by Corinne Murdock | Aug 5, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Republican Attorney General candidate Abe Hamadeh has taken his appeal for a new trial to the Arizona Supreme Court.
In the petition filed on Thursday, Hamadeh’s team argued that the state’s judicial branch had thus far failed to provide timely decisions in such a time-sensitive case. The trial court took 161 days to issue its order denying Hamadeh’s motion since the initial January filing, which included over 60 days for the judge to set oral argument, and another 60 days for the judge to issue his denial.
“Pointedly, the parties’ rights to speedy decisions have been grossly and repeatedly violated,” stated the petition. “Given the urgency to resolve all of these matters and the lack of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, a special action to this Court is warranted.”
Hamadeh declared that the public had the right to a full, unfettered review of the evidence. According to his petition, that amounts to “hundreds, if not thousands” of uncounted votes that would heavily weigh in his favor and, ultimately, determine him the rightful winner of this past election.
“Our justice system cannot tolerate the government withholding evidence,” tweeted Hamadeh. “Count the votes.”
This evidence, according to Thursday’s petition, indicates critical vote count discrepancies that undermine the integrity of the recount result’s 280-vote lead that declared Democratic opponent Kris Mayes the victor. This included the allegation that machine tabulators misread valid votes as undervotes.
Last month, the trial court rejected Hamadeh’s bid to further undertake the process and exploration of alleged vote count discrepancies uncovered through the recount.
Hamadeh filed a motion for a new trial in January based on alleged evidence of uncounted votes discovered through the recount process. In Thursday’s petition, Hamadeh counsel explained it wasn’t possible to obtain this evidence warranting a new trial until after the late-December evidentiary hearing.
“[T]he newly discovered evidence was information and data that government bodies not only failed to disclose but that they also wrongfully withheld,” stated the petition. “[S]tate and county officials used the power and purse of the government to take a substantive position in an election contest and to actively tip the scales of justice by withholding public records and concealing information that validated the vote count issues Petitioners raised at trial.”
The petition further argued that the trial court’s denial was due to a lack of procedural clarity in election contests, not lack of evidence.
“If elections in Arizona are to truly be free and equal, Arizonans must be assured that government bodies cannot use resource and information asymmetry to favor one candidate over another with impunity,” concluded the petition.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Jul 23, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Attorney General Kris Mayes pledged to ignore the Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) recent decision in the case 303 Creative v. Elenis.
SCOTUS ruled last month that Colorado’s anti-discrimination law that would punish a Christian wedding website designer for declining to make a same-sex wedding website violated the First Amendment. The Scottsdale legal nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) represented the website designer.
Colorado anti-discrimination law added sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of traditional Civil Rights protections: race, religion, color, and national origin.
In a press release, Mayes encouraged individuals to continue to file complaints of discrimination concerning LGBTQ+ identity.
“Despite today’s ruling, Arizona law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, including discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity,” said Mayes. “If any Arizonan believes that they have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, or ancestry in a place of public accommodation, they should file a complaint with my office. I will continue to enforce Arizona’s public accommodation law to its fullest extent.”
The Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA) doesn’t list either sexual orientation or gender identity as protected classes. ACRA only recognizes race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, physical or mental disability, and genetic testing results as protected classes.
Mayes’ interpretation of ACRA could come from the arguments presented by former attorney general Mark Brnovich. Mayes’ predecessor interpreted anti-discrimination protections to include both sexual orientation and gender identity in a 2020 filing for Bruer v. State of Arizona. His filing followed the Bostock v. Clayton County decision prohibiting employers from discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
At the time, Brnovich stated that the state legislature would have to amend the Arizona Civil Rights Act to exclude sexual orientation and gender identity if they disagreed with his interpretation.
Also in her press release, Mayes called the SCOTUS majority “woefully misguided.” Mayes added that she agreed with Justice Sonya Sotomayor’s dissent.
“Today, a woefully misguided majority of the United States Supreme Court has decided that businesses open to the public may, in certain circumstances, discriminate against LGBTQ+ Americans,” stated Mayes.
Sotomayor’s dissent argued that the wedding website designer wasn’t protected by the First Amendment because her refusal to validate a same-sex wedding should be considered an act, not protected speech. Sotomayor further argued that individuals should be compelled to act contrary to their personal beliefs if they’re wishing to participate in the economy at all.
“[I]f a business chooses to profit from the public market, which is established and maintained by the state, the state may require the business to abide by a legal norm of nondiscrimination,” stated Sotomayor.
In her first executive order issued in January, Gov. Katie Hobbs added gender identity to the list of anti-discrimination protections concerning state employment and contracts. Hobbs expanded on the anti-discrimination precedent of her Democratic female predecessor, Janet Napolitano, who issued an executive order prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Jul 7, 2023 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Governor Katie Hobbs has rejected a request made by 12 of Arizona’s 15 county attorneys to rescind her executive order taking away their authority to enforce abortion law. The county attorneys submitted a letter to the governor on Monday. The county attorneys issued a Friday deadline for her response.
The governor issued an executive order last month stripping county attorneys of their ability to enforce abortion law. Hobbs bestowed that responsibility onto Attorney General Kris Mayes, who has already said she plans on ignoring the law.
Abortion is banned after 15 weeks’ gestation in Arizona.
The letter pointed out that Hobbs’ action undermined the duty and discretion of the county attorneys to enforce the law.
“The governor’s office should not interfere with the discretion of prosecutors in fulfilling their duties as elected officials,” stated the letter. “Whether this was the intended purpose, the result [of the executive order] is an unnecessary and unjustified impingement on the duties and obligations of elected county attorneys in Arizona.”
The county attorneys also contested that Hobbs had usurped authority that didn’t belong to her.
“This executive order results in an exercise of authority not vested in the governor’s office,” read the letter. “It is a substantial overreach to suggest the governor may strip away prosecutorial discretion from local, elected officials.”
READ THE LETTER HERE
Hobbs’ new communications director, Christian Slater, tweeted in response that Hobbs’ assuming control over the judiciary in an effort to undermine the current law was part of her putting “sanity over chaos.” Slater labeled those opposed to abortion as “extremists.”
“Governor Hobbs will continue to use her lawful executive authority to put sanity over chaos and protect everyday Arizonans from extremists who are threatening to prosecute women and doctors over reproductive healthcare,” wrote Slater.
Hobbs issued the executive order one day before the one-year anniversary of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization — the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. Hobbs’ order revoked the authority of county attorneys to prosecute abortion-related cases, and passed that authority onto Mayes.
Hobbs called abortion a “fundamental right,” the existence of which she claimed was paramount to freedom.
“I signed an Executive Order protecting Arizonans’ reproductive freedom,” said Hobbs. “I will not allow extreme and out of touch politicians to get in the way of the fundamental rights of Arizonans.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Daniel Stefanski | Jun 19, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
A Republican State Senator is outraged after the Democrat Attorney General issued a recent response to a legislative inquiry about prevailing wage ordinances.
On Thursday, Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes answered a 1487 complaint from Senator Catherine Miranda, who had previously asked if “a city may enact a prevailing wage ordinance that requires contractors on municipal public works contracts to pay their workers no less than the wage rates that prevail for their trade in their geographic location.”
Mayes affirmed that “a city may regulate the minimum wages paid within its geographic boundaries under Arizona Revised Statutes $ 23-364(1), so long as those wages are not less than the statewide minimum wage.” The attorney general added that “this authority includes the ability to require that employees of contractors on local public works projects be paid not less than the prevailing wage.”
This reply from Attorney General Mayes attracted the attention of one Republican lawmaker in particular, Senator T.J. Shope. The legislator took to Twitter to express his displeasure with the state’s top cop, writing, “This is a completely outside of the law interpretation by Attorney General Kris Mayes. If this were legal, why have the unions run bills at the Legislature every year to make prevailing wage legal, including a bill I once ran? I don’t have a problem with cities entering in to contracts with labor per se but do it the right way AND legally. My hope is a lawsuit will be filed immediately to challenge this ILLEGAL opinion by the AG. The AG should have run for Legislature if she wanted to enact law.”
Senator Shope may have been upset with Mayes’ opinion, but others around the state were not. Phoenix Councilwoman Laura Pastor tweeted, “Labor workers deserve to be compensated for their work. For years, I have consistently supported and pushed for prevailing wage – and I will continue to do so.”
Phoenix Vice Mayor Yassamin Ansari wrote, “Attorney General Mayes’ opinion is clear: cities may enact a prevailing wage ordinance to ensure that workers are paid fairly and competitively. I look forward to voting YES (again) for a strong Phoenix policy by the end of this year.”
Ansari’s comment was referencing a back-and-forth saga over a prevailing wage ordinance in the City of Phoenix earlier this year. In March, five members of the City’s Council voted to approve the Prevailing Wage Ordinance for City Projects to “ensure that (Phoenix’s) development growth is match with the skilled labor (the city) urgently needs when (Phoenix) invests in the growth of (its) communities.”
This action from Phoenix led to the threat of litigation from the Goldwater Institute, which sent an April letter to the Phoenix City Council to “express serious concerns” about the passage of the Ordinance, warning that if “the enacted version of the ordinance regulates matters that are expressly pre-empted by state law, it exposes the City to a high risk of litigation.” After the first Phoenix Council vote, there was a change in two seats, leading to another vote by the Council to repeal the Ordinance.
Mayor Kate Gallego was among the votes to repeal the Ordinance. She stated at the time, “I believe in doing things the right way, not the fast way, and that’s what we decided to do today. I am optimistic that we will find a path forward for better pay for construction workers while, at the same time, put sound policy on the books that survives legal challenges.”
Senator Miranda, the author of the 1487 complaint that generated Mayes’ opinion, seemed to have officials like Gallego in mind when she posted, “No hiding behind the fact it might be illegal. It’s not. Kris Mayes has spoken, “If two conflicting statutes cannot operate contemporaneously the more recent specific statute governs over [an] older more general statute.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Jun 10, 2023 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
We all know it’s been a rough start for Governor Katie Hobbs as Arizona’s Chief Executive. Along with high-profile staff exits and breaking the veto record after killing the bipartisan “Tamale Bill,” Hobbs alienated many Democrats when she signed the budget sent to her by the Republican-led legislature.
Not to be outdone, Attorney General Kris Mayes has come along since taking office with one clear message to Hobbs: “Hold my Bud Light.”
Mayes has been occupying the AG office for a couple of months, and she has already figured out a way to abuse her power and violate her attorney client obligations. All driven by her desire for headlines and trying to claim the mantle as top Democrat demagogue in the state.
Her antics began in April when she decided it was a good idea to threaten action against the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR)…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
