A judicial decision from Arizona’s high court may have significant political ramifications in the swing state for the 2024 election.
On Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court issued its opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Mayes, finding that the state’s near ban on abortion, which was established in 1864 and reaffirmed several times since, was, in fact, the guiding law on the controversial issue. The vote in the State Supreme Court was 4-2, with one justice recusing himself.
The four prevailing justices wrote that they “merely follow[ed] our limited constitutional role and duty to interpret the law as written…. The legislature has demonstrated its consistent design to restrict elective abortion to the degree permitted by the Supremacy Clause and an unwavering intent since 1864 to proscribe elective abortions absent a federal constitutional right – precisely what it intended and accomplished in 36-2322.”
They added, “To date, our legislature has never affirmatively created a right to, or independently authorized, elective abortion. We defer, as we are constitutionally obligated to do, to the legislature’s judgment, which is accountable to, and thus reflects, the mutable will of our citizens.”
The decision from the Arizona Supreme Court ended one chapter of the state’s abortion saga and confirmed the legal theory of former Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, who, soon after the Roe v. Wade reversal from the Supreme Court of the United States, issued a statement about Arizona’s abortion status. In a statement made on June 29, 2022, Brnovich said, “Our office has concluded the Arizona Legislature has made its intentions clear regarding abortion laws. ARS 13-3603 is back in effect and will not be repealed in 90 days by SB 1164. We will soon be asking the court to vacate the injunction which was put in place following Roe v Wade in light of the Dobbs decision earlier this month.”
Our office has concluded the Arizona Legislature has made its intentions clear regarding abortion laws. pic.twitter.com/jvjKXaXKwd
Brnovich went to court in Pima County Superior Court to lift the injunction on the abortion law in question and was successful.
A Pima County judge lifted an injunction that was placed on AZ’s abortion statute. We applaud the court for upholding the will of the legislature and providing clarity and uniformity on this important issue. I have and will continue to protect the most vulnerable Arizonans.
However, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the ruling from the Superior Court, leading to the consideration from the state’s Supreme Court.
The outraged reaction from Democrats was swift, while the responses from Republicans were mixed.
Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs said, “It is a dark day in Arizona. We are just fourteen days away from of one the most extreme abortion bans in the country. But my message to Arizona women is this: I won’t rest, and I won’t stop fighting until we have secured the right to abortion. That is my promise to you.”
It is a dark day in Arizona. We are just fourteen days away from one of the most extreme abortion bans in the country.
But my message to Arizona women is this: I won't rest, and I won't stop fighting until we have secured the right to abortion.
That is my promise to you.
— Governor Katie Hobbs (@GovernorHobbs) April 9, 2024
Attorney General Kris Mayes, also a Democrat stated, “This is far from the end of the debate on reproductive freedom, and I look forward to the people of Arizona having their say in the matter. And let me be completely clear, as long as I am Attorney General, no woman or doctor will be prosecuted under this draconian law in this state.”
The decision made by the Arizona Supreme Court today is unconscionable and an affront to freedom. pic.twitter.com/swEqJREVVS
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) April 9, 2024
Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma, both Republicans, issued a joint statement, saying, “During this [60-day waiting period], we will be closely reviewing the court’s ruling, talking to our members, and listening to our constituents to determine the best course of action for the legislature.”
Joint statement from Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma on the Arizona Supreme Court abortion ruling.⬇️
The conservative Arizona Freedom Caucus cheered on the Court’s opinion, posting, “Today, the Supreme Court of Arizona made the correct ruling, upheld the intent of the legislature, and preserved the rule of law today by ruling that the pre-Roe law will remain effective. … As Republicans, we should be proud of the fact that today the lives of the preborn are more protected than they have been since SCOTUS’ fatally flawed Roe decision more than a half century ago. As Republicans, we should be unashamed in proclaiming the value of life.”
🚨 STATEMENT ON ARIZONA SUPREME COURT’S PRO-LIFE RULING 🚨
Today, the Supreme Court of Arizona made the correct ruling, upheld the intent of the legislature, and preserved the rule of law today by ruling that the pre-Roe law will remain effective.
— Arizona Freedom Caucus (@AZFreedomCaucus) April 9, 2024
Republican Senator Wendy Rogers also weighed in on the news of the day. She wrote, “Then, as now, LIFE must be upheld in the laws of the land. I will vote against any laws that would dimmish life in Arizona, including any laws that would dilute our existing statutes. Defending life is the right thing to do.”
🚨Late Breaking Statement🚨
In light of the overturn of Roe v Wade by the US Supreme Court, today the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the right to life in Arizona based on existing state law. I stand in support of that decision and of the law itself, because it protects the most…
The Senate Democratic Leadership released a statement after the announcement from the Court, writing, “The Republican-appointed Arizona Supreme Court has decided to criminalize abortion in Arizona by upholding the 1864 territorial abortion ban and end legal abortion in all cases unless necessary to save the life of the mother. It’s a worse-case scenario Democrats predicted and have been preparing for, working to see the future of reproductive freedom in the hands of Arizonans.”
PRESS RELEAS: Senate Democratic Leadership Respond to the Planned Parenthood et al v. Kristin Mayes/Hazelrigg Opinion #azlegpic.twitter.com/OkEc3nd5SX
— Arizona Senate Democrats (@AZSenateDems) April 9, 2024
Arizona for Abortion Access, the group working to plant a constitutional amendment on abortion on the November ballot, expressed its anger over the judicial opinion. It said, “Today, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled to uphold a devasting near-total ban on abortion from 1864, a territorial law in place before Arizona became a state. This means Arizona now has one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the nation.”
🚨 Today, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled to uphold a devastating near-total ban on abortion from 1864, a territorial law in place before Arizona became a state. This means Arizona now has one of the most restrictive abortion bans in the nation. pic.twitter.com/CaOnxlJciv
— Arizona for Abortion Access (@azforaccess) April 9, 2024
The group revealed that it had over 500,000 signatures from Arizona voters – well over the threshold needed to qualify for the ballot.
The Arizona for Abortion Access campaign has already gathered well over 500,000 Arizona voter signatures. Approximately 384,000 valid voter signatures are required by July 3. The campaign will continue collecting signatures statewide until signatures are due on July 3, 2024.
— Arizona for Abortion Access (@azforaccess) April 9, 2024
Last year, one of Arizona’s top pro-life leaders, Cathi Herrod from the Center for Arizona Policy, came out in fierce opposition to these efforts from pro-abortion interests, alerting her followers that this measure “would tear down virtually all pro-life precautions and make it nearly impossible to regulate abortion.” Herrod also explained how, if passed, the constitutional amendment would likely allow the likelihood of abortion at all stages of life in the womb, stating, “The broad exemption of ‘mental health’ of the mother after viability is widely understood, even in the courts, to mean virtually anything the abortion provider wants it to mean, including stress or anxiety. Even barbaric partial-birth abortion is legal under this exemption.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
On Monday, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich petitioned Congress to reject legislation reducing states’ land-use and energy rights in order to federalize the energy grid.
The letter warned that the legislation would empower private companies to wield the authority of eminent domain against state land, enable the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to construct whenever and wherever it desires regardless of state input, and authorize private companies to pass on the construction costs of new facilities from one state to another.
“These provisions eviscerate state sovereign authority, commandeer companies to carry out the will of a three-vote majority of FERC Commissioners, undermine the power of each citizen’s vote to decide policies at the state level, and inevitably force the citizens of our states to subsidize the costs of expensive and unreliable energy policy preferences of California and New York,” stated the letter.
The letter also noted that Congress was rushing the legislation through without the transparency of committee hearings, markups, or debate.
Brnovich warned in a press release that the proposed legislation, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2022, would burden Arizonans with other states’ problems.
“The Act is unfair and takes power from states to decide policies for their own people,” said Brnovich. “Arizona and Louisiana should not be forced to pay for California and New York’s expensive energy preferences.”
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) introduced the legislation under the promise of creating energy independence, citing the ongoing Russian war abroad.
THREAD: If the United States wants to remain the superpower of the world, we must have energy independence. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2022 will make necessary permitting reforms to ensure we can produce the cleanest possible energy for ourselves & our allies. pic.twitter.com/ehJ045mgSz
Some renewable energy analysts say that the legislation would help fast-track the country’s adoption of “clean” energy.
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2022 is out! @SenSchumer , @Sen_JoeManchin led. We think it can drive a very large amount of clean energy, because transmission is renewable energy's biggest barrier. Importantly, NEPA is preserved, including public participation.🧵
Brnovich joined a coalition of 18 states led by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry to request the rejection of the legislation: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Virginia.
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry is leading a coalition of 18 states in vocal opposition to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2022.
On Tuesday, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed a civil rights lawsuit against Tucson over its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees.
In a press release, Brnovich argued that the mandate was a violation of personal liberty and an exemplar of government overreach.
“Tucson dictated a widespread vaccine mandate without regard to its impact on the liberties and civil rights of its employees,” said Brnovich. “Many of those affected are first responders, and it’s our turn to be there for them. The city’s misguided vaccine mandate is an ugly example of government overreach that we must vigorously oppose.”
Brnovich accused Tucson of punishing unvaccinated employees with unpaid suspension regardless of whether their exemption or accommodation requests were pending or approved. A majority of the city employees affected by the slim deadline were first responders.
According to the lawsuit, at least 377 city employees requested a medical exemption, and 352 employees requested a religious exemption.
The lawsuit further criticized the city’s blanket policy approach for requiring the vaccine, noting that some unvaccinated employees were or could work remotely. It alleged that the city made employment “more onerous” for unvaccinated employees.
Among those alleged more onerous requirements: the city gave vaccinated employees additional leave to recover from COVID-19 infection or to quarantine if a family member became infected with COVID-19 but denied that benefit to unvaccinated employees. Additionally, the city gave only vaccinated employees an 8-hour “floating holiday,” as well as the ability to travel outside of Pima County for job-related career enhancement opportunities. Furthermore, certain unvaccinated employees were required to undergo regular COVID-19 testing at their own expense.
In doing so, Tucson claimed its denial of equal treatment to unvaccinated employees was a means to incentivize vaccination.
“[The city of Tucson’s] purported ‘incentives’ were, severally and collectively, coercive actions that punished employees who could not comply with Defendant’s vaccine directives because of a sincerely-held religious belief and/or disability,” stated the lawsuit.
The city did put their vaccine mandate on hold last September, after Brnovich warned the city that its original five-day unpaid suspension of unvaccinated employees was unlawful. At the time, Brnovich said he would direct Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee to withhold the city’s state shared revenues, totaling over $175 million.
However, the city kept up its vaccine mandate. The next month, a divided city council voted to terminate the unvaccinated by December 1. Tucson’s action prompted Governor Doug Ducey to intervene. Ducey informed the city that their mandate conflicted with Arizona law.
It’s unfathomable that after a year as tough as last, the Tucson City Council voted to FIRE unvaccinated city employees. The state Legislature has spoken on this issue — they want Arizonans and their sincerely held beliefs to be protected from overreaching mandates. 1/ pic.twitter.com/EQMrLaN5Hm
However, the next month the Arizona Supreme Court overturned Arizona’s new law banning any level of government from requiring COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
(1/2) Today’s unanimous ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court should serve as a reminder to both @dougducey and our State Legislature that they are not above the AZ Constitution.
Mayor Regina Romero and other city leaders have insisted in public messaging that their workforce was mostly compliant with their vaccine mandate, which Romero called a “vaccine policy.”
The @cityoftucson’s vaccine policy has been overwhelmingly effective.
– 98% of our workforce is now complaint
– The number of non-compliant city workers has fallen from more than 500 workers to less than 90.
Several weeks after Tucson’s deadline passed, Ducey issued an executive order banning local or state governments from issuing COVID-19 vaccine mandates. In a response statement, Tucson Mayor Regina Romero alluded to Brnovich’s legal opinion that employers could institute their own vaccine mandates as a defense of Tucson’s mandate.
“Arizona Attorney General Brnovich already told the governor what he doesn’t want to hear. He has no authority to preempt local actions through executive orders,” stated Romero.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
A superior court judge rejected Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s complaint against Secretary of State Katie Hobbs’ election manual last Friday because he filed it too close to ongoing elections.
Yavapai Superior Court Judge John Napper expressed concern that siding with Brnovich would disrupt this year’s elections.
Napper acknowledged that Hobbs’ 2021 Elections Manual and Procedures (EPM) required editing and revision. However, he declared that Brnovich’s refusal to work with Hobbs on the proposed EPM didn’t mean that Hobbs didn’t fulfill her lawful duties, noting that Brnovich had from October 1 to December 31 to work on the EPM with Hobbs, as prescribed by statute.
“The parties’ failure to properly work with one another to improve the Secretary’s initial draft of the EMP [sic] does not mean she failed to perform a ministerial or discretionary act requiring a mandate from the Court,” wrote Napper. “At this point in the game, there is no mechanism for the Court to assist the parties in constructing an EMP [sic] which complies with A.R.S. § 16-452 within the timeline of the statute. The Complaint was filed far too late for this to occur without disrupting elections that have already begun.”
The Elections Procedures Manual ensures that elections throughout AZ are run uniformly.
Unfortunately, it appears AG Brnovich prefers political posturing over performing his duty to review and approve the Manual. It’s time for him to work in good faith on behalf of all voters. pic.twitter.com/7ImW91mS6V
That doesn’t mean that Hobbs’ latest EPM will be used in current elections. Napper noted that election officials are following the EPM from 2019 since it was submitted and approved properly by both the governor and attorney general.
Hobbs celebrated the ruling. She characterized Brnovich’s complaint as “an attempt to rewrite the election rules” for political gain. Brnovich didn’t issue a public statement on the ruling.
Today, Judge Napper (Yavapai) denied AG Brnovich’s attempt to rewrite the election rules based on his own political preferences.
This is a win for the rule of law—and for Arizona’s voters. I’ll never stop defending our democracy against those who would undermine it. pic.twitter.com/ofurBuavbN
— Secretary Katie Hobbs (@SecretaryHobbs) June 18, 2022
Hobbs’ criticism paralleled those of opponents to her 2021 EPM, who argued that she was incorporating certain changes — such as allowing certain votes to be cast at the wrong precinct — to benefit her gubernatorial campaign.
Brnovich filed his complaint against Hobbs for the 2021 EPM at the end of April.
We are suing the AZ Secretary of State to produce an Elections Procedures Manual in accordance with state statutes. Lawful & accurate elections must never be compromised. Read more here: https://t.co/nM9CMbMx2l
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich requested Cochise County Attorney Brian McIntyre to investigate the two-week suspension of the secretary of state’s signature-gathering system for candidates, E-Qual. The March 17 suspension lasted until Wednesday, five days before the April 4 deadline, disabling sections of the system for legislative and congressional candidates to submit their ballot-qualifying signatures.
Yesterday, our office referred a matter to the Cochise County Attorney to investigate and take any appropriate actions (civil and criminal) regarding the Arizona Secretary of State taking down the online E-Qual system. pic.twitter.com/izJsLPYbMf
Secretary of State Katie Hobbs warned candidates in January that she would suspend the system up until the signature-gathering deadline once the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) certified the new district maps. The forewarned shutdown not only caused backlash due to its impact on candidates’ signature-gathering efforts to qualify for the ballot — Attorney General Mark Brnovich warned Hobbs that such a shutdown would be illegal. In a letter, Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Wright warned Hobbs that she could face a class 3 misdemeanor — up to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine — for not fulfilling her lawful duties, or even a felony with up to a year in prison for taking down E-Qual.
Upon receipt of the letter, Hobbs sued to prevent any prosecution. The courts didn’t take her side. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joan Sinclair ruled that Wright’s letter wasn’t legal action, but rather a notification of Hobbs’ legal duties.
“The letter itself notifies the Secretary that in the [attorney general’s] opinion, taking E-Qual offline during the candidate filing period would be ‘contrary to law.’ It further informs the Secretary that when a duty is imposed by Title 16 on a public officer, knowingly failing or refusing to perform that duty can be either a class 6 felony or a class 3 misdemeanor,” wrote Sinclair. “While the Secretary clearly viewed this as a threat, the letter did not promise or guarantee prosecution and thus does not create a controversy properly before the court.”
Despite warnings from the attorney general’s office, the sections of E-Qual for legislative and congressional candidates were suspended on March 17. Two weeks passed. Then on Wednesday, just five days before the signature-gathering deadline, Hobbs announced that the legislative and congressional candidates’ sections of the system were back online. She conceded that the shutdown had to do with necessary redistricting updates.
Thanks to a colossal effort by #SOS staff & county officials, E-Qual is back up ahead of schedule after necessary redistricting updates for Congressional & Legislative candidates. Voters can sign E-qual petitions for Statewide, Legislative, Congressional, & some local candidates. pic.twitter.com/irEOsn1rWq
— Secretary Katie Hobbs (@SecretaryHobbs) March 31, 2022
Just the day before, the entire E-Qual system experienced an outage anticipated to last past the April 4 deadline. Hobbs communicated that the outage was caused by a hardware malfunction. However, that unplanned outage was fixed within several hours.
Secretary of State Alert: the agency is experiencing a system-wide outage. Updates will be provided as more information becomes available. pic.twitter.com/uyUh0NivOv
— Secretary Katie Hobbs (@SecretaryHobbs) March 29, 2022
The anticipated outage would’ve most heavily impacted Maricopa County attorney candidates; the former attorney, Allister Adel, resigned last Friday, giving candidates just two weeks’ notice to gather enough signatures to qualify for the election.
NEW: In an emergency public meeting today, the Board of Supervisors accepted the resignation of County Attorney Allister Adel and called for an election to fill the upcoming vacancy. Read the full statement below: https://t.co/4lroRe7F7rpic.twitter.com/615FjQBOUB
Hobbs didn’t respond on social media to Brnovich’s requested investigation. Instead, the secretary of state opted to post about the International Transgender Day of Visibility.
Today is International Day of Transgender Visibility. Let's stand with the trans community, whose rights are currently under attack. The two bills signed by Gov. Ducey do nothing but limit their ability to live their lives as they so choose. #TransDayofVisibilitypic.twitter.com/ZFpXehnAgU
— Secretary Katie Hobbs (@SecretaryHobbs) March 31, 2022
In a statement to the Arizona Daily Star, Hobbs called Brnovich’s request to investigate her for not doing her job “ridiculous.”
“The attorney general’s continued attacks on election officials across the state for doing our jobs is ridiculous,” said Hobbs.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
