State lawmakers continue to express messages of sympathy and support for Israel, following the unprovoked and shocking terrorist attacks from this past weekend.
This week, many Arizona elected officials added to the bipartisan crescendo of voices in Israel’s corner. On Tuesday, House Speaker Ben Toma issued a statement, saying, “Hamas’ actions amount to terrorism, plain and simple. There is no place for their hateful ideology in any society and their violent actions of anti-Semitism must be stopped. Israel has a right to live in freedom and to defend their land from these barbaric terrorists. We strongly condemn the senseless acts of violence against the people of Israel and support their right to defend themselves. We stand unequivocally with our Israeli brothers and sisters and grieve with those who have lost loved ones to these unprovoked atrocities. May their memories be a blessing and may justice be swiftly delivered.”
✅FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE✅ Representative@RepBenToma and @AZHouseGOP Condemn Unprecedented Attacks on Israel: "Hamas' actions amount to terrorism, plain and simple. Israel has a right to live in freedom and to defend their land from these barbaric terrorists. We strongly condemn… pic.twitter.com/gWVbDH1XwR
State Senator Frank Carroll also put out a statement in support of Israel on Tuesday. He said, “Arizonans should pray for our ally Israel, the lives lost and those in harm’s way. We also need to be vigilant in these trying times. To predict the future, one only needs to understand the past. The 20th century is rich in history about events that led up to the midcentury global conflict. Here we go again. It should be clear where this is heading. God help us.”
In addition to the statements, hundreds of Arizonans, as well as a bipartisan coalition of government officials, attended a Monday night event in Scottsdale to show solidarity for Israel. From that event, Attorney General Kris Mayes posted, “Shoulder-to-shoulder in support of Israel.”
— County Attorney Rachel Mitchell (@Rachel1Mitchell) October 10, 2023
On Monday night, Governor Katie Hobbs also announced that the Executive Tower was lit ‘blue’ in a demonstration of support for the staunch American ally.
To the people of Israel: Arizona stands with you. Tonight, the Executive Tower is blue in solidarity. 🇮🇱
Arizona’s Republican legislative leaders are wading into another legal fight.
Earlier this week, Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in City of Grants Pass v. Gloria Johnson and John Logan. According to the legislators, the case involves “three homeless individuals in Grants Pass (who) filed this lawsuit to try to stop local and state governments from combating the public safety threats, the public health dangers, and the inhumane conditions associated with these homeless encampments.”
The city has received unfavorable opinions from the federal courts at both the district and appeals (Ninth Circuit) levels, leading to the appeal to the nation’s high court.
In their brief, Petersen and Toma assert that “the Legislature also has a pressing interest in homelessness because it confronts the realities of America’s homelessness crisis every day, including only a few blocks from the state capitol complex. Phoenix, Arizona, is home to one of the nation’s largest homeless encampments, commonly known as ‘The Zone.’ With hundreds of homeless residents, The Zone is a place of intense poverty, frequent crime (including multiple homicides), social instability, and poor living standards.”
The lawmakers opined that “the Ninth Circuit decided it was better at making policy than elected state legislatures and city councils.” They argued that the opinion from the Ninth Circuit “injects the federal courts into a policymaking area reserved for state and local lawmakers, entrenches a plainly incorrect and deeply damaging construction of the Eighth Amendment, and improperly interferes with state and local policymaking on the critically important issue of homelessness.”
President Petersen issued a statement in conjunction with his announcement, saying, “We’re talking about a humanitarian crisis that continues to spiral out of control in our state, thanks to bad court rulings, judicial overreach, and a litany of vetoes by the Governor. Lives and livelihoods are lost every single day that we continue to allow homeless encampments to grow in our communities. We must have clarity from the U.S. Supreme Court in order to holistically address the systemic issues contributing to homelessness, as well as the dire public safety and public health consequences created by allowing these encampments to remain. Once again, the Attorney General is absent, but the Speaker and I are committed to engaging for the betterment of Arizona.”
Senator John Kavanagh added, “Many of the street homeless population are seriously mentally ill, drug addicted or both. It is unconscionable that these vulnerable people are being allowed to live in squalid circumstances on the street where they may abuse drugs and become crime victims. This situation is a result of federal court rulings that some say prohibit the police from enforcing street camping bans even when shelter can be provided to the homeless person. It is imperative that the Supreme Court clarify lower court rulings, so that if homeless persons are offered shelter and refuse, they can be removed from the street by the police.”
One of Arizona’s newest legislators also weighed in on the issue and filing of the brief. Senator Shawnna Bolick said, “Homelessness is one of the top issues impacting Legislative District 2, putting law enforcement and private property owners into the direct fray due to the lack of leadership at Phoenix City Hall. My constituents want safe neighborhoods, not ones littered with used needles and drug paraphernalia often left overnight for their kids to encounter on the way to the bus stop to get to school. There are quite a few civil society groups stepping up, but it’s not enough. I hope the USSC does the right thing. Government exists for public safety, and Arizona’s Governor along with the Phoenix Mayor are failing their citizens.”
The General Counsel for the Arizona House Republicans, Linley Wilson, pointed to a recent post from California Governor Gavin Newsom about the issue of federal courts inserting caselaw into “local efforts to clear street encampments,” stating, “This humanitarian crisis is not a partisan issue. The 9th Circuit’s opinions harm the homeless and the Legislature’s ability to craft effective policies.”
This humanitarian crisis is not a partisan issue. The 9th Circuit’s opinions harm the homeless and the Legislature’s ability to craft effective policies. Read the amicus brief filed today by @RepBenToma and @votewarren in SCOTUS👇🏼https://t.co/7VCv5B3MOMhttps://t.co/QyfE8C8gkd
On Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in a lawsuit arguing against the state’s ban on abortions solely for genetic defects.
In the case, Isaacson v. Mayes, pro-abortion doctors and groups appealed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against Arizona’s ban on abortions based on genetic defects.
The legislature passed the ban, SB 1457, back in 2021.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the ban are abortionists Paul Isaacson and Eric Reuss, along with the National Council of Jewish Women, Arizona National Organization For Women, and Arizona Medical Association.
Isaacson was a Phoenix-based abortionist with Family Planning Associates. Reuss was a Scottsdale-based OBGYN and former board member for Planned Parenthood of Arizona.
Judges Roopali Desai, Ronald Gould, and Andrew Hurwitz heard the oral arguments. While Desai and Hurwitz were engaged in the arguments with their questions, Gould hardly spoke except to request an adjustment of the livestream audio.
In March, House Speaker Ben Toma (R-LD27) and Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) stepped up to defend the ban after Attorney General Kris Mayes said she would refuse to enforce the law. Mayes is acting as the defense in the lawsuit currently.
During Monday’s oral arguments, the main question at hand was whether the plaintiffs had Article III standing. Article III of the Constitution, as held by the Supreme Court, requires plaintiffs to prove an actual or imminent alleged injury that is concrete and particularized.
Jessica Sklarsky with the Center for Reproductive Rights argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that they suffer undisputed economic harms and threat of prosecution due to the abortion ban. The district court determined that the plaintiffs failed to meet the standard set by the 2014 Supreme Court case Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, which determined that pre-enforcement challenges satisfy the Article III standard and are justiciable when a statute’s enforcement is sufficiently imminent.
Sklarksy also argued that the abortion ban qualified as a vague law, and therefore violated due process rights.
“Vague laws force those they govern to either avoid doing anything that is arguably covered by the law, or to engage in that conduct with the constant threat of arbitrary enforcement,” said Sklarsky.
Denise Harle with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), counsel on behalf of Toma and Petersen, countered that no Article III injury exists due to the lack of a credible threat of enforcement.
Harle pointed out that all 15 county attorneys have acceded their authority to Mayes, and that Mayes has disavowed enforcement of abortion law. Harle also pointed out Gov. Katie Hobbs’ executive order in June usurping all county attorneys’ authority on abortion law and conferring it to Mayes.
Hurwitz and Desai pushed back against Harle’s reference to Mayes and Hobbs’ conduct, arguing that Mayes didn’t issue a disclaimer in this case specifically detailing her intent to not enforce the law.
Hurwitz indicated that Toma and Petersen’s support of the law, as well as the private enforcement aspect of the law, indicated a credible threat of enforcement.
“Does the law really require that a credible threat be communicated? If the state of Arizona passes a statute and the two leaders of the legislature are here defending its constitutionality, isn’t that enough to show there is a credible not a certain but a credible threat of enforcement?” asked Hurwitz.
Harle disagreed, saying the potential for private enforcement constituted a hypothetical. She alluded to the arrangement by Hobbs and Mayes to not enforce abortion law.
“[T]he theoretical possibility of an injury sometime in the future is too conjectural when it’s not imminent,” said Harle.
Desai followed up by stating that the court’s decision in Tingley v. Fergusoncould apply to this case. In that case, a family counselor challenged the state of Washington’s ban on conversion therapy as a violation of free speech and religious practice. Harle responded that the existence of a law alone wasn’t sufficient for direct injury.
“Virtually anyone could look at a law, say ‘I’m not sure what that means, I’m going to do something or not do something’ [and] that would be enough for a federal court to weigh in and adjudicate the merits of that claim on a facial challenge,” said Harle.
Watch the full hearing here:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Higher education, ideally a bastion of free thought and inquiry, should eagerly embrace a multitude of voices and perspectives—we usually call that thinking and learning. Yet, in practice, the ubiquitous doctrines of inclusion inscribed into university charters are not without exceptions. These exceptions materialize from the judgments of self-appointed arbiters of speech, who wield the authority to classify ideas and individuals as hateful and unsafe as they break from a general orthodoxy of perspective. Disguised as protections of students from pernicious notions, these arbiters diligently strive to condemn, censor, and chill speech they do not like – while university leadership does nothing.
I experienced this exact condemnation when I orchestrated a university-sanctioned event in my capacity as the Executive Director of the T.W. Lewis Center for Personal Development at ASU’s Barrett Honors College. The event, titled “Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” took place at ASU Gammage Auditorium on February 8, 2023. Esteemed experts joined the panel, with Dr. Radha Gopalan, a distinguished heart transplant cardiologist, engaging on health; Robert Kiyosaki, expert on money and the acclaimed author of “Rich Dad Poor Dad,” delving into wealth; and Dennis Prager, co-founder of PragerU and, for over 40 years running, a nationally syndicated radio host, addressing happiness. Complementing the panelists were speakers Charlie Kirk, the visionary behind Turning Point USA, and Tom Lewis, a notable businessman, philanthropist, and namesake donor of the Lewis Center.
At Arizona State University (ASU), the culture of arbitration of speech has infiltrated deeply. This might come as a surprise given ASU’s acclaimed reputation for its free speech policies and its president’s commitment to this cause. In June, I published editorials in the Wall Street Journal“I Paid for Free Speech at Arizona State” and in the National Review, “Some Universities Care About Free Speech…Until They Don’t,” in which I revealed the free speech crisis at ASU’s Barrett Honors College while I also praised ASU for its free speech policies, at least as they state them on paper. I had hoped for a steadfast defense against blatant infringements on free speech that undermine ASU’s policies and declarations. Regrettably, my optimism faded. With each day, ASU’s actions, or lack thereof, erode my confidence in their stated defense of free speech.
It is imperative to grasp the suppression of speech in our academic institutions and to fully comprehend the essence of true freedom of thought which can only come from true freedom of speech. Only then can we embark on endeavors that genuinely promote the education and advancement of society.
ASU President Michael Crow may declare that “speakers speak at ASU,” but can we truly consider speech as free when over 80% of the faculty retaliates against speech they deem “wrong”? Do free speech ideals hold when deans prescribe limitations on speakers’ speech? Can we claim freedom of speech when marketing materials are removed due to faculty offense, while contrasting viewpoints bask in promotional spotlight? Is speech uninhibited when professors dedicate valuable class time to condemn the speech of other units? Does true free speech persist when professors discourage student participation in an event? And then stand vigilantly at the event entrance, watching attendees approach. Can we genuinely say that speech is free when college deans fire leaders and dismantle centers that uphold values no longer in harmony with the college’s leanings? The resounding answer is no. This is free speech under siege.
On August 3, 2023, a group of scholars who convened at Princeton established the “Princeton Principles for a Campus Culture of Free Inquiry.” This assembly distinctly underscores the pressing predicament faced by numerous higher education institutions that falter in upholding cultures of robust and uninhibited speech.
The Princeton Principles squarely confront this concern: “Some members of the university community argue that robust freedom of inquiry permits speech that can ‘harm’ students’ well-being or hinder institutional efforts to attain particular conceptions of social justice or ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion.’”
The case of the Lewis Center is illustrative, with 39 of the 47 Barrett Honors College faculty launching a nationwide condemnation campaign against the Health, Wealth, and Happiness program, speakers, donors, and staff. The Barrett deans actively endorsed this campaign and exercised censorship of speech the faculty found objectionable. The campaign led to intimidations and firings, which is to say prices to pay—sanctions—for exercising free inquiry and speech.
Having policies and ratings extolling free speech alone isn’t enough if university leadership doesn’t enforce their own standards. My experiences at ASU revealed a bureaucratic machinery that prioritizes safeguarding the institution’s interests over addressing free speech violations. I spent months reporting these violations internally and escalated the matter to ASU’s upper echelons and even testified in a legislative hearing. As of mid-August 2023, ASU and its board maintain that they have discovered “a series of examples of unfettered free speech,” aligning with the arbiters.
Self-governance alone proves inadequate in safeguarding our First Amendment rights on campus. The arbiters of speech are not likely to relinquish their control in the absence of decisive action by leadership. The responsibility rests upon parents, students, donors, the media, concerned citizens, and elected officials to unite and reestablish freedom of speech without fear of retribution, for there is no freedom of anything if it comes with a penalty for its exercise, including speech.
The Princeton Principles underscore that “If there is clear and convincing evidence that faculty members and administrators are not adequately fulfilling their responsibilities to foster and defend a culture of free inquiry on campus, other agents including regents, trustees, students, and alumni groups in the wider campus network may and indeed should become involved.”
Gratitude must be extended to parents, students, alumni, donors, lawmakers, and concerned citizens for following this story who rallied behind the cause of free speech. Special acknowledgment should be given to leaders like Arizona Senator Anthony Kern and State Representative Quang Nguyen for co-chairing the Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on the Freedom of Expression at Arizona’s Public Universities. And sincere thanks should be extended to Arizona Speaker of the House Ben Toma and Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen for their unwavering support of free speech for all.
Despite receiving broad support, sustained vigilance is imperative. We must persist in recognizing speech suppression and holding university leadership accountable for defending the realm of free speech, even for ideas deemed offensive, such as, laughably, health, wealth, and happiness.
Ann Atkinson can be reached at her Twitter handle, @Ann_Atkinson_AZ.
Arizona’s top Republican legislators are coming to the aid of Abraham Hamadeh’s legal bid at the state Supreme Court.
Last week, Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma filed an amicus brief in support of Hamadeh’s latest endeavor to have the top court in Arizona’s judicial branch adjudicate the aftermath of his 2022 election for Arizona Attorney General. Hamadeh, the Republican nominee, ran against Democrat Kris Mayes, who won the contest by 280 votes after a mandatory recount.
In their brief, Petersen and Toma made three arguments for the state’s high court to consider. First, that “the Legislature has designed a robust process to uncover and correct material mistakes in election administration.” Second, that “the trial court abused its discretion by denying the contestants sufficient time to inspect all ballots and conduct discovery.” Finally, that “the petition presents questions of statewide importance requiring an expeditious resolution.”
Hamadeh issued a statement after the filing, thanking the lawmakers for their brief, saying, “I want to thank…the Arizona Legislature with the leadership of House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen for filing amicus briefs in support of our efforts to ensure the will of the people is honored. I made a promise to the people of Arizona to ensure that every legal vote is counted – I intend to keep it.”
The lawmakers’ brief answers Secretary of State Adrian Fontes’ opposition to the contestants’ efforts, accusing the Democrat election chief of “escalating rhetorical histrionics to fevered heights.” The outlined “histrionics” were “traducing the Contestants with charges of ‘weaponiz[ing] our Courts, sow[ing] unfounded distrust in our election processes, malign[ing] our public servants, and undermin[ing] our democracy – all for the purpose of trying to overturn the People’s will and topple an election.”
Petersen and Toma present two reasons why the Court should be bothered in their attempt to dissect Fontes’ “ad hominem incentive.”
The first reason given is that the Secretary’s attack is “unfounded.” The second is that “the Secretary’s rhetorical assault is gratuitous and abusive.” The brief highlights that “the churlish imperiousness with which the Secretary reflexively greets even responsible and narrow questions surrounding the administration of the 2022 general election suggests he has forgotten that he serves all Arizona electors, including Mr. Hamadeh and his supporters.”
Hamadeh’s efforts to bring transparency to his razor-thin election result have continued long after his Democrat opponent, Kris Mayes, took office in January. Mayes has continued to show little public interest in the case, allowing her attorneys to handle matters in the courtroom while she continues to revamp the Arizona Attorney General’s Office from the policies of her predecessor, Republican Mark Brnovich.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
