by Jonathan Eberle | Mar 11, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
A proposed measure to close a significant loophole in Arizona’s election security passed the State Senate last week, bringing it one step closer to the 2026 election ballot. Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 1027, sponsored by Senator Shawnna Bolick (R-2), aims to prevent foreign actors from influencing the state’s elections, especially in relation to ballot measures.
The resolution would prohibit foreign nationals, entities, and committees from contributing money or services to influence the outcome of any election in Arizona. If SCR 1027 passes the House and receives voter approval, it would be placed on the 2026 ballot, where Arizona residents will have the opportunity to cast their votes on whether to ban foreign money from election-related activities.
Senator Bolick says the bill is a response to an ongoing vulnerability in the election process that allows foreign money to potentially sway the outcome of elections. While contributions from foreign nationals to political committees are already prohibited, the current laws do not extend this prohibition to all aspects of the election process, particularly when it comes to ballot measures.
“This is a commonsense, carefully crafted measure to ensure that Arizona’s elections are free from foreign interference,” said Bolick. “The people of Arizona must be confident that foreign funds are not influencing any part of our election process. If the House approves SCR 1027, the people of Arizona will have the chance to vote on this measure to say once and for all—no foreign money in ANY part of our elections in Arizona.”
The measure is designed to add a layer of transparency and accountability to election funding. Under SCR 1027, any person or group attempting to influence the outcome of a ballot measure would be required to file a campaign finance report within 48 hours of making an expenditure. They would also need to certify under penalty of perjury that no foreign national provided funding or resources for preliminary election activities. This would be enforced by the Secretary of State’s office to ensure compliance.
Arizona is not alone in its concerns; other states have passed similar laws in recent years to protect their elections from foreign meddling. In 2020, Washington State implemented restrictions on foreign donations to initiatives, following concerns over foreign money being funneled into state campaigns.
Supporters of SCR 1027 argue that this measure will protect the integrity of the state’s election process and send a strong message about Arizona’s commitment to safeguard its elections from foreign influence. Critics, however, may raise concerns about the potential for overreach or unintended consequences that could hinder legitimate political activity.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Nov 13, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved a border security proposal in the November General Election.
Last week, Proposition 314 passed in the state of Arizona with more than 62% of the vote. The measure, which was referred by the Arizona Legislature earlier this year “makes it a crime for persons not lawfully present in the United States to submit false information in applications for public benefits and employment, and to enter Arizona outside ports of entry, or refuse to comply with orders to return; [and] criminalizes selling fentanyl that causes the death of a person.”
Republican state Senator Janae Shamp, who was instrumental in the policy within the proposition, issued a comment after the result, saying, “Our state law enforcement asked me to create this measure because their hands were tied when it came to protecting our communities from the atrocious Biden-Harris border crisis. When Governor Hobbs chose to ignore our laws, our law enforcement, and our state’s citizens by vetoing the Secure the Border Act, I knew sending it to the ballot was necessary. It’s what the people of Arizona wanted, and now, they’ve spoken.”
Shamp added, “The people of Arizona want safe communities again. Communities free of crime, deadly drugs, sex trafficking, murder, and harmful fraud. I’m proud to have sponsored this measure and to have seen it through to pass at the polls, but I was merely doing what I promised to do when I was sworn into office. I will always fight for what’s best for Arizonans! In this case, I believe it’s also what’s best for our country.”
After a state superior court judge ruled against efforts to keep the measure from the ballot in July, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen reacted to the decision in a statement, emphasizing the importance of the proposition being enacted by voters. He said, “It’s unthinkable Democrats and our Governor would stand with Biden and radical left activists, instead of the hardworking Arizona families who are begging for their elected leaders to secure our border and promote safety within our communities. As expected, the court ruled in favor of sanity instead of chaos, and we’re grateful we are able to provide this opportunity to voters to have the final say on.”
In June, former President Donald J. Trump was asked about this ballot measure when he was in Arizona for a campaign stop. He replied, “I endorse anything that is going to make it more difficult for people to come into our country illegally.”
The efforts from Arizona legislators to send this referral to state voters came months after Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed SB 1231, the Arizona Border Invasion Act, which would have “ma[de] it unlawful for a person who is an alien (unlawful immigrant) to enter Arizona from a foreign nation at any location other than a lawful port of entry and outline[d] penalties for violations of illegally entering Arizona and provide[d] immunity from civil liability and indemnification for state and local government officials, employees and contractors who enforce this prohibition” – according to the purpose from the state Senate.
Senator Janae Shamp, the sponsor of SB 1231, had vowed in the aftermath of the governor’s veto that members of her party would continue to push forward solutions to combat the border crisis. Republicans in both the Arizona House of Representatives and Senate came together to pass HCR 2060 in the spring, sending the border-related policies to the November General Election ballot.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Oct 9, 2024 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Every election cycle, out-of-state special interests spend millions trying to put their bad ideas onto our ballot. Because these groups do not understand our laws or our constitution, the measures they peddle are poorly drafted and are often unworkable or illegal. In some instances, they do know better but don’t seem to care that their proposed measure is unconstitutional.
For example, in 2020, two out-of-state groups collected signatures to put the largest tax hike in state history on the ballot. Nonpartisan attorneys at legislative council told them prior to gathering any signatures that their measure was unconstitutional. They didn’t care. After a multi-million-dollar campaign that resulted in the measure passing by a slim margin, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled the initiative unconstitutional a year later.
Why was it on the ballot in the first place, if it was so clearly unconstitutional? The courts have long held that they currently do not have the power to consider any challenges to the constitutionality of a measure before it is passed on the ballot. The only challenge that can be brought is against the signatures filed with the Secretary of State, or for a violation of the single subject or separate amendment requirements.
But if an out-of-state group is trying to put a measure on the ballot that is clearly unconstitutional, like statutorily exempting a tax hike from a constitutional spending limit, as Prop 208 tried to do, a challenge is not considered “ripe.” Instead, costly campaigns are run on both sides, and only after voters have been presented with a broken measure can a challenge be brought.
Prop 136 changes that…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Staff Reporter | Sep 10, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Tucson City Council is looking to implement a new transaction privilege tax to pay for a number of social projects.
The transaction privilege tax would be temporary (10 years) and amount to one-half cent (.5 percent). The city projected the tax would generate $80 million annually, or $800 million total.
With the council’s approval during their upcoming regular meeting on Wednesday, the transaction privilege tax under the “Safe and Vibrant Tucson” ballot measure would come before voters in a special election next March. The election wouldn’t be in person, but rather a vote-by-mail election.
The city projected the cost of conducting this special, mail-only election wouldn’t exceed $1.1 million.
The ballot measure was intended to take place last month; however, the city’s intent had the potential of breaking state law requiring local sales tax proposal elections to appear only on November ballots in even-numbered years. Following a request to review the issue by Democratic Senator Rosanna Gabaldon, Attorney General Kris Mayes issued a legal opinion in March defending the city’s desire to hold a tax-related ballot measure on their own terms rather than those permitted by law.
Even with Mayes’ blessing, city leadership opted to forfeit the July date for their special election, instead pushing it back to March of 2025.
Disbursements of the tax revenue would first prioritize capital investment for first responders (30 percent), enhanced emergency response (22 percent), affordable housing and shelter (17 percent), neighborhood and community resilience (16 percent), and then technology investments (12 percent).
Capital investments for first responders (30 percent) would include funding for: more police and fire personal protective equipment; specialized fire apparatus such as fire trucks, fire engines, fire pumpers, ambulances, and support trucks; unmarked police vehicles and speciality units used by SWAT teams; and upgrades and modernization for fire stations, police substations, and major equipment.
Enhanced emergency response (22 percent) would include funding for increased staffing for police, fire departments, 911, and 311. Police staffing funds would specifically include employment of more commissioned officers, community service officers (CSOs), and professional staff investigators (PSIs).
Affordable housing and shelter (17 percent) would include funding for: Tucson’s Housing First program; increased access to emergency shelters and transitional housing; down payment assistance to qualifying residents; a new Mobile Court function and investments in other specialty courts; progressive addiction treatments like harm reduction; physical investments in public, rental, and private houses such as long-term maintenance, weatherization, and climate resilience; large-scale housing projects; development impact fees for qualifying affordable housing projects; and moving current rental properties into the market for local home ownership.
Neighborhood and community resilience (16 percent) would include funding for: Pima Early Education Program Scholarships; youth workforce development programs; expanding the Community Safety, Health, and Wellness programs to teens; opening up VIVA locations; deploying Community Service Officer resources; beautification programs such as Team Up to Clean Up and Somos Uno Master Plan; cleaning up public transit; and expanding workforce training programs.
Technology investments (12 percent) would include funding for: improving 911 and 311 call systems; modernizing air support functions within Community Safety Awareness and Response Center by adding a fixed-wing aircraft, replacing the aging helicopter fleet, and advancing the use of unmanned aircraft; and accessing and managing all video and data collected by police body-worn cameras.
The proposed ballot measure’s primary focus on funding police and public safety was a reflection of results from over 800 respondents to a community budget survey the city issued earlier this year.
In its agenda materials, the city did note that the ballot measure excluded funding for road infrastructure.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Aug 25, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
The Arizona Supreme Court may have rendered a significant blow to the future of a key ballot measure for the upcoming General Election.
On Friday, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an order in Smith v. Fontes, which was a challenge over the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act (Proposition 140). The court ruled that Prop 140 “will appear on the ballot, assuming ballots are indeed printed in the early morning hours of August 23.” However, the state’s high court projected that if a majority of its justices were to later “disqualif[y] the Initiative, the court should issue an injunction precluding any votes for the measure from being counted.”
The issue at hand involves a challenge to the signatures submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State by the committee supportive of the ballot measure. The parties contesting the submission have argued that there are 40,000 duplicative signatures in the batch, which, if discarded, would bring the initiative under the minimum number required for placement on the ballot.
Proposition 140 is an attempt from the Make Elections Fair PAC to remake the Arizona elections systems through this constitutional amendment on the ballot.
“I am grateful for this thoughtful decision from the Arizona Supreme Court,” said Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. “At no time did the trial court judge or the committee in favor of the initiative provide evidence as to why these signatures were not duplicates, but instead relied on a strategy of obstruction to run out the clock. The lateness of this challenge did not have to be the case if the lower court had only adhered to the Supreme Court’s earlier directive for all duplicates to be removed from the qualifying count. For any ballot measure – but especially one that would fundamentally transform our elections systems – Arizonans deserve complete confidence that our courts are applying all laws fairly and justly.”
Mussi added, “This isn’t a debate about dubious matches or concerns of same family members with the same name being confused as a duplicate. All the duplicates submitted to be removed were exact name and address matches that aligned with what was on the voter file. Under state law, you are only allowed to sign a petition once, so they should have been removed. Instead, thousands of people were allowed to sign the initiative petition sheets multiple times, and those signatures were counted.”
In its order, the Court wrote, “There is no statutory directive that a court resolve an election challenge like this one before the ballot printing deadline. Regardless, this Court, and indeed the trial court, has consistently endeavored to resolve initiative challenges before the ballot printing deadline… But the courts’ role is to dispense justice. Courts cannot be forced to rule rashly to meet a ballot printing deadline or provide the parties with certainty.”
According to the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, this measure “is seeking to enact a California-style election scheme built around ranked choice voting and jungle primaries.” On the other hand, an advocate for the Make Elections Fair Act recently maintained that Prop 140 “represents an opportunity to improve both our elections and our state government.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
