Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego continues to govern as a tyrant. Just look at item 37 on the next agenda she set for the November 1 Phoenix City Council meeting. The item calls for the City of Phoenix to accept a grant from a Rockefeller-sponsored entity headquartered in Copenhagen to implement meat consumption mitigation. But it’s not just the item alone that’s the problem.
In the dark behind closed doors, the Mayor of Phoenix told city staff to limit public comment to only 5 agenda items per person. By doing so, she possibly went against city code and violated state open meeting law and her loyalty oath to uphold and protect both the Arizona and U.S. Constitutions.
The Mayor suppressing voices of constituents was imposed without the other city council members being informed. Although this regulation was discovered at the September 6 meeting, city staff admitted at the October 18 meeting that the Mayor is the one who directed them to limit public comment to a maximum of 5 total agenda items per person.
During the Call to the Public at that October meeting, I called out Mayor Gallego for her policy.
Before we delve into the destruction to public opinion that the Mayor’s regulation causes, the Phoenix City Clerk’s site says, “Citizens may… express their views on any published agenda item.” Phoenix City guidelines on public comment say people have the ability to speak for two minutes on agenda items outside of the public comment section.
While the limitation of commenting on 5 agenda items may not sound like a big deal, city meetings can have anywhere between 20-200 agenda items plus a general public comment agenda item. To put that into context, 5 out of 200 items is only 2% of the meeting.
Furthermore, Mayor Kate’s restriction prevents the public from petitioning their elected officials if there are more than 5 agenda items that need public input.
Let’s say there are the following 7 items on the agenda for the next meeting:
Issue a $200 million bond that is backed by raising taxes
Road diets where the city reduces traffic lanes
Mitigation of meat consumption
Implementation of facial recognition technology
Solidifying the 15-minute city framework
Recommitting to red light surveillance cameras
Reducing parking around the city with the goal to get people to stop driving less
A person from the public is limited to speak on only 5 of those 7 items. Furthermore, that person cannot sign up to give public comment, which is protected in city code. Not only does this regulation restrict content from being brought forth by the public, but it also inhibits the ability of the people to petition their elected officials to let them know which way the people desire them to vote on specific policies.
Petitioning the government is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 2, Section 5 of the Arizona Constitution. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to petition the Government.” The Arizona Constitution also states, “The right of petition, and of the people peaceably to assemble for the common good, shall never be abridged.” Restricting people’s right to petition their elected officials is a direct infringement on both constitutions.
Not only is petitioning the government protected, but content is also protected. The Arizona Attorney General states, “Public bodies may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speakers, but any content-based restrictions must be narrowly tailored to effectuate a compelling state interest.” The Arizona Ombudsman Guidance further solidifies the opinion from the Attorney General. When discussing what could be a compelling state interest in court of law, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission of the United States Department of Defense states, “Only important, specific goals may satisfy this level of judicial scrutiny.”
As stated at the beginning of this article, the loyalty oath is swearing to protect and uphold both the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions. Because Mayor Kate has won multiple elections, she has sworn multiple times to the loyalty oath. If the oath is found to be violated, the maximum penalty is a class 4 felony and removal from office.
For public bodies and elected officials like those at the City of Phoenix to avoid possibly breaking the law, the Arizona Attorney General says, “The best practice is to decide [public comment changes] in advance [of the meeting] so that speakers have prior notice about the restrictions that the public body has set. In this way, the public body may be able to prevent allegations that it either treated speakers differently or used content-based restrictions.” Mayor Kate’s public comment limitation was not published, not written down, and staff has no idea where it came from other than her mouth.
While we have covered the possible content and petition limitations from the Mayor, another interesting issue stemming from the Attorney General’s recommendations is the potential targeting of specific voters. Since Mayor Kate’s regulation is not written down, it appears the Mayor decided to implement this policy after the June 28 Phoenix meeting. At this meeting, members of the public and Mayor Kate’s 2020 opponent showed up to speak against the Phoenix water rate hikes, water allotment reduction, and mismanagement of funds. It was at the next meeting, after summer break, that the public discovered the 5-agenda-item limitation. It looks like Mayor Kate may be targeting specific speakers and is treating members of the public differently.
Instead of allowing folks to freely express themselves, people like Kate Gallego will do anything to silence anyone in the mission to obtain all the power and control they possibly can. They are tyrants that use their power to implement radical policies and agendas to control others.
Limiting the number of items someone can speak on is way outside the bounds of Phoenix City Code, Phoenix’s public comment guidelines, the Attorney General’s opinion, Arizona state law, Ombudsman Guidance, the Arizona Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution. The Mayor of Phoenix crossed the line with her latest shenanigans by suppressing the voters of Phoenix, and in doing so, denied the city council members from considering their constituents’ views before voting. Kate Gallego has completely disgraced the sanctity of the institution and democracy. This public comment regulation is a violation of the bedrock of our Republic – consent of the governed. By limiting public comment content from her constituents, Mayor Kate exposes her true self. Her policy restricting free speech needs to be abolished.
Further, Arizona state law says, “A member of the public body may not knowingly direct a staff member to communicate in violation of [open meeting law].”
Elected officials and city staff work for us, not the globalist organizations. It’s why they swear an oath to protect and uphold the State and U.S. Constitutions. By restricting the ability to address officials through public comment, Mayor Kate is preventing the people from having the last say to stop bad policies. The Arizona State Legislature needs to take this up, review the open meeting laws, and codify public comment as a guaranteed First Amendment right to guarantee the public can petition their elected officials. In the meantime, we’ll see what happens at the next Phoenix City Council Meeting on November 1.
Jeff Caldwell currently helps with operations at EZAZ.org. He is also a Precinct Captain, State Committeeman, and Precinct Committeeman in Legislative District 2. Jeff is a huge baseball fan who enjoys camping and exploring new, tasty restaurants! You can follow him on X here.
The federal government and state governments across the country should be doing everything they can to ensure election integrity going forward. Over the past few years, the Arizona legislature has taken this to heart. But the Left has been fighting against every legitimate election reform that comes from conservatives. Not only are they filing lawsuits in court, but they’ve been deploying a new tactic that threatens the First Amendment.
Lawsuits Against Election Integrity Bills
In 2021, the Arizona legislature passed, and then-Governor Ducey signed into law SB 1485—a law designed to clean up Arizona’s early voter list. Then in 2022, state lawmakers followed that up with HB 2243 (to ensure regular voter list maintenance) and HB 2492 (to ensure that only U.S. citizens are voting in our elections).
These are commonsense laws that everyone should be able to get behind, but the Left gave up commonsense years ago…
On its last day of the term, the U.S. Supreme Court gave a major victory for the First Amendment, leading to mixed reactions from Arizona elected officials and advocates.
In a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for 303 Creative LLC in the case 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. The case centered on a Colorado businesswoman, Ms. Lorie Smith, who “filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create websites celebrating marriages that defy her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman.” The majority coalition in the Court held that “the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.”
As part of his prevailing opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote, “But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong. Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider ‘unattractive,’ post, at 38 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.), ‘misguided, or even hurtful,’ Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574. But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is reversed.”
The opinion sparked applause and outrage across the country – especially in Arizona. Center for Arizona Policy, one of the state’s influential pro-life and pro-family organizations, released a statement to cheer on the decision from the six justices in the majority, writing, “The ruling is a huge victory for those who do not want government telling them what to say or what messages they must create. That goes for the liberal publisher who does not want to publish a book with conservative views, as well as for the religious website designer who does not want to promote weddings that violate her religious beliefs. Today’s ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis acknowledges the difference between disagreement and discrimination by distinguishing between serving all people and promoting all messages. Lorie Smith happily designs websites for all customers but cannot create messages that run counter to her deeply held beliefs. Her decision is based on the message, not the person. Today, the Court affirms that difference.”
Democrat Attorney General Kris Mayes took the opposite view, saying, “Today, a woefully misguided majority of the United States Supreme Court has decided that businesses open to the public may, in certain circumstances, discriminate against LGBTQ+ Americans. While my office is still reviewing the decision to determine its effects, I agree with Justice Sotomayor – the idea that the Constitution gives businesses the right to discriminate is ‘profoundly wrong.’”
Mayes added that “Despite today’s ruling, Arizona law prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation, including discrimination because of sexual orientation and gender identity. If any Arizonan believes that they have been the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, or ancestry in a place of public accommodation, they should file a complaint with my office. I will continue to enforce Arizona’s public accommodation law to its fullest extent.”
The Arizona House Democrats Caucus also weighed in on the decision, tweeting, “This is not about weddings. This is about creating a religious right to discriminate against protected classes across a broad front of services, taking our country back to Jim Crow. And using a fake case to do it. Shameful.”
Republican Representative Travis Grantham, the Arizona House Speaker Pro Tempore, responded to the Democrats’ attack: “And the award for dumbest take ever goes to……”
The Arizona Attorney General’s position on the case’s outcome is a complete reversal of her predecessor’s, who, in 2022, co-led a coalition of states in filing an amicus brief, which urged the nation’s high court “to defend the First Amendment rights of business owners.” At that time, Mark Brnovich said, “Owners of small companies do not give up their constitutional rights as a cost of doing business. Freedoms of speech, belief, and expression are at the core of who we are as Americans, and our government is out of line to infringe on them.”
ICYMI: Our office co-led a coalition, urging the U.S. Supreme Court to defend the 1A rights of business owners.
Freedoms of speech, belief, and expression are at the core of who we are as Americans, and our government is out of line to infringe on them. https://t.co/1PTOi9oEb5
Legislation to increase Americans’ First Amendment rights at Arizona colleges and universities appears to be obtaining more bipartisan appeal as it moves towards the Governor’s Office.
On Monday, the Arizona House of Representatives passed SB 1013, which deals with free speech zones on state universities and colleges. The proposal, sponsored by Senator John Kavanaugh, “allows a person to engage in expressive activity in any area on a public university or community college campus where they are lawfully present, and modifies the state aid amounts from a community college district that exceeds its expenditure limitation in FY’s 2024 and 2025.” SB 1013 passed 57-1 (with one Democrat not voting and one seat vacant).
Kavanaugh’s bill first passed the Arizona Senate on February 28 with a 16-14 vote along party lines – after clearing the Education Committee with a 5-2 tally. When the legislation was transmitted to the House, it was assigned to the Education Committee as well, where it received a unanimous 8-0 approval (with two Democrats voting ‘present’).
The bill was amended twice – once in the Senate and another time in the House. The first amendment came from Senator Kavanaugh, specifying “that the authorization for a person to engage in expressive activity on a public university or community college campus in any area where the person is lawfully present does not prohibit a university or community college from regulating economic activity on the campus.” The House amendment, sponsored by Representative David Livingston, set “penalties for a community college district that exceeds its expenditure limitation;” and also limited “the maximum penalty that can be withheld from a provisional community college district established before December 31, 2015, located in a county with a population less than 300,000, which exceeds its expenditure limitation.”
Days after his bill passed the Arizona Senate, Kavanaugh recorded a video to explain his reasoning for introducing the legislation, saying, “If you’re on a college campus, and you have a legal right to be where you’re at – and you’re not blocking people and you’re not disrupting anything, then you can do and say whatever you want that’s legal. We’re going to restore the First Amendment to our universities. It’s long overdue.”
Since the House amended the Senate’s version of SB 1013, the Senate will have to concur with the changes in the coming weeks. On Tuesday, the bill was sent back to the Senate to await further action.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Maricopa County agreed to pay a $175,000 settlement for denying press credentials to a reporter during last year’s election.
Approval of the settlement passed during the county board of supervisors’ meeting on Wednesday without discussion.
The county’s denial meant that the reporter, from the Gateway Pundit, couldn’t attend their press conferences. The county denied the press pass on the grounds that they didn’t believe the reporter was objective and apolitical enough for their tastes. In response, the outlet sued the county in TGP Communications v. Sellers.
In December, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the county to issue the outlet a press pass while the litigation continued in December. The court further asserted that the county likely violated the First Amendment and discriminated against the outlet based on the reporter’s political views.
“Permitting ‘truth’ to be determined by the county violates our foundational notions of a free press,” stated the order.
When Maricopa County rolled out its press passes last September, Recorder Stephen Richer tweeted what appeared to be an agreement — and even celebration — of a statement that the county was going to prevent The Gateway Pundit from attending county press conferences and other events.
Later, around the time of the lawsuit’s filing, Richer deleted the tweet. Richer told AZ Free News that he didn’t have a specific reason for deleting the tweet, just that he occasionally deletes posts that he dislikes or deems to be unproductive in hindsight.
The county’s press pass application page remained active until around January 2023. It required the journalist’s contact information, address, dates of planned coverage, work samples, and a pledge that they didn’t have a conflict of interest or association involvement that would compromise their journalistic integrity.
It also required journalists to promise they didn’t receive compensation or special treatment from advertisers or political organizations that would influence their coverage, and that they weren’t a lobbyist, advertiser, paid advocate, or influencer for any individual, political party, corporation, or organization.
A month after initiating the press passes system, the county launched a disinformation center. They further declared a limit to press access on county property.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
