Come November, Arizona voters may decide whether to establish abortion at any stage of pregnancy as a fundamental right in the state constitution.
The assigned ballot number, Proposition 139, declares that voting in favor of the initiative would create a fundamental right to abortion, thereby limiting the state’s ability to interfere with all abortions — mainly those pregnancies predating the generally accepted standard for viability, around 24 weeks.
However, that doesn’t mean that abortions won’t be covered by the state constitution after viability. The proposition declares that abortions will be permissible after viability should any involved health care professional determine them “necessary” to protect the mother’s life or health.
The proposition would also preemptively ban lawmakers from imposing any criminal sanctions or other punishments on anyone who assists another in obtaining an abortion.
“A ‘yes’ vote shall have the effect of creating a fundamental right to abortion under Arizona’s constitution. The State will not be able to interfere with this fundamental right before fetal viability, unless it has a compelling reason and does so in the least restrictive way possible. Fetal viability means the point in the pregnancy when, in the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus. Throughout the pregnancy, both before and after fetal viability, the State will not be able to interfere with the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional that an abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant individual. The State will not be able to penalize any person for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the right to an abortion.”
The secretary of state’s office is still reviewing signatures for the initiative.
Earlier this month, the PAC behind the initiative, Arizona For Abortion Access, sued the Arizona Legislative Council for using the term “unborn human being” rather than “unborn fetus” in their official analysis of the proposition distributed to voters in a publicity pamphlet.
An attorney for the PAC told lawmakers during their hearing on the subject that “unborn human being” was a partisan phrase, rather than their preferred term of “fetus.”
Arizona For Abortion Access, the political action committee behind the ballot initiative, has pulled in nearly $23.2 million for their cause.
The PAC’s biggest donors are mainly out-of-state entities: over $13.4 million altogether from The Fairness Project, Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Advocacy Action Fund, the ACLU Foundation, Open Society Action Fund, Think Big America, The Green Advocacy, Movement Voter PAC and Project, Our Children Our Future, Clean and Prosperous America, and Moms Fed Up.
Several in-state entities rich with out-of-state cash flow put about $5.8 milliontoward the initiative: Arizonans Fed Up With Failing Health, ACLU of Arizona, Reproductive Freedom for All Arizona, Healthcare Rising Arizona, and the UFCW Local 99 PAC.
A number of wealthy, out-of-state billionaires have donated funds:
Phoebe Gates, daughter of Bill Gates and Stanford University student, $750,000;
Liz Simons, daughter of hedge fund billionaire James Simons, $250,000;
Gaye Pigott, a Washington descendant of one of America’s richest families, the Pigott family, $75,000;
Eric Laufer, a New York engineer, $65,000;
Giovanna Randall, president and head designer of New York luxury bridal company Honor NYC $65,000;
Barbara Simons, a retiree of San Francisco, California $51,000;
Barton Faber, former Canto executive, a California-based software company (reported as living in Hawaii, but formerly from Arizona), $50,000;
Ning Mosberger-Tang, a Colorado photographer, gave $50,000;
Steven Spielberg, famed Hollywood director, and his Hollywood actress wife, Kate Capshaw, gave $100,000;
Sheli Rosenberg, a retired Illinois executive of Equity Group Investments, gave $50,000;
Gregory Serrurier, retired California cofounder of Redwood Grove Capital, $50,000;
Eric Uhrhane, a Californian software engineer and angel investor, gave $50,000;
Laura H. Lauder, a California philanthropist, gave $25,000;
Georgia Taylor Michelson, Californian and wife to Zimmer Biomet board member Michael Michelson, gave $25,000;
Marcia Grand, a California donor, gave $25,000;
Sal Al-Rashid, a New York investor, gave $25,000;
Elizabeth Brown, a California farmer, gave $25,000;
Robin Donohoe, a Georgia venture capitalist, gave $25,000
Several wealthy in-state donors also gave. Among them were Juanita Fitzer Francis, who gave $200,000 — a former nurse with University of Arizona College of Medicine and Phoenix Children’s Hospital, and board member of the Arizona State University Foundation and University of Illinois Foundation. Francis also presides over the Francis Family Foundation.
There was also David and Louise Reese, who gave about $200,000 together. They operate the David E. Reese Family Foundation, a private grantmaking foundation in Paradise Valley. David formerly ran banking institutions across Arizona, Ohio, and New York.
And then there’s Sedona’s Donalyn Mikles, who gave $100,000. Mikles has been a top donor for the Democratic Party and Gov. Katie Hobbs in recent years. Mikles has served as a director of the Kling Family Foundation, a private philanthropic California nonprofit.
Donald Levin, a DRL Enterprises executive in Phoenix, gave $50,000. Paul Lipton, a Tucson hydroponics supply company founder, gave $25,000. Likewise, Robert Bertrand, a Paradise Valley retired executive of Concord Servicing, gave $25,000.
They’ve spent nearly $13.5 million so far, around $11 million on signature gathering. The second-largest expenditure was on advertising, generally, amounting to over $500,000, and polling came at a cost of over $100,000.
Staff salaries for other organizations also topped the list: staffing for Healthcare Rising, Reproductive Freedom for All Arizona, The Fairness Project, and the ACLU altogether amounted to over $400,000.
Their cash balance sits at just over $9.7 million.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona legislative Republicans are calling on their leadership to send a border-related measure to the voters in November.
On March 28, a group of Arizona House Republicans signed a letter, requesting that Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen “convene a special committee hearing, whereby Texas-style border security legislation can be promptly advanced and placed on the ballot.”
Arizonans will not have the opportunity to vote on Texas-style border legislation unless leadership takes action. We are calling on them to do just that! pic.twitter.com/sSsXuNp74d
— Rep. Alexander Kolodin (@realAlexKolodin) March 28, 2024
The members wrote that they “stand united with our brothers and sisters in the Senate in this body’s ongoing efforts to curb crimes against our citizens and prevent the ongoing invasion of this state.” They stated their resolve to “no longer allow continued cooperation with criminal international cartels, foreign countries, NGO’s, and the immigration industrial complex to make Arizona their staging ground and open-door funnel to destroy our Republic.”
According to the letter, the Republicans asserted their knowledge that “this Governor will not take action,” adding that Hobbs “has already vetoed several common-sense border security measures,” prompting the desire to act.
The next day, Representative Alexander Kolodin posted an update on his “X” account, sharing that he was “informed that the legislature will be having a ‘border day’ to introduce and hear ballot referrals before the end of session.”
Update, I am informed that the legislature will be having a "border day" to introduce and hear ballot referrals before the end of session! https://t.co/nhgYhrpiPi
— Rep. Alexander Kolodin (@realAlexKolodin) March 29, 2024
Last month, Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed SB 1231, the Arizona Border Invasion Act, which was sponsored by Senator Janae Shamp. The bill 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.
In her veto letter to Senate President Warren Petersen, Hobbs said, “This bill does not secure our border, will be harmful for communities and businesses in our state, and burdensome for law enforcement personnel and the state judicial system. Further, this bill presents significant constitutional concerns and would be certain to mire the State in costly and protracted litigation.”
Anti-immigrant legislation to score cheap political points has no place in our state. SB1231 does not secure our border. Instead, it demonizes our communities, hurts businesses and farmers, and burdens law enforcement and our judicial system.
— Governor Katie Hobbs (@GovernorHobbs) March 5, 2024
Shamp vowed that members of her party would continue to push forward solutions to combat the border crisis, saying, “The Republican-controlled Legislature will continue to prioritize closing our border and providing law enforcement with the tools they need. This veto is a slap in the face to them, Arizona’s victims of border-related crimes, and other citizens who will inevitably feel the wrath of this border invasion in one way, shape, or form at the hands of Hobbs and Biden.”
🚨FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs Blocks Senate Republican Bill Protecting Arizonans from Border-Related Crimes pic.twitter.com/pMgyTEiBgX
Arizona Republican legislators continue to work alongside state attorneys general in significant legal fights in federal court.
On Friday, the Arizona State Senate Republican Caucus announced it had joined an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in Trump v. Anderson, defending the former president’s right to remain on the ballot in Colorado – and every other state – for the upcoming election. This action follows a similar effort, where legislators, led by Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma, signed their names to a brief that successfully petitioned the nation’s high court to hear the case.
DEFENDING DEMOCRACY: The Arizona Legislature is proud to join more than two dozen states to ensure President Trump isn’t removed from the Colorado ballot, or any other state’s ballot. Read more: https://t.co/xWdEQZFYhUpic.twitter.com/XSR4G9WHnA
This latest amicus was led by the States of Indiana and West Virginia and co-signed by twenty-three additional states. Notably, the legislative leadership of North Carolina also joined the coalition of attorneys general and the Arizona Legislature in the filing. As with Arizona, North Carolina has a Democrat attorney general and a Republican-led legislature.
Senator Jake Hoffman championed the newest sign-on from the state legislature, writing, “With a Leftist AG in Arizona who refuses to stand up for the rule of law, the conservative-led Legislature has stepped up to defend not only the laws of our state, but the very fabric of our republic. Proud to stand with Warren Petersen and the Arizona Senate Republicans on these legal battles.”
With a Leftist AG in Arizona who refuses to stand up for the rule of law, the conservative-led Legislature has stepped up to defend not only the laws of our state, but the very fabric of our republic.
Representative Alexander Kolodin added, “Democrats are trying for a Chinese style election where only their presidential candidate appears on the ballot. The Arizona House and Senate Republicans are stepping up to defend democracy against this threat!”
Democrats are trying for a Chinese style election where only their presidential candidate appears on the ballot. The @AZHouseGOP and @AZSenateGOP are stepping up to defend democracy against this threat! https://t.co/d3jEIPHSZ0
In their brief, the attorneys general and legislators warn that “if the Court endorses what happened in Colorado, then the chaos can only be expected to worsen. No doubt a political tit-for-tat will ensue, in which competing parties will find new avenues to disqualify their opponents. And elections could then come down to small variations among state elections laws and the political composition of state administrations. In short, indulging challenges of this sort and in this posture will ‘sacrifice the political stability of the system’ of the Nation ‘with profound consequences for the entire citizenry.’ At a minimum, it will ‘expose the political life of the country to months, or perhaps years, of chaos.’”
The legislators’ sign-on to this brief marks yet another time they have joined Republican attorneys general on their legal filings over the past couple months. At the start of the year, the Arizona Legislature joined an amicus brief in federal court to help challenge California’s Assault Weapon Control Act. That brief was led by the attorneys general of Idaho, Iowa, and Montana, and co-signed by almost two dozen additional states.
In December, Petersen and Toma joined a public comment letter to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to address its newly proposed rule, Definition of “Engaged in the Business as a Dealer in Firearms.” That letter was led by the States of Kansas, Iowa, and Montana, and co-signed by 22 other attorneys general.
Over the past month, the two Republican legislative leaders have signaled a more aggressive shift in taking the reins from Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes to defend the law and Constitution. Attorneys general are not usually joined by outside parties on their amicus briefs, yet multiple coalitions of Republican state prosecutors have included Petersen and Toma on these major filings. In previews for the 2024 legislative session, both the House and Senate Majority Caucuses indicated more of these efforts are to be expected throughout this year.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A familiar political party is coming back to Arizona ballots in 2024.
Last week, the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office announced that the Green Party “has exceeded the minimum signature requirement of 34,127 and has qualified as a new party for federal, statewide, and legislative races in the 2024 Primary and General Elections under Arizona law.”
Press Release: Green Party Becomes Recognized Party in Arizona
The Party recognized its feat on “X,” writing, “The Arizona Green Party is incredibly proud to announce that we have once again achieved official political party recognition in the State of Arizona and WILL be on the ballot for the 2024 & 2026 Primary Elections.” The state’s Green Party leadership expressed gratitude to their volunteers, saying, “Thank you to the many dedicated activists, supporters, and volunteers who made this happen. Let’s turn AZ GREEN in 2024!”
We are proud to announce that the AZGP is once again officially recognized as a political party in Arizona and WILL be back on the ballot in 2024 & 2026! 🥳🎉
Thank you to all the dedicated supporters and volunteers who helped make this happen! Let’s turn AZ Green! 💚🌻🏜️ pic.twitter.com/G2xhyC79ir
Dr. Jill Stein, a candidate for the Green Party nomination, acknowledged the news from the Grand Canyon State and noted the significance of this achievement for her political faction. Stein said, “BREAKING: We’re on the ballot in Arizona! Congrats to the Arizona Green Party for this huge win – bringing Green Party ballot access to 20 states and counting! We’re well on the way to getting our urgently-needed pro-worker, anti-war, climate action campaign on the ballot across the US!”
BREAKING: We're on the ballot in Arizona! Congrats to @AZGreenParty for this huge win – bringing Green Party ballot access to 20 states and counting!
We’re well on the way to getting our urgently-needed pro-worker, anti-war, climate action campaign on the ballot across the US! https://t.co/TKSXkdyfRD
According to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, the Green Party “did not file in time to appear on the March Presidential Preference Election ballot.”
Stein appeared on the 2016 November General Election ballot as the Green Party’s nominee in Arizona, where she obtained 34,345 votes. The Green Party was not afforded a spot on the ballot in 2020, when Joe Biden beat then-President Donald Trump by 10,457 votes in the state. If Arizona replicates the 2020 presidential election finish, Stein’s inclusion on the 2024 ballot could possibly be the difference between a Democrat or Republican carrying the state’s eleven electoral votes.
On its website, the Arizona Green Party asserts that it “supports livable wages, universal health care, free higher education, student debt forgiveness, full reproductive rights for women, human rights for all immigrants, LGBTQ+, with commitment to racial justice, non-violence, and environmental sustainability.”
Last month, Fontes announced that the Patriot Party of Arizona did not submit enough signatures to qualify for the ballot in Arizona elections throughout 2024.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Congressmen Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) and Paul Gosar (R-AZ-04) and State Representative Mark Finchem (R-Oro Valley) will not be disqualified from the upcoming midterm elections for organizing the January 6 protest, a judge ruled on Friday.
The question before the court was whether the three candidates violated Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, also known as the “Disqualification Clause.” Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Coury dismissed the case, ruling that the plaintiffs had no right of action to determine such a violation under the Constitution or supporting law.
Coury explained that the lawsuit’s argument for exercising the 14th Amendment contradicted legal precedent: the 1869 ruling for In Re Griffin, for example. Coury wrote that precedent, coupled with context of the amendment within the article, empowered Congress to exercise the 14th Amendment — not individual states or the people.
“[T]he Constitution provides legislation enacted by Congress is required to enforce the disqualification pursuant to the Disqualification Clause. Aside from criminal statutes dealing with insurrection and rebellion which Congress has enacted (lawsuits which require the government, not private citizens, to initiate), Congress has not passed legislation that is presently in effect which enforces the Disqualification Clause against the Candidates,” wrote Coury. “The text of the Constitution is mandatory. It sets forth the single arbiter of the qualifications of members of Congress; that single arbiter is Congress. It would contradict the plain language of the United States Constitution for this Court to conduct any trial over the qualifications of a member of Congress.”
The judge also rejected the argument that Arizona law enabled a private right of action to enforce the Disqualification Clause where the Constitution and federal law didn’t. Coury distinguished the term “prescribed” from “proscribed,” ruling that the Arizona law in question encompassed requirements for holding office, not disqualifications. Coury added that his interpretation was consistent with state and federal precedent.
Coury also noted that none of the three men were charged with or convicted of insurrection or rebellion. He refused to rule on the merits of the allegations of insurrection made against Gosar, Biggs, and Finchem.
The lawsuit was filed by Free Speech For People, a Democrat-backed, progressive nonprofit. The organization was ruled against last month as well in a similar lawsuit against Congressman Madison Cawthorn (R-NC-11). Another one of their similar lawsuits against Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA-14) had a hearing on Friday.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
