by admin | Feb 10, 2022 | News and Updates
This is probably hard to believe, but there once was a day when journalists didn’t feel the need to include their own slants and biases. When they didn’t make themselves a part of the story. When they would simply report the news.
Unfortunately, those days are long gone. Today’s establishment media is much more concerned with protecting its own interests—and the interests of those they’re in bed with. We’ve seen this mentality at the national level for quite some time, but now it’s taken over our local media as well—especially right here in Arizona.
The latest comes from ABC15 news anchor Steve Irvin. If you’re not sure what Steve stands for, you don’t need to look much further than his professional Twitter account where he regularly spews liberal talking points, refers to people he disagrees with as “bigots,” and shares his disdain for school choice.
Now, that last one has won him an award. Recently, the Arizona Education Association—a local teachers’ union led by Red for Ed activist Joe Thomas—gave Steve its Presidential Award for Excellence in Education News Coverage.
While the need for such an award is more puzzling than the latest Wordle, all of this does beg the question: If Steve was so excellent in his education news coverage, why wasn’t he on the frontlines reporting about the Scottsdale Unified School District scandal back in November? And where was he when Higley Unified School District’s former superintendent Dr. Denise Birdwell was indicted on 18 felony counts related to procurement fraud, misuse of public monies, fraudulent schemes and practices, and more?
Like most of the establishment media in Arizona, Steve conveniently ignored these stories. And as we’ve come to expect, zero journalists in Arizona’s mainstream media have criticized so-called “investigative reporter” Steve Irvin for his blatant Red for Ed advocacy.
But we really shouldn’t be surprised at this point. After all, this sort of activism from Arizona’s “journalists” has been going on for quite some time.
In 2014, 12 News anchor Brahm Resnik hosted LGBTQ advocacy group Phoenix Pride’s sixth annual gala—which then-state senator Katie Hobbs couldn’t help but celebrate. And in 2019, Brahm stirred up his own controversy when he compared Republicans to Nazis on his professional Twitter account.
But 12 News isn’t done yet. You don’t have to scroll very far through anchor Mark Curtis’s Twitter account until you understand where his political leanings lie. (Hint: It’s to the left.) And we’d be remiss if we didn’t mention the liberal and anti-school choice AZ Central, which is kind enough to document its leftist rhetoric all throughout its website.
Somehow, all these people have the nerve to claim that they are unbiased and don’t pick sides. And yet, they can’t figure out why trust in the news media is in the toilet.
But perhaps there’s a solution.
Maybe these “journalists” should start wearing NASCAR type suits with patches showing their special interest insignias. Then, at least the people of Arizona will know what they’re dealing with.
But if they don’t like that, then maybe it’s time to find some good, alternative sites that are committed to something unique in today’s media culture—simply reporting the news without becoming a part of the story.
Help Protect Freedom in Arizona by Joining Our Grassroots Network
Arizona needs to have a unified voice promoting economic freedom and prosperity, and the Free Enterprise Club is committed to making that happen. But we can’t do it alone. We need YOU!
Join our FREE Grassroots Action List to stay up to date on the latest battles against big government and how YOU can help influence crucial bills at the Arizona State Legislature.
by admin | Feb 8, 2022 | Elections, News and Updates
Two weeks ago, we outlined the history of the federal only voter list. As a summary, in 2004 Arizona voters approved Prop 200 which required county recorders to reject any application for registration that did not include Documentary Proof of Citizenship (DPOC). After passage, Arizona did reject applications without DPOC—those made on both the state voter registration form and federal voter registration form established by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) in 1993.
In 2014, Arizona began accepting federal voter registration forms that did not include DPOC and registering voters as “Federal Only Voters” eligible to vote for President, U.S House, and U.S. Senate following the 7-2 Supreme Court decision, Inter Tribal Council, deciding that the NVRA preempts Prop 200’s DPOC requirement.
Then, in 2019, Arizona began accepting all applications for registration that did not include DPOC after Secretary of State Michelle Reagan and Maricopa Recorder Adrian Fontes entered into a consent decree with the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) agreeing that the state could accept applications for registration without DPOC and somehow stay in compliance with the Prop 200 requirement to the contrary – to reject them.
HB2492 tackles this complicated issue with five main provisions.
First, HB2492 mandates that county recorders shall reject any application for registration made on our own state voter registration form that does not include DPOC. If an election official accepts one of these applications, he or she is guilty of a class 5 felony.
Our power to do this is affirmed several times. In Inter Tribal Council Justice Scalia, for the court, writes, “States retain the flexibility to design and use their own registration forms.”
Additionally, the Elections Assistance Commission (EAC), to whom Congress delegated power to design the federal registration form, in 2006 responded to a request by Arizona to include our DPOC requirement on the federal form by affirming that “Arizona may apply Proposition 200 requirements to the use of its state registration form in Federal elections (if the form meets the minimum requirements of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).”
Second, HB2492 requires election officials to check a multitude of databases to determine the citizenship status of an applicant using the federal form who did not include DPOC. Again, in Inter Tribal Council, Justice Scalia writes that the NVRA “does not preclude States from ‘deny[ing] registration based on information in their possession establishing the applicant’s ineligibility’”.
Further, a 2014 response from the EAC on an additional request to include the DPOC requirement on the federal form acknowledged that the NVRA does not prevent us from rejecting applications if we ascertain information indicating the applicant is not a U.S citizen and outlines several databases states can use to check for the information. HB2492 utilizes each of these databases recommended by the EAC.
Third, depending on what is found from the database checks there are three possible outcomes. If the election official finds the applicant in a database and confirms that the applicant is a U.S. citizen, the applicant would be properly registered to vote. However, if the election official finds in a database that the applicant is not a U.S. citizen, the election official would be required to reject the application and inform the Attorney General and county attorney because the applicant lied on a voter registration form, which is a crime. Lastly, if election officials cannot find the applicant in any database, they are required to send a notice to the applicant requesting DPOC within 30 days.
Fourth, HB2492 makes DPOC a requirement to vote in Presidential elections. The power of states over the conduct of Presidential elections is plenary. Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution states that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”
Going back further in court precedent, Chief Justice Fuller writes,“it is seen that from the formation of the government until now the practical construction of the clause has conceded plenary power to the state legislatures in the matter of the appointment of electors.” McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1 (1892).
Fifth, HB2492 would make DPOC a requirement to vote early by mail. There is no right to vote by mail and as recognized by Justice Alito in Brnovich v DNC, “Arizona law generally makes it easy to vote.” And when the “totality of circumstances” is considered, HB2492 would not place a significant burden on voters by requiring DPOC to vote early by mail.
Taken together, each of these five provisions will largely prevent individuals from being registered if they do not provide DPOC and, as for persons already on the Federal Only Voter list, assert our constitutional power to prevent these individuals from voting for Presidential electors and from voting by mail.
Help Stop Illegals from Voting!
U.S Citizenship is a qualification for voting in both the Arizona constitution and Arizona law. Arizona voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 200 in 2004 to ensure only US Citizens could register to vote by requiring that “the county recorder shall reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.”
Unfortunately, through the well-funded lawfare of the left, this requirement has been whittled away and the Federal Only Voter list has exploded. HB2492 will safeguard our voter rolls by ensuring only qualified, U.S Citizens are registered to vote, are able vote in Presidential elections, and eligible to vote by mail.
Will you sign our petition to PROTECT our voter registration process and SUPPORT HB2492?
by admin | Feb 3, 2022 | News and Updates, Tax
It’s not every day that one political party would seek to find a way to get more of its opponents to vote. But this is 2022, and apparently some Republican lawmakers just can’t help themselves.
Earlier this week, the Senate Transportation and Technology Committee unanimously approved SB1356. This bill is a tax increase that follows the expiring Proposition 400, a transportation tax of half a cent that was approved by voters in 2004. The plan itself is a complete boondoggle. If passed and signed into law, most of the money would go to transit and pet projects. (You can read more about that here.)
But one part of this bill is a total disaster. And anyone who considers themselves to be conservative should be outright concerned that Republican lawmakers not only approved the bill, but two of them actually sponsored it.
Buried inside SB1356 is language that attempts to rig the vote on this particular initiative. And that’s not the worst part. This language would also provide a big boost to Democrats in November.
But how?
First of all, the legislation prescribes (on pages 24-25) the exact ballot subject title and description, along with the language to describe the effects of both a “yes” vote and a “no” vote that will appear on the ballot. Normally, this would be drafted by attorneys or election officials not affiliated with the campaign. And while that certainly isn’t a perfect system, at least they are independent from the campaign and are required by law to draft impartial language. (This allows someone who believes that the language isn’t impartial to sue.)
But with SB1356, the supporters of the tax are the ones who drafted the language. And they did so using poll-tested and focus group language paid for with your tax dollars. In fact, they even included in the bill (on page 7) the ability to engage in an unlimited amount of polling—all at the expense of taxpayers like you. And because this language is included in the bill, there is no recourse for suing to ensure that it’s impartial.
If you think that is bad, we’re not done yet.
The legislation also provides unlimited funding through the roadway fund to Maricopa County to conduct the election for the tax. This includes funding for lawyers, consultants, employees, telecommunications costs, and canvassing for the election. So, basically, this bill is writing a blank check to Maricopa County to conduct a massive, taxpayer funded “Get Out the Vote” campaign to drive supporters of the tax to the polls.
And who do you think the supporters of such a tax will be?
Democrats.
That’s right. The Republican legislature is thinking about including a measure on the November 2022 ballot that is specifically designed to garner Democrat support. And less than a year after the state legislature banned Zuck bucks from influencing Arizona’s elections, some are apparently ok with a rigged election and making taxpayers foot the bill for a campaign that will increase Democrat turnout.
Clearly, this isn’t a plan to build roads and freeways—or improve how we move people from point A to point B. And this sort of bill is certainly not why you voted for a Republican legislature. Now, they need to do the right thing and vote NO on this so-called “transportation” bill.
Help Protect Freedom in Arizona by Joining Our Grassroots Network
Arizona needs to have a unified voice promoting economic freedom and prosperity, and the Free Enterprise Club is committed to making that happen. But we can’t do it alone. We need YOU!
Join our FREE Grassroots Action List to stay up to date on the latest battles against big government and how YOU can help influence crucial bills at the Arizona State Legislature.
by admin | Jan 27, 2022 | Misc, News and Updates
People are waking up. And you don’t need to look for proof much further than the amount of people who have left California recently. In fact, the migration from our neighbors to the West got so bad that the state lost a congressional seat, which also shrinks its number of votes in the Electoral College.
Instead of California dreamin’, people are California leavin’. And when you look at the state’s vast array of woke policies, who can blame them? It’s almost hard to believe that more people haven’t left. But perhaps there’s a reason for that. They can’t find a moving truck….
U-Haul’s top state for out-migration
At the beginning of the year, U-Haul, the nation’s largest renter of do-it-yourself trucks, reported that its outlets in California actually ran out of one-way trucks for most of 2021. That puts the Golden State, once again, in U-Haul’s top spot for out-migration. And while California’s net loss of trucks wasn’t as high as in previous years, U-Haul admits that this is partially attributed to the fact that the company ran out of inventory to meet customer demand.
So, which states top U-Haul’s list for in-bound trucks? You’ll probably be shocked to find that Texas and Florida ranked #1 and #2, respectively, with Tennessee coming in at #3, South Carolina at #4, and our home state of Arizona at #5. Do you sense a theme here?
It’s almost as if people are sick and tired of paying exorbitant taxes while having wokeness shoved down their throats. And yet, California’s leaders still don’t seem to care.
A proposal that would double tax collections
At the beginning of January, a group of Democrat legislators in California proposed a package of bills in order to create a universal health care program. Isn’t that so thoughtful?
Democrats say that they are all about making health care affordable, so this proposal couldn’t possibly stretch the wallets of the state’s residents any more than they already are, right?
Nope.
To pay for the single-payer health care system, California is considering nearly doubling its tax collections through a constitutional amendment. If that happens, it will increase taxes by $12,250 per household!
For a state already known for its ridiculously high taxes, this is insane. (You can almost hear the U-Haul team trying to find ways to get more one-way trucks out to California.)
But higher taxes are just one part of California’s problem.
Woke policies are destroying the state
In 2014, California passed Prop 47. One of the key aspects of this criminal justice “reform” moved the felony threshold for petty theft and shoplifting from $400 to $950.
So how has that worked out?
The state has been slammed with a wave of smash-and-grab robberies that have cost businesses millions of dollars. But that’s what happens when you tell people they’ll no longer be held accountable for theft.
Of course, Governor Newsom still continues to defend Prop 47, but at least some Democrats have realized what a failure this legislation has been. And now they are beginning to call for a repeal of parts of the law.
While they’re at it, they might as well look at the how their policies led homelessness to rage out of control too. In 2016, California adopted Housing First. This policy provides the homeless with lifelong, permanent housing.
The result? (You can probably see where we’re going here.)
California homelessness increased by 16.4% in 2019, which was the second largest increase of any state! And that’s while they were giving homes to homeless people and throwing billions of dollars at the problem!
It’s amazing that people still live in the Golden State. And the only logical explanations at this point are that there just aren’t enough moving trucks, or California must really know how to party.
But if recent history shows us anything, the migration from California will not end anytime soon. Now these people need to remember why they left. We’re happy to take them in Arizona—as long as they make a commitment to leaving their Blue-state ideas behind.
Help Protect Freedom in Arizona by Joining Our Grassroots Network
Arizona needs to have a unified voice promoting economic freedom and prosperity, and the Free Enterprise Club is committed to making that happen. But we can’t do it alone. We need YOU!
Join our FREE Grassroots Action List to stay up to date on the latest battles against big government and how YOU can help influence crucial bills at the Arizona State Legislature.
by admin | Jan 25, 2022 | Elections, News and Updates
Most people paying attention to elections in Arizona have likely heard of Federal Only voters, but few probably know the complicated history of how we began bifurcating our voter registration system and allowing individuals to vote in federal elections, even if they haven’t proven they are a US citizen.
History
In 2004, Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 200 which, in part, created the requirement that “the county recorder shall reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.” (A.R.S § 16-166(F)). At that time, Arizona was under what was known as preclearance, where the Department of Justice essentially held veto power over state election laws. The Documented Proof of Citizenship (DPOC) provision of Prop 200, however, did receive preclearance by the DOJ and went into effect in 2005. Arizona was immediately sued.
The problem was that in 1993 Congress passed the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) which, among other mandates, created a federal voter registration form that each state must “accept and use.”
The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) was given the authority to design this federal voter registration form, on which they were required to provide state specific instructions to account for the different requirements of each of the 50 states. Arizona’s DPOC requirement, however, was left out and only a box remained for applicants to attest to their citizenship status – an honor system.
The suit brought against the state argued that this NVRA requirement to “accept and use” the federal form preempts Arizona from requiring any information from applicants beyond what is requested on the federal form. After years in and out of the courts, the case made its way to the US Supreme Court.
In 2013 the 7-2 decision of Inter Tribal Council held that the NVRA does preempt Arizona’s DPOC requirement, and that Arizona may not request additional information beyond that which is required on the federal form and must, assuming the application is complete and the applicant is qualified, register an applicant to vote in federal elections.
Following this decision, Secretary of State Ken Bennet bifurcated our voter registration system to prevent individuals using federal forms from being registered to vote in all Arizona elections. And, importantly, Arizona continued to reject applications for registration made on the state voter registration form that did not include DPOC.
But Arizona was sued yet again in 2017 by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), this time alleging that by accepting federal forms for registration without DPOC (as the Supreme Court required), but rejecting state forms (as the same Court affirmed we could), Arizona was violating the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause by treating applicants differently. Instead of going to trial, Secretary of State Michelle Reagan and Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes agreed to settle the case with LULAC and enter into what is called a Consent Decree (a settlement that comes with the power of a court order).
In the settlement, Arizona maintained that it was not violating the Equal Protection Clause and that the practice of rejecting state forms for registration was not unconstitutional or preempted by federal law. However, the state agreed that it could accept these forms and register the applicants as federal only voters and stay within the requirements of A.R.S § 16-166(F). In other words, they agreed in court that they could accept forms while somehow complying with Prop 200’s mandate to reject them.
As a result, the practice in 2005 of rejecting all forms that did not include DPOC is now the opposite. Since 2019, Arizona has been registering applicants who use the state voter registration form or the federal form without DPOC as federal only voters, despite Arizona law requiring them to be rejected.
Impact
In 2018, over 1,700 individuals voted in elections for federal office who had not provided DPOC. In 2020, the first election with the 2017 Consent Decree in effect, that number grew to more than 11,600. As of now, more than 36,000 individuals are registered to vote in elections for federal office, yet they have never provided DPOC. To contextualize these numbers, the 2020 statewide margin of victory for the Presidential election in Arizona was 10,457 votes.
Solution
As can be seen, this is a complex issue – a ballot proposition, federal law, the US Constitution, lawsuits, a Supreme Court ruling, a Consent Decree, a federal voter registration form, and a state voter registration form. All intertwine and have, over the past two decades, whittled away at Prop 200 and led to the complete proliferation of a Federal Only voter list, allowing individuals who have not proven they are citizens to vote in our elections.
However, there is a solution that walks the fine legal line and ensures Arizona asserts its Constitutional authority to determine the qualifications of voters and safeguards our registration process. That solution is HB2492, sponsored by Rep. Jake Hoffman.
Next week, we will break down the provisions of the bill and outline how it will help restore the integrity of our voter rolls.
Help Stop Illegals from Voting!
U.S Citizenship is a qualification for voting in both the Arizona constitution and Arizona law. Arizona voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 200 in 2004 to ensure only US Citizens could register to vote by requiring that “the county recorder shall reject any application for registration that is not accompanied by satisfactory evidence of United States citizenship.”
Unfortunately, through the well-funded lawfare of the left, this requirement has been whittled away and the Federal Only Voter list has exploded. HB2492 will safeguard our voter rolls by ensuring only qualified, U.S Citizens are registered to vote, are able vote in Presidential elections, and eligible to vote by mail.
Will you sign our petition to PROTECT our voter registration process and SUPPORT HB2492?
Recent Comments