Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Bruce Cohen, the jurist overseeing the 2020 alternate electors case, has become the subject of intense scrutiny. Emails obtained by Rep. Travis Grantham revealed that the judge demanded that all of his fellow judges and commissioners defend Vice President Kamala Harris in the face of criticism that she was a “DEI hire.” Judge Cohen showed an openly racist bias and targeted men overall, white men in particular, by calling upon them to defend Harris and any colleagues identified as a “person of color.”
As reported by the Arizona Daily Independent, Cohen became offended by the emergence of rhetoric characterizing Harris as a “DEI hire,” despite President Joe Biden freely stating in 2020 that his criteria for selecting a Vice President were explicitly driven by race and gender. Biden told reporters at the time, “ I commit that I will, in fact, appoint a, pick a woman to be vice president,” and that he would select a candidate “of color and/or a different gender,” according to CNN.
Judge Cohen further objected to questions on Harris’ integrity that suggested she would conduct inappropriate relationships with top members of the cabinet or political figures, seemingly linked to her highly controversial relationship with then-speaker of the California State Willie Brown. Later, when Brown was elected Mayor of San Francisco, Harris would be catapulted into office as the district attorney of the state and county of San Francisco per Reuters.
In the email uncovered by Grantham, Cohen wrote:
“It does matter if your chromosomes are made up of ‘XY.’ It matters even more if your skin color is characterized as ‘white’ or Caucasian. We must speak out. We must tell those within our circles of influence that this s**t must stop. NOW! We cannot allow our female colleagues to feel as if they stand alone when there are those who may intimate that their ascension was anything other than based upon exceptionalism. We cannot allow our colleagues who identify as being a ‘person of color’ to stand alone when there are those may claim that their ascension was an ‘equity hire’ rather than based solely upon exceptionalism. We no longer can stay silent merely because others are exercising their right to free speech — we, too, have that same right and must exercise it.”
Cohen continued, equating the conduct and rhetoric of Harris’ detractors and any who refused to defend her to that of the Nazis of World War II, even drawing upon the historic horror of the Holocaust in a lopsidedly hyperbolic comparison.
“I have been reflecting on Martin Niemoller’s brilliant post-WWII essay known as ‘First they came for…’ While the subject matter of his commentary was one of the most horrific periods in world history, its instruction applies equally to present day events,” said Cohen. “When we cannot or do not stand with others, the words of Martin Niemoller are no longer a historic reference to the atrocities of WWII, those words describe the present.”
As reported by the Daily Independent, Cohen appeared to walk-back the email a day later with an apology of sorts, writing in a follow-up email: “Earlier this week I allowed my passion to cloud my judgment and sent an email using this as my forum,” said Cohen. “After reflection, I have come to realize that this was not proper use of this forum. I sincerely apologize to anyone put off or negatively impacted by my lapse of judgment.”
However, the damage may have already been done given that under the Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 1.2,” A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”
The code of conduct notably constrains jurists from political and campaign activities beyond the scope of judicial elections specifically prohibiting “any statement that would reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court; or in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.”
The outlet reported that two-days after the initial email to his colleagues, Cohen sent another directly referencing the ongoing trial against the 2020 Alternate Electors and deriding the defendents directly saying, “I am presiding over a case that involves a number of public officials, including some state senators. We had an all-day hearing yesterday and will have the same all day today,” said Cohen.
He continued making the unsubtle implication that the defendants would abuse their legislative power for their own convenience, blatantly impugning their character. He wrote:
“At the end of yesterday’s proceedings, one of the state senators approached my courtroom clerk and asked her to validate his parking. Is it possible that we will see parking validation added to the court’s allocated budget next year when the legislature passes our next budget and it will somehow be given retroactive application to [this day]?”
Rule 2.11 of the judicial code says you must disqualify yourself if you cannot be impartial. His emails are anything but impartial. @azcourts why is this judge still on this case? Impartiality and fairness please! https://t.co/WoSRADjh1l
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen expressed concern in a post to X sharing the Daily Indpendent’s article regarding Cohen’s conduct and calling upon the judicial system to intervene writing, “Rule 2.11 of the judicial code says you must disqualify yourself if you cannot be impartial. His emails are anything but impartial. @azcourts why is this judge still on this case? Impartiality and fairness please!”
Arguments in the case against the Alternate Electors are scheduled to begin in January 2026, according to Politico. Cohen was appointed in 2005 by Democrat Gov. Janet Napolitano and has indicated he is nearing retirement according to reporting by Yvonne Wingett Sanchez.
Top financial officers from 17 states, 13 State Treasurers, one Commissioner of Revenue, and three state auditors, came together to issue a firm rebuke to members of Congress calling upon Fortune 1000 companies to “reaffirm their commitments to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).”
The letter, signed by Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee, stated, “We the undersigned are state financial officials responsible for state investment vehicles that hold ownership positions in your companies. We write concerning recent calls from Congressional members that your companies reaffirm their commitments to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). They commend DEI to you, claiming it is ‘good for business’ and ‘benefits employees, customers, and the bottom line.’ Significant evidence is mounting that precisely the opposite is true.”
DEI polices don’t prioritize the financial health or performance of a company. That’s why 17 state financial officers pushed back on woke Congressional members by encouraging Fortune 1,000 companies to remove DEI policies from their businesses.
— Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee (@AZTreasurerYee) October 30, 2024
Yee and her colleagues wrote in response to entreaties sent by a coalition of Democrat politicians, who wrote to the same firms in support of the radical-left DEI agenda. The Democrat coalition made unfounded claims that DEI programs create “a culture of equality” that “allows your companies to remain competitive,” as reported by the Daily Wire.
Jeremy Tedesco, Alliance Defending Freedom SVP of Corporate Engagement told the outlet:
“The divisive and discriminatory ideology at the root of DEI has caused some of our country’s most prominent companies, like Home Depot, Lowes, Ford, and Toyota, to pull back on their DEI programs. We should celebrate that and call on other companies to follow their lead. Sadly, some members of Congress have instead responded by urging companies to reaffirm their DEI commitments. Businesses should listen to their employees, customers, and shareholders, rather than politicians, and jettison DEI once and for all.”
The letter from the State Officers cites scholarly studies from Econ Journal Watch and Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance that sharply disprove the Democrats’ claims that corporate DEI efforts improve bottom line earnings and debunk the McKinsey studies upon which the agenda is based. They state, “The authors of the Econ Journal Watch article reported that they were ‘unable to quasireplicate’ the McKinsey studies’ results and admonished that ‘they should not be relied on to support the view that US publicly traded firms can expect to deliver improved financial performance if they increase the racial/ethnic diversity of their executives.’”
The state officials highlighted key takeaways from a recent New York Times article for the industry leaders to consider when addressing the continuation of the controversial DEI measures: University student reactions and the birth of a “grievance culture,” and the delivery of a divisive culture as opposed to the goal of inclusivity. In a study that examined the University of Michigan’s DEI program as an exemplar of these policies, the author found in part:
“On campus, I met students with a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives. Not one expressed any particular enthusiasm for Michigan’s D.E.I. initiative. Where some found it shallow, others found it stifling. They rolled their eyes at the profusion of course offerings that revolve around identity and oppression, the D.E.I.-themed emails they frequently received but rarely read.”
The author noted, “Michigan’s D.E.I. efforts have created a powerful conceptual framework for student and faculty grievances — and formidable bureaucratic mechanisms to pursue them. Everyday campus complaints and academic disagreements, professors and students told me, were now cast as crises of inclusion and harm, each demanding some further administrative intervention or expansion.”
“Michigan’s own data suggests that in striving to become more diverse and equitable, the school has also become less inclusive: In a survey released in late 2022, students and faculty members reported a less positive campus climate than at the program’s start and less of a sense of belonging. Students were less likely to interact with people of a different race or religion or with different politics — the exact kind of engagement D.E.I. programs, in theory, are meant to foster.”
In the letter, the financial experts concluded that employees have widely expressed the same views of DEI programs with a Freedom at Work Survey conducted by Ipsos and released by Viewpoint Diversity Score, finding that 40% of respondents said the policies divide rather than unite the workplace. They added that legal exposure is also possible as Chief Justice Roberts observed, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Adding that the race-based theories and practices baked-into DEI programs “fly in the face of our colorblind Constitution and our Nation’s equality ideal.”
Can we truly take the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) seriously? They claim to be the premier association for school system leaders and the national voice for public education and district leadership. But do they speak for the majority of parents with children in public schools across America?
The AASA being the voice for public education on Capitol Hill might explain why public education has been failing our children for years. The education professionals who run the AASA and the Arizona School Administrators (ASA) seem more focused on promoting social-emotional learning, DEI, and gender identity rather than prioritizing academic excellence in public schools.
How else do you explain the prior selection of Dr. Donna Lewis as the superintendent of the year when she was the superintendent of a district where math and ELA proficiency were below 15%? And how do you explain the selection of Dr. Menzel as the 2024-2025 national superintendent of the year?
By selecting two failed superintendents for recognition, these organizations demonstrate that they are not concerned with academics.
Contrary to the Scottsdale Unified School District’s (SUSD) claims, Menzel has not enhanced educational outcomes; it is just the opposite. Last year, Menzel failed to meet his academic performance goals, and academic achievement in math, ELA, and science declined. In 2023, SUSD had over 8,000 students who were NOT proficient in ELA, over 9,000 who were NOT proficient in math, and over 12,000 students who were NOT proficient in science. Thirty-five percent of 3rd graders were not proficient in ELA in 2023. Being able to read by 3rd grade is critical to a student’s academic success. By continuing to promote them without being proficient, Menzel is setting them up for academic failure.
Despite these deficiencies, hundreds of SUSD students are promoted and graduate each year.
Under Menzel’s tenure, SUSD experienced a 10% drop in enrollment, with nearly half of the eligible students choosing not to attend SUSD. Additionally, the district has faced record staff turnover due to the fear-driven environment Menzel has created. Yet he is celebrated as the superintendent of the year.
Enough is enough. Scottsdale cannot afford another failed superintendent of the year.
Mike Bengert is a husband, father, grandfather, and Scottsdale resident advocating for quality education in SUSD for over 30 years.
The dead-end hyperinflationary policies of the Biden-Harris administration have put the American Dream out of reach for many young people. I have talked to my 21-year-old daughter about this so many times that it breaks my heart.
Ruby, like so many young Americans, is doing everything right. She works hard, she saves up, but that old-fashioned notion of the white-picket fence seems to be slipping away from her grasp. Part of the reason I am running for Senate is to make America affordable again. And I know that bringing down out-of-control housing prices is the key to restoring access to the American Dream for our young people.
Per Federal Reserve data, in 1984, the median U.S. household income was $22,400 and the median home price was $78,200, or about 3.5 times the median income. By 2022, median household income had risen to $74,580, but median home prices had risen to over $433,000 — or nearly six times median income.
Elected officials owe it to our constituents to take clear and decisive action to reduce housing costs.
There has been so much focus on the role of interest rates, but the answer to bringing them back down, while hard to achieve, is fairly straightforward: the federal government needs to stop printing money we don’t have so that it can pay bills that we can’t afford. Taming that imbalance won’t be quick or easy, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you a bill of goods.
But there is another key element of the housing crisis that we can address quickly and effectively: a lack of skilled tradespeople. According to an analysis by Associated Builders and Contractors, the United States is short over half a million skilled construction workers. The lack of skilled construction workers combined with rapidly increasing costs of materials is creating a roadblock to building the millions of additional housing units that are needed to relieve the cost bottleneck.
Bringing down the cost of materials largely hinges on three things: reducing the price of energy and fuel, eliminating excessive regulations created by the Biden-Harris administration, and increasing the number of skilled workers available to producers. Limitations on oil-and-gas production and refining are leading to rapidly increasing fuel and energy costs that have inflated the price of building materials by tens of thousands of dollars per home.
Likewise, excessive regulation and DEI mandates being forced on producers by the Biden-Harris administration are also increasing materials and labor costs, without appreciable benefit to society in terms of reduced inequality. Lastly, the rush to send every high school graduate to a four-year college, with massive government subsidies, is draining the workforce of skilled tradespeople which both increases the cost of construction and delays additional new home starts.
Solving the first two problems is very simple. Replace President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris with Donald Trump, overturn the current administration’s pointless and counterproductive executive mandates, and you are two thirds of the way there. The last step — increasing the number of skilled construction workers — is going to take more effort.
But with some simple changes in federal education funding and policy, we can turn that deficit around in a matter of just a few years by revising federal education funding and loans to stop discriminating against trade schools and technical education and support the development of a skilled workforce sufficient to meet the demands of our housing market.
First, we need to revise the guidelines for Pell grants to allow them to be issued and used for more students to attend trade and technical schools. Second, if the government is going to continue to back student loans, eligibility for those loans needs to be aggressively expanded to include more trade schools.
Currently, trade-school students can access government-backed student loans, but only if their trade school is federally accredited. Many are not. Getting the vast majority of trade schools nationwide accredited so their students have access to government-backed loans should be a major priority for the next administration and will be a priority of mine in the U.S. Senate.
Lastly, the government needs to aggressively partner with industry to expand trade school opportunities by making low-interest loans available to companies and unions to invest in new and expanded trade and technical-school facilities.
The cost to attend trade and technical schools is far less than the cost of a four-year degree, and the returns on that investment are astronomical. A few thousand dollars of up-front investment in these careers yields a lifetime of high earnings, and resultant increased tax revenues. As a result, investing in expanding our skilled workforce is responsible governance, and must be a priority going forward.
The academic success of Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) students over the past five years is shockingly low. Science scores have plummeted by 24% since 2019. Less than 50% of eighth grade students are proficient in math. In the Coronado Learning Community, that number shrinks to 12%. Yet, the district graduates 94% of students. How is this preparing students for success?
Most would think that SUSD, an organization with nearly a half billion-dollar annual budget, would be laser focused on the root cause of academic decline, but we would be mistaken. The simple fact is that SUSD has not prioritized academics. This can be attributed directly to Superintendent Scott Menzel. Since his tenure started in 2019, Dr. Menzel has implemented his stated plan to “disrupt and dismantle systems,” while academics suffer.
Hired by the decidedly “progressive” school board led by disgraced Jann-Michael Greenburg, the intent of finding a Menzel-like superintendent was clear. That board prioritized a candidate in Menzel who would promote “social justice” and DEI over academic achievement, and we are seeing the results. Class time is spent on shaping students’ feelings and framing a political narrative as opposed to reading, writing, and math.
Under Menzel’s watch, spending on student instruction is at an all-time low as a percent of the district’s budget, dropping 9.1% from 2004 levels of budget allocation. For a point of reference, based on the 2023-2024 budget of $458 million, the redirection of funds away from academics represents a $41.7 million loss to teachers, curriculum, and items that have a direct impact on academics.
Spending on social workers and support staff has increased to historical highs, while teaching positions and academic specialists have seen cuts. The 2024-2025 budget shows spending on support staff has increased as a percent of overall budget by 2.6% over the past five years, including an additional 4.5 social workers in this year alone. At the same time 20 teaching positions, 7 reading specialists, and 4.5 math specialists have been eliminated. How does this lead to providing the “world class education” that SUSD claims?
Recognizing the academic decline, parents are finding alternatives to SUSD schools. Enrollment has decreased by over 2,200 students in the past four years, reducing the federal, state, and local funding allocation by more than $17 million per year. SUSD now serves less than 54% of school-aged students in Scottsdale. Instead of correcting the problems to regain the trust and confidence of the community so that families actually want to send their kids, SUSD continually campaigns for additional funding through bonds, overrides, and new taxes, ignoring the reasons for the shortfalls.
We cannot afford another rubber stamp board for Menzel, who ignores academics and imposes his social justice priorities on our kids.
Instead, we need school board members like Jacobs, Beasley, and Hassler who are focused on improving academic outcomes, supporting teachers, and respecting the voice of parents. If we truly want to see improvements in our school district, let’s make it happen this November.
Rich Hoffecker is a parent and Scottsdale resident.
