by Corinne Murdock | Apr 2, 2022 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich requested Cochise County Attorney Brian McIntyre to investigate the two-week suspension of the secretary of state’s signature-gathering system for candidates, E-Qual. The March 17 suspension lasted until Wednesday, five days before the April 4 deadline, disabling sections of the system for legislative and congressional candidates to submit their ballot-qualifying signatures.
Secretary of State Katie Hobbs warned candidates in January that she would suspend the system up until the signature-gathering deadline once the Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) certified the new district maps. The forewarned shutdown not only caused backlash due to its impact on candidates’ signature-gathering efforts to qualify for the ballot — Attorney General Mark Brnovich warned Hobbs that such a shutdown would be illegal. In a letter, Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Wright warned Hobbs that she could face a class 3 misdemeanor — up to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine — for not fulfilling her lawful duties, or even a felony with up to a year in prison for taking down E-Qual.
Upon receipt of the letter, Hobbs sued to prevent any prosecution. The courts didn’t take her side. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joan Sinclair ruled that Wright’s letter wasn’t legal action, but rather a notification of Hobbs’ legal duties.
“The letter itself notifies the Secretary that in the [attorney general’s] opinion, taking E-Qual offline during the candidate filing period would be ‘contrary to law.’ It further informs the Secretary that when a duty is imposed by Title 16 on a public officer, knowingly failing or refusing to perform that duty can be either a class 6 felony or a class 3 misdemeanor,” wrote Sinclair. “While the Secretary clearly viewed this as a threat, the letter did not promise or guarantee prosecution and thus does not create a controversy properly before the court.”
Despite warnings from the attorney general’s office, the sections of E-Qual for legislative and congressional candidates were suspended on March 17. Two weeks passed. Then on Wednesday, just five days before the signature-gathering deadline, Hobbs announced that the legislative and congressional candidates’ sections of the system were back online. She conceded that the shutdown had to do with necessary redistricting updates.
Just the day before, the entire E-Qual system experienced an outage anticipated to last past the April 4 deadline. Hobbs communicated that the outage was caused by a hardware malfunction. However, that unplanned outage was fixed within several hours.
The anticipated outage would’ve most heavily impacted Maricopa County attorney candidates; the former attorney, Allister Adel, resigned last Friday, giving candidates just two weeks’ notice to gather enough signatures to qualify for the election.
Hobbs didn’t respond on social media to Brnovich’s requested investigation. Instead, the secretary of state opted to post about the International Transgender Day of Visibility.
In a statement to the Arizona Daily Star, Hobbs called Brnovich’s request to investigate her for not doing her job “ridiculous.”
“The attorney general’s continued attacks on election officials across the state for doing our jobs is ridiculous,” said Hobbs.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Terri Jo Neff | Mar 20, 2022 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
Katie Hobbs is not having a good 2022.
It started in January when several supporters withdrew support of Hobbs’ run to be the Democratic nominee for governor following her comments about a jury’s verdict in a racial and gender discrimination lawsuit by a former staffer.
Then in her role as Arizona Secretary of State, Hobbs was shot down by a superior court judge when she tried to sidestep possible consequences for her planned shut down of the E-Qual system at a time when legislative and congressional candidates were relying on the system to get on the ballot.
Next, Hobbs was called out by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich for her failure to draft an Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) which complies with state law. Without an approved EPM, elections officials across the state are unsure what protocols to follow for the 2022 election cycle.
Earlier this month, Hobbs the candidate has come under scrutiny for the recent announcement that women of color have been appointed as her campaign manager, political director, and Finance Director. Only two of the three live in Arizona, leading to questions of why Hobbs turned to out-of-staters for key campaign roles.
The latest embarrassment came last week when the Secretary, a Democrat, was thrashed by the attorney for several Democratic Party organizations after she argued that the Arizona Supreme Court should listen to her—and her alone—in defense against an effort by the Arizona Republican Party to have voting by mail declared unconstitutional.
According to Hobbs, the justices should reject a motion to intervene filed by the Arizona Democratic Party, the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. It is those same voters and party leaders that Hobbs will need to get out of the gubernatorial primary in August.
The Democratic groups argue they should have standing to “protect their voters, their candidates, and their interests” as respondents in the case. The AZGOP did not object to the motion, but Hobbs has cried foul against her fellow Democrats, alleging that she is capable of adequately representing those interests.
However, Hobbs has argued that the Arizona Supreme Court has no power to even hear the constitutional challenge. The Democratic intervenors, on the other hand, agree with the AZGOP that the Court “can and should exercise its power” to adjudicate the case.
by Terri Jo Neff | Feb 7, 2022 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
The State of Arizona is getting no support from the White House against an ongoing invasion by Mexican cartels, which gives Gov. Doug Ducey the authority to deploy the Arizona National Guard in self-defense, according to a legal opinion released by Arizona Attorney Mark Brnovich on Monday.
“The federal government’s failure to secure the border and protect Arizona from invasion is dangerous and unprecedented,” the 25-page opinion states. “Thankfully, the Founders foresaw that States might need to protect themselves from invasion and made clear in the Constitution that States retain the sovereign power to defend themselves within their own territory.”
The attorney general’s opinion was prompted by an inquiry submitted in October by Rep. Jake Hoffman (R-LD12) about whether the Biden Administration “has failed –intentionally or unintentionally– to uphold its obligations” under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution to protect Arizona from invasion.
The opinion contends the federal government “has lost or severely degraded its operational control” of Arizona’s 372-mile border with Mexico, where cartels and gangs are openly trafficking in drugs, weapons, and human beings while engaging in attacks on Arizonans and acting “as if they are above the law.”
Among the issues the attorney general examined in response to Hoffman’s inquiry was the definitions of “actually invaded” and “invasion” as used in the State Self-Defense Clause and the Invasion Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 10
“…No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
ARTICLE IV, SECTION 4
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
The examination also included whether a state has constitutional power to defend itself from “hostile non-state actors” such as armed cartels or only an invasion by a foreign power. Finally, the attorney general had to determine whether the current crisis at the Arizona / Mexico border satisfies the definitions of “actually invaded” and “invasion.”
“The violence and lawlessness at the border caused by transnational cartels and gangs satisfies the definition of an ‘invasion’ under the U.S. Constitution, and Arizona therefore has the power to defend itself from this invasion under the Governor’s authority as Commander-in-Chief,” the opinion states, adding that an invasion “permits the State to engage in defensive actions within its own territory.”
The legal questions addressed by the attorney general have not been adjudicated in court with factors similar to the situation in Arizona. However, the opinion was welcomed by Hoffman, who called on Ducey to utilize the powers afforded to him by the U.S. Constitution to immediately secure the border.
“I’m glad to see that Attorney General Brnovich today agreed with my assessment that the crisis occurring on our southern border constitutes an invasion and a total failure by the Biden administration to fulfill its constitutional obligation to protect the people of Arizona,” Hoffman said.“The human smuggling, cartel drugs and violence, sex trafficking, and other illicit activity must end.”
Ducey’s office did not issue a formal comment on whether the governor agrees with the opinion’s legal conclusions of his authority as commander-in-chief. Since April 2021, several dozen National Guard soldiers have been rotated in and out of border county sheriff’s offices to perform administrative, non-law enforcement functions.
This has been well-received by the sheriffs as it frees up deputies to respond to the increase in reported crimes along the border.
by Corinne Murdock | Dec 3, 2021 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
Scottsdale Police Department (SPD) closed its investigation into former Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board President Jann-Michael Greenburg, demoted to board member, this week after determining it fell outside their jurisdiction.
SPD reported that it passed the case on to higher levels of law enforcement for review: the FBI, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, and Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. They also clarified that SUSD’s investigation into the matter was still underway.
SPD spokesman Kevin Quon explained in a press release that the Greenburg dossier contained open source and public documents only. Quon added that higher levels of law enforcement may investigate under their jurisdiction.
“It was determined that the drive contained open source and/or public documents. Therefore, it has been determined that no criminal conduct has been committed at this time that would be under the jurisdiction of the Scottsdale Police Department,” said Quon. “The Scottsdale portion of this investigation is now closed. Scottsdale investigators have met with the FBI, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, briefed them, and provided them with a copy of our investigation for review in determining if any criminal acts might fall under their respective jurisdictions.”
Greenburg had editing access to the Google Drive dossier that his father, Mark Greenburg, created. As AZ Free News reported, SUSD assured parents that their information was safe in an email following the dossier’s discovery. Due to the personal and sensitive nature of this case, AZ Free News won’t provide links to the dossier.
As part of his efforts to collect information for his dossier, Mark Greenburg would film parents outside of school board meetings using a body camera. He also claimed to have hired a private investigator to bolster his dossier on parents opposed to Jann-Michael.
Attorney General Mark Brnovich asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate the Greenburg dossier. In a letter first obtained by Fox News, Brnovich requested that the DOJ specifically look into whether the dossier violated the First Amendment as well as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
“Evidence has been discovered that Scottsdale Unified School District (“SUSD”) board member, Jann-Michael Greenburg, may have conspired to abuse his position of power against Arizona students and their parents,” wrote Brnovich. “A dossier containing information on those who wish to participate in their children’s education and peacefully petition their government should concern all Americans of good conscience.”
The SUSD board voted to remove Greenburg as president last month, though he remains on the board. Scottsdale parents are behind an effort to recall Greenburg from the board entirely.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
by Corinne Murdock | Oct 30, 2021 | News
By Corinne Murdock |
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) accepted Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s petition to defend previous President Donald Trump’s updates to a rule limiting green cards and citizenship to those who haven’t and won’t become dependent on welfare programs. Brnovich announced this update in a press release Friday.
“When other federal officials won’t defend the law, I will,” asserted Brnovich. “The Public Charge Rule is a commonsense policy based on a real inconvenient truth. Overrunning our welfare programs right now would be like pulling back the last safety net for Americans who need it most.”
Congress first enacted the “Public Charge Rule” in 1882: a concept that officials could deny immigrants entrance, visas, and even citizenship if officials deemed they were likely to become a “public charge.” The definition of “public charge” varied over the years. In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defined “public charge” as illegal immigrants who received one year’s worth of welfare benefits in the aggregate within a three-year period. Under that definition, two benefits received in one month counted as two months.
According to the latest available data analysis from the Center for Immigration Studies, about 55 percent of noncitizens relied on welfare in 2018. Noncitizens in their study included both green card holders and illegal immigrants. While the law does prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving welfare benefits, noncitizens may receive benefits on behalf of any children they have born in the U.S.
In April, SCOTUS rejected a previous petition from 14 states attempting to revive Trump-era litigation that the Biden Administration halted. Texas led the charge on that petition. The states claimed that dropping the Trump rule would force them to provide millions of dollars of government benefits to illegal immigrants.
SCOTUS determined that states would have to work through lower courts before they’d take up the case, if at all.
Their recent acceptance means that Arizona and 12 other states – Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia – may be eligible to defend the rule even though the Biden Administration has decided against doing so.
SCOTUS will not be deciding on the legality of the rule, and oral arguments haven’t been scheduled.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
