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.
Another Arizona Legislative disciplinary issue may be reaching its conclusion.
Last week, the Arizona House of Representatives Committee on Ethics transmitted its report on the complaint filed the previous month against Democrat Representative Stephanie Stahl Hamilton. The May 1 complaint was levied by three Republican Representatives: Justin Heap, David Marshall and Lupe Diaz.
The ethics complaint alleged “that on three separate occasions in March and April 2023, Representative Stahl Hamilton moved two Holy Bibles from their locations in the Members’ Lounge and hid them under the Lounge’s couch cushions and in a refrigerator in the shared Coffee Bar.”
After a response by Representative Stahl Hamilton and an Evidentiary Hearing held on May 25, the Arizona House Ethics Committee found that “Representative Stahl Hamilton purposely removed the Bibles from their locations within the Members’ Lounge on three separate occasions;” that “Representative Stahl Hamilton purposely concealed the Bibles in a manner that was disrespectful to other Members;” that “Representative Stahl Hamilton did not fully apologize for her conduct;” and that “Representative Stahl Hamilton’s repeated actions offended some Members of the House, violated the inherent obligation to protect the integrity of the House, and caused the House to expend resources.”
Representative Stahl Hamilton did not appear at her hearing – as noted by the report: “Given the fact-intensive allegations in the Complaint, the Committee would have preferred to hear testimony from Representative Stahl Hamilton. Indeed, the Committee had prepared questions for Representative Stahl Hamilton relevant to this investigation.”
The five-Member committee (comprised of Representatives Joseph Chaplik, Travis Grantham, Gail Griffin, Christopher Mathis, and Jennifer Longdon) found “that the evidence sufficiently supports a conclusion that Representative Stahl Hamilton’s repeated behavior, taken as a whole, constitutes disorderly behavior in violation of Rule 1 of the Arizona House of Representatives.” The Committee did not stipulate a specific punishment to accompany its findings, but left that decision up to the entire chamber, stating, “Based on this finding, and because Representative Stahl Hamilton’s violation of Rule 1 involves House property and took place on House property, the Committee deems it appropriate for the House as a whole to decide what disciplinary measures, if any, should be taken.”
The finding by the Committee, “that Representative Stahl Hamilton did violate Rule 1,” was unanimous.
It will now be up to House Speaker Ben Toma and the entire chamber to decide which appropriate consequence, if any, fits Representative Stahl Hamilton’s actions.
This process involving Representative Stahl Hamilton is the second of the legislative session for the Arizona House. The first occurred with former Representative Liz Harris, a Republican, who was expelled by a vote of the full chamber after the conclusion of the Ethics Committee’s deliberations.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
After a week of controversy from an Arizona Democrat lawmaker, Republicans in the House of Representatives are attempting to hold her accountable for actions caught on tape.
On Monday, Arizona Representatives Justin Heap, David Marshall, and Lupe Diaz filed an ethics complaint with the House Ethics Committee against Representative Stephanie Stahl Hamilton. The charge, according to the filing, alleges “upon information and belief, Representative Stahl Hamilton removed and concealed House property – specifically, Holy Bibles that have long been on display in the House Members’ Lounge – without apparent authority to do so. After removing the Bibles, she placed them under seat cushions, potentially causing Christian Members of the House, staff, and guests to unknowingly sit on their own holy text, and also placed one of them in a refrigerator, which is disrespectful in the extreme.”
🚨FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE🚨 State Reps. @azjustinheap, @DaveMarshallAZ & @LupeDiaz4AZ have filed a formal complaint with the House Ethics Committee over recent conduct by Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, who admitted to removing and concealing Bibles displayed in the House Members… pic.twitter.com/ZejD5ISSJF
— Arizona House Republicans (@AZHouseGOP) May 2, 2023
Monday’s complaint fulfills a Thursday promise by fellow Republican, Representative Jacqueline Parker, that details would be forthcoming on an ethics complaint in this matter.
An ethics complaint has been filed. Stay tuned for more details on Monday. https://t.co/VswUsbVjuz
— Rep. Jacqueline Parker (@electjacqparker) April 29, 2023
The three lawmakers released a joint statement, reading, in part: “The actions of Representative Stephanie Stahl Hamilton to remove, conceal, and disrespect the sacred text held in reverence by her fellow members suggests to her colleagues, and to the millions of faithful citizens of Arizona, that their beliefs and values are no longer welcome within the halls of their own government.”
Today I, with my colleagues @DaveMarshallAZ & @LupeDiaz4AZ filed a complaint with the House Ethics Committee against Representative Stephanie Stahl Hamilton. Below is our statement. "May the All Mighty God recognized, by Arizona's Founders continue to protect our liberty." https://t.co/outGOaBPGD
— Az State Rep. Justin Heap (@azjustinheap) May 2, 2023
The complaint does not request “the Ethics Committee to investigate or make any determination of any criminal allegations that belong in a court of law,” but rather “submit legal authorities for consideration because they are relevant for the Committee to determine whether Representative Stahl Hamilton violated House Rule 1.”
Making their case for the Ethics Committee to take necessary action against Stahl Hamilton, the Republican coalition’s complaint states: “Representative Stahl Hamilton engaged in disorderly behavior, potentially committed repeated acts of theft, and created a hostile work environment, which demonstrate a lack of respect for other members of the Legislature, staff, visitors, and their property, and the rule of law. Her actions, as a legislator in a position of public trust, may have caused offense to the practicing Christians in Arizona, who hold the Bible as a sacred text and expect their elected officials to uphold basic principles of respect and civility.”
The Republicans make it crystal clear in the complaint that they aren’t falling for Stahl Hamilton’s comments over her actions, writing: “Representative Stahl Hamilton has dismissed her unlawful actions as: “a playful commentary,” “a peaceful protest,” or an attempt to “start a conversation on the separation of Church & State.” These public comments came only after the Representative was aware that her actions had been caught on camera and the incident became a matter of national concern. Had a camera not been installed, these deeply inappropriate actions could have continued indefinitely to the detriment of other Members. The people of Arizona deserve a higher standard of decorum and respect from their elected representatives.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
On Thursday, Arizona House Speaker-elect Ben Toma (R-LD27) announced the committee and chair appointments for the upcoming session.
The House GOP clarified that committee membership is forthcoming.
Arizona House Speaker-elect @RepBenToma today announced committees and chair appointments for the upcoming 56th Legislature, 1st Regular Session, which opens on January 9, 2023.
I am absolutely honored to be named House Commerce Chairman by Speaker-elect @RepBenToma. Ensuring Arizona’s tremendous economic environment stays strong and its future remains bright is my chief focus. I’ll work hard to keep Arizona strong! Let’s get to work! pic.twitter.com/DUfxZ8xycx
— AZ State Rep. Justin Wilmeth (@JustinWilmethAZ) December 1, 2022
Municipal Oversight & Elections Committee — Chair: Rep. Jacqueline Parker (R-LD15), Vice Chair: Rep. Alexander Kolodin (R-LD03)
Honored to be named Vice Chair of Elections/Municipal Affairs serving under my colleague and good friend @electjacqparker. Let the games begin! https://t.co/EKoMWa4PvS
The Senate announced its committee chairmanships and leadership last month.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Senate President-Elect @votewarren Provides Update on Majority Caucus Leadership Team and Announces Senate Committee Chairmanships pic.twitter.com/wbeHMeO0df
