One chamber in the Arizona Legislature is taking action over environmental issues with abandoned mines.
Last week week, the Arizona House of Representatives approved three pieces of legislation with the purpose of “ensuring accountability and environmental responsibility when dealing with hazardous and abandoned mine sites.” The bills were HB 2127, HB 2128, and HCM 2007. According to the press release announcing the bills’ progress in the state legislature, the three proposals were introduced as “a direct response to a troubling situation in Yavapai County involving the Senator Mine, where a Chinese-owned company abandoned its operations after causing widespread public safety risks.”
The bills were all sponsored by State Representative Selina Bliss. In a statement accompanying the press release, Bliss said, “We cannot allow foreign entities and bad actors to exploit our natural resources, and violate our laws, only to skip town while Arizonans are left holding the bag. These bills ensure that Arizona communities aren’t left vulnerable to environmental hazards, while also giving good actors an opportunity to earn support in our local communities. I’m proud to see them pass the House, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support them.”
Bliss added, “Right now, there are groups willing to step up and help clean Arizona’s environmental messes, but they’re afraid of being saddled with liability for problems they didn’t cause. These measures fix that. They open the door for more voluntary remediation, allowing experts to restore these sites without fear of legal repercussions. This is a win for Arizona’s environment and our economy.”
HB 2127 would “establish clear notification requirements when regulated entities seek to sell their contaminated properties to third parties in order to avoid pending litigation, ensuring that buyers, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ), and the State Mine Inspector are aware of the potential sale.”
HB 2128 would “expand Arizona’s existing Prospective Purchaser Agreement program to allow responsible third parties – such as environmental organizations and reputable mining companies – to clean up contaminated sites without being held liable for the damage caused by previous bad actors.
HCM 2007 “is a legislative memorial that urges state officials to take advantage of the newly established Good Samaritan Act, created under federal law. The program works in tandem with HB 2128 to enable nonprofit groups and private entities to clean up abandoned mines without facing regulatory roadblocks.”
The three bills will now be considered by the State Senate.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A Republican legislator is planning to hear from his constituents about a topic of interest in northern Arizona.
Late last week, State Senator Mark Finchem announced that he would be “hosting a forum in Yavapai County this month to discuss problems posed by vacation rentals in Arizona.” He called on “all concerned citizens to attend.”
In a statement for the press release, Finchem said, “This forum will offer a unique opportunity to hear about the problems associated with the explosion of vacation rentals that are replacing single-family homes at an alarming pace. The adverse economic impact on communities across Arizona is sobering. Mayors from Page to Oro Valley and from Sedona to Prescott are facing mounting pressure from constituents to do something about what is happening in their neighborhoods.”
Senator Finchem reported that there would be around ten mayors from municipalities across the state in attendance at this forum, and that there would be a question-and-answer time at this event.
The ‘Mayors Forum for the People’ will be held on Thursday, February 20, from 2-4pm, at Embry-Riddle University in Prescott. Reservations can be made here.
The Republican lawmaker is serving his first term in the northern Arizona district after capturing the Republican primary last summer and sailing to victory in November’s General Election. Finchem is the Chairman of the Senate Federal Relations Committee, and a member of both the Judiciary and the Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committees.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes is facing a lawsuit over the use of unstaffed drop boxes to collect mail-in ballots.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) filed the lawsuit on Tuesday in the Yavapai County Superior Court.
AFEC argued that Arizona law requires drop boxes for mail-in ballots — or, early voted ballots — must be located at polling places and monitored by election workers. Based on that reading of statute, AFEC declared that the current Election Procedures Manual (EPM), enacted in 2019 by the former secretary of state and now-Gov. Katie Hobbs, and Fontes’ draft EPM unlawfully allowed unstaffed drop boxes.
“With no basis in statute, and supported by nothing more than executive fiat, the Secretary has authorized election officials throughout the state to employ unstaffed drop-boxes as another manner by which voters may cast their votes early,” said AFEC.
AFEC noted that the EPM provisions on the drop boxes contained zero citations to Arizona law, although the EPM issued over 1,000 citations across its pages elsewhere. AFEC said the omission was purposeful.
“The EPM’s omission of citations to Arizona’s statutes was surely not an oversight. When a statute supports an EPM regulation, the EPM cites it,” said AFEC. “Apparently, though, the EPM’s authors could find no enabling statute supporting unstaffed drop-boxes.”
Since the EPM doesn’t require these unstaffed drop boxes to be located at or near an election official’s building, they have been established at locations like churches, elementary schools, restaurants, humane societies, libraries, fire departments, and community centers. It also doesn’t place any restraints on the number or geographic distribution of the drop boxes per county.
According to AFEC, state law only allows two destinations and two entities for ballot submissions: the office of a designated election official, usually the county recorder, or a polling place, and a federal postal worker or voter’s designated agent. AFEC said that unstaffed drop boxes were therefore an impermissible intermediary in the chain of custody.
Unlike U.S. Postal Service (USPS) mail collection boxes, unstaffed drop boxes don’t have federal legal protections that impart prison sentences for crimes such as obstruction of mail passage, destruction of mail, and vandalism of a mailbox. Unstaffed drop boxes also don’t enjoy a specialized law enforcement division dedicated to investigating postal crimes, like the USPS.
Additionally, unstaffed drop boxes aren’t required to have locks: they may be secured with a “tamper-evident seal.”
Unlike the USPS, which requires the swearing-in of mail carriers, any individual designated by election officials as a “ballot retriever” may transport the contents of unstaffed drop boxes. Also, drop box contents aren’t scanned, counted, or entered into a record of sorts like their USPS counterparts.
AFEC also argued that USPS mailboxes offer an additional level of security through the untold diversity of their contents, whereas election drop boxes are clearly known to contain only ballots and theoretically become susceptible to bad actors.
“A USPS mailbox is further likely to contain different varieties of mail at any given time. From the outside, it is impossible to determine whether a particular mailbox contains early voted ballots,” said AFEC. “By contrast, an unstaffed drop-box contains only completed ballots. From the outside, one can know with certainty that the contents of a ballot drop-box are completed ballots, likely a significant number of them.”
Additionally, AFEC claimed that unstaffed drop boxes increased the likelihood of voter intimidation by independent actors seeking to prevent illegal ballot submissions.
AFEC President Scott Mussi said in a statement that unstaffed drop boxes jeopardize the safety and security of elections.
“Our lawsuit contends that state statute limits the use of drop boxes to locations that are monitored by election workers, which can include existing polling locations and the county elections office. Despite this limitation, election officials and the existing election procedure manual are ignoring statute and have been setting up unmanned drop boxes all throughout the state,” said Mussi. “We believe the use of drop boxes must be in accordance with state law, and we are hopeful that our lawsuit will result in election officials ending their use at illegal locations for the 2024 election.”
An expansive interpretation of state law concerning elections wouldn’t be an unusual trait of the Hobbs EPM. In September, the Yavapai County Superior Court ruled that Fontes was perpetuating an incorrect interpretation of “registration record.” AFEC also sued in that case.
Fontes had argued that the term “registration record” in voter signature verification law meant that other documents in a voter’s record besides the registration form could be used to verify signatures. The court invalidated the expansive interpretation of the term, thereby invalidating the corresponding portion of the Hobbs EPM.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Clean and accurate voter rolls are a cornerstone to safe and secure elections. And they are required by both state and federal law. Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) specifically obligates states to conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists of eligible voters due to death or change of residence. The U.S. Supreme Court even backed this up in its 2018 decision in the case Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute.
But Arizona’s current Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and its former Secretary of State (now Governor) Katie Hobbs have failed to perform the necessary voter list maintenance. And right now, 14 Arizona counties are in violation of Section 8 of the NVRA…
Attorney general candidate Abe Hamadeh claims that over 8,000 votes weren’t counted in the 2022 election. The 8,000 votes in question were cast as provisional ballots.
“Arizona, I’m still fighting for you and the integrity of our elections,” said Hamadeh.
🚨!NEW AD!🚨
Did you know there are more than 8,000 votes from the 2022 election that haven’t been counted?
The race for Attorney General is separated by only 280 votes.
Arizona, I’m still fighting for you and the integrity of our elections.
Hamadeh also directed Arizona voters to his advocacy website to review the “lost” votes from the 2022 election. One of the disenfranchised voters featured on the site was a veteran, Howard, whose vote was denied to him after government workers erroneously reported him as having moved counties. Despite Howard offering election officials proof of residence on Election Day, he was denied the right to vote.
In part due to mass day-of voting machine failures, provisional ballots increased in this past election. Hamadeh has also claimed that a significant number of lawfully registered voters were denied their right to vote.
With that increase of provisional ballots, rejection rates also increased in several counties.
Santa Cruz County’s rejections increased from one out of the 117 provisional ballots cast to 83 out of the 139 provisional ballots cast.
Pima County’s rejection rate doubled.
Pinal County’s rejection rate increased from 59 to 63 percent. That was despite having a comparable number of provisional ballots cast in 2020 and 2022.
Yavapai County more than doubled its rejection of provisional ballots based on non-registration this past election in comparison to 2020. That was despite voter turnout declining significantly.
The vote gap between Hamadeh and the current attorney general, Kris Mayes, sits at 280 votes. Hamadeh received a hearing in the Mohave County Superior Court next month, on May 16.
Hamadeh announced his appeal of the election results in January, following discovery of hundreds of votes in the recount.
As AZ Free News reported last week, a review of uncounted provisional ballots make a compelling case for Hamadeh. According to Hamadeh, over 250 voters have issued affidavits from allegedly disenfranchised voters. Hamadeh estimated that over 1,000 voters’ registration were wrongly canceled due to government missteps, a calculation separate from the 8,000 provisional ballots.
Hamadeh claimed his team found 750 high-propensity voters whose registrations were canceled. Of those 750, only 176 showed up to vote last November.
Big deal In Arizona. GOP AG candidate @AbrahamHamadeh is not alleging election fraud. He simply wants all the votes counted. That proposition should unite all Americans. We need AZ’s terrific Fmr Gov & my friend @DougDucey to weigh in. https://t.co/Cq5rSd7xZ5
There were also 269 voters who checked in on Election Day with mail-in ballots, but never had their vote counted. Hamadeh reported that many of those voters reported to his team that their votes weren’t counted. In those cases, check-ins reflect votes cast in the county’s system. The 269 voters were disproportionately Republican and independent: 149 were Republicans, 53 were Democrats, and 67 were “other.”
Hamadeh has consistently claimed that his legal team’s findings would reveal that the government withheld evidence concerning the 2022 election.
“My legal team will expose the government’s withholding of evidence that undermined the rule of law,” said Hamadeh.
🚨BREAKING🚨
The Mohave County court has ordered Oral Arguments for our Motion for a New Trial on May 16.
My legal team will expose the government’s withholding of evidence that undermined the rule of law.
