In reality, this new office has nothing to do with “accountability” or “transparency.” If it did, then Mayor Gallego and other members of the far left would be honest that this office is nothing more than a politicized endeavor designed to undermine the police. And ultimately, they want to use it to help build momentum toward what the far left really wants: imposing progressive policies in the police department and defunding the police.
But maybe Mayor Gallego ought to check her definition of “national best practice.” Because around the country, efforts to defund the police haven’t exactly gone so well.
Cities at the forefront of the “defund the police” movement, have seen dramatic increases in crime rates and mass departures of police officers. Even CNN can’t help but acknowledge it!
Take Seattle for example. You may remember this major American city being referred to as CHAZ or CHOP during the Black Lives Matter riots last summer. Under pressure to cut police spending, the Seattle City Council redistributed nearly 20% of its police budget this past November. And what was the result? A dramatic increase in homicides and shootings so far in 2021. And this comes after a similar increase in 2020!
On Wednesday, the Arizona Senate overwhelmingly voted to pass House Bill 2810, landmark legislation that would reform the state’s civil asset forfeiture law to significantly strengthen innocent Arizonans’ due process and property rights. The bill, HB 2810, sponsored by Rep. Travis Grantham, requires law enforcement to secure a criminal conviction before an individual’s property may be forfeited under the state’s civil asset forfeiture law, under most circumstances.
Currently, law enforcement may seize and keep property from individuals that are never charged or convicted of a criminal offense.
The bill previously passed the House with a strong 57-2 vote, and now heads to Governor Doug Ducey’s desk for his signature.
“This is an historic moment for the due process and property rights in the state of Arizona,” said Lauren Krisai, Senior Policy Analyst for Justice Action Network. “House Bill 2810 ensures that law enforcement cannot permanently take property from innocent Arizonans never charged or convicted of a crime—an egregious process that has gone on for far too long in the state. We thank Rep. Grantham for sponsoring this important bill, and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle for coming together to pass this critical reform. We hope Governor Ducey will sign this bill that better protects the constitutional rights of all Arizonans.”
Currently, Arizona police are under no obligation to return property seized from someone suspected or accused of a crime, regardless of whether a conviction is obtained. In 2018, 54% of all forfeitures in Arizona were not tied to a criminal conviction. To address this crucial issue, House Bill 2810:
Requires a criminal conviction before most forfeitures may take place;
Ensures that seized property is linked to a suspected crime;
Requires law enforcement to return seized property in a timely manner if they decide not to pursue criminal charges or lose the case in court;
Strengthens innocent owner protections by requiring the state to prove that the property is linked to a crime, and return property if it is not. Current law requires innocent owners to prove that their seized property *is not* connected to a crime.
It’s been an interesting couple of weeks to say the least. In the wake of severe distrust of the U.S. election system, multiple states throughout the country have been seeking to pass reasonable laws that protect our election process. You would think that’s something everyone could get behind.
But not the liberal media and the left. They would rather tell one lie after another, all to push their “big lie” that these bills are somehow voter suppression. The pressure from the woke left resulted in Major League Baseball moving its All-Star Game from Atlanta after Georgia passed its new voting laws. And even here in Arizona, multiple business leaders have taken a public stand against several election integrity bills.
Perhaps they should’ve checked in with voters first.
A poll conducted late last week by the Free Enterprise Club and Heritage Action shows that bipartisan majorities support sensible reforms that strengthen Arizona’s election laws.
The poll found that more than 80% of Arizona voters support requiring all voters to provide identification in order to vote, with 70% strongly supporting this requirement. Even a large majority of Democrats, 69%, support the idea of requiring all voters to provide ID prior to voting.
But there’s more.
Since there is a difference between asking about general support for election integrity laws and support for specific legislation, we decided to poll two specific bills being considered by the legislature. Both of these bills have been labeled “extreme” by the media and left.
The first was SB 1713, legislation that would require voters that vote by mail to include additional identification when voting. When asked if they would support this new requirement, 63.7% of Arizona voters said they would, including large majorities of Republican and Independent voters.
The other bill we asked voters about was SB 1485, legislation that would remove a person from the early voter list who does not vote by mail in 2 consecutive primary and 2 consecutive general elections from the early vote-by-mail list unless they return a notice within 30 days from the county indicating they would like to remain. Not surprisingly, a majority of voters support this reform as well.
So, shouldn’t lawmakers listen to the people by passing reasonable election reforms? After all, that’s why they were voted into office. Unfortunately, these widely popular bills may be stopped if the corporate media and Democrats get their way.
For example, Sen. Quezada (D-LD29) has already threatened the people of Arizona with losing the 2023 Super Bowl if SB1713 and SB1485 are signed into law. And inflammatory rhetoric such as “voter suppression” and “Jim Crow” is being regurgitated by liberal politicians and activists on a regular basis.
Enough is enough. It’s time for Arizona lawmakers to stand up to the woke bullying and threats and do what’s right. The vast majority of Americans support voter ID laws and election integrity reforms. They want an election system that makes voting both accessible fraud proof. And they understand that voter ID laws and clean voter rolls help make that happen. That means passing SB 1713 and SB 1485.
It is now very obvious that the left and liberal media’s commitment to false and hyperbolic rhetoric regarding election bills in Arizona, Georgia, Texas, and elsewhere is not about policy but rather demonizing Republicans. But the jig is up. Characterizing every Republican-led effort to implement reasonable election reforms as “Jim Crow 2.0” (laws that legalized racial segregation) is not only offensive, it is lazy, hypocritical, and getting very tiresome.
For example, SB 1106, sponsored by Senator Mesnard, would require county recorders, upon confirmation that a voter has registered in another county or state, to cancel that voter’s registration. Additionally, the bill would classify the action of aiding someone who is registered in another state in voting in Arizona as a class 5 felony.
Senator Quezada, a Democrat representing legislative district 29, tweeted out that Governor Ducey needs to veto SB1106 along with SB1485 and SB1713 or we might lose our Super Bowl in 2023, similar to how the MLB pulled out of Georgia for what Sen. Quezada refers to as “voter suppression laws.”
And the Pima County Democratic Party tweeted Governor Ducey, calling on him to veto SB1106 with the hashtags #JimCrowAZ and #RacistVoterSuppression.
But is canceling the registration of a voter who has moved to another state really “Jim Crow 2.0”?
Over the weekend we highlighted some provisions in Kentucky’s HB 574 that are being referred to as “expanding voting access” there, but “Jim Crow” here in Arizona. One of those was a requirement nearly identical to what is proposed in SB1106. We’ll wait for Sen. Quezada and the Pima County Democratic Party to condemn the 25 Democrats in the Kentucky House, 8 Democrats in the Kentucky Senate, and the Democrat Governor who all supported it.
A statutory procedure to ensure people aren’t voting in multiple states is common practice around the country and simply commonsense.
For example, let’s look at the democrat stronghold and home state of President Joe Biden, Delaware. There, the State Board of Elections, at any duly called meeting, may consider the cancellation of voter registrations if a member has a “valid reason to believe” the voter is no longer a qualified elector (§ 1702).
They even allow for the cancellation of a voter’s registration if the voter’s spouse, adult child, sibling, or parent sends a written notice that the voter has moved out of state (§ 1707). Don’t like the way your parent votes? No worries. Just send a letter to their county and get their registration canceled.
Colorado, a bastion of liberalism, also criminalizes voting for non-residents (§ 228) with a class 6 felony. Colorado also has a similar provision as SB1106 (§ 604) outlining the process (§ 605) for canceling the registration of electors registered in multiple jurisdictions. Oregon too, allows the cancellation of elector registrations, “if the county clerk receives written evidence that the elector has registered to vote in another county in this state or in another state” (§ 555).
And since former President Obama took to twitter in support of the Georgia boycott, we’ll turn our eyes to a state he represented in the U.S. Senate, Illinois. There, a voter’s registration is canceled for simply not voting in the last four years and failing to respond to a notice within 30 days (§ 5-24). County clerks are also required to verify voter registrations every 2 years and cancel the registrations of any voter no longer qualified (§ 5-25).
SB1106 is not “Jim Crow” or “voter suppression.” States around the country, including the left’s beloved blue strongholds, have reasonable measures in place to ensure they maintain a clean and current voter registration database. If the left really believes this policy is “voter suppression” then their position must simply be this: voter suppression for me, but not for thee.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club is a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting economic prosperity and a strong and vibrant Arizona economy.
A Superior Court judge ruled this week that a mandatory curfew imposed by the Pima County Board of Supervisors “is not statutorily authorized and violates the Governor’s Executive Order.”
Approved by the Pima County Supervisors in a split 3-2 vote on December 15, 2020, the curfew essentially shut down commerce between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m.
Pima County Superior Court Judge Kellie Johnson issued a temporary order halting enforcement of the curfew. She wrote:
Opinions regarding mitigation measures during this pandemic are varied and widespread. So too are opinions about the curfew imposed in Resolution 2020-98. Many believe the mitigation measures in place are unreasonable and over-restrictive. Many believe the measures fall short of protecting public health and need to be more restrictive. It is undisputed Covid-19 is a serious public health concern that must be controlled. However, it is not the Court’s role to decide or opine whether it agrees or disagrees with the County’s Resolution. Rather, the Court must determine whether is a valid under the law, and whether injunctive relief is appropriate. Because the Court finds the Resolution is not statutorily authorized and violates the Governor’s Executive Order, and that the Plaintiffs have demonstrated the possibility of harm, the Court finds the Plaintiffs are entitled to relief.
“The Pima County curfew was an outrageous mandate that made little sense and unfairly targeted certain businesses,” said Scot Mussi, President of the Free Enterprise Club. “We are very pleased that the court recognized the illegal and arbitrary nature of the curfew and halted its enforcement.”
A few weeks ago, we filed another lawsuit on behalf of some bar owners in Tucson/Pima County who were subjected to a mandatory, countywide 10PM curfew targeting their businesses. Well, we just got an injunction! 1/3 https://t.co/B2NCPhRCGPpic.twitter.com/Rj4pvJBeJ8
The lawsuit was brought by attorneys for a group of Pima County small business owners.
“Pima County officials adopted the curfew with the best of intentions, but such restrictions are not only unlawful, they can also have dangerous unintended consequences. Mandates and compulsory curfews increase the likelihood of confrontations between law enforcement and citizens—confrontations that can turn violent, or result in people being taken to jail, where their exposure to COVID-19 is probably higher,” wrote Goldwater attorney Tim Sandefur, of the ruling. “And if recent experience in Chicago and other cities is any clue, curfews are more likely to encourage people to congregate in secret, in confined places where there is a greater risk of infection, rather than in relatively safer outdoor business places.”
The Pima County Board of Supervisors has already approved an appeal of the ruling.
