While the left has been lecturing us for decades that requiring ID to vote is somehow an overt example of systemic racism, they’re now planning to require ID for the privilege of shopping in government run grocery stores.
Democratic New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced in a recent press conference that he intends to spend over $70 million in taxpayer dollars to launch five government run grocery stores across New York, promising a 30% discount on all groceries.
And when questioned on how he intends to ensure people won’t just travel to New York and buy up the inventory for resale elsewhere in a predictable arbitrage play, his answer was both astounding and hypocritical. This is par for the course with his failed promises.
He said that they would implement a “library-esque” ID card that only New York citizens could obtain.
Yep, you heard that right — according to Democrats, it’s racist to ensure that only United States citizens are voting in our elections, but it’s totally fine to require ID to buy a box of Hot Pockets.
Someone else will have to make it make sense, because I sure as hell can’t.
For now, let’s set aside the absurdity of government run grocery stores. Let’s also set aside the fact that Democrats are claiming they have the magical ability to provide a 30% discount in an industry that operates on a 1-3% profit margin. And last but not least, let’s set aside the fact that every single industry the government gets involved in instantly experiences massive cost increases that destroy the budgets of hard working Americans.
Instead, let’s unpack their initial claim that requiring ID to vote is somehow racist.
What explanation have they used to justify that claim?
Across the board, nearly every Democrat politician, lobbyist, activist, and political pundit has consistently stated that black Americans either don’t know how or can’t afford to get a government issued ID.
Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro has consistently been one of the most vocal critics of voter ID, and recently made the ridiculous statement that, “We are not going to turn our elections over to Donald Trump.”
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed a law to completely ban local voter ID requirements.
And Matt Dietrich, spokesman for the Illinois State Board of Elections, said that Illinois does not require voters to show any type of photo ID at the polls, and went on to say voters only need to sign a sworn statement on their voter registration application that they are a U.S. citizen.
These are just a handful out of hundreds of examples.
Personally, I think the claim that black Americans either don’t know how or can’t afford to get a government issued ID, in and of itself, is pretty racist.
Virtually every single human of every race in America knows that getting an ID is a simple matter of going to your local Department of Motor Vehicles. And even if someone doesn’t know where one is, it’s hours of operation, or even what documents they’ll need, finding those answers is as simple as a quick Google search. (Although Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul did claim in May 2024 that black children don’t know what computers are, so I can see why Democrats might be confused here.)
So the claim that voters of any race don’t know how to get an ID is absurd.
The claim that black Americans can’t afford a government ID is equally absurd because the cost of a driver’s license ranges from $10 to $90, depending on your state.
But beyond that, an ID is already required for typical life in America anyway.
You need to show ID to drive a vehicle, visit a doctor, pick up prescriptions, travel on an airplane, buy a firearm, get a job, open a bank account, join the military, rent an apartment, enter a casino, purchase alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and some video games, register for government benefits, get married, get divorced, cash a check, rent a car or hotel room, register for health insurance, get a piercing or tattoo, donate blood, go hunting or fishing, sign any legal document, and countless other activities that most Americans do every single day.
And now, apparently, we can add shopping at Democrat run grocery stores.
According to Democrats, requiring an ID for all of these activities is perfectly fine, but when it comes to voting in our elections, it’s somehow an egregious burden that disenfranchises black voters.
What’s clear to me is that Democrats don’t want secure elections because they know they can’t win without cheating the system.
We’ve seen case after case of voter fraud. Recent examples include illegal aliens who were registered to vote, dead citizens still on the voter rolls, and harvesting ballots from the homeless population.
And in nearly every single case, this fraudulent voting favors Democrat candidates.
You don’t have to be a statistician to realize that it’s mathematically impossible for that to just be a coincidental fluke. It’s a clear case of systemic voting fraud perpetuated by the Democratic political machine.
The bottom line is that if Democrats think ID should be required to buy groceries, then the least we can do is require the same for our elections.
If it’s good enough for Hot Pockets, it’s good enough for the voting booth.
It’s pretty rare in politics to find a policy that is considered across the political spectrum as a true win, win. In the most recent primary election, Maricopa County implemented a new process that may actually be considered a win, win, win for elections.
Win number one: more options for voters, not fewer.
Win number two: faster election results.
Win number three: more integrity in the process.
What is it? On-site tabulation of early ballots. That’s right, a policy we spearheaded with Senator J.D. Mesnard in 2022. Then, it was SB1362. It was introduced on the heels of an election taking weeks to get election results and one of the largest drivers of the delay were early ballots that voters did not mail back, did not drop off during early voting, but instead held onto until election day and dropped them off en masse at polling locations. Hundreds of thousands of ballots dropped off, that later had to be transported to the county, signature verified, cured, removed from the envelope, and finally tabulated.
That wasn’t novel, and you can see why so many would choose to vote this way. For some, they simply forgot to return their ballot in time. Now it is election day, they don’t want to wait in line to fill out a two-page ballot again, so they drop it off. Or they filled out their ballot at home, and they don’t trust the mail to get it delivered and would prefer the assurance of dropping it off themselves. Or they like filling out their ballot at home, but they also like to go to the polling place on election day. Whatever the reason, a large portion of voters choose to do it every year. Most of them do not realize it delays results for weeks.
SB1362 began as a mandate on the counties, requiring them to provide this option to voters. Believe it or not, the counties fought it tooth and nail the entire session. Eventually, the bill was amended to make it optional for counties to implement. They still opposed it. Why? They knew that if voters found out that their county officials could be doing this but are refusing to do so, voters would get mad at them.
America First Legal (AFL) has filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court challenging the official ballot language prepared by Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes for Proposition 144. The lawsuit argues the description violates state law by failing to provide voters with a neutral and accurate summary of the election integrity measure.
The lawsuit asks the court to require the Secretary of State’s Office to revise the ballot language before early voting begins in October.
Proposition 144, referred to the ballot by the Arizona Legislature, would amend the Arizona Constitution to require proof of citizenship to register and vote, require voter identification for all forms of voting, prohibit foreign money from being used to influence Arizona elections, and affirm the authority of the people and the Legislature to enact election laws while clarifying the legal standard for court challenges involving those laws.
According to AFL’s complaint, Arizona law requires the Secretary of State to provide voters with an impartial, objective, and accurate description of ballot measures.
The organization alleges the current description fails to meet those standards by omitting major provisions of the measure, inserting political commentary, and making unsupported claims about its legal effect.
🚨BREAKING — AFL just filed an important election integrity lawsuit in Maricopa County, Arizona.
Adrian Fontes is trying to manipulate and sabotage ballot language to stop election integrity initiatives.
One of the lawsuit’s primary claims is that the official ballot language does not mention Proposition 144’s citizenship requirements, which AFL describes as the measure’s central purpose.
The complaint notes that while Arizona law allows for a 50-word descriptive title, Secretary Fontes allegedly used only about 28 words and did not reference the amendment’s provisions requiring citizenship to register to vote.
“Free and fair elections start with an honest ballot,” stated James Rogers, Senior Counsel at America First Legal. “Secretary Fontes had one job here: tell Arizona voters the truth about what’s on their ballot.”
The lawsuit also challenges language describing the measure’s prohibition on foreign election spending. The official “yes” vote explanation states that the provision is “similar to prohibitions that already exist in federal law.”
AFL argues that statement is misleading because federal law does not prohibit foreign money from being spent to influence ballot measures, and contends Proposition 144 would close that gap.
Additionally, AFL disputes the ballot language stating that the measure would “lower the legal standard for judicial review of election laws, making it harder to challenge election laws in state court.”
The organization argues that Proposition 144 contains no such language and that the statement represents a speculative legal conclusion rather than a neutral explanation of the amendment’s text.
“Arizona law requires official ballot language to be impartial, accurate, and free from advocacy,” added Rogers. “Secretary Fontes’s description of Proposition 144 fails all of these requirements. AFL will fight in court to ensure that every voter in Arizona gets the truth before they cast their ballot. That is what the law demands and what democracy requires.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Republican gubernatorial candidate and U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ05) says Arizona’s affordability crisis cannot be solved by housing policy alone, arguing that water management, utility costs, state trust lands, natural resource development, and election integrity all require a new approach under the state’s next governor.
In an exclusive interview with AZ Free News, Biggs outlined what he described as the core priorities of a potential administration, saying Arizona’s long-term prosperity depends on responsible resource management while restoring confidence in state government.
“The affordability of housing” is the state’s biggest economic challenge, Biggs said.
“It gets attention, but it doesn’t encompass everything that’s related to it,” he continued. “The water issue is massive, and it goes hand in glove with housing.”
Biggs argued that utility costs, water availability, and management of Arizona’s natural resources all contribute to the state’s affordability challenges.
“But the one aspect to this all that’s not being addressed in this administration… is how do you manage the state’s natural resources, including state trust land?” Biggs said. “That is going to be critical going forward on affordability issues in the state and viability of long-term economic success.”
For Biggs, water policy remains central to that vision. Biggs said Arizona must play a far more active role in negotiations over the future of the Colorado River rather than allowing federal agencies to dictate the outcome.
“You have to be engaged,” Biggs said.
He said he has met with officials from the United States Bureau of Reclamation, the United States Department of the Interior, the United States Department of Agriculture, the United States Department of Commerce, and the United States Department of Defense, arguing Arizona’s water allocation should reflect the state’s importance to national food production, semiconductor manufacturing, commerce, and defense.
“I’m encouraging all of them… to redo the environmental impact statement so it actually considers the national food security issue… the national defense sector… and the microchips and the industry,” Biggs said.
He also credited bipartisan work with Democrat Rep. Greg Stanton (AZ-04) to secure additional conservation funding for Lower Basin states and said Arizona’s advocacy helped encourage releases from Flaming Gorge Reservoir to stabilize Lake Powell.
Biggs also called for expanded forest thinning, continued livestock grazing, removal of invasive salt cedar, and responsible development of Arizona’s mineral resources.
“We have 26 of the critical minerals necessary in this state,” Biggs said. “You’ve got to figure out a way to use that and allow for extraction and development in a very rational and sane way.”
Addressing another growing issue, Biggs said he supports data center development but opposes taxpayer incentives.
“I sat down with multiple brokers for data centers and said, ‘Look, here’s the deal. No special breaks. No special benefits,'” Biggs said.
Instead, he said developers should finance their own electrical generation and water infrastructure without reducing resources available to existing residential or commercial customers. “We’re going to allow you guys to develop your power… provided that you do not encroach on current and future commercial and residential users.”
A policy report released by the Goldwater Institute in February warned that Arizona’s growing role as a national hub for data centers could be undermined by municipal regulations driven by concerns over water use, electricity demand, and land use.
On elections, Biggs said restoring public confidence would be among his first priorities if elected governor.
He pointed to Gov. Katie Hobbs’ veto of a Florida-style election integrity bill earlier this year and pledged to sign similar legislation if elected.
“One of the first bills I will sign is that Florida-style election integrity bill in January of 2027,” Biggs said.
Asked about the legal dispute between the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors over election administration, Biggs declined to side with either party but said he has spoken with both.
“I think both sides truly want us to have a fair, transparent election,” Biggs said. “They need to get this thing sorted out quickly.”
Biggs said he believes Arizona can become “the leader on election integrity” by the end of a potential administration.
The congressman is facing fellow Congressman David Schweikert (R-AZ01), business owner Ken Miceli, and entrepreneur Scott Neely for the Republican gubernatorial nomination in the primary and has centered much of his campaign on affordability, border security, government reform, and economic growth.
Andrew Costanzo, a Republican candidate for the 7th legislative district, still believes public education is key to Arizona’s future. But Costanzo says Arizona has serious need for reform — and that’s why public schools continue to decline.
Costanzo has proposed remedying low student proficiency rates by increasing school choice competition, mirroring Mississippi law, and implementing merit-based bonuses for educators.
He has also proposed growing the state’s universal school choice program by allowing property taxes to follow the child rather than according to the geographical predeterminations that fund school districts.
Costanzo is also very much against the proposed ballot initiative to end universal school choice. He said opportunity for educational freedom should be afforded to all, regardless of economic status. He also said educators would benefit from greater competition because they would be marketable on merit.
“How will these children reach their full potential as adults if they can’t read? We’re causing them a lifetime of pain,” said Costanzo in an interview last month. “The schools need something that benefits all businesses, and that’s competition.”
Costanzo also proposed enacting legislation similar to Mississippi’s Literacy-Based Promotion Act in Arizona, which policy experts have credited with a dramatic turnaround in student outcomes.
The lifelong Republican, who operates a family business near Payson, views freedom as the result of individuals taking on personal responsibilities and risks.
“Security, which is typically imagined, requires minimal personal responsibility and risk,” stated Costanzo’s website. “The alleged security is always provided at the loss of freedom.”
Beyond those philosophical takes on political matters, Costanzo presented a platform heavy on reducing government regulations through serious bureaucratic downsizing and greater deference to local governments, while increasing election security measures, resisting increased gun restrictions and abortion freedoms, retaining protections for law enforcement, and rolling back renewable energies.
Costanzo said in an interview last month that the legislature must “economically strangle” cartels and further scrutinize state agencies to recover what he says are sizable amounts of taxpayer funds being lost.
“It is so evident that there is waste, fraud, and abuse [in Arizona],” said Costanzo.
Costanzo’s platform also addressed at length the ongoing consequences of mass illegal immigration.
He described opposition to the present government handling of the illegal immigration crisis. According to Costanzo, the status quo victimizes both the illegal aliens and Americans. Illegal aliens face exploitation due to their vulnerable status as noncitizens, while Americans face the burdens of increased crime and strained public resources.
“Illegal aliens are often exploited financially, physically, or sexually. These people become part of an underclass of humans, a new form of slavery,” said Costanzo. “Whomever the victim, law enforcement resources must be implemented, the legal system is burdened, and incarcerations are applied. All paid for by the American taxpayer. […] [And t]he children of illegal aliens only put more pressure on an already failing [public school] system. Children who do not speak English must receive additional attention and resources, depriving the same from American students.”
Costanzo has been involved with the Arizona Republican Party, Gila County Republican Committee, Maricopa County Republican Committee, and Arizona Law Enforcement Emerald Society. He served as a precinct committeeman as well as a chairman, first vice chairman, and secretary for his legislative district.
This year marks Costanzo’s second time running for this office. He failed to secure the nomination in the 2024 Republican primary, which proved to be more crowded than this year’s primary: six candidates fought for two seats.
The 7th legislative district has fewer contenders in the Republican primary this time around.
State Rep. Walt Blackman is running to retain his seat, the other vacated by the April resignation of former lawmaker David Marshall. Three candidates are fighting for that spot vacated by a would-be incumbent: Costanzo and fellow 2024 primary candidate, Barby Ingle, and former state representative David Cook.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
