Days after Republican legislators warned of possible ethical repercussions over Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes’ public statements against the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program, a private citizen filed a formal complaint against Arizona’s top prosecutor.
On May 31, according to a document received and reviewed by AZ Free News, Charlie Schinke of Chandler filed a charge against Attorney General Mayes with the State Bar of Arizona.
Schinke requests “that the Bar Counsel initiate an investigation to determine whether attorney (and Attorney General) Kristin K. Mayes has breached the foundational duties of loyalty and confidentiality she owes to her clients, in violation of Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6 and 1.7.” The Chandler resident writes, “In just the last month, Ms. Mayes appeared on television to threaten one of her clients with an investigation that could carry potential criminal dimensions, and publicly admonished another client in letters that she distributed in a press release.” He asserts that “the Attorney General serves state agencies as a counselor and confidante; she does not (and cannot) control, regulate or punish them.”
The two allegations that Schinke uses to base his complaint, are Mayes’ April 17 letter to Director Thomas Buschatzke of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, where she “launched into an extended critique of the agency’s studies of so-called active management areas and demanded that Director Buschatzke supply her with documentation evidencing the agency’s compliance with its responsibilities;” and her May 21 interview, in which Mayes “announced that her office ‘is going to be looking at fraud, waste and abuse in the universal school voucher program.’”
Schinke cites Arizona case law that reflects the lawful containment of the Attorney General’s duties, highlighting a portion of Brnovich v. Arizona Board of Regents, which says, “In Arizona, unlike some other states, the Attorney General has no inherent or common law authority… [T]he authority of the Attorney General must be found in statute.” He writes that “the legislature has designated the Attorney General the ‘chief legal officer of the state,’ and in that capacity she is ‘the legal advisor of the departments of this state and [must] render such legal services as the departments require.’”
The author of the complaint ends his letter to the State Bar with two charges, stating, “Attorney General Mayes’ public criticisms of, and threats to investigate her clients are inconsistent with her duties of confidentiality and loyalty.”
Schinke reminded the Bar about a previous case it considered. In that case, former Attorney General Mark Brnovich faced charges due to allegations that “his public criticisms of, and adverse legal actions against, the agency violated his ethical responsibilities.” Schinke ends his letter, pleading with the Bar to exercise the “same scrutiny” with Attorney General Mayes “that her predecessor received,” adding a line about the “Bar’s self-professed commitment to non-partisanship.”
Schinke’s letter comes just six days after a bicameral group of Republican lawmakers, led by Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma, transmitted a letter to Mayes, demanding that she “publicly retract (her) patently false statements attacking ESAs and impugning the motives of thousands of parents that use ESAs to provide the best education for their children.” In their letter, the legislators write: “Of course, Arizona’s Ethical Rules do not tolerate the initiation of criminal proceedings absent probable cause to believe that any parent has committed a crime. See Arizona Ethical Rule 3.8 (listing the special ethical responsibilities of a prosecutor). Further, it would raise ethical questions if a government attorney were to publicly insinuate that a current client is engaging in misconduct with no factual basis. See, e.g., Arizona Ethical Rule 1.7 (imposing a duty of loyalty to a current client).”
🚨BREAKING🚨 Legislative Leaders Demand AG Mayes Retract False Statements Regarding ESAs & to Use State Resources to Serve Interests of Arizonans, Not Politics!
“Parents have spoken and the Legislature has enacted ESAs into law. Your job, as an executive branch official, is to… pic.twitter.com/QgLvDcvsGY
— Arizona House Republicans (@AZHouseGOP) May 25, 2023
Mayes does not appear to have publicly commented on the complaint.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizona Republican legislators have finally had enough of Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes’ continuing assault on the state’s historic Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESA) program.
On Thursday, a bicameral group of Republican lawmakers, led by Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma, transmitted a letter to Mayes, demanding that she “publicly retract (her) patently false statements attacking ESAs and impugning the motives of thousands of parents that use ESAs to provide the best education for their children.”
🚨BREAKING🚨 Legislative Leaders Demand AG Mayes Retract False Statements Regarding ESAs & to Use State Resources to Serve Interests of Arizonans, Not Politics!
“Parents have spoken and the Legislature has enacted ESAs into law. Your job, as an executive branch official, is to… pic.twitter.com/QgLvDcvsGY
— Arizona House Republicans (@AZHouseGOP) May 25, 2023
The accusations and demands in the letter stem from a recent television interview Mayes gave where she “claimed that ‘there are no controls’ on the ESA program, ‘no accountability,’ that ‘they’ (presumably parents) are ‘spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money,’ that this ‘needs to be looked at,’ and that it’s (her) ‘responsibility to do that’ as Arizona’s ‘top law enforcement officer.’”
The coalition of eight legislators (Senators T.J. Shope, Sonny Borrelli, and Sine Kerr, and Representatives Travis Grantham, Leo Biasiucci, and Teresa Martinez – along with Petersen and Toma) share their alarm “that the state’s chief legal officer would make such outlandish claims that are refuted by Arizona law.” They write that “Numerous statutory provisions in the ESA laws expressly require accountability, oversight, and investigations when appropriate. See, e.g., A.R.S. § 15-2403 (requiring, among other things, the Arizona Department of Education to conduct or contract for ‘random, quarterly and annual audits’ of ESAs ‘as needed to ensure compliance’, authorizing the Department to remove parents or qualified students if they fail to comply with the contract or applicable laws, rules or orders, and enabling the State Board of Education to refer cases ‘of substantial misuse of monies’ and suspected cases of fraud to the Attorney General).”
Republican Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne’s administration has been amenable to referring such cases of fraud or misuse of monies to the Attorney General as directed under law. In a tweet on March 1, the Arizona Department of Education responded to an account alleging misuse and / or fraud of ESA funds (in a post that has since been deleted), saying, “Please provide your relatives name, and we would like to refer her to Attorney General Kris Mayes. ESA dollars should only be spent on education.”
Please provide your relatives name, and we would like to refer her to Attorney General @KrisMayes. ESA dollars should only be spent on education. https://t.co/K88q32oTqN
— Arizona Department of Education (@azedschools) March 2, 2023
The Republicans warn Mayes that her rhetoric and threats are way beyond the statutory scope of her office, writing, “You have not cited a shred of evidence to suggest that either the Arizona Department of Education or the State Board of Education—both of whom you represent—have failed to comply with their statutory obligations, and there is no basis to believe that these agencies will disregard or refuse to follow the law in the future. And while you have a statutory responsibility to investigate matters that are referred to you, the Legislature did not authorize and does not condone the selective targeting or roving investigations of ESA parents.”
They also raise the issue of “ethics” that will be sure to catch the attention of the intended audience at Central Avenue and just north of McDowell. Over the past few years, then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs weaponized the Arizona State Bar and ethics rules against then-Attorney General Mark Brnovich, her political rival at the time, giving a very low standard of precedent for a reprisal against the state’s newest prosecutor. Hobbs didn’t just file bar complaints against Brnovich; she leveled the charges at several attorneys in his office over political disagreements between the two. In their letter to Mayes, the legislators write: “Of course, Arizona’s Ethical Rules do not tolerate the initiation of criminal proceedings absent probable cause to believe that any parent has committed a crime. See Arizona Ethical Rule 3.8 (listing the special ethical responsibilities of a prosecutor). Further, it would raise ethical questions if a government attorney were to publicly insinuate that a current client is engaging in misconduct with no factual basis. See, e.g., Arizona Ethical Rule 1.7 (imposing a duty of loyalty to a current client).”
The lawmakers end their letter with an appeal for Mayes to conform with the expectations and values of their shared constituents across the state, stating, “Arizonans expect the state’s chief legal officer to refrain from engaging in politically-motivated pursuits, threats, or lawsuits, and to make public statements that align with Arizona law and the duties of your office.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Attorney General Kris Mayes has issued another challenge to keep accessibility of the controversial abortion drug mifepristone.
In a press release issued Tuesday, Mayes announced that she’d joined an amicus brief against the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruling blocking the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of mifepristone. Mayes accused Texas federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of being an “extremist” opposing medical consensus.
“We cannot allow anti-abortion activists and an extremist judge to undo over two decades of medical consensus. Mifepristone is safe and effective and has been used by millions of Americans over the past two decades,” said Mayes.
The efficacy and safety of mifepristone remains dubious. In the ruling challenged by Mayes, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, Kacsmaryk noted the hundreds of known cases of infections and deaths arising from the drug’s usage. Kacsmaryk cited a 2006 hearing and report by the U.S. House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources, which noted at least 8 women’s deaths, 9 life-threatening illnesses, 232 hospitalizations, 116 blood transfusions, and 88 cases of infection; overall, over 950 adverse event cases from the drug out of 575,000 prescriptions.
Kacsmaryk also noted that the FDA took nearly 14 years to reject a petition from multiple medical professional coalitions challenging their approval of the drug. The judge further noted that, on the same day of their rejection of the petition, the FDA expanded allowed usage for the abortion drug, changed the dosage, reduced the number of required in-person office visits, allowed non-doctors to prescribe and administer the drug, and eliminated the requirement for prescribers to report non-fatal adverse events from the drug.
In the ruling, Kacsmaryk shared that there are likely far more than the known 4,200 adverse events from chemical abortion drugs due to the FDA’s rule change eliminating non-fatal adverse reporting requirements and emergency rooms miscoding over 60 percent of women’s emergency room visits for adverse abortion drug reactions as miscarriages.
What’s more, Kacsmaryk rejected the main justification for the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug: reclassifying pregnancy as a “serious or life-threatening illness” and therefore justifying mifepristone as a “meaningful therapeutic benefit.”
“Pregnancy is a normal physiological state most women experience one or more times during their childbearing years — a natural process essential to perpetuating life,” stated Kacsmaryk. “Nothing in the [FDA] Final Rule supports the interpretation that pregnancy is a serious or life-threatening illness.”
Kacsmaryk also pointed out that the FDA had neglected to apply its logic to expedited treatments for other, less politicized ailments.
“[C]ategorizing complications or negative psychological experiences arising from pregnancy as ‘illnesses’ is materially different than classifying pregnancy itself as a serious or life-threatening illness,” stated Kascmaryk. “Tellingly, [the] FDA never explains how or why a ‘condition’ would not qualify as a ‘serious or life-threatening illness.’ Suppose that a woman experiences depression because of lower back pain that inhibits her mobility. Under FDA’s reading, a new drug used to treat lower back pain — which can cause depression, just like unplanned pregnancy — could obtain accelerated approval [per the FDA’s rationale].”
The FDA approval took place during the Clinton administration. Similar to Kacsmaryk, the Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) noted in 2008 that medical professionals critical of the abortion drug’s approval questioned the reclassification of the abortion drug as warranted.
“Critics have argued that unwanted pregnancy should not be considered a serious or life-threatening illness.”
The Texas federal court ruling doesn’t impact Arizona at present; it may later on, based on pending future rulings in higher courts.
SCOTUS agreed to an application for a stay by the FDA of the Texas district court ruling, filed early last month. SCOTUS issued the stay late last month, allowing mifepristone to be made widely available while the appeals process plays out in the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Joining Mayes in the amicus brief are the attorneys general of California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawai’i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Arizonans used to a proactive Attorney General defending the state’s laws have had to readjust their expectations due to the political transfer of power in January.
During the first two years of the Biden Administration, Arizona was at the forefront of many of the political and legal battles sweeping the nation, in large part due to then-Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s defense of federalism and state laws. The Brnovich-led Arizona Attorney General’s Office took a leading and proactive role in dozens of lawsuits to push back against the federal government’s overreach and to enforce the laws the state legislature passed.
This changed once the new Attorney General Kris Mayes assumed the reins of the state’s top law enforcement agency. Mayes, a Democrat, has quickly abandoned some of the lawsuits initiated or joined by her predecessor or her office has slowed action on other cases.
The abrupt change in litigation policy from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office has forced the Republican-led Arizona Legislature into a central role when it comes to defending the Grand Canyon State’s laws and values. Both the State Senate and House have worked in tandem to assume the guardianship of key cases that have lost adequate representation since January.
On Thursday, the Arizona House of Representatives Majority Communications issued a release to update the public on “successful intervention(s) in cases to defend state laws and fight against federal overreach.” The announcement highlighted that “Members of the Arizona House of Representatives of the 56th Legislature have been in office less than four months but have already achieved major court victories, under Speaker Toma’s leadership and united with the State Senate.”
✅FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE✅
Arizona House of Representatives Celebrates Successful Intervention in Cases to Defend State Laws and Fight Against Federal Overreach.
— Arizona House Republicans (@AZHouseGOP) April 27, 2023
The House Majority celebrated four victories: Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes et al. – an Election Integrity case; 56th Legislature et al. v. Biden et al. – an intervention to protect“Arizona’s Sovereign Authority Against Federal Overreach”; Kentch et al. v. Mayes – anElection Contest case; Isaacson v. Mayes – a “Defense of Law Protecting Unborn Children with Disabilities.”
For the benefit of readers, the press release provided detailed commentary on each of the cases to allow for a greater understanding and appreciation of the Legislature’s efforts:
Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes et al.: “On April 26,a federal court granted Speaker Toma’s and President Petersen’s motion to intervene to defend Arizona laws that require proof of citizenship and proof of residence in the state when registering to vote and require the county recorder to review the voter rolls. When Speaker Toma and President Petersen realized the state’s interests would not be adequately protected in this case, they immediately sought intervention.”
56th Legislature et al. v. Biden et al.: “On April 25, the Legislature and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce filed an emergency application with the United States Supreme Court challenging President Biden’s executive order that unconstitutionally infringes on Arizonans’ medical freedoms by forcing federal contractors to receive the experimental COVID-19 vaccine or risk losing their jobs. The Legislature successfully intervened in the 9th Circuit after Arizona Attorney General Mayes stated she would not fully defend the injunction of Biden’s vaccine mandate that her predecessor secured to protect all Arizonans.”
Kentch et al. v. Mayes: “On April 11, the Mohave County Superior Court granted Speaker Toma’s and President Petersen’s motion to submit an amicus brief. This brief encourages the court to fully consider Abe Hamadeh’s motion for new trial, scheduled for oral argument on May 16, consistent with Arizona laws governing election contests.”
Isaacson v. Mayes: “On March 8, a federal court granted Speaker Toma’s and President Petersen’s motion to intervene to defend a law that prohibits abortions based solely on a child’s genetic abnormality after Arizona Attorney General Mayes stated she would not defend the law.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Attorney General Kris Mayes revealed over the weekend that her office has been encouraging pharmacies to give out abortion pills.
Mayes issued the remarks in an interview with MSNBC last Saturday discussing a multistate lawsuit against the FDA for imposing allegedly burdensome regulation on mifepristone, a drug used for abortions. Joining Mayes on the live interview were Attorneys General Kathy Jennings (Delaware) and Ellen Rosenblum (Oregon).
“We are one of those states who have actually encouraged Walgreens, and CVS, and other pharmacies to continue to offer the medication despite that pressure by Republican AGs,” said Mayes.
The attorney general criticized GOP attorneys general in other states, specifically Texas, for opposing abortion.
“You see that effort by some of those GOP attorneys general to continue to try to limit the access of women to abortion in every possible way they can find,” said Mayes. “Despite the fact that Roe was overturned, and it was sent back to the states, they’re still making these efforts in states to limit a woman’s access to abortion. And that’s why actions by Democratic AGs largely are so important. We’re going to continue to fight going forward.”
A total of 12 states joined the lawsuit against the FDA: Rosenblum and Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson led the lawsuit, joined by Nevada, Delaware, Illinois, Connecticut, Colorado, Vermont, New Mexico, and Rhode Island. The states requested a preliminary injunction to halt the restrictions on mifepristone, which require that health care providers be specially certified by the drug distributor in advance, patients and providers be willing to sign an agreement certifying that the patient has decided to take drugs to end their pregnancy, and pharmacies be specially certified to fill a prescription and dispense the drug.
Mayes claimed in a press release on the FDA lawsuit that mifepristone is safe. The FDA restrictions, specifically a risk evaluation mitigation strategy (REMS), ensure that mifepristone’s benefits outweigh any risks. Congressional Research Service (CRS) noted that the FDA is looking to roll back these REMS regulations.
During the MSNBC interview, Mayes also revealed that she plans to set up a “reproductive rights” unit in her office. She further added that she wouldn’t prosecute anyone for providing an abortion, even if they broke state law, and would do everything in her power to prevent county attorneys from enforcing abortion law. Mayes noted that she’s able to defy law because she and Gov. Katie Hobbs are Democrats.
“You do have a state like Arizona that has a Republican legislature, thankfully we have a Democratic attorney general and a Democratic governor now who will stop that kind of thing,” said Mayes. “I have been clear here in Arizona that we will never prosecute a woman, a doctor, a midwife, a nurse for abortion. But we have 15 county attorneys in Arizona and I’ve been clear also that I will fight any effort by a county attorney to prosecute.”
Mayes’ pledge to not prosecute aligns with her campaign promise to oppose abortion law.
As your next Attorney General, I will absolutely not allow the arrest or imprisonment of our reproductive healthcare providers, including doctors, nurses, PAs, midwives, pharmacists or others. This is outrageous.
Mayes claimed abortion is a constitutional right, and indicated that she would take legal action to fight current abortion restrictions. Arizona law currently bans abortion after 15 weeks.
“We are prepared to take action in support of those constitutional rights,” said Mayes.
At least three cities have effectively decriminalized abortion: Tucson, Phoenix, and, most recently, Flagstaff.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
