On Thursday, three GOP groups intervened in a lawsuit challenging Arizona’s new law requiring proof of citizenship in order to register to vote.
The Republican National Committee (RNC), National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the Republican Party of Arizona (RPAZ), the Mohave County Republican Central Committee, and the Gila County Republican Committee intervened to challenge the plaintiffs: two activist organizations advocating for progressive policies, Mi Familia Vota and Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA).
In their motion to intervene, the GOP groups asserted that voter ID preserved election integrity.
“[T]he question for this Court is not whether Movants have an interest in maintaining an ‘unconstitutional’ law. The question is whether Movants have an interest in preventing a federal court from enjoining a valid law that increases voter confidence and promotes election integrity,” read their motion.
Both Mi Familia Vota and LUCHA received help from one of the top lawyers for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign: Russiagate hoax lawyer Marc Elias.
In a press release, GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel defended the new Arizona law as common-sense policy. She added that the law would hold Democrats accountable for their “underhanded election tactic” of rejecting voter ID.
“American elections should be decided by American citizens: full stop. When it comes to non-citizens voting, Democrats are trying to change the rules of the game because their radical ideas won’t win on an even playing field,” said McDaniel.
Democrats argued that requiring proof of citizenship in order to vote was unconstitutional and against federal law.
Today, @dougducey signed HB2492. The bill creates new, illegal barriers for voters and will lead to costly litigation.
The Governor had an opportunity to stand up for voters, election officials, and taxpayers. He failed.
— Secretary Katie Hobbs (@SecretaryHobbs) March 30, 2022
However, legal experts like former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould clarified that the Constitution never empowered non-citizens with the right to vote. Gould toldArizona Daily Independent that the Constitution actually excludes non-citizens.
“Of course, non-citizens have never had a right to vote under the Constitution, and so it is absurd to argue that HB2492 takes away a legal, constitutional right to vote from anyone,” said Gould. “Requiring proof of citizenship to vote is a neutral, reasonable, non-discriminatory restriction that operates to exclude one group: non-citizens.”
If the new law withstands legal challenges, it wouldn’t go into effect until 2023.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The 10-year combined impact of Arizona’s recently enacted 2.5 percent flat rate income tax along with repealing the state’s progressive income tax structure with an 8.0 percent top rate included in 2020’s illegal Proposition 208 would increase Arizona’s GDP by about $11.9 billion with about 58,000 more employed workers.
That’s the conclusion from Common Sense Institute Arizona which took a deep look into the long-term effect of the Arizona Supreme Court’s rejection of Prop 208 and the signing into law of Arizona’s first flat tax.
“Generally, economists agree that high income taxes are economically harmful, particularly when they tax capital gains and other income on savings and investment at the same rate as ordinary income (as in Arizona and most other states),” the CSI report states. “This is because the tax discourages taxpayers from saving or investing ordinary income in the taxing jurisdiction, and instead spending it today on consumption locally or moving their investment to lower taxed jurisdictions.”
Arizona is one of 42 states with an individual income tax. When first enacted in 1933, the state had 11 tax rates ranging from 1.0 percent to 4.5 percent. Over the years, the tax rates have changed, bringing Arizona to its current four rates which range from 2.59 to 4.5 percent, the 40th lowest in the country.
According to Glenn Farley, CSI-Arizona’s Director of Policy & Research, Arizona is the 11th state to adopt a simplified flat tax structure. And when the state’s 2.5 percent flat rate is transitioned in, it will give Arizonans “the lowest income tax rate in the country” among the states with such a tax.
Farley added that Arizona currently has a happy revenue problem, in that the State has experienced unprecedented annual growth in income and sales tax collections since Fiscal Year 2018.
“Arizona is collecting at least $2.4 billion more per year due to the 2019 Tax
Omnbius, passed by the Arizona state legislature, than it was under the pre-2018 tax base,” the CSI report states. “The problem is best addressed by revisiting the state’s tax structure adopted in 2019, and not by trying to use one-time spending to absorb the excess cash. The 2.50% flat tax plan helps further the intended goal begun back in 2019: a revenue-neutral modernization of the state tax code, and not a permanent tax increase.”
The transition to a flat tax comes as Arizona continues to enjoy unprecedented revenue windfalls. The report notes that by FY2025, current trends and forecasts show the State General Fund adding $5.8 billion in new revenue despite all taxpayers paying in at a lower rate.
Which makes it all the more important that Prop 208 with its surcharge to a 8.0 percent rate was invalidated on constitutional grounds, the report states.
“Economic theory suggests high income taxpayers will relocate income in response to tax and other fiscal policy, without necessarily relocating themselves,” according to the CSI report. “A 77% increase in the states marginal tax rate on its highest earners would have reduced both Arizona’s long-term growth prospects and short-term revenue collections.”
On Wednesday, less than a day after Politico leaked the Supreme Court draft opinion overturning abortion rights, abortion activists protested at the Arizona State Capitol.
Multiple attendees and reporters present estimated that thousands descended on the capitol.
HAPPENING NOW: ‘Ho Ho, Hey Hey, Roe V Wade is here to stay!’
Hundreds outside the Arizona State Capitol rallying for Abortion Rights.
Arizona Department of Public Safety reported that two men were arrested. One allegedly engaged in disorderly conduct, the other allegedly committed an assault.
If the Supreme Court maintains a ruling matching the leaked draft opinion, then Arizona would likely ban abortion completely.
From the time Arizona became a state to the Roe v. Wade ruling, Arizona outlawed abortion completely, excepting life-threatening pregnancies, and punished anyone who performed abortions with prison time. If the Supreme Court overturns the precedents established by Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood, then the state may return to a total ban. The ban exists still within the Arizona Revised Statutes under Title 13, Chapter 36.
In March, Governor Doug Ducey signed a ban on abortions after 15 weeks’ gestation, SB1164. The law would go in effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends.
Elsewhere, pro-abortion protests turned into riots. In Los Angeles, California rioters attacked policemen and vandalized the city. In Portland, Oregon, riots incited by Antifa broke out.
Ahead of last night’s #Antifa riot in Portland over abortion, they gathered in front of the federal courthouse & created a mini autonomous zone with blockades. At night, they smashed up buildings, businesses & started fires. Video posted by @StanPulliam: pic.twitter.com/vrkG4u42W7
On Monday, a federal judge ordered the Biden administration to continue executing Title 42, a Trump-era policy allowing for expedited deportations and asylum processing.
Louisiana Western District Court Judge Robert Summerhays, a Trump-appointed judge and native of Fort Worth, Texas, issued the temporary restraining order (TRO). According to the conference minutes, the attorney generals engaged in the case will negotiate with the Biden administration on how to continue implementation of Title 42.
BREAKING: I am so proud of the lawyers from our office who just got a Temporary Restraining Order to keep Title 42 in place. We will continue to fight the Biden administration's open border policies.
The TRO was the latest development in Brnovich’s lawsuit against the Biden administration for ending Title 42 at all, in what Brnovich characterized as “the worst border crisis in history.” Per monthly and annual reports from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Brnovich’s assessment appears accurate.
Brnovich led two other states, Louisiana and Missouri, in filing the lawsuit.
In a press release, Brnovich thanked Summerhays for keeping Title 42 in place.
“The Biden administration cannot continue in flagrant disregard for existing laws and required administrative procedures,” remarked Brnovich.
In some reports, the case is filed as Arizona v. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, et al., but federal court records list the case as Louisiana, et al. v. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. The case number is 6:22-cv-00885.
The Biden administration promised to end Title 42 come May 23. However, the attorney generals learned through court filings provided by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that the policy was being terminated prematurely.
The next hearing on that lawsuit is scheduled for May 13.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A bill to raise the legal age for smokers or users of tobacco, vaping products, and alternative nicotine products from 18 to 21 is set to be heard by the Arizona Senate on Monday.
House Bill 2505 is a strike-everything amendment introduced by Sen. Vince Leach which also expands the definitions of what tobacco, vaping, or alternative nicotine products fall under Arizona’s criminal code. It also puts more restrictions on retailers of such products.
Leach’s amendment would make it a petty offense for anyone under age 21 to buy tobacco, a vapor product, or an alternative nicotine product as well as to have such items in their possession. It would also be a petty offense for someone under age 21 to possess any “instrument or paraphernalia” solely designed for smoking or ingesting a prohibited substance, such as a hookah or waterpipe.
And if that person under age 21 misrepresents their age by means of a written instrument of identification with the intent to induce someone to violate the law then under HB2505 the person presenting the fake ID would be guilty of a petty offense and must pay a fine up to $500.
But Leach is also seeking tomake it a petty offense for any person -regardless of age- to “sell, give, or furnish” tobacco, a vapor product, or an alternative nicotine product to someone under 21 without a prosecutor having to prove the person did so knowingly.
HB2505 also seeks to expand restrictions on the possession or use of tobacco products, alternative nicotine products, and vapor products on school grounds, parking lots, playing fields, busses, and at off-campus sponsored events. The term “school” applies to any public, charter, or private school serving students from K-12.
SB2505 would also redefine the legal meaning of a retail tobacco vendor and prohibit the sale or distribution of tobacco products, alternative nicotine products, and vapor products through a self-service or vending machine unless located in a retail establishment that does not allow anyone under the age of 21 to enter. There would also be restrictions on the sale of such products via delivery service.
Retail tobacco vendors would also be required to “prominently display” a sign measuring at least 80 square inches warning that anyone under age 21 would be committing a crime by attempting to purchase tobacco products, alternative nicotine products, or vapor products. The sign must also note that a fine of up to $300 may be imposed on conviction.
The legislation also confirms that the definitions used HB2505 are to have “the same meaning” as the definitions used in Arizona’s criminal code.
Leach’s amendment to HB2505 includes an exemption to 21 year age limit for “a bona fide practice of a religious belief” that is an integral part of a religious or ceremonial exercise. Another exemption states that it is not a petty offense for someone under age 21 to possess paraphernalia used for smoking or ingesting tobacco or shisha if the item “was a gift or souvenir and is not used or intended to be used” by someone under age 21 for such activity.
If Leach’s effort passes out of the Senate, then HB2505 must be heard again by the full House given that its current language has nothing to do the original procurement legislation addressed in HB2505 when introduced by House Majority Leader Ben Toma.
HB2505 would take effect after Dec. 31 of this year if it is signed into law.
