A long-awaited elections challenge from the 2022 political cycle has finally been filed.
On Tuesday, 2022 Republican nominee for Arizona Attorney General, Abraham Hamadeh, filed an Appeal and Motion to Expedite in the Arizona Court of Appeals.
In a statement Tuesday night, Hamadeh said, “My legal team has just filed our Appeal on our election challenge and Motion to Expedite. Arizonans deserve to have their lawfully elected Attorney General to hold that office, and our state constitution demands it. With the numerous irregularities in the election, the initial trial, and numerous delays at the trial court, it’s long overdue that the judiciary expedite and take our claims seriously that thousands of lawful votes remain uncounted in the closest election in Arizona with the biggest recount discrepancy in history.”
The Arizona Attorney General’s race was decided late in 2022 – and long after the November General Election – with Democrat Kris Mayes over Hamadeh by 280 votes, triggering the Republican’s election challenges.
Hamadeh’s efforts to bring transparency to his razor-thin election result have continued long after his Democrat opponent, Kris Mayes, took office in January. Mayes has continued to show little public interest in the case, allowing her attorneys to handle matters in the courtroom while she continues to revamp the Arizona Attorney General’s Office from the policies of her predecessor, Republican Mark Brnovich.
The comments from Hamadeh also touched on his thoughts regarding the state of election integrity across Arizona and the country – especially how this issue pertained to his specific case. He shared, “Our democracy demands honesty, transparency, and accountability in order to rebuild the trust that so many Arizonans have lost in our elections. Our case seeks to enfranchise over 9,000 voters who voted on Election Day and did their part to have a say in their government. Their constitutional right to vote matters and their votes deserve to be counted.”
The Republican challenger promised a continued fight in court “to ensure that the will of the people is honored, and that our laws are upheld.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The wheels are moving on the vehicle to install abortion as a state constitutional right in Arizona.
Last week, Arizona for Abortion Access announced the start of its signature gathering process in order to give state voters an opportunity to vote on this ballot measure in November 2024. Just under 400,000 valid signatures – 383,923 to be exact – are required to achieve success on this front; however, many more signatures will be needed in order to account for the invalid entries that are gathered over the upcoming year.
The deadline to submit the signatures is July 3, 2024.
According to the overview of the initiative provided to the Arizona Secretary of State, the Arizona Abortion Access Act would “amend the Arizona Constitution to establish a fundamental right to abortion that the State may not deny, restrict or interfere with [1] before the point in pregnancy when a health care provider determines that the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus without extraordinary medical measures unless justified by a compelling governmental interest (defined by the act as a law, regulation, policy, or practice enacted for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of an individual seeking abortion care, consistent with accepted clinical standards of practice and evidence-based medicine, and that does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision-making) that is achieved by the least restrictive means, or [2] after that point in pregnancy if a health care provider determines an abortion is necessary to protect the life or the physical or mental health of the pregnant individual; and under which the State may not penalize individuals or entities for assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to abortion.”
Dr. Candace Lew, the chair of Arizona for Abortion Access, issued a statement, saying, “We have written this ballot measure because Arizonans deserve the freedom to make our own decisions about pregnancy and abortion. These deeply personal decisions should be treated with compassion, dignity, and privacy, not political interference.”
One of the state’s top pro-life leaders, Cathi Herrod from the Center for Arizona Policy, quickly indicated her fierce opposition to this ballot initiative. She wrote, “Arizonans are not radical abortion supporters like those at today’s press conference, who called abortion ‘a blessing’ and praised California-style abortion policy like that in the proposed Arizona ballot measure. Abortion activists behind the proposition making abortion a fundamental right in Arizona, held a press conference today to launch their signature gathering campaign to get the initiative on the November 2024 ballot. The measure would tear down virtually all pro-life precautions and make it nearly impossible to regulate abortion.”
Herrod also explained how, if passed, this constitutional amendment would likely allow the likelihood of abortion at all stages of life in the womb, stating, “The broad exemption of ‘mental health’ of the mother after viability is widely understood, even in the courts, to mean virtually anything the abortion provider wants it to mean, including stress or anxiety. Even barbaric partial-birth abortion is legal under this exemption.”
She added, “In addition, the language prohibits virtually all safety precautions and commonsense regulations on abortion, including holding accountable the abortion provider for shoddy work or the sex trafficker who forces girls to have abortions to cover his crimes.”
Arizona for Abortion Access lists endorsements from the ACLU of Arizona, Affirm Sexual and Reproductive Health, Healthcare Rising Arizona, Arizona List, NARAL Arizona, and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona on its website.
On Wednesday, a post on the social media platform “X” appeared to show Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes signing the petition to place this amendment on the 2024 ballot.
In August, Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs also weighed in on the initiative, saying, “As a lifelong advocate for Arizonans’ reproductive freedom, I’m thrilled that we will have the opportunity to make our voices heard next November. Once and for all, we will make clear that the government should not have a say in women’s personal healthcare decisions.”
As a lifelong advocate for Arizonans’ reproductive freedom, I’m thrilled that we will have the opportunity to make our voices heard next November. Once and for all, we will make clear that the government should not have a say in women's personal healthcare decisions.…
Teachers who tutor can earn up to $8,000 in stipends as supplemental income, according to Arizona Department of Education (ADE) Superintendent Tom Horne.
The superintendent offered this estimate during the Arizona State Board of Education meeting on Monday. Horne called the supplemental income a “stipend for success,” since only teachers who bring students to proficiency through tutoring may achieve that $8,000 maximum.
“This [tutoring program] will have a secondary benefit, which is that it’ll improve the income of teachers, which we also place a very high priority on,” said Horne. “Teachers who take maximum advantage of [this program] can add as much as $8,000 to their income.”
The funds were made possible by the ADE’s reappropriation of $40 million in Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) federal funding earlier this month. The millions will cover an estimated 1.3 million hours of tutoring.
Horne’s predecessor, Kathy Hoffman, had issued that funding out of a total of $130 million to various vendors promising to counter the learning loss caused by the COVID-19 school shutdowns and remote learning. Those organizations were either unable to provide evidence of the academic impact of their work or show reasonable impact for the money received, according to Horne.
Horne noted that the $40 million for the tutoring program was on the low end. He disclosed during Monday’s meeting that vendors representing another $35 million hadn’t responded satisfactorily to his department’s request for proof of impact on learning loss.
Horne said those vendors representing an additional $35 million have been under further review. As a result of this ongoing review, Horne revealed that another $10 million in ESSER funds have been reappropriated as well.
“In our first go-around we had about $75 million that we were going to take back to use more directly for learning loss, but I only promised in my discussion with the press $40 million because we expected that some would come in and talk to us,” said Horne. “We’re in the $50 millions now.”
The tutoring program is open to students from grades 1-8 who didn’t test proficient in reading, writing, and/or math, at no cost to parents, beginning Oct. 2. Parents may choose between public school teachers or private tutoring companies to tutor their children.
In the ADE announcement of the tutoring program earlier this month, Horne explained that public school teachers would be paid $30 an hour and a $200 stipend for every student that shows a half-year learning gain from tutoring.
Horne also said that he was supportive of teacher pay raise legislation, citing a $10,000 proposed raise that Democratic leaders opposed.
“I believe teachers deserve more pay, which is why I supported Rep. Matt Gress’s recent bill for a $10,000 raise. I was shocked to see that the Governor and teachers’ union opposed it,” said Horne. “If they won’t help teachers get more money, I will.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A year-long political feud over Arizona’s agency nominees has just entered uncharted territory.
On Monday, Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs sent a letter to Republican Senate President Warren Petersen, informing him that she would “withdraw all director nominations that remain pending before the Senate and pursue other lawful avenues of ensuring State government can continue to function for Arizonans.”
I withdrew my cabinet nominees today to pursue other lawful means of ensuring the state government can work for Arizonans.
The governor blamed Senate Republicans for not “fulfilling (their) statutory obligations in good faith,” adding that they have proven themselves “unable or unwilling to carry out a valid process for confirming nominees.” She specifically attacked the “complete lack of fitness” of chairman of the Committee on Director Nominations, Jake Hoffman; and she accused him of “disrespectful behavior” and attempts to “leverage the confirmation” of qualified nominees.
Senate Republicans were quick to respond to the governor’s action. President Warren Petersen issued a statement, saying, “This move by the Executive Branch showcases another prime example of an elected official who believes they’re above the law and will go to extreme measures to bypass the requirements of the law when they don’t get their way. The law is very specific on who is to run our state agencies. Without directors fulfilling these obligations, the legality of every decision made by these state agencies is dubious, and litigation against the state would surely prevail.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Unlawful Move by Governor Will Not Change Senate's Confirmation Process on State Agency Director Nominees@votewarren ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/sOg0b2dBMn
Petersen promised Arizonans that the process for vetting and confirming Hobbs’ nominees was, in fact, working and that legislators would be awaiting a new list of appointments from the state’s chief executive. He said, “Our members of the Committee on Director Nominations will continue to be professional and stand ready to resume the confirmation hearings created to critically vet her appointments in order to protect the people of Arizona from government overreach and tyranny from unelected bureaucrats. The process is working. Because of the committee’s thorough vetting, we have been able to recommend several directors for appointment and have also rejected those who proved they were not competent to serve. We are prepared to receive a new list of nominations. If they are competent and not hyper-partisan, they will have no problem getting confirmed.”
The primary target of the governor’s outrage, Senator Jake Hoffman, also released a statement to respond to the new developments. Hoffman stated, “With this latest stunt, Katie Hobbs has doubled down on her commitment to weaponizing the government of Arizona to enact her extreme far-left agenda. The people of our state deserve highly qualified, non-partisan individuals to lead these agencies, instead Hobbs has chosen to nominate partisans and ideologues. Hobbs is the only person to blame for her nominees struggling to succeed under actual due diligence. She should have done her homework prior to making her nominations, yet she chose not to and is now attempting to blame everyone else except herself for her failures.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Senator Jake Hoffman Shares Disappointment With Katie Hobbs' Temper Tantrum Over Senate's Vetting Process of State Agency Director Nominees@AZFreedomCaucus ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/any7OSB3PR
The East Valley legislator added, “If the Governor wishes to limit her own authority by foregoing rulemaking and other director-required activities in the absence of confirmed directors, we certainly welcome this limitation of her power. Hobbs has made it abundantly clear that she has no intention of working constructively with the Legislature the voters gave her. Instead, she’s choosing to throw petulant temper tantrums when she doesn’t get her way. The only ones who stand to lose in the wake of her childish games are the citizens of Arizona. I’m incredibly disappointed, but I’m certainly not surprised.”
According to the Governor’s Office, the following nominees were withdrawn and reassigned as Executive Deputy Directors of their respective agencies:
Elizabeth Thorson, Arizona Department of Administration
Angie Rodgers, Arizona Department of Economic Security
Karen Peters, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Carmen Heredia, Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System
David Lujan, Arizona Department of Child Safety
Jackie Johnson, Arizona Department of Gaming
Joan Serviss, Arizona Department of Housing
Barbara Richardson, Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions
Lt. Col Dana Allmond, Arizona Department of Veterans Services
Hobbs’ release also noted that at the Committee’s current pace, Hoffman’s Senate Committee would “be holding nomination hearings well into (her) second term” – a comment (and a bold prediction) that is certain to intensify the political fires between the Governor’s Office and Legislative Republicans as they prepare to enter the second year of a very divided government.
The Arizona Senate Democrats Caucus sided with the governor, writing, “Jake Hoffman hijacked the Director Confirmation process for his own extremist agenda against abortion access. This waste of taxpayer dollars & time desperately needed to end. Arizonans can be confident that their government is running with sound and stable leadership.”
Jake Hoffman hijacked the Director Confirmation process for his own extremist agenda against abortion access.
This waste of taxpayer dollars & time desperately needed to end. Arizonans can be confident that their government is running with sound & stable leadership. #azleg
The Democratic Party’s go-to election lawyer that played a principal role in Hillary Clinton’s Russiagate hoax scored a victory against two Arizona laws requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Judge Susan Bolton — appointed by Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton — issued the ruling last week.
Bolton ruled in the Arizona District Court case Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes that the two laws, HB 2492 and HB 2243, asked too much of voters by requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote. Bolton said the requirement constituted an “additional burden” that “disadvantages” voters.
Elias called proof of citizenship requirements “voter suppression.”
🚨BREAKING: Federal Court BLOCKS key portions of Arizona voter suppression law requiring strict proof of citizenship to vote. Congratulations to our clients @votolatino and @MiFamiliaVota and the ELG team. Remaining parts go trial trial in November.https://t.co/nsXzORw1iY
Whether or not the judge had ruled in favor of the state laws, the secretary of state’s office has apparently been ignoring certain reporting requirements in one of the contested laws. The Arizona Daily Independent reported that the legislature received neither of the required quarterly records on canceled voter registrations due to deaths, driver’s licenses in other states, jury questionnaire answers, and inactive voting history.
Bolton determined that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the federal voter registration requirements and policies signed into law by Clinton, preempted both state laws. The NVRA requires states to register voters for federal elections using the federal government’s form; this form doesn’t require proof of citizenship, yet individuals may still cast votes in federal elections.
After the Supreme Court told Arizona in a 2013 ruling that it couldn’t reject NVRAs based on its lack of citizenship proof, then-Secretary of State Ken Bennett split the voter registration system to require proof of citizenship in statewide and local races, while offering the NVRA as an option to vote in federal races only. Those voters who capitalize on the latter are known as “federal-only” voters.
AZ Free News reported in 2021 that there were over 11,600 federal-only voters in the 2020 election based on limited vote data from several counties, most of which came from Maricopa County. That’s compared to the 1,700 federal-only votes cast in the 2018 election. At the time of our 2021 reporting, not all counties were publicly posting their federal-only ballots cast despite state law requiring the disclosure.
“[A]fter each general election, [the county recorder] shall post on the recorder’s website the number of ballots cast by those persons who were eligible to vote a ballot containing federal offices only,” states the law.
It appears that the state’s two largest counties neglected to adhere to the federal-only ballot disclosure law for the 2022 election.
Maricopa County didn’t publish a file like they did in 2020 disclosing the number of federal-only ballots cast for the 2022 election.
Pima County displayed the number of federal-only ballots cast for 2020, but it didn’t issue an update or similar public display for last year’s election. The county recorder only disclosed the number of provisional ballots it accepted or denied based on federal-only status in its December after-action report: 51, compared to the 107 provisional federal-only ballots accepted in the 2020 election and 108 provisional federal-only ballots accepted in the 2018 election.
Most of these federal-only ballots are likely absentee. About 89 percent of all voters in Arizona cast their vote by mail-in ballot.
In last week’s ruling, Bolton opined that the NVRA only allows states to place limits on mail-in voting when it comes to first-time voters, and not under any additional circumstances, like requiring proof of citizenship.
“Had Congress intended to permit states that allow absentee voting to require in-person voting under additional circumstances — including when a registrant fails to provide DPOC — it could have said so in the NVRA,” wrote Bolton. “Not only does the statute exclude failure to provide DPOC among the reasons a state may require an individual to vote in person, but as explained below, the purpose of the NVRA supports an interference that Congress meant to limit the number of circumstances in which a state could prevent an individual from voting by mail.”
The court addressed whether the laws were conducive to enhancing the participation of eligible citizens as voters in elections for federal office. The Fifteenth Amendment expressly assigns the right to vote with U.S. citizens, with the definition of citizenship provided in the amendment immediately preceding, the Fourteenth Amendment.
Bolton also ruled that the state failed to limit its systemic purges of voter rolls from occurring within 90 days of an election. She rejected arguments from the state that this 90-day window didn’t apply to voters who were found to be noncitizens. Meaning, individuals not qualified to vote can’t be purged from voter rolls in a systematic manner if they’re discovered as ineligible within 90 days of an election; these removals may only occur on a strictly individual basis.
“While the Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the State may still conduct individualized voter removals within the 90-day window, the systematic removal program mandated by HB 2243 violates Section 8(c)(2) of the NVRA,” stated Bolton.
Bolton opted not to rule yet on several issues. Two concerned the state’s requirement of investigations and cancellations of the voter registrations of those noncitizens identified through various government databases. Another concerned the state’s requirement of an individual to disclose their citizenship and birthplace, which Bolton noted were only in violation of the Materiality Provision when also providing the state with DPOC.
“The Checkbox Requirement violates the Materiality Provision when an applicant provides satisfactory evidence of citizenship,” stated Bolton.
Ruling on those questions will be issued sometime after the November trial.
Elias was joined in the lawsuit against the laws by the Department of Justice (DOJ) last summer.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
