Caitlin Sievers, Arizona Mirror

Arizona fake electors prosecution hits roadblock as court declines appeal

The Arizona Court of Appeals on Monday declined to take up Attorney General Kris Mayes’ appeal of a lower court’s decision to send the Arizona fake electors case back to a grand jury.

In the order, signed by Chief Judge Kent Cattani, the court said the decision was made based on the judges’ discretion.

In April 2024, an Arizona grand jury indicted 18 people for their involvement in efforts to fraudulently overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election after Democrat Joe Biden won the state by around 10,000 votes.

All of the fake electors involved in the scheme were indicted, including Arizona Sen. Jake Hoffman, leader of the Arizona Freedom Caucus, former Arizona Sen. Anthony Kern, member of the Arizona Freedom Caucus and Tyler Bowyer, Turning Point USA CEO.

But in May, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sam Myers agreed with arguments from attorneys representing the fake electors that prosecutors had failed to disclose the full text of the Electoral Count Act to the members of the grand jury prior to the indictment. Myers ruled that Mayes would have to convene a new grand jury and share the text of the act in its entirety if she wanted to move forward with the case.

Instead, Mayes appealed the decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals. Now that the appellate court has declined the case, Mayes’ next steps are either to petition the Arizona Supreme Court to reverse the trial court’s decision or to take the case back to a grand jury.

In response to the Appeals Court’s decision, the Arizona Republican Party issued a statement reiterating a claim from many of the indicted that the case was politically motivated.

“Arizona families deserve an Attorney General who prosecutes criminals, not political opponents,” AZGOP Chairwoman Gina Swoboda said in the statement. “Five years later, Kris Mayes is still fixated on 2020 while violent crime, fentanyl trafficking, and border chaos threaten our communities every single day. This obsession is not justice — it’s politics.”

Also among the indicted were Kelli Ward, who led the AZGOP at the time, Gregory Safsten, who was the AZGOP’s executive director, and former Trump staffers and campaign members including Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows and Christina Bobb.

Former Turning Point Action leader offered plea deal in AZ forgery case

Former Arizona legislator Austin Smith has been offered a plea deal in a multiple-felony criminal case that alleges he personally forged numerous voter signatures on his own petitions for reelection.

Smith was indicted in June by a Maricopa County grand jury on four felony counts for presenting documents he knew were forged to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, in addition to 10 misdemeanor counts for personally forging the names of electors on his reelection petitions.

The Republican from Surprise was a member of the far-right Arizona Freedom Caucus, which has a history of spreading false claims of election fraud in the 2020 presidential election and pushed for election law changes in the state legislature.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

At the time he was indicted, Smith was strategic director of Turning Point Action, Turning Point USA’s advocacy arm. TPUSA is a far-right organization based in Phoenix that aims to mobilize young conservatives founded by Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed last week while speaking to a group of college students in Utah.

During a Sept. 10 court hearing, state prosecutor Todd Lawson told the court that the state had offered Smith a plea deal. Both Lawson and Kurt Altman, the attorney representing Smith, said they were hopeful they might soon reach an agreement to avoid a trial.

After Smith was accused in April 2024 of forging more than 100 voter signatures and addresses — which all blatantly look like they were written by the same person — on his reelection petition, he vehemently denied the allegations. He called them “ludicrous” and accused Democrats of creating a “coordinated attack” against him.

But some of the people whose names were on the petition told the court that they never signed it. One woman whose name and alleged signature appeared on Smith’s petition died a week before the signing date. A different woman’s name was misspelled.

A former member of the Arizona House of Representatives Municipal Oversight and Elections Committee, Smith dropped his reelection bid shortly after the fraud allegations were made public. He also reportedly resigned from his job at Turning Point Action.

At the time, Smith, who was gearing up to run for a second term in the Arizona House of Representatives, said that he only dropped out of the race because he didn’t want to deal with the legal hassle or possible court costs to defend himself in a civil election petition challenge.

But Altman made it clear during last week’s hearing that Smith was considering the state’s plea offer. The details of the offer were not disclosed, as is usual until an agreement has been reached.

If the case goes to trial, Smith could face up to two years in prison for each felony and six months for each misdemeanor. If he is convicted of a felony, Smith would also lose his voting rights and be barred from running for public office until he’s served his sentence, including any probation, and had his rights restored.

Turning Point Action never responded to the Arizona Mirror’s request in June to confirm whether Smith still worked there. After news articles about the indictment were published, Smith made his social media accounts private and his name was partially scrubbed from the organization’s website.

Both Lawson and Altman told the court last week that they expected to know whether they could reach a plea agreement within 60 days. The next court date in the case is set for Nov. 13.

If the parties don’t reach an agreement by that date, Lawson said they might either schedule a settlement conference to work things out or begin to prepare for a trial, which is set for Feb. 26

New Trump 'meddling' would destroy GOP's longtime strategy in Arizona: analysis

The vast majority of Arizonans who voted for President Donald Trump in 2016, 2020 and 2024 cast their ballot by mail — a system ushered into existence and expanded by Republican lawmakers in the Grand Canyon State. Trump says he wants to ban it nationwide.

Despite calls to ban it from far-right lawmakers, political candidates and their supporters, casting a ballot by mail is the most popular way to vote in Arizona — and has been for decades. In the 2024 presidential election, around 75% of voters in the state cast their ballot by mail, even after Trump urged them to head to the polls instead. The number of Trump voters in Arizona who mailed their ballots outstripped those who showed up to the polls on Election Day 2024 by more than 4.5 times, according to data from the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office.

On Monday, Trump posted on his social media site Truth Social that he planned to rid the country of voting by mail and the machines that count ballots before the 2026 midterms. Later that day, he promised to issue an executive order banning no-excuse mail-in ballots, which he called “corrupt.”

“And it’s time that the Republicans get tough and stop it because the Democrats want it,” Trump said. “It’s the only way they can get elected.”

Election expert Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project and professor of political science at the University of California, Los Angeles, explained earlier this week in a blog post that the president doesn’t have the power to do that.

“The Constitution does not give the President any control over federal elections,” he wrote.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

In 1991, it was Republicans who brought no-excuse vote by mail to Arizona, in part as a way to increase turnout when voter apathy was at an all-time high. And the move worked: turnout in the 1988 presidential election in Arizona was 67%, but in jumped to 77% in 1992.

Republican Gov. Fife Symington signed the bill into law in July 1991 that allowed voters to request an early ballot without having to provide an excuse. The Republican-controlled Arizona House of Representatives approved the bill 53-0 and the Senate, which had a rare Democratic majority, voted for it 21-9, with opposition from conservative Republicans.

Then-Republican National Committeeman Mike Hellon told the Pima County Rotary Club that their vote-by-mail outreach in the 1992 presidential election was so bad that he considered it “criminal negligence,” according to a Nov. 15, 1992 article in the Arizona Daily Star.

He said he particularly resented that Democrats “cleaned our clock” because “it’s our program.”

The state’s Republican-controlled legislature continued to vote to expand no-excuse vote by mail over the next two decades, including with the creation of the active early voting list in 2007.

The push to eliminate voting by mail is new, and It is only in the past 10 years that far-right Republicans began a true campaign to rid the state of no-excuse voting by mail. And while heading to the polls to cast a ballot in person has become more popular for Republicans during the past two election cycles, the effort to nix early voting by mail has failed to garner mainstream support due to its popularity among Democrat, Republican and independent voters.

The most extreme Republicans in the Arizona legislature have tried to pass laws banning no-excuse mail voting since 2020, after Trump falsely claimed that it was rife with fraud and blamed it for his loss that year to Joe Biden. So far those efforts, including a lawsuit from Arizona’s most infamous election deniers Kari Lake and Mark Finchem, and bills to change voting laws proposed by members of the far-right Arizona Freedom Caucus, have failed.

Trump-backed candidates who lost their elections for statewide office in 2022 were quick to praise Trump’s demonization of voting-by-mail on Monday.

“This is the best news I’ve heard in years!” Lake, who lost her bid for governor in 2022 and was defeated in the U.S. Senate contest in 2024, posted on the social media site X, formerly Twitter. “The people demand honest elections.”

Lake spent the two years following her narrow 2022 loss to Katie Hobbs attempting to convince Arizona courts to overturn the results.

“President Trump is going to fix our broken election system and I will be there to help all the way,” U.S. Rep. Abe Hamadeh posted on X. Hamadeh lost the race for Arizona Attorney General in 2022 to Democrat Kris Mayes by fewer than 400 votes. He also attempted to overturn the results with a legal challenge.

Bryan Blehm, a Scottsdale divorce attorney who represented Lake in her court challenges, and Shelby Busch, an election conspiracy theorist who testified during them, heaped praise on Trump for his demonization of no-excuse voting by mail during a livestream on X Monday.

“We’ve been talking for years about the danger of mail-in ballots,” said Busch, the first vice chairman of the Maricopa County Republican Committee.

Blehm, who was suspended from practicing law for two months last year for lying to the Arizona Supreme Court on Lake’s behalf, went on to claim — without evidence — that COVID-19 was intentionally released prior to an election year to force more voting by mail.

“COVID was about solidifying in the United States this very impersonal election system that doesn’t allow participation by the citizenry in large scale,” Blehm said. “But it’s very heavily dependent upon the bureaucrats and these mail invalid schemes.”

Blehm failed to prove that any fraud or malfeasance took place in the 2022 election for Arizona governor over the course of two trials and numerous appeals, including to the state’s Supreme Court.

The top two Republican candidates gunning to oust Hobbs from the governor’s office in 2026, U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs and Karrin Taylor Robson, both said they supported Trump’s views on mail-in voting.

Biggs praised Trump for his promise to end the practice and Robson said she agreed with the president. In 2007, when he was a state representative, Biggs voted for the bill that created the state’s active early voter list, expanding the use of vote-by-mail.

In contrast, numerous current and former state officials and voting rights groups blasted Trump’s promise to ban no-excuse vote by mail and defended its use in Arizona.

Board members of the Democracy Defense Project, including former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, former U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon and Yuma County Supervisor Jonathan Lines, all Republicans, pointed out in a joint statement that, as president, Trump doesn’t have the power to issue edicts on how elections are run in the states.

“Our elections are decentralized by design, allowing states and local jurisdictions to operate in the manner that best meets the unique needs of their voters,” they said in the statement.

The board members said that instead of banning voting by mail, Arizona should focus on making its system more “efficient, transparent, and secure.”

“Mail-ballots have long been a secure voting method that Arizona voters have utilized to exercise their constitutional right to vote,” they said in the statement. “Any changes to the system now could result in decreased voter access and upend our mail-in voting system that has been in place for many decades.”

Arizona Rep. Stephanie Simacek, D-Phoenix, said in a statement that putting an end to mail-in voting would disenfranchise millions.

“The Constitution grants states the authority to set and administer their own elections, which in itself provides our country its own unique form of election security,” she said in the statement. “Donald Trump plans to undermine that election security for his own benefit with an illegal executive order attempting to ban mail-in voting and voting machines.”

In a commentary they coauthored for Real Clear Politics this week, Brewer and former North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory, also a Republican, pointed out that conservatives have long protected the rights of states to set their own rules for elections.

“Our federal system was intentionally designed to prevent the overreach of centralized power,” they wrote. “Federal meddling with how states conduct their elections violates this principle and undermines the trust voters place in their local officials.”

YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.

SUPPORT

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com.

Arizona Republicans remove requirements from their own jobs

The same legislative Republicans who have accused Arizona’s governor of appointing unqualified people to head state agencies just nixed qualification requirements for their own appointments to a litany of state boards and commissions.

On May 5, the Arizona House of Representatives voted along party lines to axe requirements for legislative appointments to various boards and commissions. The bill that the House approved, Senate Bill 1649, is sponsored by Senate President Warren Petersen, the top Republican in the Senate.

On Tuesday, Petersen issued a statement touting the importance of the Senate Committee for Director Nominations, which he said is ensuring that agency directors nominated by Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, are qualified.

Petersen told the Arizona Mirror via email that the two situations did not make for an apples-to-apples comparison.

“The difference is that the confirmation process on director nominees exists to further the system of checks and balances,” he said. “The Legislature amending the way the Legislature makes board selections has nothing to do with separation of powers or checks and balances. The (current) qualifications are so narrow that they may eliminate more qualified individuals.”

The Director Nominations Committee, which Petersen created in 2023 specifically to vet Hobbs’ director nominees, has held a series of contentious and combative nomination hearings since then. A number of Hobbs’ choices to head up state agencies have faced intense partisan questioning of their past political activity and demands that they explain their views on culture war issues far outside the scope of their jobs.

Petersen’s proposal, which already passed through the Senate, also on a party-line vote, will head back to that chamber for final approval after being amended in the House before it’s sent to Hobbs to either sign or veto it.

Senate Bill 1649 eliminates requirements for entities such as special taxing districts, the Arizona Water Protection Fund Commission and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to have specific expertise or interest in the issues that they govern.

For instance, it removes the requirement that legislative appointees to the Economic Estimates Commission be knowledgeable about economics and that appointees to the Arizona Water Protection Fund Commission “have demonstrated an interest in natural resources” — and that they represent geographically diverse areas of the state.

It also throws out a requirement for legislators appointed to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to be selected “based on their understanding of and interest in legislative audit oversight functions.”

Democratic Sen. Lauren Kuby, of Tempe, said during a March 6 debate on the Senate floor that, as a former Tempe City Council member who voted on board appointments, she sympathized with the struggle to find willing and qualified applicants.

“I’m really worried about the wholesale removal of expertise from 11 different boards and commissions,” she said.

Kuby is a member of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, which makes recommendations to the Legislature on all facets of the complicated state budget.

“It’s really not clear to me what this bill is trying to accomplish,” she said.

Petersen told the House Government Committee on March 26 that it was a “very straightforward” bill, the same way that Sen. Jake Hoffman described it in the Senate Government Committee meeting on Feb. 19.

“This just simply opens it up so that we have more applicants available for these appointments to boards and commissions,” Petersen said, adding that it’s been difficult to find applicants who meet all the qualifications laid out in statute, but that “we’ve been able to find people that are otherwise qualified for these positions.”

House Government Committee Chairman Walt Blackman initially voted against Petersen’s proposal on March 26, but after a recess during which Blackman said they “worked out some legal issues, so we don’t end up in jail,” he voted to approve the bill.

During an April 1 Republican Caucus meeting, Blackman said that he wasn’t sure if Senate Bill 1649 would pass a vote of the full House, given that there were a lot of questions about it.

Blackman never explained his concerns about the bill and did not respond to requests for comment, but he ultimately voted to approve the proposal on May 5.

Between the Government Committee hearing on March 26 and the May 5 vote, Petersen’s bill was amended to remove proposed changes to qualification requirements for appointees to the Arizona Commerce Authority. The ACA is an economic development organization that was accused by Attorney General Kris Mayes last year of violating the Arizona Constitution’s gift clause by hosting forums that amounted to pricey gifts to the CEOs who attended them.

During an April 16 floor debate, after SB1649 had been amended, Democratic Rep. Nancy Gutierrez, of Tucson, called the proposal “dangerous.”

“I just want to point out that this takes away that the appointees have to have any kind of expertise or knowledge of the board that they are sitting on,” she said. “This sets Arizona up to have boards and commissions with people who literally have nothing to do with them.”

During the same discussion, Democratic Rep. Betty Villegas, also of Tucson, said she was confused about whether Republicans wanted qualified people on the job or not, referencing a push from legislative Republicans this year to ban diversity, equity and inclusion in hiring, to be replaced with a focus on “merit.”

“I’ve been on plenty of commissions and boards where I was qualified, and when you have people that are not qualified, it really hurts moving forward on your goals,” she said.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com.

‘Liar and clown’: Gov. Hobbs lashes out at Republican engaged in 'partisan witch hunt'

The Republican gatekeeper standing in the way of the Democratic governor’s nominees to head state departments said this week that those directors need to have a “neutral, fair” approach to regulation.

But Sen. Jake Hoffman is using the committee to exact political vengeance on Gov. Katie Hobbs by unfairly targeting her nominees, said Christian Slater, the governor’s chief spokesman. He called Hoffman a “liar and a clown” who is “engaged in a partisan witch hunt.”

And while Hoffman may demand neutrality and fairness from Hobbs’ picks to head state agencies, the same can’t be said of the people who he summoned to testify on April 10 when the Senate Director Nominations Committee met to consider Hobbs’ nominee to lead the Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions.

A long line of far-right local Republican Party leaders blasted Barbara Richardson for a supposed anti-business stance and for participating in National Association of Insurance Commissioners special committees on diversity, equity and inclusion and climate resiliency.

In a March 27 press statement, Hoffman said that “qualified candidates should be free from any partisan political agenda” and accused Richardson of having a history of “radical leftist ideologies.”

Nearly all of the more than a dozen people who asked the committee not to recommend Richardson be confirmed as director were Republican Party activists or their associates. Some of the speakers disclosed their political affiliations, but several did not.

“We need a regulator who maintains a neutral, fair approach to regulation,” Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, said. “I don’t believe that Miss Richardson is that regulator.”

Richardson previously led insurance regulation departments in multiple states under both Democratic and Republican governors. The committee split along party lines to not recommend her confirmation.

State law requires the state Senate confirm a governor’s picks to lead agencies. Without a recommendation from the committee, the full Senate is unlikely to confirm Richardson’s appointment to head the Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions.

So far this year, the committee has recommended confirmation of eight of Hobbs’ department director nominees, and six of them have been confirmed by the Senate.

But in February, Joan Serviss, Hobbs’ nominee to head the Department of Housing, was dismissed from her position due to pressure from Republicans in the Senate.

When Serviss went before the committee after Hobbs nominated her as director in 2023, Hoffman accused her of plagiarism for copying language in press statements during a previous job. Later, he blamed her for a $2 million wire transfer the department made to scammers who impersonated a nonprofit.

The Director Nominations Committee, which was created in 2023 specifically to vet Hobbs’ director nominees, held several contentious and combative nomination hearings that year and refused to confirm most of the governor’s nominees.

Prior to the creation of that committee, Senate confirmations occurred with little fanfare following brief interviews with relevant legislative committees.

Hobbs attempted to sidestep the Senate approval process by appointing her director nominees as deputy directors, positions that don’t require Senate approval. But following a lawsuit from Senate Republicans, a judge ruled that Hobbs had broken the law in circumventing the approval process and ordered her to make new director nominations to be submitted to the Senate.

Richardson originally went before the committee on March 27, but was invited back on April 10 to explain some of her actions that Hoffman said caused him concern. Those included the way that she communicated rules to businesses that the department regulates, which Hoffman claimed went against state statute, as well as longer wait times for licensing.

Richardson explained that longer wait times were due to staff turnover and a significant increase in licensing renewal applications from around 81,000 in 2019 to nearly 122,000 in 2024.

Former Arizona Republican Party Treasurer Elijah Norton, who owns several businesses regulated by the Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions, told the committee that his testimony against Richardson came at great risk to his own business. Norton claimed that many other business owners were scared to speak to the committee because they feared retaliation from Richardson.

He accused her of being a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” or a leftist disguising herself as a moderate. Norton said he didn’t believe her claims that her involvement in the DEI committee was only for learning purposes and that she did not implement any DEI practices in the department.

Joe Steenbergen, who also harshly criticized Richardson, did not tell the committee members that he works for Veritas Global Protection Services, one of the companies that Norton owns.

“I can say unequivocally that, since Miss Richardson assumed her role as acting director of the Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions, or DIFI, the department has taken a complete nosedive,” he said.

Steenbergen added that the workers there have become apathetic and “less business friendly,” and he claimed that, if the Senate approved Richardson’s nomination, he would likely recommend that his employer leave Arizona for a state that’s more business friendly.

Other speakers who recommended against Richardson’s confirmation included Shelby Busch, the first vice chairman of the Maricopa County Republican Committee; Debbie Cheatham, an advisory board member for Arizona Right to Life; and Ron Smith, who ran the unsuccessful 2024 campaign for Congress for former Arizona Sen. Anthony Kern, who was one of the state’s most far-right lawmakers.

Slater said in a written statement that the Republican Party activists who testified had one job: beat up Richardson.

“Jake brought Republican precinct committeemen who don’t even know what DIFI stands for, let alone what it does, to engage in a hit job on a career nonpartisan public servant,” Slater said. “The only people who are harmed because of these political games are the people of Arizona.”

Kelsey Lundy, a lobbyist for Compass Strategies, spoke in support of Richardson, saying she’s been representing businesses regulated by DIFI for around 20 years and feels Richardson has treated her clients fairly and with no bias.

Chad Heinrich, CEO of Arizonans for Affordable Healthcare, also recommended that the committee approve Richardson’s nomination, saying that he’d witnessed her deference to state law and lawmakers.

Democratic Sen. Analise Ortiz, of Phoenix, apologized to Richardson for “the political hit job we saw today,” adding that she was disheartened to hear untrue claims that Richardson is a DEI activist.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com.

‘Jesus is better than a psychologist’: AZ GOP wants chaplains to be in public schools

Republican politicians who accuse public school teachers of indoctrinating students with a “woke agenda” are pushing to bring religious chaplains into the same schools to provide counseling to students.

“I think Jesus is a lot better than a psychologist,” Rep. David Marshall, R-Snowflake, said during a March 11 meeting of the Arizona House of Representatives’ Education Committee.

Marshall said that he’s been a chaplain who provides counseling for 26 years.

Senate Bill 1269, sponsored by Flagstaff Republican Sen. Wendy Rogers, was modeled after similar legislation passed in recent years in Texas and Florida.

The proposal would give school districts the option of allowing volunteer religious chaplains to provide counseling and programs to public school students. Districts that decide to allow chaplains would be required to provide to parents a list of the volunteer chaplains at each school and their religious affiliation, and parents would be required to give permission for their child to receive support from a chaplain.

Despite ample concerns that the proposal violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause and that it would open up schools to legal liability for any bad mental health advice a chaplain might provide, the bill has already passed through the Senate on a party-line vote. The House Education Committee also approved it along party lines.

Rogers told the Education Committee that the existence of any requirement for the separation of church and state in U.S. law “was a myth,” adding that she sees no harm in bringing religion into public schools.

Rogers, a far-right extremist, has embraced white nationalism, and in 2022 spoke at a white nationalist conference, calling the attendees “patriots” and advocating for the murder of her political enemies.

She has also said she is “honored” to be endorsed by a prominent antisemitic Christian nationalist and regularly trafficks in antisemitic tropes. And Rogers has advocated racist theories, appeared on antisemitic news programs and aligned herself with violent anti-government extremists.

Democrats on the committee raised the alarm that Rogers’ bill would violate the Establishment Clause by allowing chaplains with religious affiliations to counsel students, while not providing the same kinds of services to students who don’t follow a religion or who follow a less-common religion with no chaplains available to the school.

An amendment to the bill, proposed by committee Chairman Matt Gress, a Phoenix Republican, requires that the chaplains be authorized to conduct religious activities by a religious group that believes in a supernatural being. The amendment would also allow a volunteer chaplain to be denied from the list if the school’s principal believes their counsel would be contrary to the school’s teachings.

Both of these changes would allow districts to exclude chaplains from The Satanic Temple of Arizona, a group that doesn’t believe in a higher power but promotes empathy and has chapters across the country that challenge the intertwining of Christianity and government.

Oliver Spires, a minister with The Satanic Temple of Arizona, voiced his opposition to Rogers’ bill during a Feb. 5 Senate Education Committee meeting.

The legislation, Spires said, would disproportionately impact students from minority religions who see Christian chaplains providing support to their peers while no chaplains representing their religion are available.

“If a district listed a Satanist on their chaplain list, would they have your support?” he asked the committee members.

Gress’s amendment would preclude that.

Gaelle Esposito, a lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, told committee members on Tuesday that school counselors are required to undergo specialized training to prepare them to help students — requirements that religious chaplains wouldn’t have to meet, even though they’d be providing similar services.

“They will simply not be equipped to support students dealing with serious matters like anxiety, depression, eating disorders, self harm or suicidal ideation,” Esposito said. “Religious training is not a substitute for academic and professional training in counseling, health care or mental health… Even with the best intentions, chaplains may provide inappropriate responses or interventions that could harm students.”

But as Democrats on the House Education Committee argued that Arizona should provide more funding for trained counselors and social workers to help students with mental health issues, the Republicans on the panel said that students are actually struggling with mental health issues because they don’t have enough religion in their lives.

“I’ve heard that there is a mental health crisis afflicting kids,” Gress, a former school board member, said. “Now, I don’t necessarily think in many of these cases that something is medically wrong with these kids. I think, perhaps, there is a spiritual deficit that needs to be addressed.”

Rep. Justin Olson, R-Mesa, said he’s been frustrated by the federal courts’ interpretation of the First Amendment to require the separation of church and state, claiming it has made the government hostile to religion instead of protecting it.

“I heard comments here today that this is going to harm kids — harm kids by being exposed to religion? That is absolutely the opposite of what is happening here today in our society,” Olson said. “We have become a secular society, and that is damaging our society. We need to have opportunities for people to look to a higher power, and what better way than what is described here in this bill?”

Democratic Rep. Nancy Gutierrez, of Tucson, called SB1269 “outrageous” and “incredibly inappropriate.”

And Rep. Stephanie Simacek, of Phoenix, pointed out that the courts have repeatedly ruled against allowing religious leaders to be invited to share their faith with public school students. She described Rogers’ bill as indoctrination that gives preferential treatment to students who have religious beliefs over those who don’t

“No one is saying that you may not go and celebrate your God, however you see fit,” Simacek, a former teacher and school board member, said. “But this is not the place, in public education, where our students go to learn math, reading and writing and history.”

Florida’s school chaplain law, which went into effect last July and is similar to Rogers’ proposal, has received ample pushback from First Amendment advocacy groups, as well as some church groups who said that allowing untrained chaplains to provide mental health support to students would have unintended negative consequences.

The option to bring chaplains into schools in Florida has not been particularly popular, with several large school districts deciding not to implement a program allowing them.

Proposed legislation similar to SB 1269 has been introduced in red states across the country this year, including in Indiana, Nebraska, Iowa, Montana and North Dakota.

The bill will next be considered by the full House of Representatives. If it passes the chamber, it will return to the Senate for a final vote before heading to Gov. Katie Hobbs.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com.

'Craziness broke loose': Arizona teacher on leave after James O'Keefe attack

Last week, Marana High School physics teacher Les Beard learned about a chromosomal disorder with relevance to current events and decided to share what he’d learned with his students.

This week, followers of right-wing provocateur James O’Keefe are calling for Beard to be fired for defying an executive order from President Donald Trump in which he declared that “it is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.”

Beard is a former geophysicist who has taught physics at Marana High for six years.

It started when Beard was doing some nighttime scrolling on his phone and came across a news clip about a woman with androgen insensitivity syndrome, a rare genetic disorder, and decided to share what he’d learned with his students.

Those with the syndrome have the XY chromosomes of a male but their bodies don’t react to the hormones that cause development of male sex characteristics. Many of those with the syndrome outwardly appear to be female, but have internal sex organs of a male, according to the National Library of Medicine. Some have characteristics of both sexes.

“It piqued my interest, so I thought I would mention it,” Beard told the Arizona Mirror during a Jan. 31 phone interview.

Beard told his students that those with the syndrome are often raised as girls and don’t find out that their chromosomes are XY until they go to the doctor to find out why their menstrual cycle never started. Many of them balk when told that they’re actually male, Beard said.

“None of them really believe it, because they’ve been women all their lives,” he told the students last week.

Beard showed the class clothed photos of some of the women with the syndrome, which he said “looked every bit like a woman” and asked the class, “Are these guys? Mr. Trump says so.”

The lesson caused a “ruckus” in the classroom, which Beard — who speaks in a slow Texas drawl — said he expected, with some kids loudly disagreeing or shaking their heads while others seemed to agree with his point.

“I wanted the kids to understand that, if we make rules, they should encompass all situations that might appear,” Beard said. “It was all too easy to find an outlier that doesn’t seem to fit the two gender idea.”

The following week at school began uneventfully for Beard, but on Jan. 28, he learned that one of his students had recorded the discussion and shared it with her mother, who had then sent it to O’Keefe.

O’Keefe posted the video on the social media site X, formerly known as Twitter, where he has 3 million followers.

In the post, O’Keefe accused Beard of “misleading students by contradicting the NIH and referring to people affected by AIS as ‘women.’”

“Then all sorts of craziness broke loose,” Beard said.

Commenters on social media called Beard a “groomer,” a label that generally means a person who preys on children to condition them for sexual abuse but which has become a catch-all term for conservatives to refer to adults who are accepting of trans students and members of the LGBTQ community. Some of them said that Beard’s lesson on biology was proof of their claims that public school teachers were indoctrinating students with their “woke agenda.”

Others called for him to be arrested and charged with sexual harassment or endangering the welfare of a child. O’Keefe himself repeatedly called a Marana Unified School District spokeswoman to ask if Beard would be punished for defying Trump’s executive order.

O’Keefe’s followers sent Beard nasty emails and contacted the district, calling for him to be fired for sharing “gender ideology” with students.

The video about Beard’s lesson, which O’Keefe posted on X Jan. 28, garnered 600,000 views, 10,000 likes and 332 comments over the next three days.

On Tuesday, Beard was called into a meeting with an administrator to talk about the off-topic lesson and the district’s expectation that teachers stick to their curriculum and avoid sharing personal and political opinions. The next day, he was told to work from home and ordered not to have contact with any Marana teachers or students.

Next week, he expects to find out if he still has a job.

Beard said that he had not previously received any criticism from administrators for the content of his lessons.

Allison Benjamin, a spokesperson for the district, told the Mirror via email that she couldn’t answer specific questions surrounding Beard’s suspension or school policies, but instead supplied a statement similar to one she previously provided to O’Keefe.

In the statement, Benjamin shared two “policies that address expectations for classroom instruction that include: 1. Teaching to the state standards that are focused on course content. 2. Providing a learning environment where teachers remain neutral and refrain from sharing their personal beliefs and opinions.”

“The administration will continue to follow appropriate guidelines detailed in district policy to ensure all staff fulfill these expectations,” she wrote.

O’Keefe’s video features an at-times combative phone call between him and Benjamin. In it, O’Keefe tells her that trying to get comments from the district is a “kafkaesque nightmare.” Benjamin later agrees with O’Keefe that this was “an extraordinary situation and I’m glad that you’re reporting on it.”

Who is James O’Keefe?

O’Keefe, who already had a penchant for publishing highly-edited and misleading undercover recordings, founded Project Veritas in 2010.

Project Veritas became a mainstay of the conservative media ecosystem for sending its “undercover journalists” — some of whom were trained by a former spy on how to covertly infiltrate their targets — to secretly record liberals and journalists in an effort to catch them saying something embarrassing.

One of the so-called reporters set up a date with a top Twitter employee and secretly recorded him venting about Elon Musk. Another made a secret recording of Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs’ twin sister, Becky Hobbs. In the video, apparently recorded during dinner at a restaurant, the governor’s twin said the Democratic Party had been donating to MAGA Republicans in Arizona primary elections to give Democratic candidates a better chance of winning in the general election.

The Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics says journalists should only opt to work undercover in rare circumstances, when there’s no other way to obtain the information.

O’Keefe was pushed out as the chairman of Project Veritas in 2023 following accusations that he mistreated staff by yelling at them and making them do his personal errands and mismanaged finances, the Associated Press reported.

O’Keefe has continued publishing sting-style videos since his ouster from Project Veritas. He even recruited volunteers to make undercover recordings of election worker training in Maricopa County ahead of the November election. He later claimed that trainers’ accurate description of the state’s election laws brought up “serious questions about the integrity of the voting process.”

The recording of Beard was submitted anonymously to O’Keefe’s recently launched Citizen Journalism Foundation, according to the article on O’Keefe’s website.

Numerous commenters who reacted to the video said that they thought Beard belonged in jail for his disregard of Trump’s executive order.

In reality, the White House doesn’t have any legal authority to control local school district curricula. But Beard said that his administrators are worried about losing federal funding.

He admitted that he veered from physics and into a politically charged subject, which his supervisors did not appreciate.

“I didn’t intend to bring politics too sharply into the discussion, but it got there,” Beard said.

Beard, 69, moved to the Tucson area 12 years ago with his wife and two children. His daughter has since graduated from the University of Arizona and his son, who often features his father in his own goofy YouTube videos, is a freshman at Marana High. Beard said that he enjoys teaching the students at Marana High, and he hopes to hold onto his job, even after administrators suggested that he voluntarily resign.

“I think it would make things very easy for them if I resigned,” Beard said, adding that his administrators are not “nasty people” and that he understands the difficult position that they’re in.

College professors have some First Amendment protections when it comes to academic expression in the classroom, but court decisions over the last 20 years have not given the same protections to K-12 teachers.

Beard said he believes teaching opportunities are lost when instructors are strictly limited in topics of discussion, causing students to wonder why teachers steer clear of interesting, socially relevant subjects.

“To be able to freely express yourself will lead to a richer conversation among people who may have very different opinions,” Beard said.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com.

Arizona's prosecution of 'fake electors' hits snag as DOJ fails to share Trump case files

The U.S. Department of Justice didn’t give Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes its investigation on President Donald Trump’s attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election before Trump took the office a second time Jan. 20.

Mayes had twice requested that the DOJ share with her the case file from special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation, with the last request made just one week before Trump was sworn in to a second term. Mayes spokesman Richie Taylor told the Arizona Mirror on Friday that the DOJ had not supplied the Attorney General’s Office with its investigation file.

In the letter sent Jan. 12, Mayes wrote that the contents of the DOJ’s investigation will “undoubtedly” assist in her office’s prosecution of the 18 people indicted by a grand jury in Arizona’s “fake elector” scheme.

The DOJ withdrew its election interference case against Trump for his alleged role in orchestrating attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election after he won the presidential election in November.

In April, an Arizona grand jury indicted 18 people for their involvement in efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election after Democrat Joe Biden won the state by around 10,000 votes.

Mayes had previously asked the DOJ to share its documents in the election interference case against Trump, but Smith said at that point he wasn’t ready or able to do so.

Mayes wrote in her January letter that she made the second request after the DOJ dismissed its case against Trump and the department was publicly preparing to release Smith’s report. Smith resigned shortly after he submitted the report, ahead of Trump’s inauguration.

All 11 of Arizona’s fake electors, who signed false documents claiming that Trump won the 2020 election at the alleged direction of the Trump campaign, were indicted. Some Trump campaign members and White House staffers were also indicted.

“Today, my office has one of the only remaining cases that include charges against national actors,” Mayes wrote in the letter. “I have held steadfast to prosecuting the grand jury’s indictment because those who tried to subvert democracy in 2020 must be held accountable.”

She went on to write that Smith’s file would help hold those involved accountable, as well as possibly exonerate them.

“To be sure that my office has all incriminating and exculpatory evidence possessed by (the) Special Counsel, I am requesting you disclose to my office (Smith’s) entire file, including the final report in the Election Case,” Mayes wrote.

When the Mirror asked Taylor how the AG’s failure to obtain whatever information the DOJ uncovered might impact the fake electors case, he referred the Mirror back to Mayes’ letter requesting the file.

The 11 fake electors indicted in the Arizona case are:

  • Kelli Ward, former AZGOP chairman
  • Arizona Sen. Jake Hoffman, leader of the Arizona Freedom Caucus
  • Arizona Sen. Anthony Kern, member of the Arizona Freedom Caucus
  • Tyler Bowyer, Turning Point USA CEO
  • Michael Ward, husband of Kelli Ward
  • Nancy Cottle, a Republican who’s been active in local politics for a decade
  • James Lamon, a failed 2022 U.S. Senate candidate
  • Robert Montgomery, former chairman of the Cochise County Republican Committee
  • Samuel Moorhead, former chairman of Gila County Republican Party
  • Lorraine Pellegrino, former president of the Ahwatukee Republican Women
  • Gregory Safsten, former executive director of the AZGOP

Former Trump staffers and campaign members also indicted in the case are:

  • Rudy Giuliani, an attorney for Trump and one of the main points of contact for the Trump campaign as it sought to overturn the 2020 election and ensure Trump would serve a second term
  • Mark Meadows, who was Trump’s chief of staff in 2020
  • Christina Bobb, the Republican National Committee’s senior counsel for election integrity and a former attorney for the Trump campaign who was accused in the indictment of making “false claims of widespread election fraud in Arizona and in six other states.”
  • John Eastman, a former Trump lawyer who was disbarred in California for his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
  • Boris Epshteyn, a former Trump aide who is still one of the former president’s advisors.
  • Jenna Ellis, a former attorney for the Trump campaign and a conservative media personality who was censured last year for making false statements about the 2020 election, and who pleaded guilty in October to a felony charge in Georgia for her attempts to overturn the election results.
  • Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign aide who was also indicted in the Georgia case.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com.

Ruben Gallego beats Kari Lake in Arizona’s US Senate race

U.S. Congressman Ruben Gallego will be Arizona’s newest senator, according to the Associated Press, which called the race for Gallego Monday night.

Almost a week after Election Day, with more than 93% of votes in the state counted, Marine veteran and Democrat Gallego was 2.2 percentage points and 72,626 votes ahead of Lake, a Trump-endorsed Republican and former Phoenix television news anchor.

“Growing up the way I did in the environment I did, growing up poor, being here is something that was literally a dream,” Gallego said during a celebratory press conference Monday night.

His supporters cheered as he reminded them he would be the first Latino senator from Arizona.

“As hard as I fought in the Marines, I will fight as hard for Arizona in Washington, D.C.,” Gallego said.

He promised to work to fix the broken immigration system, as well as to help lower costs for housing, gas and groceries.

Lake did not concede or make any public statements after the race was called for Gallego.

Even as she ran for Senate, Lake continued to unsuccessfully challenge the results of the 2022 gubernatorial race that she lost by more than 17,000 votes to Democrat Katie Hobbs. Two years later, a day after the Nov. 5 election, the Arizona Supreme Court dismissed her final appeal request.

As vote tallies slowly trickled in over the last six days, Gallego maintained a fluctuating lead over Lake, but pulled further ahead as more votes that favored him were tallied in Maricopa County. Gallego defeated Lake in Maricopa, which is home to some 60% of the state’s voters, by about 5 percentage points.

Gallego increased his lead over Lake significantly on Sunday and Monday, from Saturday when he was up only 1.5 percentage points and 45,054 votes.

As of Monday night, Arizona had tabulated more than 3.2 million ballots, according to the Secretary of State’s Office, and had more than 179,000 left to go.

Lake’s campaign undertook an aggressive effort to recruit volunteers to encourage voters to cure any issues with their ballot so that they could be counted, such as verifying their signature on an early ballot envelope if it had been flagged as inconsistent with previous signatures.

The curing deadline ended Sunday, after the Arizona Supreme Court rejected a request from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Campaign Legal Center, which requested an extension to give voters more time to cure their ballots.

But none of the counties charged with counting the ballots that responded to the high court requested more time for curing, The Hill reported. The ACLU claimed that more than 60,000 ballots had yet to be processed by Sunday’s deadline and therefore could not have been contacted, but counties claimed they all made efforts to contact voters whose signatures were questioned.

Some of Lake’s most ardent followers shared baseless rumors in the days after the election that Democrats were attempting to “steal” a win from Lake. That echoed Lake’s false statements when she lost the 2022 race for Arizona governor to Democrat Katie Hobbs, as well as her evidence-free claims that the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald Trump.

Gallego has represented the state’s 3rd Congressional District in the U.S. House since 2015.

He ran on a platform of making life more affordable for the middle and working class, abortion rights and measured increases in border security that include increased manpower and better use of technology.

Lake toed the MAGA line during her campaign, calling for completed construction of Trump’s border wall, mass deportation of undocumented immigrants and an extension of Trump’s tax cuts.

Lake sought to align Gallego with Democratic President Joe Biden and what she called his “open borders,” while Gallego reminded voters that Lake had drastically moderated her stance on abortion in the past year.

In the coming year, Lake faces the prospect of paying yet-to-be determined damages to Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, after she legally conceded fault in his defamation suit regarding Lake’s false claims that Richer helped rig the 2022 governor’s race against her.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and X.

AZ Supreme Court rejects Kari Lake’s last remaining bid to overturn her 2022 loss

After two years filled with losses and appeals, the Arizona Supreme Court has denied Kari Lake’s final petition in a court case aimed at overturning the results of the 2022 race for governor.

The high court’s decision, made behind closed doors without public comment, came one day after the Nov. 5 election. Lake ran in that election as the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, even though she never conceded her loss in the 2022 race for Arizona governor to Democrat Katie Hobbs.

Lake, who is trailing Democratic opponent Ruben Gallego in the Senate race, made a name for herself as a purveyor of the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, who endorsed her in 2022 and 2024. After the former Phoenix television news anchor lost the governor’s race by more than 17,000 votes, she claimed that the governorship had been stolen from her, just like the presidency had been stolen from Trump.

“The 2022 election was irredeemably flawed,” Jennifer Wright, one of Lake’s attorneys, wrote in the final appeal. “Without this Court’s intervention, future elections remain threatened.”

But Wright rehashed many of the same arguments that had already failed during Lake’s previous trials and appeals, instead of contesting the lower court judges’ mistakes in interpreting and applying the law, the function of appellate courts.

Tom Liddy, an attorney for Maricopa County, filed a scathing response to Lake’s last appeal on Aug. 12.

“Rather than offering reasons why review should be granted, the Petition instead only argues that Lake is right and the lower courts are wrong,” Liddy wrote.“The Petition makes this argument by simply parroting Lake’s position below while ignoring much of the legal reasoning and all of the evidence that led the lower courts to decide against her.”

In the appeal, Wright argued that Maricopa County didn’t conduct the logic and accuracy tests on its ballot tabulators that are required by law, and that the people comparing voter signatures on early and mail-in ballot envelopes approved them too quickly to have actually completed any true signature verification.

But the case law on which Lake based her argument meant that her attorneys would have to prove that the county failed to perform any signatures verification at all.

Liddy pointed out that, during her second trial, when the court concluded that two of Lake’s own witnesses testified that they had personally verified signatures for the county. He added that Lake’s signature verification claims didn’t fail at trial because the lower court misinterpreted the law, but because of her attorneys’ incompetence.

“Lake’s signature verification claim failed because her allegations wrote a cheque (sic) that her proof could not cash,” Liddy wrote. “Lake’s failure in providing competent evidence to support her claim is no reason to grant review.”

Liddy countered Lake’s allegations that the county didn’t perform logic and accuracy testing on its tabulators ahead of the 2022 election, pointing out that the court record in the case contains certificates signed by the secretary of state, as well as Republican and Democrat observers who witnessed the tests being completed.

Liddy also addressed Lake’s allegations that the county performed additional “unannounced testing” of the tabulators. He said that supposed testing, caught on publicly-viewable cameras, was actually just the installation of memory cards that contained the elections program that had already undergone logic and accuracy testing.

“Lake also complains of the error codes returned in the subsequent testing of the tabulators with the installed memory cards, but Lake willfully ignores the evidence showing that Maricopa County intentionally ran test ballots that would return these errors to ensure that the tabulators were reading such ballots appropriately,” Liddy wrote.

According to Phoenix attorney and Lake critic Tom Ryan, the Arizona Supreme Court’s denial of this appeal is the end of the road for Lake’s long-enduring challenge to the results of the 2022 election.

“To paraphrase a quote from Charles Dickens in his 1843 short story ‘A Christmas Carol,’ Kari Lake’s case is as dead as a doornail,” Ryan told the Arizona Mirror, via email. “Or to paraphrase Monty Python in their Dead Parrot skit, Kari Lake’s case is bereft of life, joined the Choir Eternal, kicked the bucket, bought the farm, is without any observable metabolic processes, and is not pining for the fjords of Norway. It is dead.”

Lake filed her initial election challenge in Maricopa County Superior Court Dec. 9, 2022. She lost that trial, appealed the decision, and was granted a new trial on only one of the several claims considered during the first trial.

She lost her second trial in May 2023 and has been laboring to convince the appeals courts, or the Arizona Supreme Court to reverse that decision ever since.

Lake and the attorneys that represented her in both trials have all faced repercussions for their false allegations of election fraud.

Scottsdale divorce attorney Bryan Blehm and Washington, D.C., employment attorney Kurt Olsen were both sanctioned by the Arizona Supreme Court in May 2023 for making false claims in one of Lake’s appeals. The attorneys wrote that it was an “undisputed fact” that more than 35,000 ballots were illegally inserted into batches of legal ballots in Maricopa County when the November 2022 ballots were being sorted shortly after Election Day, but the high court determined that was not true.

In June, a Supreme Court Panel ruled to suspend Blehm’s law license for 60 days as discipline for his false statements, and in October the panel formally admonished Olsen for the same reason.

The judges on the panel explained in Olsen’s disciplinary ruling that he was granted leniency because he willingly participated in the disciplinary hearing and because he promised to be more careful with his wording in the future.

Blehm skipped his disciplinary hearing, without first informing the court, and did not cooperate in the proceedings.

Lake herself is the subject of a defamation lawsuit for the election fraud lies she spread about Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer after she lost the 2022 election.

The case is currently in the discovery phase, after in April Lake legally conceded that her statements were false. She later claimed publicly that she never lied and that she only gave up defending herself in the defamation case because it was just a distraction tactic to interfere with her campaign for the Senate.

The amount of damages that Lake and her campaign owe Richer for security costs, loss to his reputation and mental health issues caused by her statements, as well as punitive damages, will be determined in a jury trial, with a pretrial hearing set for February.

Neither Olsen nor Wright responded to a request for comment early Thursday evening.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and X.

Kari Lake claims email evidence in defamation case was purged — but her story doesn’t add up

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Kari Lake has claimed that all of the emails that might contain evidence pertinent to a defamation suit filed against her have been wiped, so she can’t share them to be used as evidence.

During an Oct. 21 hearing, Tyler Swensen, one of Lake’s attorneys, told Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Randall Warner that the campaign associated with the email accounts that might contain evidence was dissolved almost a year before Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer filed his defamation lawsuit.

If that were true, Lake would have had no obligation to preserve emails in the accounts as evidence.

However, Kari Lake for Arizona filed its last campaign finance report in January 2024, and the campaign was spending money through Dec. 31, 2023, more than six months after Richer filed the lawsuit.

Swensen did not respond to the Arizona Mirror’s request to answer questions about the claims he made in court.

Lake, a former Phoenix television news anchor who pivoted to politics as a Donald Trump acolyte, spent months falsely accusing Richer of intentionally sabotaging the 2022 election, and blamed her loss in the gubernatorial race to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs on unproven election fraud.

Lake has repeatedly claimed — without a shred of evidence — that Richer was responsible for 300,000 “illegal, invalid, phony or bogus” early ballots being counted in Maricopa County. She’s lost every trial and appeal in her lawsuit challenging the election results over the past two years.

In June 2023, Richer filed a defamation suit against Lake, her husband, her gubernatorial campaign and the Save Arizona Fund.

The Save Arizona Fund is a dark money nonprofit that Lake controls and that has raised an unknown amount of money to fund her legal efforts to overturn the 2022 election.

Richer is seeking damages to reimburse him and his wife for the thousands of dollars he said they spent to install new security features in their home after he said Lake’s false statements spurred threats of violence and harassment.

Additionally, Richer is asking to be awarded punitive damages as well as compensation for damage to his reputation and mental health.

Even though Lake has since publicly professed that her statements about Richer were true, in March she accepted a default judgment, meaning that she legally conceded to the court that the statements were false. She later said she only defaulted because she didn’t want to participate in a “witch hunt” and accused Richer of using the lawsuit to distract her from her run for the Senate.

Lake officially announced her run for Senate in October 2023, more than three months after the defamation suit was filed.

Following the default judgment, the only thing left for the court to decide is damages. But Richer and his attorneys have struggled for months to compel Lake to turn over documents and communications to be used as evidence in a jury trial to determine how much he is owed.

In August, Warner ordered Lake and her husband, Jeff Halperin, to provide several categories of documents after Lake refused to hand them over and made what the judge called “unwarranted objections” to his orders.

The kinds of documents that he ordered Lake to produce included any analysis that her or her team made of media reports about the defamatory social media posts she made about Richer, and communications with or between Lake’s campaign — named Kari Lake for Arizona — or workers for the Save Arizona Fund about the social media posts.

She was also ordered to surrender any analyses made of media coverage of events or podcasts where she made defamatory statements about Richer, as well as any communications or solicitations for donations that Lake sent which included a link to any of Lake’s defamatory comments — and how much money she raised from those communications.

Multiple times during the Oct. 21 hearing, Swensen told the court that all emails from Lake’s gubernatorial campaign were gone, but was fuzzy on the details of exactly when that happened, who “purged” them and why.

“My understanding was there was a restart, and that account is now used strictly and solely for her Senate campaign, and anything associated with the gubernatorial campaign is gone from that account,” Swensen said.

In a previous court filing, Lake’s attorneys wrote that it was her “understanding and belief” that those emails were purged. Warner told Swensen he was more interested in the facts than anyone’s “understanding and belief.”

“‘Understanding and belief’ is something that lawyers often use when they want to hedge,” the judge said. “They don’t want to say it, but they don’t want to not say it.”

Swensen answered that he didn’t know if Lake could explain how and when the “purge” or restart happened.

The email addresses in question all used the domain name @karilake.com, the same domain name Lake uses for her Senate campaign. Lake and members of her staff, including at least two holdovers who handle media and communications, are using the same email addresses for her Senate campaign as they did during her race for governor.

Lake’s gubernatorial campaign, Kari Lake for Arizona, regularly made payments in 2022 and 2023 to Squarespace, a site for building and hosting websites; to GoDaddy, a site that hosts websites and email servers; and to Google.

It’s possible that Lake changed email servers at some point, while keeping the same addresses, and lost access to old emails from her time campaigning for governor, but Kari Lake for Arizona continued to make payments to GoDaddy and Google through the end of 2023, six months after the suit had been filed, according to campaign finance reports.

Her Senate campaign began paying GoDaddy in early October 2023, three months after the suit was filed. That committee, Kari Lake for Senate, has continued to make payments to GoDaddy and Google in 2024.

“(Kari Lake for Arizona) was dissolved as an entity almost a year before this lawsuit was filed, and at that point, that may have been when the emails were purged and everything was taken down,” Swensen said on Oct. 21. “That’s what occurred.”

But Swensen’s claim is demonstrably false. A year before Richer filed the defamation suit was some four months prior to the 2022 election. And far from being officially dissolved directly after the election, Kari Lake for Arizona raised more than $2.5 million between Election Day 2022 and the end of that year.

The campaign went on to spend more than $750,000 over the course of 2023 and filed its last campaign finance report on Jan. 12, 2024, the day it was dissolved, according to a filing with the Arizona Corporation Commission.

In the Oct. 21 hearing, Swensen complained that Richer’s requests for documents to be used as evidence were overly broad, with searches resulting in tens of thousands of pages of documents to parse, even though the judge had already ordered Richer to narrow the scope of his requests.

“It’s just, it’s got to end at some point,” Swensen said.

Lake had already produced some of the requested documents, Richer’s attorney Ralph Mayrell told the court on Oct. 21, but most of them were “not particularly complete or useful.”

A Lake staffer provided a short list of news reports about the defamatory statements, Mayrell said, adding that it appeared that the list was created by pulling from a larger data source and that Lake should just provide that instead.

Lake’s allegations that the 2022 election was stolen from her and that Richer had something to do with it were covered extensively both by local and national news organizations. The Arizona Mirror alone has written more than 50 stories about Lake’s false claims of voter fraud and Maricopa County’s supposed connection to it.

Swensen told the court on Oct. 21 that Richer’s requests for documents in the case were “outrageous.”

“It’s really, in our view, them trying to interfere with Ms. Lake’s senatorial campaign,” Swensen said.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and X.

Court filings get heated in runup to AZ Supreme Court decision on abortion rights initiative

Arizona Right to Life is working to convince the state Supreme Court that, if voters favor an abortion rights initiative this fall, the only people who will stand in the way of the procedure are “abortionists who profit from a determination that leads to abortion.”

The anti-abortion organization argued as much in a brief filed to Arizona’s highest court on Friday afternoon.

If voters approve Proposition 139 in November, it would enshrine in the Arizona Constitution the right to an abortion up to the point of fetal viability, generally accepted to be around 24 weeks of pregnancy. Exceptions to that limit would be allowed if a health care provider determined it was necessary to preserve a patient’s life, physical or mental health.

Arizona Right to Life lost its lawsuit challenging the measure’s place on the ballot in a trial court, but the state’s highest court has yet to make a decision in the appeal.

The anti-abortion group claimed that the summary of the Arizona Abortion Access Act, which was shown to the more than 800,000 supporters who signed petitions to get it on the ballot, was misleading, and for that reason it should be barred from the ballot this fall.

On Monday, the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office confirmed that around 570,000 of those signatures were valid, significantly more than enough to make it onto the ballot.

In the appeal, Arizona Right to Life argued that the summary shown to those who signed the petition was misleading because it contained the phrase “health care provider” while the full text of the act refers to the “treating health care provider” when describing who has the authority to determine that an abortion is necessary beyond fetal viability.

The anti-abortion group argued that the omission of the word “treating” in the summary led petition signers to believe that someone other than an abortion provider would be making the decision.

The trial court judge did not agree.

Other groups and elected officials rallied to defend the abortion rights measure in court on Friday, too. In a joint filing, Save our Schools Arizona and the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center claimed that, if the court buys the argument that the omission of “a minor adjective” means the description is impermissibly misleading, the justices would make the standard “so burdensome and unattainable that no initiative could survive” legal review.

SOS Arizona is a public school advocacy organization and the BISC is a nonprofit that provides information to advocacy groups about the initiative process.

“The microscopic detail (Arizona Right to Life) demands would render compliance impossible and would suffocate the right to initiative,” an attorney for the two groups, Daniel Adelman, wrote in the friend of the court filing.

Adelman also called into question Arizona Right to Life’s argument that the summary should have included details about the Abortion Access Act’s possible impact on existing abortion regulations.

State law currently bans the procedure after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions only to save the life of the mother.

“No proponent could predict and summarize which past and future laws would survive in the span of 200 words, while simultaneously explaining the measure’s actual provisions,” Adelman wrote. “And the attempt to engage in such an exercise could result in a misleading description should a court disagree with how the proponents applied the test to any particular regulation.”

State law requires that summaries shown to potential petition signers include all of the principal provisions of the ballot measure, but not its possible impacts on existing law, Adelman pointed out.

But Arizona Right to Life argued in its Friday filing that one of the principal provisions of the act was to demolish the current “objective medical examination” standard for determining if an abortion was warranted, to be replaced by the “good faith judgment” of the treating health care provider.

“The voters are — unbeknownst to them — being asked to allow medical determinations about abortion made solely on the ‘good faith’ decision of abortionists who profit from a determination that leads to abortion,” wrote Jennifer Wright, an attorney for Right to Life.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the Society of Family Planning countered those claims in their own court filing in support of the Arizona Abortion Access Act.

Karin Aldama, an attorney for the medical societies and abortion research group, wrote that Arizona Right to Life’s allegations about abortion providers lacked evidence and were “ungrounded in the realities of medical care and ethics.”

“Bedrock principles of medical ethics require that all clinicians, irrespective of the type of care they provide, base their medical judgments on the ‘welfare of the patient,’ not personal gain,” Aldama wrote.

The medical societies also alleged that the anti-abortion advocacy group was wrongfully attempting to convince the court that clinicians who provide abortions were governed by a different code of ethics than other health care providers.

“Plaintiff’s attempt to stigmatize the provision of essential health care and to single out and diminish health care professionals who provide it — as if they were a different class of medical professional or prone to conduct that would displace patient well-being for personal gain — lacks any factual basis, is contrary to the legal and ethical obligations required of medical professionals, is harmful to Arizonans, and should be rejected by this Court,” Aldama wrote.

In response to the accusations of the medical societies, Arizona Right to Life wrote on Friday that medical providers do not typically perform medical procedures for free, and that financial gain can influence their decision making.

In the same filing, the anti-abortion organization doubled down on its declaration that the summary shown to petition signers was misleading because it didn’t inform them that its “principal provision” would “eradicate” existing abortion laws.

“That basic thrust is to completely deregulate abortion and to ultimately abolish all Arizona laws that would impugn on a woman’s decision to abort her child,” Wright wrote.

A Thursday court filing in support of Arizona Right to Life’s argument by State Rep. Barbara Parker and U.S. Congressman Andy Biggs, both Republicans, expanded on the organization’s claims about the possible implications of constitutional changes the measure would make.

Their attorneys, Veronica Lucero and state Rep. Alexander Kolodin, a Scottsdale Republican, told the court that the measure should be barred from the ballot because its description failed to inform signers that the act would strip from the courts the traditional level of scrutiny they apply to legislation governing fundamental rights.

Lucero and Kolodin argued that, because that change is a “principal provision” of the Abortion Access Act, it should have been included in the summary.

“This is a sweeping change to the way Arizona courts analyze and interpret the law when it comes to fundamental rights, which include our most precious and basic individual liberties, and this transformation is plainly one of the ‘most important, consequential, and primary features of the initiative,’” they wrote.

The Arizona Abortion Access Act would enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution and would bar the state from adopting or enforcing any law that would deny or restrict that right prior to fetal viability, unless there was a compelling state interest in doing so.

The act goes on to specify that the compelling state interest must be for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of the person seeking an abortion, and that it must not interfere with that person’s autonomous decision making.

Lucero and Kolodin argued that, because this same sort of restriction on a compelling state interest is not placed on other fundamental rights and makes a change to how the courts would handle abortion law, the change should have been included in the summary.

“(T)his interest would override a compelling interest the government may have in ensuring that a healthcare provider has the religious freedom not to perform an abortion,” they wrote. “It is a material omission to the public that the Act will override any such interest because courts will not be able to weigh the fundamental right of religious freedom over the fundamental right of abortion.”

The Arizona Supreme Court is expected to rule on the appeal before Aug. 22, the deadline to print ballots in some counties.

In their filing, the medical societies impressed upon the court the importance of access to abortion as a part of standard medical care.

“Health care access should not be a game of ping-pong. Access to the full spectrum of medical care is critically important for people’s health, safety, and well-being,” Aldama wrote. “The health and well-being of people and communities are threatened when health care professionals are unable to provide medical care that patients need, free from legislative interference in the practice of medicine.”

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and X.

Judge: Kari Lake has lost all rights to litigate defamation case

Kari Lake and her allies have spent the last couple of days criticizing anyone who said she had given up on defending herself in a defamation suit filed by Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer.

“Everything I’ve ever said about the elections is true and I stand by it,” Lake said in an interview with ABC News on Wednesday.

But the judge presiding over the case reminded Lake and her attorneys in a Wednesday filing exactly what a default judgment means. Lake automatically defaulted in the case when she missed a March 25 deadline to respond to Richer’s defamation claims, but filed a separate motion on March 26 asking for a default judgment and for Richer to prove to a jury that he was owed damages.

“It is worth noting that — pursuant to well-established Arizona law — a defaulted party loses all rights to litigate the merits of the cause of action,” Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jay Adleman wrote.

In a video posted to social media, Lake tried to convince her followers that she was simply refusing to participate in the litigation, which she called a political “witch hunt.” But in reality, she’ll be compelled to continue participating and, by defaulting, she’s essentially admitting to the court that all of Richer’s claims are true.

Richer filed the suit against Lake in June 2023 after months of attacks from Lake and her supporters, who claimed without evidence that he was somehow involved in rigging the November 2022 election against Lake and other Republicans running for statewide office.

Lake and Richer are both Republicans, but Richer and members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors became favorite targets for election deniers who were convinced that Republican candidates for statewide office like Lake, Abe Hamadeh and Mark Finchem, could not have lost unless some kind of fraud took place.

As a result of this, Richer said he and his family were subjected to months of threats, harassment and intimidation.

“While I followed the law and respected the will of millions of Arizona voters after the 2022 election, the defendants chose to engage in a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation, threaten my livelihood, and rob me and my loved ones of our safety and well-being,” Richer said in a statement when he filed the suit.

Since then, Lake has repeatedly said that she was ready to fight Richer’s suit, and just two months ago she wrote on social media that she was looking forward to the discovery process, wherein both sides would have to turn over things like texts and emails pertinent to the case.

That’s one of the reasons she and her attorneys’ decision to essentially concede that Richer’s claims are true seemed so abrupt.

“Of course it’s surprising she decided not to defend herself,” one of Richer’s attorneys, Jared Davidson, told the Arizona Mirror. “It’s not so surprising in so far that our claims are based on well settled law. The fact remains that Ms. Lake had the opportunity to present evidence to show her receipts and to back up her false accusations and she’s refused to do so.”

Keeping in mind that Lake has failed in all of her election contests so far, Davidson said he wasn’t surprised that she couldn’t provide any evidence that her claims about Richer were true. Because Richer is a public figure, he would have a much higher bar than a private citizen in proving defamation. In defamation cases, public figures must prove that those who defamed them did so with “actual malice,” which means she knew they were false or acted with reckless disregard as to whether they were false.

The accusations that Lake made against Richer are some of the same ones she made in her court challenge to the results of the 2022 election that she lost to Democrat Gov. Katie Hobbs by more than 17,000 votes, and judges at every level of the Arizona judicial system dismissed those claims, saying she had no evidence.

Lake took to conservative podcasts and radio shows this week to put her spin on the default judgment, telling former Donald Trump aide Steve Bannon that the defamation suit was simply an effort to distract her from her campaign for U.S. Senate. She claimed that Richer and Ruben Gallego, her Democratic opponent in the Senate race, were both being backed by liberal Jewish philanthropist George Soros and that they were working together to ensure Gallego is elected.

Richer filed the defamation suit in June, a month after Lake lost her second election challenge trial and about four months prior to her announcing her run for Senate.

“I just said, ‘Cut to the chase, what are the damages? Where did my words hurt you?’” Lake told Bannon. “My words are true, but how did they hurt you? You had mental issues because of it. Show us what drugs you’re on, we’ll reimburse you for the drugs.”

Phoenix personal injury lawyer and frequent Lake critic Tom Ryan theorized that Lake’s decision to default was actually an attempt to avoid the discovery of evidence process, but Adleman’s filing on Wednesday made clear that, if that is her strategy, it probably won’t work.

In the filing, Adleman instructed both sides to meet and discuss whether Richer would like to engage in discovery of evidence to determine damages, among other things.

Last week Richer asked the court to sanction Lake and her attorneys for what he characterized as “stalling” the case by refusing to meet with his attorneys and for canceling meetings because they were unprepared.

Adleman denied that request, saying that Lake’s appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court of his December decision not to dismiss the case had likely held up her lawyers’ ability to move forward.

He also did not grant Lake’s Tuesday request to set a scheduling hearing within the next five days, with the hope of speeding up the case so that it concludes before this year’s primary and general elections. Adleman instead ordered the attorneys to work together on scheduling and set the next hearing in the case for April 24.

In a December hearing during which Lake attempted to get the case dismissed, Wright argued that Lake’s claims about Richer were “rhetorical hyperbole” and not meant to be taken as facts.

When Lake said that Richer was somehow involved in the illegal injection of bogus ballots or that he “sabotaged” the election, those statements weren’t meant to be taken as facts, Wright said.

“Those are her opinions about the facts,” Wright told the court.

The next day Adleman ruled that Lake’s statements were not hyperbole and that the case would move forward, saying that Richer had provided sufficient evidence that Lake made “false and defamatory statements” about him.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and Twitter.

More than 75% of AZ voters use early ballots — and every House Republican just voted to take that away

House Republicans have approved a bill that would upend the way that Arizonans vote, ending no-excuse early voting by mail, by far the most popular way to cast a ballot in the state.

On a party-line vote of 31-28, the Arizona House of Representatives on Thursday backed a proposal that would force a return to precinct-based voting instead of voting centers and would force most voters to head to the polls on Election Day instead of dropping off or mailing an early ballot.

House Bill 2876 next moves to the Senate for consideration, but if it makes it past that chamber, it’s all but certain that Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs will veto it.

The bill, like many others proposed by Republicans in the state legislature this year, is aimed at addressing conspiracy theories that the 2020 Arizona election was somehow stolen from then-President Donald Trump and that victories in the 2022 election were similarly swiped from several Republicans running for statewide offices.

Its sponsor, Republican Rep. Michael Carbone, of Buckeye, dubbed it the “Free, Fair and Transparent Elections Act,” and said the bill would make Arizona’s system of voting more like those in Florida and Illinois. He claimed that his bill would mean quicker release of results following elections, a point of contention for some who believe that a slower release of results means that fraud must have occurred.

During a debate of the bill on Feb. 28, Democratic Rep. Oscar De Los Santos, of Laveen, called the legislation “deeply misguided,” saying that Arizona already has free and fair elections thanks in part to the work of Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.

Some Republicans in recent years have used delays in Arizona’s election results — largely due to processing and counting early ballots that were delivered on Election Day — to stoke conspiracy theories about election fraud. In reality, complete election results in the state have never been available on Election Night in any Arizona county, it was just easier in the past to call a race for the winner when the state was solidly red and Republicans won by large margins.

But now that Arizona is trending purple, races have been much tighter, making it more difficult to call a presumptive winner before all the results are in.

In 1991, Republicans ushered no-excuses early voting, in which any voter can request an early ballot and then cast it by mail, into existence in Arizona. The GOP long benefited from early voting here until then-President Donald Trump and his supporters began spreading misinformation about vote-by-mail fraud after he lost the 2020 presidential election.

Voting by mail remains incredibly popular in Arizona, with almost 90% of ballots in 2020 cast by mail and around 75% of voters signed up to receive early ballots in 2022.

Democratic Rep. Laura Terech warned Carbone that banning voting centers and forcing a return to precinct-based voting would cause a huge increase in provisional ballots, ultimately meaning that a larger percentage of ballots cast on Election Day will never be counted.

Carbone told Terech that he “disagreed” with that, but the numbers say that he is categorically wrong.

Several counties in Arizona, including Maricopa, Pima and Yavapai, used a vote center model, wherein any registered voter in the county can cast their ballot at any polling location in the county. In a precinct model, there are more voting locations, but each voter can only cast a ballot at their designated location.

Voters who cast their ballot at the wrong location would not have their votes counted.

In 2014, when Maricopa County voters were still casting their ballots at designated precincts, 19% of Election Day voters cast provisional ballots. That’s compared to only 3% in 2022 after the county began using only voting centers.

Before voting in favor of the bill on Feb. 29, Republican Rep. Neal Carter of San Tan Valley used Pinal County as an example of the success of precinct-based voting, saying that the county has had “no problems with elections.”

But that ignores what happened in 2022.

In July, Pinal County’s elections department sent to voters more than 60,000 ballots that didn’t include their town elections. And just a month later in the August primary, some Pinal County voters stood in line for hours after precinct locations ran out of ballots because the elections director didn’t order enough of them.

Carter didn’t mention those issues, saying instead that he was appalled at the lines he’s seen at vote centers in Maricopa County, as compared to the short lines that he has personally experienced at his precinct in Pinal County, where he said there were “never more than 3-4 people in line.”

Maricopa County has a mostly urban population of almost 4.5 million while Pinal’s is mostly rural with around 450,000 residents.

“I think that the precinct-only method is great,” Carter said. “I just don’t understand why any other system would be preferred.”

He added that he thinks precinct voting is convenient and saves people time.

But the Republicans who advocated for this legislation failed to address another major issue: That counties have already had trouble finding enough people to staff polling locations, and if counties that use a vote center model were forced to return to precincts, they would likely have to hire thousands more workers.

The Arizona Association of Counties opposes the measure for that reason, as well as because voters have clearly shown that they prefer the option to vote early by mail.

While the bill would allow some early voting, unlike today, it would require all those who want to cast their ballot that way to provide an excuse. The only exceptions are for the elderly and disabled, people who must be outside of their precincts on Election Day and for citizens living overseas, including members of the military.

Democratic Rep. Mariana Sandoval of Goodyear urged a no vote on the bill, saying that what works for one county isn’t necessarily what’s best for all counties, and that each community should do what’s best for its own voters.

Sandoval added that the Cocopah Indian Tribe, located south of Yuma in Yuma County, recently asked for a voting center within its borders to make voting easier for its members.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and Twitter.

AZ Republicans 'fueled by ‘conspiracy theory' push for strict rules on ballot tabulators

Senate Republicans want tighter specifications on how electronic ballot tabulators are tested prior to elections, but the proposed legislation itself falls short on specifics.

The proposal would require public testing of all electronic ballot tabulators no more than 25 days prior to the start of early voting, with a 48-hour notice to the public before the testing begins. The Secretary of State would be required to give all candidates on the ballot and their political parties notice of the testing as well, to give them the option to observe.

Following the testing, the machines would be sealed until the start of early voting, and anyone who breaks the seal and tampers with the machine or reprograms it, and does not perform another test, would be guilty of a felony.

Sen. Wendy Rogers, the chair of the Senate Elections Committee, said that Senate Bill 1288 legislation would “ameliorate some concerns of voters” and provide consequences for anyone who tampers with the tabulators.

Sen. Priya Sundareshan, D-Tucson, on Feb. 15 told the other lawmakers on the committee that she voted against the bill because Arizona already requires logic and accuracy testing for its tabulators — which are already open to the public, though voters rarely attend — adding that it would be unfortunate for someone to be charged with a felony if they accidentally broke a tamper-evident seal on a tabulator.

“The reason for this bill is based on an unfortunate conspiracy theory,” Sundareshan said. “There is no need for this.”

The legislation is aimed at claims from Republican candidates who lost their elections that current logic and accuracy tests required for tabulators are insufficient, as well as conspiracy theories surrounding the 2022 general election in Maricopa County. In her court challenge to the results of the 2022 gubernatorial election, which she lost to Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, Republican Kari Lake alleged that someone tampered with the tabulators or the ballot printers between the logic and accuracy testing and the date of the election, causing issues at the polls and swiping victory from Lake.

While there were ballot printing problems during the 2022 general election in Maricopa County, which resulted in tabulators rejecting some ballots, all of the rejected ballots were later counted.

An independent investigation into the Election Day issues, headed by former Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor, concluded that there was no tampering with the printers or tabulators.

The investigators determined that the issue was equipment malfunction caused by ballots that were too long, printed on paper that was too heavy for the ballot printers to handle.

The Republican-backed bill would require that ballots used during pre-election testing were the exact same — using the same paper and printing techniques — as those to be used during the actual election.

While it makes sense to test ballots printed in the same way and on the same paper that will be used in the election, especially to avoid the problems that happened in 2022, a lobbyist for county elections officials told the lawmakers that counties currently avoid using exact copies of ballots in tests for a specific reason: to avoid accidental comingling of test ballot and real ballots.

Jen Marson, executive director of the Arizona Association of Counties, said this helps them ensure that none of the test ballots are misplaced and inadvertently counted during the real election. But that was far from Marson’s only issue with the bill.

“We do have a lot of concerns,” she said.

The proposal would also set up an “accuracy board” to certify the accuracy of the tabulators, and would give each political party the option to designate an expert in elections or technology to observe the testing.

Each tabulator would have to tabulate a certain number of test ballots without error before being approved for use in an election. Errors would be reported to the accuracy board and, if the board decided the error was severe enough, the machine could not be used in the election unless the issue causing the error was fixed and the machine retested.

Although she said it could be possible to fix the bill to make it work, the bill is missing numerous necessary definitions, Marson said, including who will make up the accuracy board and how its members would be chosen, as well as what constitutes an error.

Paper jams and ballot misreads — or when a tabulator rejects a ballot and it must be fed through a second time — are both common issues with tabulators, she added, and the bill does not specify whether those would be considered errors.

The bill would also require that records of all past pre-election testing be available to observers during the testing, and for the county recorder or top election official to keep records of new testing.

Having all previous tests available would also be a big ask, Marson said, since it takes a court order to unseal them.

The original sponsor of Senate Bill 1288 is Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, but in its current iteration, the bill is entirely owed to Rogers, a Flagstaff Republican, who offered what’s called a “strike everything” amendment to Hoffman’s bill.

Strike everything amendments completely wipe out the original language of a bill to replace it with something new. Hoffman’s bill originally concerned how illegible ballots were adjudicated by elections officials.

After a lengthy day in the legislature, Sen. Sonny Borrelli, R-Lake Havasu City, railed against Sundareshan’s claim that the bill was based on a conspiracy theory. But the majority of his response pertained to the initial topic of the bill — electronic ballot adjudication — which the updated bill does not mention.

“This is not a conspiracy,” Borrelli said. “This is fact. And I’m sick and tired of hearing it from the Left. Saying, ‘Oh, The Big Lie, The Big Lie.’ The big lie is the denial that anything happened. Because things happened.”

He cited claims that ballot chain of custody requirements weren’t followed in 2020 and 2022 — claims that were rejected in court because of a lack of evidence that any errors affected election results — and that early ballot signatures weren’t properly verified, an argument that Lake made and was rejected by a judge.

“We proved that there was dead voters,” Borrelli continued. “People voted that shouldn’t have voted. So, to say this is a conspiracy theory is horse hockey.”

While the Senate’s partisan review of the 2020 election in Maricopa County alleged nearly 300 dead voters cast ballots, then-Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, said only one of those claims was valid — and it was a Republican woman in Scottsdale who voted for her dead mother and had already been prosecuted.

Borrelli added that he was tired of American soldiers dying for nothing.

Former Secretary of State and current Sen. Ken Bennett, R-Prescott, corrected Borrelli on the topic of the bill, but said he loved his fellow senator’s passion.

Bennett shared that when he was secretary of state, he traveled around Arizona to witness logic and accuracy testing in every county, so he appreciated Rogers’ focus on ensuring the machines weren’t tampered with after those tests.

“The tests are a snapshot of how the machines are operating at a specific moment in time,” he said. “If you allow the machines to be tampered with between then and the election, then the test is no use.”

While Bennett still voted in favor of the proposal, he added that it needed work and that Marson brought up several valid problems with it, adding that election laws needed to be doable at the county level since counties administer Arizona’s elections.

Rogers said she’d do whatever it takes to make the bill workable.

The bill passed out of the Senate Elections Committee by a vote of 4-3 along party lines.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and Twitter.

GOP sues AZ elections chief over new procedures manual

A new group of Republicans is suing Arizona’s Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, over his new Election Procedures Manual, which they say is “designed to undermine election integrity.”

The suit from the state, national and Yavapai County branches of the Republican Party comes just a little over a week after Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma, both Republicans, also sued Fontes over the Election Procedures Manual, commonly referred to as the EPM.

Every other year, the Arizona Secretary of State is tasked with putting out an updated version of the EPM, which outlines procedures and rules by which county elections officials should conduct elections in the state.

The final version of Fontes’ EPM has already been approved by Gov. Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes, both Democrats.

But the Republicans have a multitude of problems with the manual, and they contend that either the entire EPM, or at least parts of it, are illegal and should be revoked.

“Adrian Fontes’ Election Procedure Manual (EPM) is designed to undermine election integrity in Arizona, and Republicans are suing him to protect Arizona elections,” Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said in a Feb. 9 statement. “The new EPM weakens safeguards against non-citizen voting during a time of unprecedented illegal immigration on Arizona’s southern border, unlawfully limits the ability to challenge early ballots, and violates numerous provisions of Arizona law meant to protect election integrity. The RNC and AZGOP have a long history of collaborating in the courtroom to protect Arizona elections from left-wing attacks – we are proud to hold Arizona Democrats accountable and look forward to seeing them in court.”

JP Martin, a spokesperson for Fontes, told the Arizona Mirror that the Secretary of State’s Office does not comment on pending litigation.

In the initial filing of the suit in Maricopa County Superior Court, RNC attorney Christopher Murray alleges that the entire EPM is unlawful because Fontes only allowed public comment on the draft of the manual for 15 days after it was published on Aug. 1, 2023. Murray argued that, under the rules of the state’s Administrative Procedure Act, the public should have had 30 days to comment on the manual. Because that didn’t happen, the entire document is void, the RNC claims.

The RNC and Arizona Republican Party also take issue with changes to the manual that occurred between draft publication and final publication — during the time in which Hobbs and Mayes submitted edits to the manual — that were never submitted to the public for comment.

When Republicans found out about the 15-day window for public comments, they reached out to Fontes asking for more time, saying the time allowed “unnecessarily restrictive” and asked Fontes to extend it. He denied the request.

The GOP also pointed to several specific changes within the new version of the manual that it claims go against Arizona law. Those include:

changes to give a registered voter who identified themselves as a noncitizen in a juror questionnaire a notice before revoking their voter registration; permitting federal only voters who haven’t proven their citizenship to vote in presidential elections; allowing those same federal only voters to receive a ballot by mail; guidance to county recorders saying that they have no obligation to check government databases to check if the information for newly registered voters aligns with information in those databases; the restriction of voter signatures from public view for certain purposes; the ability of voters to have early ballots sent to addresses outside of Arizona; and restrictions on the timeline for challenging ballots.

If the judge in the case decides against voiding the entire EPM, the GOP is asking for each of the rules within it that the party says conflict with Arizona law to be voided instead.

“We will not tolerate Arizona Democrats’ and Adrian Fontes’ continued assault on Arizona’s election law and procedures,” newly elected AZGOP Chairwoman Gina Swoboda said in the statement. “Adrian Fontes intentionally released this new Election Procedures Manual at the last second during the holidays because he knew that it would wither under scrutiny and invite legal challenges. Fontes and his allies are not legislators — they have no right to insert their preferred far-left policies into the guidance for Arizona elections. This is a blatant attempt to rewrite election law and hollow out basic safeguards that are designed to preserve election integrity in our state’s elections. That’s why the Arizona GOP and RNC and our fellow Republican partners are suing Fontes and we will win.”

The suit from Toma and Petersen focused on changes that say county supervisors don’t have the authority to reject election results, change vote totals or delay the certification of results, as well as what they see as a delay in implementing a 2021 law that would require county recorders to take voters off the vote-by-mail list if the voters doesn’t use a mail-in ballot for two election cycles in a row. Toma and Petersen also disputed the EPM’s guidelines for how and when county recorders should remove noncitizens from their rolls.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and Twitter.

Freedom Caucus leader wants to limit religious freedom by barring Satanic displays in AZ

In a bit of irony, the leader of Arizona’s far-right Freedom Caucus has sponsored a bill that clearly infringes on the right to religious freedom.

Sen. Jake Hoffman, a Queen Creek Republican, wants to ban Satanic displays on public property in Arizona, claiming that Satanism is not a real religion, and therefore not owed protection under the First Amendment.

Hoffman is the sponsor of Senate Bill 1279, which he’s named the RESPECT Act, short for Reject Escalating Satanism by Preserving Essential Core Traditions.

“It’s the blatant unconstitutionality of it,” Hemant Mehta, editor of The Friendly Atheist, told the Arizona Mirror. “It just violates every intention of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Mehta doesn’t believe that Hoffman actually thinks that this bill will ever become law, with Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs ready and willing to veto it, but that it’s simply sending a message to his followers.

“It’s so hypocritical,” Mehta said. “This shows you how little Republicans like Hoffman actually care about freedom. He wants freedom for people like him and no freedom for people he disagrees with. It’s ridiculous.”

The bill was the subject of a heated debate during a Senate Government Committee meeting Wednesday, where Hoffman, who chairs the committee, repeatedly interrupted members of the public testifying against the bill.

He spoke over them to correct them about what he said were their misinterpretation of it and admonished members of the audience for making faces and gestures at him and the other lawmakers on the committee. He also accused a member of The Satanic Temple of being disingenuous in her testimony, something that members of the public would not be allowed to say about Hoffman’s claims without being told they were in violation of the legislature’s rules against impugning the motivations of a lawmaker.

The bill passed through the committee with a vote of 5-1, with the only Democrat present, Sen. Juan Mendez, of Tempe, voting against. The two other Democratic members of the committee were absent.

Hoffman, who is Christian, described the intentions of the bill as “extremely clear” but he didn’t explain what “essential core traditions” he was looking to preserve, and claimed that the bill did not infringe on any religious group’s First Amendment rights.

“Satan is antithetical to religion,” Hoffman said. “The antithesis of religion is Satan.”

He added that a memorial or altar to Satan on public property would be a desecration of that property.

Lucien Greaves, cofounder and spokesperson for The Satanic Temple, described the bill as embarrassing and told the Mirror that it displayed Hoffman’s “clear ignorance of the law.”

He added that the proposal should not only concern Satanists, but if passed and upheld by the courts, it could have far-reaching ramifications for other civil liberties.

Mendez questioned whether the true reason Hoffman authored the bill was because Satanism was insulting to Christianity, but Hoffman denied that.

Numerous members of the public, many of them members of the Arizona chapter of The Satanic Temple, called out Hoffman for backing a bill that clearly violates both the U.S. and Arizona constitutions.

Among them was Minister Oliver Spires, who refuted Hoffman’s claim that Satanism isn’t a religion, explaining that the IRS has granted The Satanic Temple the same non-profit status it gives to any other tax-exempt church that operates as a charity.

“This bill would directly limit our religion,” Spires said.

While Sen. Janae Shamp, R-Surprise, who voted to forward the bill, said that it doesn’t violate the First Amendment because religious displays aren’t allowed on public property anyway, the bill doesn’t mention any other religious figures — rather, it only applies to displays that honor Satan. The First Amendment forbids Congress from elevating one religion over any other.

Micah Mangione told the lawmakers that he does not believe that the goal of Hoffman’s bill is clear, but that it’s an attempt to set a precedent that could result in future legislatures targeting Paganism or Islam and banning their displays from public property.

“Does any religion matter that is not your Christian religion?” Mangione asked Hoffman.

Hoffman said that arguing that Satanism is a religion is a “ludicrous statement,” adding that Satan is “universally known to be explicitly the enemy of God,” and that “literally everyone” agrees with that statement.

“That’s not a point that is debatable,” Hoffman said.

Members of The Satanic Temple were quick to disagree and attempt to debate him.

The Satanic Temple does not believe in a literal Satan, but describes itself as nontheistic and committed to principles such as encouraging benevolence and empathy, opposing injustice and undertaking noble pursuits. The church fights for abortion rights and has erected displays memorializing Satan in state houses in response to Christian displays, like nativity scenes, in those same public buildings.

Local liberal political activist Joshua Gray, who said he fought for everyone’s freedom of religion during two combat tours in the Marines, said that the bill was insulting to the very concept of religious liberty.

“I fought for everyone’s freedom — everyone’s,” Gray said, adding that the Constitution does not specify that Abrahamic religions are somehow better or more protected than any other religion.

“The unconstitutional nature of this bill is not a matter of opinion,” he said.

The only member of the public who spoke in favor of the bill was Allen Skillicorn, a Fountain Hills Town Council member. Skillicorn, who frequently attends legislative committee meetings to comment on bills, said that Satanic displays are not protected by freedom of religion because Satanists don’t actually believe in Satan.

Mendez asked his fellow committee members why he was the only one there who seemed to want to defend the U.S. Constitution.

“Any religion viewed by the sponsor as a desecration to Christianity is no longer safe in Arizona,” Mendez said.

Hoffman ended his argument saying that he thought it was unacceptable that someone could be charged criminally for knocking over a Satanic display in Iowa, but that there were no consequences for having a “gay sex orgy” in a U.S. Senate building.

Hoffman was referencing the arrest of a Mississippi man for destroying a display by The Satanic Temple in Iowa’s Capitol building, as well as a seemingly unrelated leaked video of men having sex in a U.S. Senate hearing room in Washington, D.C.. Capitol Police recently said they would not file charges, as they found no evidence that a crime had occurred.

Mehta said he hopes that more people on both sides of the aisle, including Christians, speak out against this bill.

“It’s not the government’s job to punish religious groups because one Republican senator and his buddies don’t like them,” Mehta said.

Only 19 people and organizations officially registered in favor of the bill, with 287 registered against it, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and Twitter.

Advocates slam Kari Lake's 'blatant lies'

Kari Lake, who has been staunchly anti-abortion since she entered the political fray in 2021, says that pro-choice advocates only offer one choice — abortion — and that many women who undergo the procedure end up deeply regretting it.

But actual pro-choice advocates say that her assertions are far from true, and studies show that the vast majority of women still feel their abortions were the right decision five years later.

“Kari Lake continues to use her platform to spread disinformation and conspiracy theories, following the playbook of other anti-abortion politicians in Arizona,” Kelley Dupps, the senior director of public policy for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, told the Arizona Mirror in a statement. “For years, extremists in our state have tried to manipulate the truth about abortion and essential health care, but Arizonans won’t fall for these blatant lies.”

Lake, a Republican who still hasn’t conceded the 2022 Arizona governor’s race that she lost to Democrat Katie Hobbs, announced her run for U.S. Senate on Oct. 10 at a rally in Scottsdale.

Lake describes herself as pro-woman and pro-life, but has been noncommittal on what sort of specific abortion policy she would back, if elected to the Senate. During the rally, Lake said that one of the most meaningful experiences of her life was being a mother.

“We need every woman that steps foot in an abortion clinic to know there are real options,” she said. “The left says they’re pro-choice. They’re not. They’re for one choice. And they don’t give the women any other choices.”

But pro-choice advocates like Amy Fitch-Heacock, executive board member and spokesperson for Arizonans for Reproductive Freedom, say that is absolutely false.

Advocates connect pregnant people to a multitude of services that they might need, including social services, help with food and housing, mental health care, prenatal care and other reproductive services, in addition to abortion, Fitch-Heacock told the Arizona Mirror.

“Pro-choice advocates are exactly that: Pro-choice,” she said. “We want people to have all the information they need to make the best reproductive healthcare decision for themselves without undue interference. It is categorically untrue and, frankly, dangerous to give even a moment’s worth of attention to anyone claiming otherwise.”

Kari Lake lies about abortion because she knows that her lies incite anger from a very small minority of the population, and she wants to turn anger into votes. Arizonans are too smart for that.

– Amy Fitch-Heacock, Arizonans for Reproductive Freedom

Arizonans for Reproductive Freedom is a grassroots coalition of pro-choice advocates that tried unsuccessfully to get abortion rights on the ballot in Arizona in 2022, following the Dobbs ruling that struck down Roe v. Wade.

The group now has its sights set on 2024.

Lake acknowledged that Republicans usually steer away from talk about abortion — because their views are generally more conservative on the issue than the country as a whole — but declared that she didn’t plan to stay quiet.

A 2022 Pew Research poll found that 61% of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in most or all cases, while just 37% believe it should be illegal in all or most cases.

“I can’t imagine walking into an abortion clinic, thinking that I can’t afford a baby, so I’m going to take my baby’s life,” Lake said. “That’s happening today.”

She blamed President Joe Biden for sending money to Ukraine instead of to struggling mothers.

Lake added that the “Republican Party is going to put the money where their mouth is and save babies and help women,” but she didn’t elaborate on how much or what sorts of government programs she would advocate for providing to new mothers in need.

A Lake campaign spokesperson told the Mirror that she “supports paid family leave, baby bonuses, and tax credits to help women.”

“Republicans need to start putting their money where their mouth is,” Alex Nicoll said. “If we can fund endless wars and bailout corporations, we can help women and save babies.”

Study: 95% of women had no regrets 5 years after their abortion

Lake also said that she doesn’t believe any mother regrets having children, but that many women say that having an abortion caused them deep regret.

“I don’t know any mother who says, ‘I wish I wasn’t a mother,’” she said. “I challenge you to find one. They don’t exist, because it’s the greatest gift ever.

“Conversely, you ask any woman who’s walked into an abortion clinic and been only given that one option, and many times — many, many times — she’ll say it was the greatest regret of her life. And it is a regret that lives with her and gnaws at her for the rest of her life.”

But a 2020 study on abortion and how women felt post-procedure found the exact opposite. In fact, the researchers at University of California San Francisco’s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health found that 95% of women still believed it was the right choice for them five years later.

The researchers used data from the Turnaway Study, a five-year undertaking that looked at feelings and outcomes for 1,000 women who sought abortions in 21 states.

Many of the women initially struggled with the decision of whether to go through with the procedure. Those women, as well as those who felt stigmatized, were more likely to experience anger or sadness shortly after obtaining an abortion — but for the vast majority, those feelings faded over time.

Throughout the study, relief was the most common emotion reported by the 667 women in the study who ended up getting an abortion. They were surveyed right after the procedure and then every six months for the next five years.

Pro-life critics of the study say that women who feel deep regret about the procedure would be less likely to respond to a survey detailing their feelings about having an abortion.

The Turnaway Study also found that women who are denied abortions often suffer financially, may have a hard time bonding with or even come to resent their child, and that their older children tend to struggle more developmentally. (Nearly three in five Arizona women who get an abortion already have at least one child.)

Abortions in Arizona: What the data says about who gets them, when, how and where

“I have spent an extraordinary amount of my time working with people who were denied abortion care,” Fitch-Heacock said. “The consequences are dire. People who are denied abortion care are more likely to be depressed, less likely to be active participants in our workforce, more likely to rely on public aid, they are more often victims of domestic abuse and they have worse overall health outcomes.”

Fitch-Heacock told the Mirror that her personal experience working with women who’ve had abortions aligns with the results of the study.

“The false messaging claiming that the majority of people regret having had an abortion is meant to cast doubt on a person’s innate ability to know what is best for themselves when it comes to family planning,” she said.

“In nearly 20 years of advocacy, I have never had a person regret their abortion. To the contrary, I have had numerous people call me years later to tell me about the positive effect that safe and legal abortion had on their lives.”

Lake on Tuesday reminded the crowd that she was the only mom in the race for U.S. Senate. Her primary election opponent is Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb, and the winner of that contest will likely square off against Democratic U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego. Also likely to join the race is incumbent Democrat-turned-independent Kyrsten Sinema.

Lake said that, as a senator, she would make decisions with Arizona families and children in mind.

“The reality is that Kari Lake and politicians who use similar dangerous rhetoric about abortion know the truth: Abortion bans are overwhelmingly opposed by our electorate,” Fitch-Heacock said. “Abortion is safe. Abortion is health care.

“Kari Lake lies about abortion because she knows that her lies incite anger from a very small minority of the population, and she wants to turn anger into votes. Her lies won’t win her an election, though. Arizonans are too smart for that.”

***UPDATE: This story was updated to include a comment from a Lake spokesman that was sent shortly after the article was published.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and Twitter.

‘You think that you’re dumb’: Graduates of Arizona's English immersion model say it was traumatizing

As the Arizona Department of Education continues its fight to teach English language learners through full immersion, the department’s deputy chief said that she’s never heard that the learning model contributes to mental health issues for students.

But several former students who learned English that way told the Arizona Mirror that their experience with full English language immersion contributed to an educational experience that felt isolating, confusing and sometimes even depressing. It also left them lagging behind their peers in other subjects.

Reyna Montoya, founder and CEO of Aliento, an immigration advocacy group, was born in Tijuana, Mexico, and moved to Chandler with her family in 2003 when she was 13 years old. At the time, she knew almost no English, but Montoya had been an exceptional student in Mexico, where she excelled in math and participated in poetry contests.

But at Gilbert Junior High, she was pulled out of regular classes for four hours each day to learn English, and some of her peers in mainstream classes treated her like she was less-than because of it.

“I would cry myself to sleep,” she said. She would pray to God, saying, “I’m trying but I can’t.” She also had intrusive thoughts like, “I don’t want to be here anymore.”

Now, she said she worries about how that same model might impact students today. And she’s not alone, as at least one study has shown that the model can contribute to students’ psychological distress.

“I think my biggest concern is their self-confidence and the mental health toll it takes,” Montoya said. “At that age, you’re trying to fit in. You’re trying to belong, to be part of something. And by doing that, you’re segregating kids and you’re pointing out that, those kids here, you’re the dumb kids — and they internalize that.”

Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction Margaret Garcia Dugan, who helped to author Proposition 203, the voter-approved law requiring English learners in K-12 schools to learn through full English immersion, said she and her nine siblings — along with 160 first cousins — all learned English through that model with zero mental health impacts.

“I’ve never heard of anybody having mental anguish,” Dugan told the Mirror. “I think this is ideological.”

Dugan, who grew up in Bisbee and whose first language was Spanish, taught students in sheltered English immersion classes at Glendale High School, and said all the students who she promoted to mainstream classrooms were “very, very appreciative that they came to this country to learn English, and they did.”

But Dugan’s time teaching English as a second language ended more than 35 years ago, when the stigma surrounding mental health issues limited students from seeking help or talking about their problems in a way that doesn’t exist at the same level today.

Dugan taught English and English as a second language at Glendale High School from 1974 to 1986. She went on to serve as the school’s principal from 1992 to 2002, when she joined Republican Tom Horne’s administration at the Department of Education. (Horne was first elected superintendent of public instruction in 2002 and re-elected in 2006. He was again elected to the post in 2022.)

Dugan added that, if parents don’t want their children to participate in ELL, they can opt out and just send their child straight to a mainstream classroom. But unless that child’s school has adopted a learning model that includes additional support for English learners in mainstream classrooms, she said that students would essentially be learning by “sink or swim.”

That’s exactly what happened to Erick Garcia, the digital manager at Aliento, who moved to Mesa from a small town in the state of Vera Cruz, Mexico, when he was 11 years old.

Garcia started out attending English as a second language classes in fifth grade. But once he began attending Stapley Junior High, he opted out of those classes because there weren’t enough English learner students at the school and he would have had to split his days at another junior high to continue them.

Even though Garcia went on to become a first-generation college graduate, he said he still sometimes struggles to find the right words in English.

“I kind of got lost,” Garcia said, adding that, although he soon understood conversational English, comprehending more complex subjects in his textbooks was a challenge.

Even though Garcia still managed to get As and Bs, the experience took a mental toll.

“It’s frustrating because, at that age, you second guess yourself and think that you’re dumb,” he said.

You’re segregating kids and you’re pointing out that, those kids here, you’re the dumb kids — and they internalize that.

– Reyna Montoya

Garcia credits his high school Russian teacher for inviting him to take advantage of Westwood High School’s career center, where he learned the importance of SAT scores and extracurricular activities for helping him make it to college.

He worries that if current ESL students are pulled out of their regular classes for four hours each day to learn English, it will limit their opportunities.

Montoya experienced just that, when a teacher recommended she take an honors math class that wouldn’t work with her schedule because of her ELL classes. It also prevented her from taking dance classes, which she had loved participating in when she lived in Mexico.

But Dugan and her boss, Horne, are adamant that full English immersion is the best way for ELL students to learn the language quickly, which they say is essential for them to be successful in the United States.

They say that students should graduate from the program within a year, but that is often not the case.

No one at the Department of Education spoke with current ELL students or recent graduates before pushing for a re-institution of the full English immersion model, Dugan told the Mirror. Instead they looked at the “abysmal” rate — 4% to 6% — at which Dugan said students were learning English through dual language models, compared to 9% for all learning models in 2022

But an investigation by the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Justice Department found that, from 2006 to 2012, thousands of Arizona students were incorrectly promoted from ELL programs, or never identified as English learners in the first place, because of changes in scoring that the Arizona Department of Education made to English proficiency tests.

And Horne is looking to make those tests easier again, saying that they were made too difficult in response to the investigation.

On Sept. 7, Horne filed a lawsuit asking a Maricopa County Superior Court judge to settle a disagreement between his office and Gov. Katie Hobbs and Attorney General Kris Mayes, both Democrats, over the interpretation of the state law governing English language learning in K-12 schools.

Horne argues that a 50-50 dual-language immersion learning model, used in as many as 26 school districts across the state, violates the law that he and Dugan championed and that passed through a voter referendum more than 20 years ago. The law requires ELL students to be taught English in English-only classrooms.

Hobbs and Mayes say a law passed in 2019 by Arizona legislators, which ordered the State Board of Education to develop alternative, research-based teaching methods to the full English immersion curriculum, is protected by the authority of the board.

Many Arizona districts now use one of those four alternative models, including dual-language immersion, in which students are taught half the day in English and the other half in another language, usually their native language.

“For some reason, people think they know what’s best for Hispanic children and how to learn English,” Dugan told the Mirror. “I’m just so tired of people trying to tell Hispanics how they best can learn. And to me, that, really, is very insulting.”

I’ve never heard of anybody having mental anguish. I think this is ideological.

– Margaret Garcia Dugan, Arizona Department of Edcuation

Georgina Monsalvo, organizing director at Stand for Children, an education equity group that campaigned for the 2019 changes in English language learning models, learned through the English immersion model herself, as did her son.

Although Monsalvo and her son were both born in the U.S., they each grew up speaking primarily Spanish at home.

When Monsalvo’s son, 13-year-old Jorge, was learning through the full-English immersion model, he wondered why he was segregated from his peers and he fell behind in science and math, Monsalvo told the Mirror.

After the law change in 2019, Jorge is now pulled out of regular classes for only an hour each day to learn English, and has additional help in core classes, through an individualized education program.

“I could see his attitude changing,” Monsalvo said.

She could tell he was feeling more integrated in his classes, and even though he is still not proficient in English, his grades have improved.

“The difference has been night and day,” she said.

Monsalvo added that she saw the impact that the ELI model had on her own classmates, who were often treated like they were special education students, she said.

“Most of my friends that were with me didn’t even go on to college,” she said. “They felt like it was a waste of time.”

Monsalvo said she often wonders how their academic outcomes might have been different if there were more inclusive learning models back then. Monsalvo graduated from Douglas High School in 2010.

“It makes me really sad,” Monsalvo said of her friends in ELI classes. “They always thought they were worth less.”

Dugan told the Mirror that she believes the backers of dual-language learning models don’t actually want Latinos to learn English, and added that those models also segregate students from native English speakers. But Montoya countered that most immigrants, and especially children, are hungry to learn English. She just believes there is a better way.

Montoya is not an advocate of dual-language programs, but believes in a more inclusive model that fuses dual language learning with integration of English learners into mainstream classrooms, with added support.

As a former classroom teacher, Montoya said she sees a huge disconnect between what elected officials think instruction and acquisition of a new language should look like versus what is good practice, not only from an academic acquisition perspective, but also for the social and emotional development of the students.

“These policies are not really rooted in research and best practices, and, more importantly, human decency,” she said.

Dugan told the Mirror that none of her students ever fell behind in other subjects because of their four hours outside of regular classes each day, when using the ELI model.

She said she believes that lack of motivation and skipping school was the only reason that any of those students fell behind, and adamantly denied that either of those things might be due to mental health issues caused by the immersion programs.

“The kids that come to school on a regular basis do well,” she said, adding that, when students do well in school, it helps their self esteem.

“Our Hispanic kids are very smart and they can learn English, that’s all. And there’s so much proof of that,” Dugan said. “I want people to understand they don’t need to give us, I guess, a low standard and a low expectation.”

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and Twitter.

Maricopa County GOP wants to force cash-strapped AZGOP to fund $15 million 'hand-count' presidential primary

The Maricopa County Republican Committee voted on Saturday to send a resolution to the state party asking it to back out of the state-funded primary election by a Sept. 1 deadline. Instead of an election run by county elections officials — and featuring standard election protocols like early voting and counting ballots with machines — the county GOP wants a Republican Party-funded primary held all on one day, at the precinct level, and with all ballots counted by hand.

In a video posted on Rumble Tuesday, MCRC Chairman Craig Berland scoffed at claims that the “cost is insurmountable and the execution impossible” for a one-day hand-counted primary election. Berland, who attended election denial celebrity Mike Lindell’s symposium earlier this month, added that he believes those are the kinds of claims that come from the people who “stole” the 2020 and 2022 elections in Arizona and who are prosecuting former President Donald Trump.

Although Trump and other Republicans, including failed GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, have made sweeping allegations of fraud in elections, they have yet to produce any evidence. Many lawsuits claiming fraud changed the outcomes of close races, including Lake’s, have been rejected because they lack proof.

One of the most notable people claiming a party-run primary would be cost prohibitive is AZGOP Chairman Jeff DeWit, who previously served as chief financial officer for Trump’s 2016 campaign and chief operations officer for his 2020 campaign.

In a response to the MCRC’s video, DeWit posted his own video Tuesday evening, accusing county party leaders of not being team players and of failing to take enough time to properly plan or work with the state party on a change of the magnitude it is proposing.

The county’s plan would force the state Republican Party to spend millions of dollars on the primary election instead of using that money to campaign for and win races in the general election.

“It would be much appreciated if they could tell us where we’re going to get the $13 (million) to $15 million that the secretary of state estimates we will need to do what they’re asking us to do, and why we want to spend that money on something other than winning elections,” DeWit said in the video.

Paul Smith-Leonard, communications director for Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, told the Arizona Mirror that the office had not provided any estimates on the potential cost of a Republican Party-run, hand-counted primary.

It’s unclear how DeWit arrived at those numbers and AZGOP and the MCRC did not immediately respond to requests for comment and clarification.

What is known is that the Arizona Republican Party has struggled to raise money for basic party operations this year, DeWit’s first as chairman.

As of its last monthly filing, the AZGOP had a paltry $28,325 in its federal campaign account, which is an important source of funding for operations during presidential election years. In total, the state party had raised only $188,882 so far this year, compared to the Arizona Democratic Party’s $1.2 million.

That means the AZGOP barely has enough money to cover its operating expenses at the moment, let alone organize and fund an expensive election fewer than seven months from now.

Even so, Berland challenged DeWit to stand up for election integrity by pulling out of the state presidential primary to host the party’s own hand-counted election.

Berland said that he believes the 2022 election for governor was stolen from Kari Lake and that Republican politicians make plenty of promises about election integrity but “when the opportunity arises to truly stand, all they do is stand in the way.”

While prominent election deniers in the Arizona legislature, and some of their constituents have advocated for one-day in person elections at the precinct level, with only hand counts in an effort to stamp out election fraud that they believe is happening, Fontes has repeatedly pointed out that hand counts are highly inaccurate, as compared to the tabulators that Arizona currently uses.

The Maricopa County Republican Committee’s executive board includes election deniers, like Shelby Busch, of the conservative group We the People AZ Alliance, who testified on behalf of Kari Lake during her failed court challenge to the results of the 2022 race for Arizona governor. Another executive committee member is former state Rep. Liz Harris, who was ousted from the legislature for bringing a conspiracy theorist before a hearing of the Joint Elections Committee, who accused scores of lawmakers of being involved in a drug-cartel housing deed money laundering scheme.

Harris was a member of the House Municipal Oversight and Elections Committee, which, along with the Senate Elections Committee, recommended bills to the full legislature this year that would have made it illegal to use any kind of technology to vote, force hand counts of all ballots, severely restrict voting by mail and early voting, and dump everyone from the voters rolls once per decade, among many other changes to the state’s election system.

Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed the majority of the bills that came out of those committees, including one that would allow counties to conduct hand counts in place of machine counts.

The Mohave County Board of Supervisors, which had previously planned to hand count all ballots in the 2024 election, decided against it in early August after learning that the count would cost more than $1 million, a cost that Chairman Travis Lingenfelter said the county couldn’t afford.

A large part of that cost, according to Mohave County Elections Director Allen Tempert, would be to hire 245 workers. He also expressed concern at the number of errors workers made during a test hand count of 850 ballots in June.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and Twitter.

Kari Lake says it doesn’t matter if she lied about elected official

Failed Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake says that it doesn’t matter whether the statements she made about Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer are false and his defamation lawsuit against her should be tossed out of court because of a state law curtailing public officials from suing their critics.

In a motion filed on Monday, Lake asked Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Jay Adleman to dismiss Richer’s suit because she says it violates Arizona’s Strategic Action Against Public Participation law, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP statute.

“An Anti-SLAPP motion is not an attempt to adjudicate falsity, but to avoid the burden of having to justify statements concerning core political speech,” Lake said in the filing.

Lake and her lawyers said in the filing that Richer’s suit should be dismissed because he is a “state actor” who brought the suit to “deter, retaliate against, and prevent Defendants’ lawful exercise of their free speech rights on the core public issue of election integrity.”

While Richer filed the suit as a private citizen, Lake and her lawyers argued that, because the content of the suit revolves around his work as Maricopa County recorder, he should still be considered a “state actor.”

But Craig Morgan, a Phoenix lawyer who represented Secretary of State Adrian Fontes in Lake’s suit challenging the election, says he believes that Lake’s motion stretches the intended purpose of the anti-SLAPP statute.

“I think it’s a stretch to say that a public officer standing up for his or her reputation is doing so to stop someone from engaging in political speech,” he said.

Morgan said he believes that Richer’s lawsuit will survive the motion to dismiss.

“You could arguably read this as a desperate maneuver,” Morgan said. “I don’t agree that this is the kind of situation that anti-SLAPP laws are meant to deter or remedy, I just don’t.”

Lake is represented in the filing by Tim La Sota, who has previously represented Lake; former Assistant Arizona Attorney General Jennifer Wright; and the Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law First Amendment Clinic.

Gregg Leslie, the executive director of the First Amendment Clinic, told the Arizona Mirror that the clinic is only representing Lake in her motion to dismiss, not in any other part of this case or in any of her other suits attempting to overturn the 2022 election.

I think it’s a stretch to say that a public officer standing up for his or her reputation is doing so to stop someone from engaging in political speech. You could arguably read this as a desperate maneuver.

– Phoenix attorney Craig Morgan

Leslie, along with another staff attorney and ASU law students in the clinic, “made the decision to represent her because her case raised an important First Amendment-related issue, specifically whether it should be dismissed under the anti-SLAPP statute because it is an effort from a public official to interfere with her free speech rights,” Leslie wrote in an email to the Mirror. “We’re a First Amendment Clinic, and this is a First Amendment issue.”

Leslie added that Wright and La Sota, who are both election attorneys, didn’t have much experience with free speech issues and anti-SLAPP statutes that attorneys with the First Amendment Clinic had, so the clinic came onboard to help.

Both Lake and Richer are Republicans, but they have spent ample time over the past year trading barbs on X, the site formerly known as Twitter, with Richer bearing the brunt of Lake’s conspiracy theories about election integrity in Maricopa County.

Richer was a favorite target for Lake’s during her campaign for governor, but she amped up the vitriol after she lost the race for governor to Democrat Katie Hobbs by 17,000 votes in November 2022.

In his suit, Richer accuses Lake, along with her campaign and the Save Arizona Fund, a dark money nonprofit that Lake controls and that has raised untold sums of money to fund her legal efforts to overturn the 2022 election, of making false claims that he sabotaged the election to keep Republican candidates like Lake from winning.

The suit specifically focuses on Lake’s claim that Richer “intentionally printed 19-inch images on 20-inch ballots to sabotage the 2022 general election,” resulting in 300,000 “illegal, invalid, phony or bogus” early ballots being counted in Maricopa County. She has made the claims on social media and at public events.

Although Lake has used the claim in her lawsuits aiming to reverse her loss to Gov. Katie Hobbs last year, the Maricopa County Superior Court, the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court have all said there is no evidence supporting the assertion, and the claims were all dismissed. But Leslie wrote in the filing that those dismissals aren’t relevant.

“Even if judges in other actions in this controversy have held that Lake failed to present sufficient evidence of fraud to prevail in a claim…she is still entitled to have an opinion and state her beliefs about what happened in the 2022 election and who is to blame for mistakes,” Leslie wrote.

Because of Lake’s lies, Richer has faced daily hate and threats of violence, in the form of emails, direct messages on Twitter, voicemails and i- person confrontations, Richer’s lawyer Daniel Maynard wrote in the suit.

Richer also claims that he and his wife have spent thousands of dollars to install new security features in their home and that local law enforcement now do regular patrols at their home and Richer and his wife’s workplaces.

Because he’s a public figure, Richer would have to clear a high bar to win the defamation suit against Lake. He must prove that, not only did Lake publicly make false statements about him and knew they were false or acted recklessly in regards to whether they were true or false, but also that she made those claims with actual malice.

Even if judges in other actions in this controversy have held that Lake failed to present sufficient evidence of fraud to prevail in a claim…she is still entitled to have an opinion and state her beliefs about what happened in the 2022 election and who is to blame for mistakes.

– Kari Lake's attorneys in her motion to dismiss

But Lake’s Monday motion to dismiss aims to stop the suit before it even gets to the point of determining whether her statements were truthful. Lake and her lawyers argue that the truth of her statements don’t matter, according to the anti-SLAPP statute.

“Furthermore, ‘falsity’ is almost never a black-and-white issue, and even a court decision finding insufficient evidence to support a fraud claim to challenge election results is not a finding that the statements are objectively false and cannot be the basis of an opinion about the fairness of an election,” they wrote.

If the judge agrees with Lake, then Richer will have to demonstrate that his suit is based on “clearly established law” and that “he did not act in order to deter, prevent or retaliate against the moving party’s exercise of constitutional rights.”

Lake claims in her filing that, by requesting compensatory and punitive damages and attorney fees, as well as asking that all false posts be removed from her social media and websites, Richer is retaliating against Lake for using her right to free speech.

“Richer certainly has the right to publicly dispute Defendants’ speech,” Leslie wrote. “However, (Arizona law) does not allow him to bring this lawsuit in an attempt to punish or silence such speech simply because he disagrees with it. In fact, Richer’s own public statements about this lawsuit shows that his intention is to violate Kari Lake’s right to free speech.”

Lake and her lawyers base that claim on Richer’s June 22 post on X that reads, in part, “So I’m suing Kari Lake to hopefully put an end to the false statements.”

Richer’s lawyers, including Jared Davidson of Protect Democracy, were in the process of reviewing Lake’s filing on Tuesday.

“We look forward to filing our response with the court,” Davidson said.

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and Twitter.

BRAND NEW STORIES
@2025 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.