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.
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.
Arizona Legislative Republicans aren’t finished with the City of Phoenix’s action to donate firearms to Ukraine.
Last week, three Arizona State Representatives sent a letter to Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, calling on the prosecutor to “immediately undertake a criminal and civil investigation of City of Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego and City Councilmembers for their intentional and flagrant violation of state law in connection with their actions surrounding the City’s Ordinance S-50010.”
🚨FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE🚨 House Members Demand Investigation of City of Phoenix’s Intentional Violation of State Firearms Law
Following a damning report last month from the Arizona Attorney General finding the City of Phoenix intentionally violated state law approving an… pic.twitter.com/4hOuDmtENP
The letter from Representatives Travis Grantham, Quang Nguyen, and Selina Bliss, follows a response from Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes regarding a 1487 complaint for “a recently passed City of Phoenix ordinance allowing the illegal donation of 599 unclaimed firearms to Ukraine’s national police force.” Mayes’ report found that “Arizona law requires cities to dispose of unclaimed firearms by selling them in the manner provided by statute, yet the Ordinance provides for Phoenix to dispose of its unclaimed firearms by donating them to Ukraine via an export company. Because a ‘donation’ is not a ‘sale’ – and because the Ordinance conflicts with A.R.S. 12-945 in other related respects – it violates that statute, and therefore also violates A.R.S. 13-3108(A) and A.R.S. 12-943.”
Attorney General Mayes’ findings forced the City of Phoenix to repeal the Ordinance, as the lawmakers admitted in their letter to Mitchell. However, the legislators noted some “alarming details” contained in Mayes’ report “that confirm the City Council’s lawlessness and egregious disregard for state law.” One of those details was that when faced with the threat of the Attorney General’s investigation, the City’s counsel disclosed that the City has already completed the firearms transfer contemplated by the Ordinance and the Agreement.
The three state lawmakers argue that “neither the AG’s Report nor the City’s repeal of its Ordinance absolves the City Mayor or Councilmembers of criminal or civil liability for their misconduct,” hoping that the County Attorney could determine “the extent to which the City’s elected officials conspired to: (1) knowingly and repeatedly violate state law – particularly after we alerted them to the illegality of their conduct; (2) conceal their conduct; and (3) interfere with, coerce, or thwart the Attorney General’s S.B. 1487 investigation through improper means or communications.”
At the end of the letter, the legislators wrote, “In a free society, it is critical that our elected officials follow the rule of law, even when they may disagree with the underlying policy of the law. Citizens in our state are held to this standard every day. Arizonans reasonably expect – and the law demands – that government leaders likewise comply with state law or risk serious consequences for their intentional disregard of the law.” They added their collective hope that “the Mayor and City Councilmembers must also be held fully accountable for facilitating crimes of others through their illegal transfer of weapons, including but not limited to domestic civil offenses, war crimes, and organized crimes defined in Chapter 23 of Title 13.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A couple weeks ago, after Mayor Gallego did her interviews and headed home from the City Council meeting on September 6, she posted a photo on X of her pouring milk from a $7 half-gallon carton into an empty bowl next to a knife. (Because what normal person doesn’t enjoy eating cereal with a knife?)
While Gallego says she is not banning meat, there is no meat in the photo.
There’s been a lot of false info about my work to make PHX more sustainable.
What I’m not doing: ❌ banning meat or milk
What I am doing: ✅ increasing housing options ✅ improving walkability and transit ✅ reducing emissions and energy bills ✅ enjoying cereal pic.twitter.com/ZzViZ3bT0O
What made her post this image with these self-righteous campaign slogans under her Official X account?
The power of Public Comment.
Earlier that day, about a dozen Grassroots citizens attended the Phoenix City Council meeting and told the mayor they do not support policies banning meat.
A constant factor was brought up by multiple public speakers: Gallego is the Vice-Chair of the C40 Cities. According to the C40 Cities website, “C40 is a global network of mayors of the world’s leading cities that are united in action to confront the climate crisis.” C40 has many documents outlining the organization’s desire to reduce and abolish the consumption of meat.
And the citizens don’t want it!
The troubling fact is, on March 4, 2020, Gallego and the Council passed the 2025 Phoenix Food Action Plan. In Strategy 2, under Goal 1, the fifth “Progress on Action” creates a new policy for the Office of Environmental Programs (OEP) at the City of Phoenix to enter a contract with Arizona State University to “establish an AgriFood Tech Incubator in 2023 to accelerate ventures in sustainable food systems…”
But this is nothing new. The City of Phoenix has multiple policies for sustainable food systems in the 2020 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory report conducted by ASU. And Gallego also has many policies tied to ASU. In fact, she is funding and has teamed up with the college for multiple environmental and sustainable projects. What type of environmentally sustainable policies does ASU believe in?
Let’s check out their degrees in “Sustainable Food Systems.” The Bachelor of Science degree states, “Students become effective agents of change” and “Students are engaged in an active community collectively working to achieve the 2030 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.” The degree for Online Master of Science in Sustainable Food Systems lists Kathleen Merrigan as the leader of the degree program.
According to ASU’s biography page for Merrigan, she is the Kelly and Brian Swette Professor in the School of Sustainability and executive director of the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems. She was listed as one of Time magazine’s Top 100 Most Influential People in the World in 2010. And she is a partner in Astanor Ventures along with being an advisor to S2G Ventures—two firms investing in ag-tech innovation. Merrigan also holds a PhD in Public Policy and Environmental Planning from Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
In an article titled, “In Light of Climate Change Debates, ASU Continues Sustainability Efforts,” Merrigan is quoted as saying, “Get rid of the plastic water bottles, eat less meat…” to make ASU more sustainable. Furthermore, ASU has a research program that is teamed up with Merrigan and the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems. The program states it is ASU’s desire to find out how to implement “dietary shifts towards plant-based diets” through “interventions.” Peoples’ eating habits in reaction to COVID-19 lockdowns, a major intervention on society, are listed in this document.
Now, consider one major food intervention taken by Mayor Gallego. Just two weeks after passing the 2025 Phoenix Food Action Plan, she decided to lock Phoenix down due to COVID. After the lockdown began, the Medical Director for Disease Control with the Maricopa County Department of Public Health, Dr. Sunenshine, gave public testimony at the March 23, 2020 Phoenix City Council meeting. Dr Sunenshine stated that the Mayor shut the city down without reaching out to her office first. Dr. Sunenshine also said she would have recommended staying open.
Locking down the city implemented the most direct intervention on eating habits we have seen in our lifetime. Shutting down restaurants cut off 50% of our food supply because the government prevents restaurant food from being sold in grocery stores. The lockdown drastically constrained supply, damaged the supply chain for food, and helped lead to the astronomical food prices we see today.
While Gallego is able to say she is not literally banning meat, she is implementing policies that make meat more expensive and will lead to major reductions of meat consumption in the future. Dare I suggest by 2030?
Just to demonstrate that Gallego is implementing an ideology and that this is not isolated to only Phoenix, consider this. On April 24, 2023, Gallego posted a video with Mayor Quinton Lucas from Kansas City celebrating his “first fully-autonomous ride with Waymo.” Does Kansas City have a plan to reduce meat consumption?
Of course, they do! Under Lucas, Kansas City passed its Climate Action Plan in September 2022. Kansas City’s Climate Action Plan Food section in each division of Kansas City lists promoting plant-based diets!
Another city recently popped up in the news cycle. Chicago is possibly going to open city-owned grocery stores, so I looked up their action plans. In 2021, Chicago began reducing red meat from its schools, juvenile detention center, and Chicago Park District menus. The same document identifying Chicago reducing meat claims Chicago wants “to foster more racially and socially equitable supply chains across the region.” They are saying the quiet part out loud! They want to disrupt the supply chain to reduce meat consumption. Now, if Chicago does end up opening city-owned grocery stores, do you think they will sell meat? Absolutely not!
But let’s get back to Mayor Gallego’s post from a little over a week ago. Her claim of reducing energy costs is another bold-faced lie. Gallego teamed up with the “Climate Mayors” from across the country to release an op-ed on September 10, 2023 claiming the implementation of green energy plans have reduced the cost of energy!
But mayors cannot claim they are reducing energy costs! The cost of energy is set by Corporation Commissions with utilities providers. Mayors have nothing to do with the cost of energy.
But let’s pretend they do. The Federal Reserve states that the cost of energy for the Greater Phoenix Area is skyrocketing! It’s higher than any point over the past five years!
The policies Mayor Gallego is implementing are detrimental to our well-being and set to a radical left agenda. They should not be accepted, and they should not be tolerated.
That’s why it’s critical for the people of Phoenix to stand up, speak up, give public comments, and more. It’s the best way to stop these radical policies that price people out of being able to afford meat, interrupt the supply chain of meat, and make energy costs skyrocket.
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.
Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ-04) and Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego will host a re-election campaign fundraiser for President Joe Biden later this month.
The reception will take place Sept. 28 through the Biden Victory Fund. Tickets range from a $3,300 minimum to $100,000. The location of the event is confidential, for attendees only.
The fundraiser will occur the day after the first Republican Party presidential debate in Simi Valley, California.
The contact for the event, Guicela Sandoval-Lopez, is a political consultant with the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Susie T. Buell Foundation.
Gallego told reporters that she’s confident Arizona will remain a blue state in 2024.
The pair are also on the campaign trail defending their incumbency. Though Stanton entertained a challenge to Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), he announced at the start of the year that he intended on remaining in the House.
The mayor and her council — along with her former husband and Stanton’s fellow congressman, Ruben Gallego (D-AZ-03) — have been petitioning for the Biden administration to declare the desert heat as an emergency. Such a declaration would ensure a consistent and ample source of federal funding for various municipal projects.
The Biden administration appears to be heeding that request. In July, Biden issued several heat relief directives in a joint call with Gallego and San Antonio, Texas Mayor Ron Nirenberg.
Biden’s directives resulted in a Heat Hazard Alert outlining federal heat-related protections, as well as increased enforcement mechanisms by the Labor Department.
Despite those actions and the administration’s estimation of $50 billion in funding to counter heat due to climate change, Gallego told Biden that Phoenix needed more.
“We would love it if Congress would give you the ability to declare heat a disaster,” said Gallego. “We think that could really save additional aid, and that would even more multiply the impact of FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance and Building Resistant — Resilience Infrastructure — the BRIC programs, which are a good start to building long-term solutions, such as energy redundancy for cooling centers.”
The Phoenix mayor has remained a steadfast supporter of the president. She helped his initial campaign as well.
Happening tomorrow: Join @DNC Chair @TomPerez and me in north Phoenix as the Biden Bus rolls into town!
Come grab some literature and help us deliver it to neighborhoods, then grab signs to show your @JoeBiden & @KamalaHarris pride.
In 2021, Gallego was one of eight mayors invited to the White House to weigh in on proposed infrastructure funding, some of which reportedly went to combating climate change.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
