Efforts by the Biden Administration to coerce Arizonans to obtain the COVID-19 vaccination or risk losing their jobs is “one of the greatest infringements upon individual liberties, principles of federalism, and separation of powers ever attempted by any administration in the history of our Republic,” according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich.
“Under our Constitution, the President is not a king who can exercise this sort of unbridled power unilaterally,” Brnovich argues in the lawsuit, adding that “even George III wouldn’t have dreamed that he could enact such sweeping policies by royal decree alone.”
Over the last few weeks, President Joe Biden has pushed for more Americans to be vaccinated, including tens of thousands of Arizonans who work for the federal government, private contractors doing business with the U.S., healthcare workers whose employers received Medicare or Medicare payments, and those working for companies with at least 100 employees.
Among those the mandate would apply to are nearly 300,000 employees of the federally-funded Head Start program. The lawsuit does not address Biden’s recent announcement that all military personnel, including reserves, must be vaccinated.
Employees who refuse to be vaccinated under various Presidential executive orders or OSHA rules will be forced to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing, or face termination.
Brnovich’s lawsuit seeks ruling that Biden and the other federal defendants do not have authority to impose the vaccination mandate on U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. It also seeks a declaratory judgment finding such policies and mandates unconstitutional.
Another prong of Brnovich’s lawsuit takes aim at the fact U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and even lawfully present aliens face the prospect of much harsher public health mandates and punishment than hundreds of thousands of unauthorized aliens present in the country. As a result, Brnovich is asking for a court order enjoining the President and other federal officials from engaging in unconstitutional discrimination.
Brnovich’s lawsuit was not the only major COVID-19 vaccination development to occur Tuesday.
A federal judge in New York issued an emergency injunction on Tuesday against the State of New York’s requirement that all healthcare workers provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination. The order by U.S. District Judge David Hurd temporarily suspends a mandate put forth last month by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo which applied to all hospitals and congregate care facilities such as nursing homes.
Cuomo’s mandate did not protect employees who hold sincere religious beliefs against receiving the vaccine, and Gov. Kathy Hochul did not amend the mandate when she was recently sworn in.
The New York Department of Health is now prohibited from initiating “any action, disciplinary or otherwise” which would impact the licensure, certification, residency, admitting privileges, or other professional status or qualification of any healthcare worker who objected to the mandatory COVID-19 vaccination due to a religious exemption.
Additional legal proceedings could lead to all or part of the New York mandate being permanently enjoined.
Also on Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued an advisory to all immigrants who apply for a Green Card on or after Oct. 1 that they must provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination in order to ensure their application is not rejected.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services advisory pertains to all applicants seeking permanent residency, who must undergo an immigration medical examination to show the applicant is “free from any conditions that would render them inadmissible under the health-related grounds.”
Under the new policy, applicants will not be able to receive the immigration medical examination without first providing proof of COVID-19 vaccination.
Phoenix, AZ – The initial maps for Arizona’s redistricting process were approved on September 14, 2021, by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC). The approved grid maps are of equal populations for the congressional and legislative districts as required by the state constitution.
Arizonans are encouraged to become involved with this next phase by utilizing the online mapping system and or by attending the public hearing sessions. Information can be found at irc.az.gov.
“We welcome the involvement and voices of all interested individuals and groups to become part of this critical process that will remain in place for the next ten years,” said Erika Neuberg, Chairwoman Independent Redistricting Commission. “With the approval of scheduled dates, times and locations, for the next round of public hearing, we will follow the State of Arizona’s COVID guidelines but also encourage those who choose not to participate in person to please go online and submit comments and maps.”
The following is the schedule of in-person public meeting sessions:
Tuesday, September 21 4:00 pm (MST) 5:00 pm (MDT)
Main location:
Red Mountain Multigenerational Center
7550E. Adobe St.
Mesa, AZ 85207
Satellite locations:
Yuma Civic Center
1440 W. Desert Hills Dr.
Yuma, AZ 85365
Navajo Nation Training Center (limit 25 participants onsite) Masks Required
Morgan Blvd. Bldg. #2740
Window Rock, AZ 86515
Thursday, September 23 12:00 pm ( MST)
Main location:
Scottsdale Center for the Arts
7380 E. 2nd St.,
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Satellite locations:
Radisson Hotel
777 N. Pinal Ave
Casa Grande, AZ 85122
Sierra Suites
391 E. Fry Blvd.
Sierra Vista, AZ 85635
Saturday, September 25 10:00 am (MST)
Main location:
Desert Willow Conference Center
4340 E. Cotton Center Blvd.
Phoenix, AZ 850401
Satellite location:
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University
3700 Willow Creek Road
Prescott, AZ 86301
Wednesday, September 29 4:00 pm (MST)
Main location:
Cactus Shadows Fine Arts Center
33606 N. 60th St.
Scottsdale, AZ 85266
Satellite location:
Tucson Convention Center
260 S. Church Ave.
Tucson, AZ 85701
Thursday, October 7 4:00 pm (MST) 5:00 (MDT)
Main location:
The Vista Center for the Arts
15660 N. Parkview Pl.
Surprise, AZ 85374
Satellite locations:
High Country Conference Center
201 W. Butler Ave.
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
Cesar Chavez Cultural Center
1015 N. Main St.
San Luis, AZ 85349
Kayenta Township Town Hall (limit 25 participants onsite) Masks required
100 N. Highway 163
Kayenta, AZ 86033
Individuals attending the in-person sessions at the main and satellite locations will have the opportunity to speak and give public comments on the grid maps. They can also complete their mapping comments online before the public meetings.
Proposed changes to how federal capital gains and inheritances are taxed would cost Arizona families billions of dollars in lost economic output and investment income over the next decade, not to mention kill thousands of jobs, according to an economic impact analysis released last week.
The report issued Sept. 9 by Committee to Unleash Prosperity examined the direct effects federal legislative proposals like the Sensible Taxation and Equity Promotion (STEP) Act put forth by the Biden Administration would have on financing costs, labor productivity, costs to small and family-owned businesses and farms, and federal non-military spending of new revenue.
U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) is joined by Sens. Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Elizabeth Warren in supporting the STEP Act and other proposed federal legislation also seek to make death a tax realization event and to increase the tax liability of trusts commonly utilized by small businesses, family- and privately-owned enterprises, farm and ranch operations, and others.
And the result over the next decade would hit thousands of Arizonans hard, according to the analysis conducted by Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI). The results would include sustained annual job losses in the state from 8,000 to nearly 20,000. That translates to 80,000 to almost 200,000 fewer job-year equivalents over 10 years, the report states.
In addition, the Biden-supported STEP Act and similar legislation would increase the top capital gains tax rate to 39.6 percent, which becomes 43.4 percent if the taxpayer is also subjected to a 3.8 percent net investment income tax (NIIT).
The changes would create $12 billion in private investment losses for Arizonans, a $120 million decline in research & development spending, and a 10-year loss in personal income of about $20 billion in Arizona, the analysis showed. The analysis does not address any further effect attributed to state capital gains, estate, or inheritance taxes.
The negative impact of changing federal tax law is driven by several factors, including increased capital and tax liability costs faced by businesses and farms. In turn, that translates into higher prices for consumer goods and services and makes the domestic private sector less hospitable for new and existing businesses, especially small and family-owned businesses and farms that are often less resilient to economic shocks.
“Higher prices mean that consumers are able to make fewer purchases, slowing demand throughout the economy from retailers to manufacturers to service providers,” the report states. “A less hospitable private sector means that prospective businesses may choose not to open, existing businesses may be forced to downsize or close altogether, and export-focused businesses lose market share to international competitors.”
And despite likely increased federal non-military spending to provide a direct boost to the economy, REMI found the negative impacts “dominate” in the end in Arizona.
Stephen Moore, the Committee to Unleash Prosperity’s co-founder, calls the proposed federal legislation a tax scheme that is “an assault on the American tradition of family-owned and operated businesses being passed on” from one generation to the next.
“Many families will literally have to sell the farm to pay the Biden taxes,” Moore said. “The damage to jobs and the economy would be multiple times larger than any revenue gained for the government from this unfair tax proposal.”
Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee announced Tuesday that the state will no longer invest funds in ice cream giant Ben & Jerry’s, due to its violation of state law with its Israel boycott. Arizona law outlaws any state funds from going to entities that boycott Israel.
Arizona’s Unilever investments have dropped from $143 million to around $50 million currently. All investments will be removed by September 21.
In a press release, Yee explained that Ben & Jerry’s parent company, the British conglomerate Unilever PLC, refused to reverse the boycott or divest itself of the ice cream company.
“I gave Unilever PLC, the parent company of Ben & Jerry’s, an ultimatum: reverse the action of Ben & Jerry’s or divest itself of Ben & Jerry’s to come into compliance with Arizona law or face the consequences. They chose the latter,” said Yee. “It does not matter how much investment Unilever PLC has in Israel, with Ben & Jerry’s decision to no longer sell its product in the West Bank, the companies are in violation of the law in Arizona. Arizona will not do business with companies that are attempting to undermine Israel’s economy and blatantly disregarding Arizona’s law.”
Yee denounced the actions of Ben & Jerry’s in a follow-up tweet to the press release. She denounced the boycott as anti-Semitic and discriminatory.
“As Arizona Treasurer, I’ve divested all state funds from Ben & Jerry’s for boycotting Israel. Israel is and will continue to be a major trade partner of AZ,” wrote Yee. “ #IStandWithIsrael and I will not allow taxpayer dollars to go towards anti-Semitic, discriminatory efforts against Israel.”
Ben & Jerry’s announced their boycott in mid-July. They claimed that Israeli forces were illegally occupying Palestinian territory. They also stated that their end to ice cream sales wasn’t technically a boycott – that they would remain in Israel through “a different business arrangement.” The company promised to divulge further details about this arrangement, but have yet to do so.
Ben & Jerry’s founders, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, also argued that their decision to withdraw from Israel wasn’t antisemitic. Rather, they said that they rejected Israel’s policy of occupation.
“The company’s stated decision to more fully align its operations with its values is not a rejection of Israel. It is a rejection of Israeli policy, which perpetuates an illegal occupation that is a barrier to peace and violates the basic human rights of the Palestinian people who live under the occupation,” stated Cohen and Greenfield. “As Jewish supporters of the State of Israel, we fundamentally reject the notion that it is antisemitic to question the policies of the State of Israel.”
This is far from the first of the ice cream giant’s clear declaration of its political stance. They are consistently political.
Following George Floyd’s death last year, Ben & Jerry’s called for people to dismantle white supremacy, and told white people to examine their privilege and pay reparations.
After the January 6 incident at the Capitol, Ben & Jerry’s issued a flurry of social media posts and statements calling for then-President Donald Trump’s impeachment. They asserted that the rioters were advocating for white supremacy.
In February, the company unveiled a mural of National Anthem-kneeler, Black Lives Matter (BLM) activist, ex-NFL player Colin Kaepernick.
They’ve also released statements in support of trans rights, reparations, BLM, and illegal immigration (especially through their partnership with Migrant Justice’s Milk with Dignity – an organization that advocates for illegal immigrants).
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Contrary to popular belief, proof of citizenship isn’t necessarily required for Arizona voters in federal elections. An individual may choose to be a “federal-only” voter, which is what over 11,600 people did in Arizona during the 2020 election – nearly 1,150 more votes than what President Joe Biden received to win the state. Federal-only voters may later provide their proof of citizenship to vote in state, county, and local elections as well – but they never have to for federal elections.
A majority of those 11,600 federal-only votes came from Maricopa County: over 8,100 total. Nearly 4,500 of those votes were from standard federal-only voters. The remaining 3,630 came from Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) federal-only voters. UOCAVA voters have proven citizenship but may only cast federal-only ballots because of their indefinite overseas status.
The next-largest total came from Pima County with just under 2,000 federal-only votes. Their public report didn’t distinguish the standard and UOCAVA voters.
We were unable to obtain federal-only vote totals from Pinal County by press time.
Yavapai County had nearly 260 federal-only votes – no distinction was made between standard and UOCAVA voters on their public report. Yuma County had 169 federal-only ballots cast. Coconino County informed AZ Free News that it had nearly 930 federal-only votes: over 330 standard, and over 590 UOCAVA votes.
We were also unable to obtain the totals for federal-only ballots cast in the following counties by press time: Mohave, Cochise, Navajo, Apache, Gila, and Graham.
For the 2018 midterm elections, the secretary of state’s office reported that only about 1,700 people cast federal-only ballots.
Prior to 2018, counties weren’t required to make the number of federal-only votes cast public. While she was still a representative, State Senator Kelly Townsend (R-Mesa) changed that by introducing and passing A.R.S. §16‐161(B).
Despite this law, AZ Free News had to reach out to some of the counties to learn how many federal-only ballots were cast there in the election. Not all of the counties are publishing the total number of federal-only registered voters and ballots cast per state law.
Townsend told AZ Free News that she introduced A.R.S. §16-161(B) when she encountered some pushback from Maricopa County over receiving the numbers of registered federal-only voters. They wanted Townsend to file an open records request (also called a Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] request). This frustrated Townsend, but she respected their request.
“What’s the effort of trying to obscure this? You’re causing me to believe there’s something nefarious going on because I had to do all these backflips to try to get these numbers,” said Townsend.
Even after Townsend complied, she told AZ Free News that the numbers didn’t add up. Townsend took the next logical step. She introduced a bill requiring all counties to make the number of federal-only ballots cast publicly available.
As of last year, there were around 36,000 people registered as federal-only voters in Arizona.
The number of federal-only voters hasn’t always been this large. In fact, it was 26 to 36 times smaller in 2017. Townsend said that only around 1,100 people were registered as federal-only voters back then. This concurs with the reports that around 1,700 people cast federal-only ballots in 2018.
According to Townsend, the federal-only option is tantamount to an honor system.
“It begs the question: if there are 36,000 people in the state of Arizona that can’t prove they exist – through birth certificates, social security numbers, [etc] – what’s wrong with our vital statistics department? I have a hard time believing that our vital statistics department can’t get 36,000 Americans their birth certificates. What’s wrong with the Social Security Department that there are 36,000 people that can’t have their identity verified?” asked Townsend. “I think the bigger argument is why are we so inept. If they’re an American, they deserve to be able to vote an entire ballot. What are we doing wrong that we can’t get them to vote on an entire ballot?”
Townsend explained further that once an individual registers as a federal-only voter, they can elect to be on the mail-in ballot system. She says that she will be introducing legislation next year to tighten up the identification requirements for federal-only voters, such as requiring a government-issued form of identification rather than allowing merely any document displaying a name and address.
“We can at least change the ID to make sure it’s not just a bank statement,” asserted Townsend. “Otherwise, it’s going to take an act of Congress to change it.”
11,700 voters is a lot – especially considering Biden’s margin of victory. However, these ballots weren’t included in the scope of the ongoing audit. Townsend confirmed that she’d asked “multiple times” for the voters behind those ballots to be examined – but her requests were reportedly ignored.
State Representative John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) also tweeted this information after one of his constituents emailed him to ask.
“A constituent emailed asking me how many federal election only ballots were cast in AZ. These are ballots cast by people who could not prove citizenship,” wrote Kavanagh. “There were 11,604 federal only ballots cast. Biden won the election by 10,457. Makes you wonder.”
Kavanagh explained to AZ Free News that his legislative staff had called upon the secretary of state’s office to determine how many federal-only ballots were cast. The secretary of state’s office didn’t have that information readily available, and had to collect data from each county to determine the total number of federal-only ballots cast.
“I was shocked to discover that there were more federal-only ballots cast than the federal margin of victory,” said Kavanagh. “It could’ve affected the election.”
Like Townsend, Kavanagh said he is preparing to strengthen the verification procedures for federal-only voters.
“I’m investigating the procedures for checking somebody’s citizenship. I presume it would be done easily[.] If we can check people based on their name and address – we can actually go back and check how many of those people were actually citizens,” said Kavanagh. “We can’t prevent federal ballots, but we can let them know that if they’re lying we can come after them and prosecute them.”
From Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs’s office:
A person is not required to submit proof of citizenship with the voter registration form, but failure to do so means the person will only be eligible to vote in federal elections (known as being a “federal only” voter). A “federal only” voter will become eligible to vote a “full ballot” in all federal, state, county and local elections if he or she later provides valid proof of citizenship to the appropriate County Recorder’s office.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com
