Everyone knows that political pundits, social media influencers, and the corporate media love a good narrative. And one of their favorites for years has been the claim that Arizona is trending blue—that a demographic shift toward Democrats is inevitable.
This ‘conventional wisdom’ is repeated so often that much of the Republican political class in the state has accepted it as fact. Some are even advising candidates that the only path forward for Republicans is to abandon their conservative principles, embrace center-left policy solutions, and settle for a future of divided government.
But a funny thing about narratives and conventional wisdom: numbers don’t lie, especially those showing party preference when people are registering to vote.
Last month, the Secretary of State updated the statewide voter registration data prior to the Presidential Preference Election. The latest figures show that Republicans are once again the largest voting bloc in Arizona, surpassing Independents by nearly 40,000. This is certainly an important development—especially given all the attention it received on social media when Independent registrations surpassed Republicans last year.
But that’s not the most significant voter registration trend…
Arizona’s Republican legislative leaders scored a significant legal victory as the clock runs out on 2023.
On Thursday, a panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order against the Biden Administration’s Contractor Vaccine Mandate in Mayes v. Biden, vacating its earlier opinion for mootness. According to the Ninth Circuit, the president rescinded his Executive Order in May, following the Ninth Circuit’s decision to reverse and vacate the district court’s grant of a permanent injunction; and earlier this month, the nation’s high court “vacated as moot the judgment in three cases concerning vaccine mandates.” The U.S. Supreme Court’s action was the final straw for the federal contractor vaccine mandate at stake in the Arizona case.
The news came months after the 56th Arizona Legislature had filed an Emergency Application to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case, arguing that “the Ninth Circuit overreached when it disturbed the status quo and stayed the district court’s injunction sua sponte.” After filing the application, Petersen said, “The Legislature’s intervention in this lawsuit against President Biden is critical in protecting the sovereignty of our state and the rights of all Arizonans.”
Both the Arizona Senate and House Republican Caucuses championed the December order from the federal appeals court. The Arizona Senate Republicans “X” account posted, “MAJOR win this week for Arizona Legislative Republicans in protecting you against a FORCED COVID-19 VACCINE!!… President [Warren Petersen] immediately fought back at this unconstitutional overreach and didn’t stop even after Biden revoked his emergency order at the end of the pandemic.”
MAJOR win this week for Arizona Legislative Republicans in protecting you against a FORCED COVID-19 VACCINE!!⁰⁰Earlier this year, Biden issued a mandate that anyone who is employed by a federal contractor (which includes state government workers) is required to get the… pic.twitter.com/3Raect5TjE
The Arizona House Republicans wrote, “BIG WIN! The 9th Circuit today vacated its opinion that upheld Biden’s unconstitutional vaccine mandate for federal contractors. Thanks to [Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma] for intervening to protect Arizonans’ medical freedoms!”
🚨BIG WIN!🚨 The 9th Circuit today vacated its opinion that upheld Biden’s unconstitutional vaccine mandate for federal contractors. Thanks to @AZHouseGOP Speaker @RepBenToma for intervening to protect Arizonans’ medical freedoms!
The case began as Brnovich v. Biden in 2021, when former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed the first lawsuit in the nation against the president’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates. At the time, Brnovich said that “the federal government cannot force people to get the COVID-19 vaccine,” and that “the Biden Administration is once again flouting our laws and precedents to push their radical agenda.” Brnovich’s suit was heard before U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi, who later, in February 2022, issued a permanent injunction against the president’s mandate for federal contractors.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
On Wednesday, the 56th Arizona Legislature filed an Emergency Application to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan for a Vacatur of the Stay Pending Appeal Issued Sua Sponte by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, involving the Biden Administration’s 2021 COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal employees and contractors. Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court “reversed the district court’s order granting a permanent injunction and dissolved the President’s ‘Contractor Mandate’ Executive Order requiring federal contractors who worked on or in connection with federal government projects to be vaccinated against COVID-19.” The Legislature’s application seeks to reinstate that injunction, arguing that “because the Federal Respondents did not request a stay below, the Ninth Circuit overreached when it disturbed the status quo and stayed the district court’s injunction sua sponte.”
Senate President Warren Petersen issued the following statement to announce the filing spearheaded by him and House of Representatives Speaker Ben Toma: “We will not allow President Biden to blatantly undermine the will of the Arizona State Legislature in the protections we’ve provided for our citizens to prevent a COVID-19 vaccine mandate from dictating employment opportunities. The Biden Administration has made it clear that they are against any Americans who push back against this vaccine and will abuse their powers in order to force compliance as a stipulation of doing business with the federal government. Arizona will not tolerate this gross government overreach and intrusion of individual liberties. The Legislature’s intervention in this lawsuit against President Biden is critical in protecting the sovereignty of our state and the rights of all Arizonans.”
The case began as Brnovich v Biden, when former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed the first lawsuit in the nation against the president’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates. At the time, Brnovich said that “the federal government cannot force people to get the COVID-19 vaccine,” and that “the Biden Administration is once again flouting our laws and precedents to push their radical agenda.” Brnovich’s suit was heard before U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi, who later, in February 2022, issued a permanent injunction against the president’s mandate for federal contractors.
The Legislature’s application makes the case that this mandate is an abuse of President Biden’s authority, writing, “The Contractor Mandate is an unprecedented claim of presidential authority. Before September 2021, the federal government had never mandated vaccinations for the domestic civilian populace. Even as smallpox, polio, and influenza spread throughout the country, vaccine mandates were always viewed as an exercise of the general police power to be exercised by duly elected state legislatures and subdivisions of the States. See generally Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174, 176 (1922). Throughout those crises and the COVID-19 pandemic, even Congress with the full authority of Article I—has never mandated vaccination for anyone other than government personnel serving overseas or the military.”
The Arizona Senate Democrats Caucus quickly made it clear that its members were not supportive of this action taken by the Republican leaders, tweeting: “ARIZONA: The @AZSenateGOP changed the Senate rules in January 2023 to ensure that “The President is authorized to bring or assert in any forum on behalf of the Senate any claim or right arising out of any injury to the Senate’s powers or duties under the constitution or laws of this state.” Senate Democrats DO NOT support this & were not consulted about this frivolous use of state funds to take shots are our federal government. The COVID-19 vaccine is safe and saved countless American lives. This is wasteful and could have severe consequences.”
🚨 ARIZONA: The @AZSenateGOP changed the Senate rules in January 2023 to ensure that "The President is authorized to bring or assert in any forum on behalf of the Senate any claim or right arising out of any injury to the Senate's powers or duties under the constitution or laws… https://t.co/7PBGdfRMel
— Arizona Senate Democrats (@AZSenateDems) April 26, 2023
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
On Sunday, Tucson Mayor Regina Romero announced that she contracted COVID-19 — despite being vaccinated and up to date on booster shots.
Romero clarified that her symptoms were mild.
Dear Tucsonans. Today, I tested positive for COVID. My symptoms are mild and I will be continuing to work from home in keeping with public health recommendations.
Under Romero’s leadership, the city of Tucson instituted a vaccine mandate for employees last August. Romero has characterized the vaccine mandate as a “policy” and “requirement,” though previously she acknowledged the county’s requirement of masks as a mandate.
The @cityoftucson’s vaccine policy has been overwhelmingly effective.
– 98% of our workforce is now complaint
– The number of non-compliant city workers has fallen from more than 500 workers to less than 90.
In response to the mandate, Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed a civil rights lawsuit in August (CV2022-011416). Brnovich accused the city of disparate treatment between unvaccinated and vaccinated employees. Brnovich claimed the city punished unvaccinated employees awaiting approval of their exemption or accommodation requests with unpaid suspension, denied additional sick leave to recover from COVID-19 or to quarantine if a family member contracted COVID-19, and required to undergo regular COVID-19 testing at their own expense.
However, vaccinated employees were given additional sick leave.
About 377 employees requested a medical exemption for the mandate, and 352 employees requested a religious exemption.
Brnovich’s lawsuit against the city is ongoing in the Arizona Superior Court.
Tucson’s vaccine mandate also prompted state intervention last year. Prior to the Arizona Supreme Court overturning a newly-enacted law banning state or local government from mandating the COVID-19 vaccine, Brnovich threatened to withhold over $175 million in state revenues.
(1/2) Today’s unanimous ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court should serve as a reminder to both @dougducey and our State Legislature that they are not above the AZ Constitution.
The city also required election workers to be vaccinated ahead of the special election in May. The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted in July to rescind that mandate for the primary elections. That decision followed requests from their elections officials concerned that they wouldn’t have adequate staffing with the mandate in place.
The county and city of Tucson implemented similar vaccine mandates. However, in September the Pima County Board of Supervisors rescinded its COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees and $45 monthly penalty for unvaccinated employees. It also implemented a reward for those vaccinated employees who stay up to date on booster shots: 16 hours of paid time off every year.
A newly-enacted state law (HB2498) prohibits state and local governments from mandating the COVID-19 vaccine.
Romero has affirmed consistently that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe and effective.
“The decision to not get vaccinated does not just affect personal health, it unjustly exposes others to the risk of illness; including coworkers, members of the public, and children,” stated Romero.
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.
