Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cázares-Kelly told reporters on Wednesday that it may be another week before they finish counting ballots.
County Recorder Gabriella Cazares-Kelly and Elections Director Constance Hargrove updated the media this afternoon on the ballots left to count in Pima County. 1/ pic.twitter.com/dAYUonHsm7
The county has over 159,700 ballots left to be counted.
That’s just 63 percent of their ballots counted, the lowest percentage out of all reported counties — even Maricopa County, which experienced widespread tabulation machine failures for around eight hours, most of Election Day.
When could Pima County finish counting ballots?
"The 14th or 15th, we should have the majority and just be looking at those last … ballots," @GabriellaCKelly tells reporters …
The delay follows several significant changes in the county’s election procedures.
Earlier this summer, Cázares-Kelly prohibited political party observers for the primary election. The county also introduced vote centers this election, rather than the traditional method of having votes cast based on precinct. The county halved their operations from 280 voting precinct locations to 129 vote centers.
More recently, Cázares-Kelly was involved in the Proposition 309 controversy with Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer. Prop 309 would tighten ID requirements for in-person and early voting, which Richer opposed. As Arizona Association of County Recorders (AACR) president, Richer issued a false public statement that all 15 county recorders supported an anti-Prop 309 statement. It was Cázares-Kelly’s idea to include the recorders’ names.
Richer used county resources to advance development of his anti-Prop 309 letter. He is facing a complaint filed with the Attorney General’s Office (AGO).
There’s approximately 619,000 uncounted ballots remaining. Track updates to ballot counting here. Track updates to all of the races here.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
In 2016, Pima County used more than $15 million in county assets as collateral to lure an aspiring space tourism company connected to now-Sen. Mark Kelly to Tucson despite myriad questions about whether the deal was constitutional.
The Arizona Court of Appeals answered one of those questions on Oct. 26, ruling that a major provision of the county’s deal with World View Enterprises violated the Gift Clause of the Arizona Constitution. That deal allows World View to purchase its Pima County-financed office and manufacturing complex on prime commercial land for only $10 in 2036.
Pima County has 30 days to file a petition for review with the Arizona Supreme Court. If no petition is filed, the case goes back to the Pima County Superior Court for further proceedings in compliance with the appellate decision.
Jan Lesher, the current Pima County Administrator, notified the county supervisors that the Pima County Attorney’s Office will discuss the appellate decision during an executive session on Nov. 1.
Former Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, with support from Kelly, attracted World View’s corporate and manufacturing operations by promising to construct a Space Port (launch pad) on county-owned land near the Tucson International Airport. In addition, the county designed and constructed a 142,000 square-foot complex on 12 acres of adjacent county-owned land.
The $19 million cost of the project, which includes interest Pima County pays for financing the construction, was justified, supporters like Kelly and Huckelberry claimed, because of the 400 high-paying jobs and $3.5 billion of economic impact World View would bring to the area.
For its part, World View is to reimburse the county’s outlay via rent payments as part of a 20-year Lease-Purchase Agreement. Then when the lease is up, World View can purchase the office / manufacturing complex (sans the Space Port property) for $10.
The problem with that provision, according to the Court of Appeals, is that the building will still have a 30-year lifespan in 2036 and a fair market value of $14 million.
“The ‘give’ then, by Pima County, is $14 million and its ‘get’ is $10,” wrote Chief Judge Karl Eppich in the Oct. 26 appellate decision. He added that the provision was “lopsided” from the perspective of the county because the purchase price represents only .0000007 percent of the property’s value.
Eppich wrote that the expenditure of public funds to benefit a private company is legal under the Arizona Constitution only when a public purpose is served and only if the benefit or consideration between the public and the private entity is not “grossly disproportionate.”
“We agree with Taxpayers that the $10 purchase option amounts to an unconstitutional subsidy because the consideration received by Pima County is grossly disproportionate to the value of the World View facility,” he wrote.
Kelly became an advisor for World View in 2013 after getting to know the company’s founders. He has continued his relationship with the company even though those founders are no longer affiliated with World View and have started a competing new space tourism company in Florida.
World View, which still claims people will travel to the edge of the stratosphere someday via its proprietary balloons, has significantly missed most of its annual staffing and payroll targets. County officials have also had to revise the agreement at least once to address several months of late rental payments.
Timothy Sandefur is vice president for Legal Affairs at the Goldwater Institute and is one of the attorneys who represent three Pima County taxpayers who sued the county shortly after the World View agreement was announced in 2016.
“County governments exist to protect the rights of citizens and allow them to pursue their own business in their own way—not to pick winners and losers in the marketplace, or gamble with taxpayer money,” Sandefur said after the appellate decision was announced. “When they do, the consequence is often that taxpayer money simply floats away.”
Sandefur also addressed the possibility that Pima County will ask the state’s highest court to consider the case.
“Although they could appeal the decision to the Arizona Supreme Court, it seems well past time for Pima County officials to admit that this entire deal was both illegal and foolhardy,” he said.
In one of the biggest legal rulings in decades, a Pima County judge ruled Friday afternoon that Arizona’s abortion ban is still in effect and can be enforced immediately.
Arizonans had been eagerly awaiting Judge Kellie Johnson’s decision with an eye on Sept. 24, the date a 15-week abortion ban passed earlier this year by the Arizona Legislature would have gone in effect if the law first implemented in 1864 was overturned.
The law outlaws performing or abetting the performance of an abortion except to save the life of the mother, and calls for a prison term of two to five years for anyone who violates the statute.
The language of the newer legislation signed by Gov. Doug Ducey in March is not much different than the 1864 law, other than the 15-week wait. However, the new law specifically stated it was not intended to repeal the 1864 law which was updated for technical language changes in 1901, more than a decade before statehood.
An appeal is expected, if only to reconcile the fact the new 15-week legislation takes effect Saturday and thus appears to directly conflict with Johnson’s ruling allowing enforcement of the territorial days law.
But without a court order putting Johnson’s ruling on hold, it appears Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich is ready to enforce the old law, which can be found in Arizona’s criminal code under Title 13, Chapter 36 Family Offenses:
“A person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not less than two years nor more than five years.”
In a statement released Friday, Brnovich applauded the “clarity and uniformity” of Johnson’s ruling. “I have and will continue to protect the most vulnerable Arizonans,” he stated.
The most recent records from the Arizona Department of Health Services showed that more than 12,500 women obtained an abortion in Arizona in 2020 prior to 15 weeks of pregnancy. About 640 obtained an abortion after the 15 week threshold.
Those records do not specify how many of the procedures were deemed by the women’s physician to be medically necessary.
Arizona’s abortion ban except to save a mother’s life became unenforceable due to a court-ordered injunction in 1973 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. However, when Roe v. Wade was overturned in June, the question became whether the injunction against the nearly 160-year-old law was still valid, or was the 1901 language in fact valid law, or would the new 15-week ban signed by Ducey become law on Sept. 24, the legislation’s effective date.
The Center for Arizona Policy advocated for validating the old law.
“Judge Kellie Johnson’s ruling today upholding the law that was in effect in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided will protect unborn babies and their mothers,” said its president Cathi Herrod. “And nearly 50 pregnancy resource centers throughout the state stand ready to ensure no woman stands alone.”
The state’s 15 elected county attorneys also have authority under the law to pursue criminal prosecutions in the name of the State of Arizona.
Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell has previously stated she “does not want to revictimize” victims of rape or incest, which suggests she would not charge a doctor or other medical staff involved in an abortion in such cases. But she has declined to directly say if that will be an official agency policy.
Meanwhile, Pima County Attorney Laura Conover had pushed for the judge to reject the 1864 law. She announced Friday that her office is “reviewing legal options,” although she has gone on record for intending to not enforce the law in Pima County.
That would not prevent the attorney general’s office from pursuing a prosecution for an offense committed in Pima County.
On Wednesday, the Pima County Board of Supervisors voted to rescind its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees, as well as its $45 monthly penalty for unvaccinated employees. The board mentioned but didn’t vote on rehiring those fired for not getting vaccinated, with backpay, as well as reimbursing those who paid the penalty for not getting vaccinated.
Although the board rolled back its punitive measures for COVID-19 compliance, it implemented a reward for obedient county employees: 16 hours of paid time off (PTO) every year for those who stay up to date with their COVID-19 booster shots.
During Wednesday’s meeting, most of the board were reluctant to drop the vaccine mandate and $45 penalty. Only two supervisors, Grijalva and Matt Heinz, opposed rolling back the vaccine mandate. Heinz said that the county should sue the state. Bronson responded sarcastically that Heinz’s suggestion was a “good way to spend taxpayer dollars.”
Only Supervisor Steve Christy opposed the PTO, arguing that individuals shouldn’t be paid for receiving voluntary medical treatment. Christy noted that the county didn’t conduct a cost analysis. Supervisor Sharon Bronson shared Christy’s concern about the cost to the county, though she voted for the PTO. She questioned the efficacy of a yearly booster, and contended that the county didn’t offer an equal incentive for annual flu shots.
The board’s decision came five days before a new state law, HB2498, goes into effect prohibiting vaccine mandates for local government employees.
It’s a good day to get boosted! The new bivalent vaccines are built to protect against COVID-19's contagious and immune-evading Omicron BA.4 and BA.5 subvariants. Get yours at one of our clinics: https://t.co/9sSIsnUj0l
Supervisor Adelita Grijalva said that the new state law constitutes an overreach. Grijalva insisted that their county’s COVID-19 mandates worked to curb COVID-19 infections and deaths.
“I guess, go ahead and follow the law in this situation,” said Grijalva.
Supervisor Rex Scott concurred with Grijalva. He suggested that the county take next steps through the County Supervisors Association of Arizona (CSA) Legislative Policy Committee (LPC) to increase their power and authority.
“It is not just Pima County that has concerns about moves made by the legislature and governor to restrict our statutory authority as the public health authority,” said Scott.
Bronson agreed, inferring that CSA was their best option for adjusting the balance of power between county and state. Bronson referred to the ongoing issue over the vaccine mandate as “drama.”
The county first issued its vaccine mandate last August. Then last September, they issued a $45 monthly penalty for unvaccinated employees in the form of a health insurance premium surcharge. Only employees with a medical or religious exemption were excluded from the surcharge. In all, 236 employees paid that penalty.
In April, Governor Doug Ducey signed HB2498 into law, which prohibited local governments from mandating their employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
Despite the inevitable unlawfulness of their mandate, the board decided in May to continue its vaccine mandate for new hires and promotions up until HB2498 went into effect.
Last month, Attorney General Mark Brnovich sued the county over the vaccine mandate: State of Arizona v. City of Tucson (CV2022-011416 in the Maricopa County Superior Court). The last action on that case took place on September 3, with a motion for compulsory arbitration.
Overall, the county received 284 medical or religious exemption requests for the COVID-19 vaccine: 257 religious, 27 medical.
The county granted 149 religious accommodations; 70 were incomplete, 19 were denied. Of the 27 medical exemption requests, the county granted 26; the one denial was due to a rescission of an offer of employment.
Watch the Pima County Board of Supervisors discuss the COVID-19 mandate below:
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Not all attendees were masked up at the Arizona School Boards Association’s (ASBA) Annual Conference last week, despite having a mask mandate in place. ASBA fought for local school districts to be able to establish mask mandates; they joined a lawsuit that prevailed against Governor Doug Ducey’s mask mandate ban.
Pima County Superintendent of Schools Dustin Williams was one leader spotted maskless during the Superintendents Division Business Meeting. In addition to ASBA’s conference mandate, most of Williams’ school districts have mask mandates in place for their students: Ajo Unified, Amphitheater Unified, Catalina Foothills Unified, Flowing Wells Unified, Sunnyside Unified School District, Tanque Verde Unified, and Tucson Unified.
A number of school officials were also maskless as they recorded testimonies for ASBA. One of them was Red Mesa Unified School District Interim Superintendent Dr. Amy Fuller, former interim superintendent for Scottsdale Unified School District. Fuller’s district currently requires face masks at all times indoors.
Unlike the county superintendent, Tanque Verde Unified Governing Board Member Anne Velosa wore a mask for her testimony.
Thank you Anne Velosa of Tanque Verde USD for attending the Annual Conference! We hope you will gain valuable tools that you can take back to your district. #ASBAAC2021pic.twitter.com/kyxqqssbxV
AZ Free Newsreported in September that a number of attendees at an ASBA conference also didn’t mask up. ASBA spokespersons explained that they had a loosely enforced mask mandate in place, and that the individuals were from various districts with different beliefs on masking.
Parents have voiced concerns about their children’s social development, or the quality of education for those with special needs or disabilities. Current experts on the controversial social-emotional learning (SEL) admit that they don’t have complete studies on the impact of masking on children’s development. However, they speculated that educators could adjust somehow to work around the masks. Feasible solutions haven’t been presented for students who rely on seeing mouths to learn, such as deaf or hearing-impaired students — though some suggest clear masks, those present their own issues like fogging up.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
