by admin | Nov 28, 2023 | Elections, News and Updates
We’re less than a year away from our next election, and if Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes is serious about doing his job, his primary focus should be on ensuring a process where it is easy to vote and hard to cheat. Instead, Fontes has been attempting to implement an Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that is ripe with unlawful provisions all while ignoring a giant (and growing) elephant in the room.
In its last two quarterly reports to the Arizona state legislature, the Secretary of State’s office reported that over 78,000 individuals have been identified on our state’s voter rolls as noncitizens or nonresidents. This number includes:
-
- Over 53,200 individuals who were reported to have been issued a driver’s license or the equivalent of an Arizona nonoperating license ID in another state.
- Over 1,300 individuals who admitted to not being a U.S. citizen on a jury questionnaire.
- Over 23,600 individuals who admitted to not being a resident of a county on a jury questionnaire.
These numbers should be great cause for alarm—especially when you consider how close some of our state’s races were in 2022—and these individuals should be immediately removed from our state’s voter rolls. So, what did Fontes do in response to this news? Nothing. That’s right. The Secretary of State’s office simply disclosed that a process for sending notices to these individuals, placing their voter registrations on inactive status, or canceling their voter registrations was “in development.”
How convenient.
But Fontes can’t hide for long. The fact is that these voter roll issues came to light because of two bills backed by the Free Enterprise Club and signed into law by then-Governor Ducey last year: HB 2492 and HB 2243. HB 2492 is a commonsense law that cracks down on state voter registration applications that do not include proof of citizenship. HB 2243 ensures regular voter list maintenance and helped uncover these most recent issues due to provisions in the bill that:
-
- Require the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to furnish a list of people who have been issued a driver’s license in another state to the Secretary of State.
- Direct the Secretary of State to report the number from ADOT (above) to the state legislature at the end of each quarter.
- Direct the Secretary of State to report to the state legislature at the end of each quarter the number of people who have stated on a jury questionnaire that they are not U.S. citizens or not residents of the county.
With these provisions in mind, it’s clear that the number of noncitizens and nonresidents on our state’s voter rolls will continue to grow after each quarterly report is provided. That’s why it is essential to address these issues immediately. But the Left has proven time and time again that they will fight against every legitimate election reform that comes from conservatives. So, the Biden administration and a consortium of liberal organizations filed a lawsuit against HB 2492 and HB 2243. They are terrified of these commonsense laws and want to prevent them from taking effect by wrapping them up in litigation. It’s just another example of how the Left hates any form of true election integrity. And they will do whatever it takes to prevent it—including wasting time and your taxpayer dollars in court.
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 | Nov 2, 2023 | Elections, News and Updates
K-12 schools in Arizona are currently flush with cash. Between billions in increased state spending from the legislature, COVID cash from the feds, and declining student populations, district school spending is at an all time high. But next week, voters across Arizona will decide the fate of 23 bond requests from schools that total a historic $3.5 billion.
This level of borrowing being sought by local school districts is both unwise and unnecessary, especially given the large amounts of money that have been pumped into the system. State funding has increased so quickly in the last 36 months that the legislature decided to override the constitutional spending limit the last two fiscal years. This is funding over and above the formulaic cap in the constitution that exists to protect taxpayers from runaway and unaccountable spending.
And contrary to what you probably hear from teachers’ unions and their sycophant friends in the media, lawmakers continue to increase school spending with every state budget. With all this new spending, district schools receive more money per student than ever before, and it’s not even close.
Not included in the state spending cap, however, are federal funds. And when schools were shut down during COVID, the federal government poured trillions of dollars into them. Many of the school districts asking their taxpayers to hand over hundreds of millions of dollars in bonds next week are still sitting on a pile of unspent COVID cash.
Compounding the unnecessary nature of these bond requests is that many of these districts are losing students. In other words, they want to borrow more money to spend on fewer students. That translates into absurdly high requests when broken down per student.
In fact, according to the Arizona Tax Research Association, the lowest request is in Yuma and represents $2,200 per student. On the other extreme, however, is the Osborn School District bond which represents nearly $40,000 per student!
Some of the biggest asks include the $500 million Mesa Public Schools is seeking, $475 million in Phoenix, and $100 million in Gilbert. These requests are almost the size of their entire budgets which last year totaled $815,511,989 (a 20% increase from the year prior), $401,013,567, and $382,732,528 respectively.
No doubt these bonds will have major budget and tax implications in the near future. Yet the campaigns in support of these bonds are telling voters that taking on hundreds of millions in new debt (with sky-high interest rates) will keep their tax bills the same. That of course is not true. All voters need to do is read the first few pages in their publicity pamphlet to see that households will be paying hundreds of dollars (and in some cases thousands) more in property taxes each year.
All this while we have teachers that chant “Hail Satan” in classrooms, schools that fail to protect students from using bathrooms with other students of the opposite sex, and districts that infringe on their own school board members’ freedom of religion and speech. And those are examples from just the last month!
The good news is that voters no longer simply rubber stamp these requests on the off year, all mail elections. Just a few years ago, voters barely approved Mesa’s $300 million bond and rejected the budget override. Last year, nearly half of the requests were rejected by voters. Taxpayers are right to be suspicious of these asks and should follow their instincts when filling out their ballots.
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 | Oct 26, 2023 | Elections, News and Updates
Following in the footsteps of his predecessor (now-Governor Katie Hobbs), Secretary of State Adrian Fontes appears determined to implement an Election Procedures Manual (EPM) that is ripe with unlawful provisions. The EPM is used by election officials throughout the state as the rulebook to conduct and run elections, so it is critically important that every provision in the manual strictly adheres to state law.
Now, fresh off an important legal win over the illegal signature verification process in the EPM, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, along with the Thomas More Society, is suing Fontes once again—this time over unstaffed ballot drop boxes.
An Illegal Method of Voting
Arizona law establishes four different methods for secure early voting. According to A.R.S. § 16-548(A), an early ballot shall either be:
- Delivered to the officer in charge of elections, typically the county recorder.
- Mailed to the officer in charge of elections, typically the county recorder.
- Deposited by the voter at any polling place in the county.
- Deposited by the voter’s agent (family member, household member, caregiver) at any polling place in the county.
Did you catch that? Nowhere in the law does it allow for the use of unstaffed drop boxes. In fact, if you read through Fontes’ EPM, you’ll notice something. Although the EPM includes over 1,000 citations, the section on its unstaffed drop box scheme includes zero citations of Arizona law! You can see for yourself right here. And yet, Fontes still moved forward with this invented option in the final draft of the EPM he submitted to Governor Hobbs and Attorney General Mayes. But the omission of such citations is only one problem with drop boxes.
Drop Boxes Lack the Protections of the USPS
Unlike U.S. Postal Service (USPS) mail collection boxes, unstaffed drop boxes don’t enjoy special protections under federal law that could lead to prison sentences for crimes like obstruction of mail passage, destruction of mail, and vandalism of a mailbox. On top of that, these unstaffed drop boxes aren’t required to have locks. Instead, they are “secured” with a “tamper-evident seal.” (Who could get past such a fortress of security?) And, while the USPS requires mail carriers to take an oath of fidelity to the Constitution, Fontes’ EPM creates the position of “ballot retriever.” Do you know what it takes to qualify as a “ballot retriever”? An individual simply needs to wear a badge when performing his or her duties! That’s it! It’s right there in the EPM.
Then, there’s the simple fact that USPS mailboxes offer an additional level of security because they can contain different varieties of mail at any given time. This makes it impossible for a bad actor to know whether a particular mailbox contains early voted ballots. By contrast, an unstaffed drop box contains only completed ballots, providing anyone who wants to interfere with an election the certainty to know that the contents of the drop box likely contain a significant number of completed ballots.
Other Issues with Drop Boxes
Along with lacking the protections of the USPS, unstaffed drop boxes also increase the possibility of voter intimidation. After all, when a person approaches a drop box, it’s clear that he or she has no reason to be there except to deliver a voted ballot. This makes that person an easy and vulnerable target, which is much less likely to occur at a mailbox or an election official’s office.
And finally, there’s the issue of unsecure locations. Fontes’ EPM doesn’t require unstaffed drop boxes to be located at or near a government building. Because of this drop boxes have been established at churches, elementary schools, restaurants, bookstores, humane societies, and more. In fact, some drop boxes in Yavapai County have been placed at U.S. Postal Offices—mere feet away from a mailbox where voters could legally return their ballots. (You can’t make this stuff up…)
For all these reasons and more, the Free Enterprise Club filed a lawsuit last week in the Yavapai County Superior Court. 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 unstaffed locations for the 2024 election. This would give the people of Arizona exactly what they want: elections where it is easy to vote and hard to cheat.
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 | Oct 17, 2023 | Elections, News and Updates
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Unless you are New Mexico Governor Lujan Grisham, who thinks she can just declare a public health emergency and ignore what the Constitution says. Yes, in her view, she can declare an emergency and then all “rights” are on the table, and she is free to suspend them as she wishes.
Thankfully, this was too far for even anti-gun politicians like Rep. Ted Lieu from California and New Mexico’s own Attorney General who said he would not defend the declaration in court. In other words, it was so clearly unconstitutional that even the most radical gun control advocates distanced themselves from it.
Abuses of Emergency Powers During COVID
But it is an important reminder of the abuse of emergency powers we all experienced during COVID, and why it is critical to rein in these powers. While it’s clearly unconstitutional to suspend the 2nd amendment with an emergency declaration, most states over the last 100 years have granted extremely broad powers to the executive branch to declare so-called public health “emergencies.” These powers are usually enshrined in state law, and they have largely been upheld by courts as constitutional.
Arizona was not and is not immune from this. Here, the “emergency” declaration in response to COVID was not officially terminated until March 30, 2022, 749 days after it was first declared. During that time, businesses were closed, students were required to wear masks, and people were prevented from seeing loved ones in hospitals.
Many lawmakers wanted to halt the emergency declaration almost immediately, but quickly discovered that if they wanted to end the emergency outside of regular session, they needed 2/3 of the body to call a special session. And if the legislature was called into session, they were powerless at stopping local governments and Charter cities like Tucson or Phoenix from declaring their own state of emergency if the statewide emergency was terminated. It was quickly determined that without significant emergency powers reform, our freedoms and liberties will remain under threat from overreaching government.
States Need to Restrict Emergency Powers, and That Is What HCR2039 Will Do
Earlier this year, Justice Gorsuch wrote, “Since March 2020, we may have experienced the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in the peacetime history of this country” and “it is hard not to wonder, too, whether state legislatures might profitably reexamine the proper scope of emergency executive powers at the state level.” Thankfully, that is exactly what our legislature did in passing HCR2039, allowing the people to amend the constitution to ensure no future “emergency” declaration is without end and without a proper check from the legislature.
If passed by the voters in 2024, HCR2039 would constitutionally limit emergency powers of the Governor and provide the legislature with the authority to roll back any emergency declared in the state. HCR2039 would:
-
- Require automatic termination of an emergency declaration by a Governor 30 days after it is declared.
- Empower the legislature to call itself into a special session immediately after an emergency declaration by a Governor with just one third of the body.
- Allow the legislature to alter, limit or roll back an emergency declaration at any time after it is declared.
HCR2039 Does Not Confer Any New Emergency Powers
Some believe that all emergency statutes are unconstitutional in the first place because they are not enumerated in the state constitution. That’s not true because states have inherent police powers, including for the protection of public health and safety. That is why existing emergency powers statutes in Arizona have largely been upheld by the courts. Whether the Arizona Constitution makes mention of “emergency powers” or not, the legislature has the authority to prescribe the powers and duties of the Governor, including the ability to respond to emergencies. In other words, all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states under the 10thAmendment, are reserved to the states.
HCR2039 Is Supported by Conservatives and Opposed by the Radical Left
This pro liberty ballot measure was supported unanimously by conservative lawmakers and has the support of freedom-minded groups including the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Goldwater Institute, Republican Liberty Caucus of Arizona, and EZAZ. Conversely, it was unanimously opposed by all Democrat lawmakers and by liberal pro-lockdown organizations including the Arizona Public Health Association, Civic Engagement Beyond Voting, National Organization for Women, the Sierra Club, and Arizona Center for Economic Progress.
Before the next “emergency,” it’s imperative that Arizonans enshrine a strong constitutional limit on the powers the legislature can delegate to the Governor to respond.
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 | Sep 28, 2023 | Elections, News and Updates
For months we have been hearing that a small group of disgruntled political consultants and power-hungry politicians would be releasing their plan to scrap our century-old primary and general election system in favor of a confusing jungle primary/ranked choice voting scheme that will disenfranchise voters and empower special interests.
Well last week a group called “Save Democracy Arizona” rolled out their proposed election reform ballot initiative, and it is about as dysfunctional a plan as what we expected.
Reading through their proposed constitutional amendment, a sprawling 4 pages of poorly written language drafted in secret, it is abundantly clear that this won’t make elections any more transparent or fair except for the special interests who support it. And it does far more to disenfranchise voters and destroy democracy than actually save it.
The first major change included in the proposed initiative is the creation of a jungle primary. If this sounds familiar, that may be because California uses a jungle primary system. That’s right, we are now importing California solutions to “fix” our electoral process. Plus, voters in Arizona overwhelmingly rejected a jungle primary ballot measure a decade ago.
Under a jungle primary, every candidate—Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, No Label Party, and Independents—would now appear on the same “primary election” ballot. The winners of the primary then would advance to the general election.
Who gets to decide who the primary winner is? The legislature, who can allow as little as two and as many as eight candidates to advance to the general. If they decide to allow three or more, the legislature must then allow for the ranking of those candidates—thus implementing Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).
So, the measure includes both California-stye jungle primaries and Alaska-style ranked choice voting, all built on the same baseless and flawed complaints about our election system that they have been making for years.
They argue that primary elections result in divisiveness, leading to a small fraction of the most partisan voters determining the outcome of elections. But California Democrats quickly learned the same was true for Jungle Primaries after their voters enacted it, where candidates from only one party advance to the general election ballot in some races, stripping voters of any choice at all.
On top of this, Jungle Primary proponents argue that independent voters (now a third in Arizona) don’t have a voice in the process. But independents do get to vote in our primary elections now, they just have to decide whether they want to vote in the Republican or the Democrat primary – not both. Plus, Independent candidates get to bypass a primary election altogether, collecting more signatures but then advancing straight to the general election ballot—a pathway that partisan candidates can’t pursue.
Finally, one third of voters being “independent” means that two thirds, a supermajority, do associate with a political party. So, this whole multimillion dollar effort to completely change our elections is purportedly built on a block of voters, in the extreme minority, that campaigns spend significant amounts of time and money courting in every election.
In other words, these voters are not ignored, and they do have a voice—arguably an outsized one. The truth is that Jungle Primaries and RCV aren’t for independents. They’re for special interests who can’t win elections without changing the system.
The good news is that despite months and months of planning, the proponents are divided and have split. Just days after Save Democracy filed “Make Elections Fair,” Voter Choice AZ announced they will not be supporting it and will instead move forward with filing their own initiative.
For either to be successful, they’ll need to compete to raise millions to collect the necessary 383,923 signatures, plus a couple hundred thousand safety net. And then they will have to convince voters to support it—voters who have been hearing about the problems of RCV for months.
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 | Sep 14, 2023 | Elections, News and Updates
Secretary of State Adrian Fontes appears to be in a tug-of-war with Governor Katie Hobbs to determine who is worse at their job. It’s been well-documented that since she took office, Hobbs has been off to a rough start with high-profile staff exits, breaking the veto record after killing the bipartisan “Tamale Bill,” and alienating many Democrats by signing the Republican budget. But over the past eight months, Fontes has been working just as hard in the battle to see who’s more incompetent. Not only has he failed to perform the necessary voter list maintenance—leaving 14 Arizona counties in violation of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act—but he rushed through a version of the Elections Procedures Manual (EPM) that is filled with unlawful provisions.
Now, Secretary of State Fontes has been dealt another major blow after a superior court judge ruled that he and his predecessor (now-Governor Katie Hobbs) enforced an EPM requirement that contained an unlawful voter signature verification process.
Currently in Arizona, early ballot voters are only required to prove their identity by signing the exterior of the envelope that contains their ballot. That process is already problematic enough, which is why the Free Enterprise Club has been a strong advocate for universal voter ID in elections. But Hobbs’ EPM, which has been upheld by Fontes, essentially rewrote state law to make invalid voting easier.
Under Arizona statute, an envelope signature is supposed to match the signature on the voter’s registration record. If it doesn’t, the country recorder must contact the voter, advise the voter of the inconsistent signature, and allow the voter to correct or the county to confirm the inconsistent signature. But Hobbs’ EPM instructs county recorders to validate early ballot affidavits if they determine the signature matches any election-related document available to them. This not only rewrites state law regarding signature verification for mail-in ballots, but it creates a process that invites dubious methods and opportunities for abuse during the signature review process.
That’s why the Free Enterprise Club filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Adrian Fontes after he failed to reject Hobbs’ EPM earlier this year. Fontes and a left-wing group called Mi Familia Vota (represented by Hillary Clinton Lawyer Marc Elias) responded by filing a motion to dismiss, claiming to the court that the term “registration record” was ambiguous and up for interpretation. Essentially, they were arguing that he could decide what constituted a valid signature record for the purpose of verifying a ballot signature. On top of that, Fontes petitioned the court to interpret the law to mean that other documents could be included in the definition of “registration record.”
But Judge John Napper saw through those arguments and rejected Fontes’ motion to dismiss earlier this month. He told Fontes that the statute is clear and unambiguous, and he stated that only a voter’s signature used to register to vote is valid.
While the case isn’t over yet (we anticipate that Fontes will appeal), this is a great development as we move forward. The judge ruled in our favor on all questions of law. And we will keep fighting this case all the way to the Supreme Court to ensure a final victory for the integrity of our elections.
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.
Recent Comments