Arizona’s Republican school’s chief is taking additional action to raise awareness for Holocaust education.
Earlier this week, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne presented the Arizona Jewish Historical Society with a seven-million-dollar check for the purpose of creating the Hilton Family Holocaust Education Center.
The mission of the center, per its website, is that it will be “dedicated to exploring the lessons of the Holocaust and other crimes against humanity. The Center educates and inspires visitors of diverse backgrounds through survivor stories, artifacts, immersive media experiences, community outreach, and public programs.” Its vision is to “inspire visitors to learn from the Holocaust, to become upstanders, and to work toward a world without hatred and bigotry.”
Horne stated, “In the past year, we have seen the unbelievable and tragic targeting of the Jewish community with the horrific acts committed on innocent men, women and children by Hamas in Israel, the ignorant and misguided protests against Jews on college campuses and the endorsement of antisemitic literature in some Arizona classrooms. This cannot go unchallenged, and educating people is one of the most powerful tools to face this scourge. Developing the Hilton Family Holocaust Education Center is a needed step toward bridging understanding between people of all ethnicities and belief systems and I am grateful to be a part of this important cause.”
Joining Horne at the presentation were State Representatives Alma Hernandez and David Marshall. Arizona business leader Steve Hilton also appeared alongside the state officials.
It was bipartisan legislation spearheaded by Hernandez and Marshall that made the check presentation from the Arizona Department of Education possible for the benefit of the Center.
According to the Center’s website, the explanation for why it is being created at this time is because “Phoenix is the fifth largest city in the United States, yet it is the largest U.S. city that does not have a Holocaust museum or education center. With anti-Semitic and hate crimes on the rise over the last five years in Arizona and the United States, now is the time to build a new center to raise awareness and educate the community so that we can help to address these critical issues that affect all groups of people that may be marginalized and made vulnerable to discrimination. When one group’s freedom is curtailed, all people are susceptible to prejudice and injustice.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A bill to govern settlement agreements in Arizona was recently vetoed by the state’s governor.
Last month, Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed HB 2275, which would have “require[d] a city, town or county to submit a settlement agreement report to outlined parties for review before entering into a settlement agreement,” according to the purpose statement from the state Senate.
The proposed terms of settlement agreements that are over $500,000 would have to be submitted to the Governor, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Attorney General. Settlement agreements over one million dollars would have to be submitted to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.
In her veto letter to Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma, Hobbs wrote, “This legislation is unnecessary and undermines the separation of powers doctrine in state government, ultimately harming the best interests of Arizona’s taxpayers.”
State Representative David Marshall, a Republican who sponsored this bill, testified in favor of his proposal in front of the House Government Committee. He said that “the reason this bill was brought [was] because the DOJ has gone across our country into 23 of our police departments…and taken control of these police departments.” He referenced the DOJ’s ten-years-and-counting involvement with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department, costing taxpayers over 200 million dollars – and he noted that the DOJ may be close to a settlement with the City of Phoenix. Marshall added that “this bill is to protect our police departments.”
When the bill was being considered in the state House, it passed in February with a 31-27 vote (with one member not voting and one seat vacant). After being transmitted to the state Senate, it was amended and given the green light with a 16-13 vote (with one member not voting). The House concurred with the changes, approving the legislation with a 31-26 vote (with three members not voting).
On the Arizona Legislature’s Request to Speak system, representatives from the Arizona Trial Lawyers Association, City of Avondale, City of Glendale, Town of Gilbert, City of Goodyear, City of Peoria, City of Sedona, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, County Supervisors Association of Arizona, Town of Florence, Arizona Association of Counties, City of Flagstaff, City of Eloy, City of Litchfield Park, League of Arizona Cities & Towns, Pima County, Town of Oro Valley, City of Tolleson, City of Surprise, Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police, and City of Apache Junction signed in to oppose the bill.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A key reporting deadline for Arizona schools is being extended.
Earlier this week, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne announced “an extension of the deadline to February 23 for schools to report their compliance with the current law that requires Holocaust education in public schools.”
Superintendent Horne is extending the deadline for schools to show they are following Arizona law that requires teaching about the Holocaust. #EducationForAllhttps://t.co/LQPY0C1bQe
— Arizona Department of Education (@azedschools) February 6, 2024
The law “requires students to receive instruction in the Holocaust and other genocides at least once in middle school and once in high school.”
In a statement to accompany the announcement, Horne said, “Since we first requested that schools attest to their compliance with the state mandate for Holocaust education for middle and high school students, we have received many responses, but not all districts and charters have replied. Arizona law is clear that this is a requirement for middle and high school students. As Superintendent, I have the legal authority to make sure that laws pertaining to education in Arizona are being followed. Therefore, my enforcement action will be that for the online ADE School Report Card we will indicate in red letters any school’s failure to respond to the Holocaust education verification by February 23.”
Not only is Horne extending the deadline for schools to report compliance with the law, but he is hoping state legislators and the governor are able to strengthen the statute for future students. His press release noted that two lawmakers – Representatives David Marshall and Alma Hernandez – have embarked on a bipartisan mission to pass a bill that would “require students in grades 7-12 to twice complete a three-day program on the Holocaust and other genocides.”
Horne also addressed this development in his release, saying, “After the horrific events of October 7, there was a one-sided pro-Hamas presentation at Desert Mountain High School that produced antisemitism among students and made Jewish students uncomfortable and fearful. If Holocaust studies are presented, students will be less gullible to antisemitic presentations and this legislation will strengthen that effort. I am grateful to Representatives Hernandez and Marshall for their bipartisan work to strengthen this law.”
The law giving the state’s schools chief authority to require the information from Arizona schools was HB 2241, which was passed by the legislature and signed into law by then-Governor Doug Ducey in 2021. The bill was sponsored by Alma Hernandez, a Democrat. It passed both chambers with almost unanimous support. Ducey, in his letter to then-Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, informed her that he was signing the legislation to “ensure that we continue to teach our students the history of past atrocities, which in return will instill greater compassion, critical thinking, societal awareness, and educational growth in our students.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizona Legislative Republicans have joined the crescendo of voices pushing back against an impending consent decree from the federal government.
This week, Arizona State Representative David Marshall and 20 of his colleagues in the chamber sent a letter to City of Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego and members of the council, asking them to “swiftly reject any consent decree proposed by the DOJ and challenge the findings in the forthcoming DOJ report.”
🚨FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE🚨 Arizona House Republicans Urge Phoenix Mayor to Reject Federal Control of Police Department
“To preserve Arizona’s sovereignty consistent with our state constitution, you must reject the DOJ’s coercive consent decree.”
The coalition of lawmakers warned that “the DOJ has used consent decrees to remove local control from police departments in metropolitan cities across the United States,” and that “relinquishing local control of these critical agencies to the federal government has been disastrous for both the public safety of the residents in those cities and for taxpayers.” They pointed to the experience of the state’s largest county, Maricopa, writing, “Arizonans have already suffered the drastic consequences of the DOJ consent decree over the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department for the past decade.”
In their letter to City of Phoenix officials, the lawmakers also appealed to both the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions about how an enacted consent decree would violate both documents. The legislators stated, “The Arizona Constitution prohibits the state and its political subdivisions from ‘using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate’ with any federal action or program that does not protect the checks and balances of the United States Constitution… To preserve Arizona’s sovereignty consistent with our state constitution, you must reject the DOJ’s coercive consent decree.”
The request from these representatives follows other petitions from Arizona officials who oppose the imposition of a consent decree upon the city’s police department. Earlier this fall, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell posted her displeasure with the principle of federal monitoring of law enforcement departments, writing, “Look no further than MCSO to see what ‘federal monitoring’ does to agencies. Monitors (people paid to determine whether an agency is in compliance) have ZERO incentive to find compliance. It will cost the taxpayers MILLIONS and crime will increase.”
City of Phoenix Councilmember Ann O’Brien also wrote an op-ed for the Arizona Republic, voicing her sentiments regarding any arrangement handed down from the DOJ. In her piece, O’Brien wrote, “I have no intention of signing anything given to us by the Department of Justice without getting to read their findings first. That’s the thing: the DOJ gets agencies to sign an agreement in principle before ever releasing their findings, which essentially means that agency will negotiate a consent decree in good faith. Not Phoenix.”
On August 5, 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice opened a “pattern or practice investigation into the City of Phoenix and the Phoenix Police Department (PhxPD)” to “assess all types of use of force by PhxPD officers, including deadly force.” The DOJ highlighted that its investigation would “include a comprehensive review of PhxPD’s systems of accountability, including misconduct complaint intake, investigation, review, disposition, and discipline.”
At the time of the announcement, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said, “When we conduct pattern or practice investigations to determine whether the Constitution or federal law has been violated, our aim is to promote transparency and accountability. This increases public trust, which in turn increases public safety. We know that law enforcement shares these goals.”
The City of Phoenix and Phoenix Police Department have updated people on the progress of the investigation, alerting readers that “city and police leaders have provided the DOJ with documents, videos, interviews, ride-a-longs, and access to training sessions with the department.” The City’s bulletin revealed that the DOJ investigation “has come with challenges, as it took several months to negotiate a method for sharing sensitive law enforcement information which complied with FBI standards.”
Per the City of Phoenix’s information, the DOJ’s Civil Pattern or Practice investigation into the Phoenix Police Department “is the 71st investigation of its kind since the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.” If DOJ finds “patterns or practices of misconduct,” then Phoenix will likely find itself with a federal monitor.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Republican lawmakers are warning the Flagstaff City Council that their proposed ban on firearms ads would be unconstitutional and unlawful.
In a letter obtained by AZ Free News, State Reps. David Marshall (R-LD07), Leo Biasucci (R-LD30), and Quang Nguyen (R-LD1) told the council that the ban presented multiple constitutional concerns such as viewpoint discrimination and would violate state law, citing A.R.S. §13-3108.
“We trust that you realize, however, that the draft policy has nothing to do with ‘violence’ or ‘antisocial behavior.’ As written, the draft policy raises a host of constitutional concerns, including viewpoint discrimination,” said the lawmakers.
Flagstaff is set to vote today on a new radical ad policy discriminating against firearms-related speech. I joined my @AZHouse colleagues @DaveMarshallAZ and @Leo4AzHouse in calling out its potential constitutional violations and likely breach of state law. #1A#2Apic.twitter.com/cBWUBsgaTP
State Rep. John Gillette (R-LD30) agreed with his fellow lawmakers’ assessment of the policy.
“This can’t stand, what is repugnant to the Constitution should be void,” said Gillette.
During the meeting, Councilmember Lori Matthews said that firearms-related businesses should still be allowed to advertise, and proposed more specific restrictions on depictions of violence rather than banning all display of firearms in general.
“I feel uncomfortable thinking we would turn off a whole industry,” said Matthews.
Councilmember Jim McCarthy compared massage parlors, marijuana and cigarette shops to firearms, saying that none of those business owners were complaining of their inability to advertise. McCarthy claimed that the firearms-related businesses wouldn’t be hurt by this policy.
“This will have no effect on the operation of any of these businesses. What they can do or not do is determined by state law and other regulations,” said McCarthy. “[This policy will] have no impact on free speech in general.”
Councilmember Deb Harris said she didn’t need any more explanation of the policy changes, and that she was in full support of the draft policy as it stood.
Heidi Hansen, director of Economic Vitality, was responsible for the policy changes. Hansen recommended requiring firearms-related companies to include compelled speech consisting of a “safety message” in their advertisements.
Hansen further disclosed that their rejection of an ad placement by Timber Firearms and Training was due to the fact that the ad video depicted a firearms instructor “firing rapidly” at a “silhouette of a person.” The figure in question was likely the B-27 silhouette paper target, a common tool for shooting ranges, especially for law enforcement training.
“It was firing quite rapidly at a silhouette of a person and we felt like that might make someone uncomfortable,” said Hansen.
It appears that Timber Firearms and Training ad placement request was the motivator for the new proposed policy.
Wilson spoke out against the policy during Tuesday’s meeting. He noted that ads do have an impact, contrary to what some on the council implied.
“Sadly, some of our customers are like the single mother that just left the judge’s chambers. She has an order of protection but knows the abuser’s not going to honor that. She has to come someplace where she can get training and where she can get armed to defend herself and her children,” said Wilson. “If she didn’t know we existed, what would the result be?”
Wilson further warned the council that the proposed policy would be grounds for a lawsuit.
Michael Infanzon, a lobbyist representing the Arizona Citizens Defense League (ACDL), also voiced opposition to the policy. Infanzon said that the policy ran afoul of the Constitution and Arizona statute.
“[Municipalities] cannot enforce a complete ban unless they can demonstrate that such advertising constitutes a threat to public health and safety,” recited Infanzon.
Councilmember Miranda Sweet said Timber Firearms and Training may have to compromise.
“I was very uncomfortable when I watched [the ad video],” said Sweet. “We’re trying to welcome people into the community when they come into the airport, and the video didn’t portray that.”
Vice Mayor Austin Aslan said the proposed policy was “far too descriptive” and suggested changing the language to reflect “weapons” rather than “firearms.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
