have actively filed motions throughout the proceedings at both the District and Appeals Court levels. In a recent motion to the Ninth Circuit, the Republican legislative leaders wrote, “Under the district court’s preliminary injunction order, ‘the [Save Women’s Sports] Act shall not prevent Plaintiffs from participating in girls’ sports’ and ‘Plaintiffs shall be allowed to play girls’ sports at their respective schools.’ Any success by Plaintiffs in try-outs and meets will displace biological girls from making a team, getting playing time, and succeeding in final results. Biological girls will be irreparably harmed if they are displaced by, forced to compete against, or risk injury from Plaintiffs.”
According to Arizona Women of Action, “the district court still has not ruled on (their) Motion to Intervene,” which was filed in June. The amicus brief before the Ninth Circuit lists three parent representatives – Anna Van Hoek, Lisa Fink, and Amber Zenczak. All three ladies have daughters who play sports, which, per the legal filing, means that they are “directly affected by the presence of biological males on girls’ sports teams.” Fink and her daughter shared their belief “that a biological male on their team would have an unfair advantage to be able to get a starting position on the team and achieve similar benefits and advantages. This would create an environment on the team of disunity and corrosive rivalry. Furthermore, if biological males were allowed to play on competing teams, those teams would have an unfair advantage. It would create a strong sense that the competition was not on a level playing field.”
The group’s bio outlines its purpose, which “is to revive the American dream of strong families, safe cities, and thriving kids, with a focus on citizen action in the areas of education, community, life, anti-trafficking and prayer.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
