An interesting revelation came to
light earlier this month that has added fuel to the fire over the debate to
implement universal vote by mail in Arizona.
Several weeks ago news broke that
a complaint
had been filed with Attorney General Mark Brnovich outlining possible
felony voter fraud by the son of Democrat State Representative Mitzi Epstein. According
to the complaint, 29-year-old Daniel Epstein has lived in New York since at
least 2017. An extensive online paper
trail of Facebook posts and employment information indicate that he moved to
the Empire State to attend New York University and, after graduating from NYU
two years ago, continued to live and work there as an actor.
Yet living 3,000 miles away has
not stopped him from voting in multiple Arizona elections by mail from his
parent’s home, including the most recent Tempe city council race in March. How
these mail-in ballots were cast is uncertain, which is why a deeper probe into
the matter is warranted.
Usually very outspoken and active
on social media, Rep. Epstein has yet to comment on these allegations. She
likely understands the gravity of the situation and had to be aware of Daniel’s
voting patterns since the ballots were sent to her home. Ultimately, she will have to explain why her
29-year old son who has been working as an actor in New York for years is still
casting ballots in Arizona elections.
Also affected by this complaint
is the narrative being pushed by media
outlets, liberal
pundits and Democrat
leaders wanting to use Covid-19 as an excuse to implement universal vote by
mail. For over two months Republicans have been relentlessly attacked for
opposing this plan for the 2020 election. Opposition was tantamount to wanting
people to die from Coronavirus, and concerns of voter fraud were scoffed at as
unfounded “conspiracy theories.”
Yet ample research and evidence
prior to this complaint already showed that mail in voting was susceptible to
fraud. According the bi-partisan
commission on Federal Election Reform chaired by Jimmy Carter, the findings
concluded that absentee ballots remain “the largest source of potential voter
fraud” in the electoral process. The New
York Times reported
in 2012 that there was a bi-partisan consensus that all votes cast by mail
are “less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely
to be contested than votes cast in a voting booth.”
Here in Arizona it is easy to see
how our Permanent Early Voter List (PEVL) system can be abused. Since the list
is Permanent, voters stay on the rolls long after they are ineligible
to vote. There are numerous
examples of people finding ballots in interesting locations or receiving
ballots from voters that have moved away or have even died.
The only safeguard in the
election process prior to an early ballot being counted is an examination of
the signature on the front of the envelope. Poll workers do their best to
verify the authenticity of the signature but this process becomes an impossible
task when hundreds
of thousands of early ballots are dumped in their laps on election day.
Arizona needs election reform,
but not the type for which our political class has yearned. Though we should
maintain our vote by mail system (which is one of the most accessible in the
nation for voters), policymakers need to take a closer look at cleaning up our
voter rolls and addressing the problem of stacks of early ballots being dropped
off on election day. The latter issue has turned into a nightmare for election
officials, has led to mistakes by overworked poll workers and delayed results
for weeks after polls had closed.
These fixes are long overdue and
should take precedent over attempts to make it easier to game our election
system.
Yesterday, in a very ironic twist
of events, Democrats in House Judiciary argued against the very platform they
purport to stand for.
Criminal justice reform.
In an astonishing display of
intellectual dishonesty, Democrat members attacked legislation
that reforms the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws that would require the
government obtain a criminal conviction prior to forfeiting an individual’s
property. Not only is this one of the
most important areas of criminal justice, it is an effort for which democrats
themselves have advocated and voted. In fact, just three years ago when more
modest reforms were being proposed, many democrats stated they would like to
see the legislation go further to include a criminal conviction.
Their public objections to the
bill teetered on the bizarre. They
claimed because the bill prohibits the Attorney General from funding employees
with RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) funds that would
force government to cut other areas of government such as public defenders. A clear demonstration as to why a built-in
profit motive is grossly immoral. They
also argued that the bill would eliminate law enforcement’s ability to seize
assets of criminals and therefore hurt victims of crime. A patently false statement that would have
been easily dispelled had any of the Democrats bothered to read the actual
bill. Perhaps the most strange argument
was that under current law, advocates of the bill could simply file a “1487” a
mechanism in state law that allows a lawmaker to request an Attorney General
opinion as to whether a local county or city is breaking the law and then withhold
state shared revenues if they were found in violation. The most blatantly obvious problem with this –
law enforcement isn’t breaking the law.
They can lawfully seize and forfeit an individual’s property
without even charging them with a crime.
That is in fact the reason for the bill in the first place.
Their arguments had themselves
turned in knots.
This new-found alliance between
democrats and prosecutors has them abandoning the people they claim to advocate
for the most – minorities and the impoverished.
Afterall, their philosophic truth council the ACLU
has been stalwart advocates for the overhaul of the forfeiture system both in
Arizona and around the country, in part because the backward laws
disproportionally harm minority and low income populations. Considering how instrumental the ACLU was in
passing Arizona’s 2017 reforms, it is curious they didn’t have more sway with
House Democrats this time around.
It is quite clear that the discussion of SB1556 has eroded into the politics of personality. House Judiciary Democrats being happy to sell out completely on their principles of criminal justice reform and defending the most vulnerable persons in the system to stick it to a bill sponsor they don’t like. Or perhaps they have flip flopped on the issue because in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, they now support taking people’s property without due process.
Considering we are living in a
time when many Americans and Arizonans are concerned with government overreach
and oppression, it is unconscionable that lawmakers would consider protecting a
system of legalized government theft.
Hopefully, House Democrats will remember who they represent and vote YES
today on SB1556.
This week the Arizona Legislature
lurched back into action, coming together for the first time since March to
pass a slate of bills before calling it quits. Normally more action (and bills)
at the legislature means bad news for taxpayers, but this time there was a very
good reason to have lawmakers come back: Covid-19 liability.
After Governor Ducey correctly
decided to end the shutdown earlier this month, businesses have been eager to
reopen, yet are uneasy on how to do it right.
Businesses are very concerned that even with their best efforts to
implement policies and procedures that keep employees and customers safe from
Covid-19, they are vulnerable to sue-happy trial attorneys and opportunists
looking to make a buck on class action lawsuits.
If the state is to recover
economically as quickly as possible, the legislature must pass legislation that
limits the liability exposure for businesses.
Current tort law in Arizona entitles an injured party to damages if they
can find the other party was simply negligent in their duties by a preponderance
of the evidence, a fairly low evidentiary standard.
Proposed legislation currently
being crafted by Senator Eddie Farnsworth and Representative John Kavanagh
would likely raise this bar to require a business or non-profit was grossly
negligent by clear and convincing evidence.
This change would only be applied to suits directly related to the
Governor’s Executive Order addressing COVID-19.
Additionally, many Arizona businesses
took exception to Ducey’s forceful approach to enforcement, threatening fines
and revocation of licenses for violations of his Executive Orders. Any bill that moves forward should either
remove or significantly limit the draconian (and often unconstitutional) danger
of excessive fines or punishment.
Businesses will undoubtedly do
what they can to follow recommended safety guidelines for employees and
customers. But if they must contend with
the looming anxiety of being sued for a fortune without adequate protections
under the law or of having their right to operate their business legally at
all, our economy will suffer.
Starting and running a business
is inherently risky. Individuals stake
their livelihoods on a concept they hope and believe will be successful in the
open market. The risk and uncertainty
created around COVID-19 has the ability to cripple our job creators. After the forced closures of thousands of
businesses in Arizona, many of them will not reopen. For the ones that do step into this brave new
world, they must have assurances that a slew of lawsuits or a government
crack-down won’t force them to close their doors again, this time for
good.
Today
the Arizona Free Enterprise Club announced its first slate of candidate endorsements
for the 2020 election cycle.
The endorsed candidates represent individuals who align with
the organization’s principles and key policy goals. Club President Scot Mussi stated, “It is critical Arizona has leaders and
policy makers who are able to articulate and stand up for free market
principles and pro-growth policies. This
slate of candidates has proven they can and will.”
It is difficult amid the chaos
and unpredictability surrounding our Country’s new COVID-19 reality to think
about what life will look like when this crisis subsides. Yet it is during the most difficult of challenges
when nations decide if they will surrender their fundamental
values in exchange for the promise of security.
Whether our leaders argue that
drastic times call for drastic measures, the ends justify the means, or promise
that everything will go back to normal after the crisis abates – it is
imperative that there are voices questioning, “what will our Republic look like
after the storm passes?”
Afterall, as reasonable or
necessary as some measures appear to a fearful populace, many in our ruling
class want to make sure to not let a good crisis go to waste.
The New York
Times recently highlighted several
chilling examples of major constitutional and human rights violations being
adopted in democratic nations with lightning speed and little resistance:
Right to Privacy – Infringement Through
Draconian Surveillance: In Israel the Prime Minister has authorized
tracking citizens through cellphone data they developed for counterterrorism
efforts. They are tracing citizens’ every movements and can even throw people
in prison for up to six months for defying isolation orders.
Right to Access the Ballot Box: Fair and
free elections are a cornerstone of any democratic republic. The “interim President” of Bolivia has
suspended their presidential election, unilaterally seizing a longer term and
denying citizens a basic right to choose their leader. Hungary’s Prime Minister has legislation
drafted that is likely to be passed which among many infringements also
includes the ability for him to suspend all elections and referendums. How his government ever peacefully wrest this
power away from him again is left unanswered in the legislative package.
Freedom of the Press and Speech: Several countries are violating
basic free speech rights and persecuting journalists that publish “dissenting”
or “false” information contrary to the government. Hungary again is an offender, allowing the
public prosecutor to imprison people for up to five years for disseminating
what they consider false information.
Right to Assembly: Our
friends overseas in Great Britain sprinted out legislation that allows their
ministries to ban pubic gatherings with little oversight as well as potentially
detain and isolate people indefinitely. In
the United States, democrats pushed hard to include language in the
COVID-19 relief package that would force non-profits and charitable
organizations to disclose
their donors, a practice that has been ruled unconstitutional
by the US Supreme court in NAACP VS
Alabama.
Right to a Speedy Trial and Habeas Corpus: Israel
Prime Minister Netanyahu has shut down
courts supposedly in the name of public health. It also conveniently serves his own interests
as he was scheduled to stand trial for corruption charges. The United
States’ Department of Justice has tried similarly dangerous
tactics, requesting Congress give them the authority to indefinitely detain
someone during an emergency as well as suspend court proceedings pre and post
arrest and trial.
These infringements are hitting
close to home in Arizona. Shortly after
the crisis began, several mayors unilaterally declared a state of emergency
without notifying Governor Ducey or their fellow council members. Some used
these powers to close businesses and limit hours, often with no consideration
with how disruptive it would be for employers to comply with a patchwork of
restrictions varying city to city.
Even after Governor Ducey wisely
stepped in and established a uniform policy for the entire state, Coral Evans
of Flagstaff has willfully and publicly defied
state law. She has unilaterally
closed city salons and similar services in obvious defiance of the Governor’s
Executive Order which preempts cities from employing more restrictive orders
than outlined by his administration.
The bottom line is that citizens need
to keep a close eye on the trade-offs government officials will be asking us to
make. The fearmongering being stoked by
some politicians should be looked upon with suspicion, especially when their
solutions involve long term power grabs, endless bailouts or indefinite
shutdown orders. As scary as Coronavirus may be, ceding our rights and freedoms
to a permanent police state is a much bigger threat.
Entering the second week of forced closures and social distancing to mitigate the spread of Coronavirus, Arizona small business owners and employers are doing their best to cope with the economic shutdown. It appears most in Arizona are following the restrictions enacted by State and local government and, in some cases, sacrificing their lively hoods in the hopes that this will stop the spread and save lives.
Unfortunately, many employers and employees will not survive much longer under the current shutdown. Over 3.3 Million people have already filed for unemployment, a catastrophic figure that will continue to rise over the next couple of weeks. We are reaching the point that a serious discussion needs to occur on how and when we reopen our economy in a safe and practical way.
Despite what some have suggested, having a discussion on the dangers of a long-term economic shutdown is not immoral or some ploy by selfish corporations or the rich wanting people to die in the pursuit of money. The truth needs to be said: if a shutdown continues much longer the US economy will descend into a depression that will threaten every facet of our lives and bring immeasurable pain, suffering and death to countless Americans.
The damage will be permanent and
it will affect everyone. Thousands of businesses will be gone. Tens of Millions
unemployed, many of which that were living paycheck to paycheck. Life savings
wiped out. Supply chain disruptions and
rationing of basic goods and essential services. Widespread hunger and
homelessness. Increases in suicide
and social disorder as local and state governments buckle from a collapsing tax
base.
And anyone that thinks that the Federal
government can step in and provide for the masses during a shutdown, think
again. For some perspective, Congress is close to
passing a $6 Trillion Dollar Coronavirus aid package, $4 Trillion
of which will be liquidity provided by the Federal Reserve. This is an obscene
amount of money, much larger than any spending bill passed in US history. Yet
that amount equals roughly
only 3 Months of US GDP. Suffice to say, if our economy remains in hibernation
for too long it will be the Federal Government in need of a bailout.
Some of our elected leaders appear to understand this, despite the insane pressure from various groups to ignore all economic consequences for their actions. Governor Ducey has taken reasonable steps to try to balance concerns between mitigating the epidemic and our economic survival. His executive order provided broad guidelines to allow some businesses to safely operate while working with Hospitals and medical professionals to ramp up for any potential outbreaks. His order also stopped local governments from setting up their own lockdown restrictions, a much needed intervention to prevent a patchwork of different social distancing standards throughout the state that would have been impossible for businesses to comply with.
Unfortunately, some politicians are
using the crisis to sow panic and fear throughout the state for political
purposes. The biggest offender is Senator Kyrsten Sinema. Earlier this week she
partnered with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi to block the Coronavirus relief
package in an attempt
to lard it up with unrelated liberal policies. Now there are
reports that she is holding
discussions with business leaders in the state and providing
them with apocalyptic scenarios about having to accept another great
depression.
Putting our country into a depression
is no way to handle any epidemic and will only make the situation worse. South
Korea has contained the outbreak and they did this without
any widespread lockdown. There is no reason that the US cannot do
the same.
President Trump is right. We need
to start
thinking about when we start working again. A goal of Easter may be
ambitious, but that should be a date political leaders in Arizona strive for to
start opening up our economy. Arizona will prevail in this fight, but only if
we ensure that we don’t destroy the economy in the process.
Recent Comments