Latest news with #ArizonaConstitution
Yahoo
02-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Hobbs appointee caught between federal law and GOP opposition to diversity programs
Carlos Contreras, Gov. Katie Hobbs' pick to head the Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity is grilled by Sen. Jake Hoffman during a Senate Director Nominations Committee meeting on May 28, 2025. Screenshot via The far-right Republican senator who already blocked several of Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs' picks to lead state agencies has accused another nominee of lying and violating the Arizona Constitution. The nominee's transgression? Adhering to grant requirements that were already baked into Arizona's federally required state workforce plans by Hobbs' Republican predecessor. Ignoring those federal requirements would put the grant money at risk. But that didn't stop Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, from grilling Carlos Contreras, Hobbs' nominee to head up the Office of Economic Opportunity, during a May 28 Director Nominations Committee hearing. When Contreras answered that he was following the rules stipulating the use of the federal grant money, Hoffman said that was not good enough. 'Hoffman is just trying to find excuses to villainize these highly qualified public servants,' Sen. Analise Ortiz, a Phoenix Democrat and member of the committee, told the Arizona Mirror. 'And, in this case, he was just flatly wrong, spewing misinformation and thinking that anything he says goes, when that is just not the case.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Hoffman, who leads the far-right Arizona Freedom Caucus, is the chairman of the Arizona Senate's Director Nominations Committee, which was created in 2023 specifically to scrutinize Hobbs' director nominees. It has held numerous contentious and combative nomination hearings since then, and its Republican members refused to confirm several of the governor's nominees. Some of the nominees backed out prior to a confirmation committee hearing that they knew wasn't going to go their way. State law requires the state Senate confirm a governor's agency directors, but before Hobbs took office in 2023, confirmations occurred with little fanfare following brief interviews with relevant legislative committees. After Hobbs struggled to get committee approval for many of her director nominees in 2023, she attempted to bypass the Senate by leaving director posts vacant and instead appointing deputy directors who essentially served as directors. Agency directors are subject to Senate approval, but deputy directors are not. But Senate Republicans sued and a judge ruled that the move violated state law, so Hobbs agreed to once again submit her director nominees for committee approval. Contreras, who spent 25 years working for Intel, including as its U.S. education manager, has headed the Office of Economic Opportunity since 2023. Part of the office's mission is to coordinate the state's workforce development strategy. During Contreras' May 28 Director Nominations Committee hearing, Hoffman repeatedly questioned the nominee about the scoring system used to award grants via the BuilditAZ apprenticeship program. The program helps to fund earn-while-you-learn apprenticeships in construction, an area with an increasing need for skilled workers. 'Why is your agency awarding higher scores for programs based on race, sex, or identity of their participants?' Hoffman asked. Led by President Donald Trump, Republicans both nationally and locally have been on a crusade to rid diversity, equity and inclusion requirements from government, education and the private sector. 'You don't have statutory authority to select based on race, sex or English language learner status, yet you did it anyway,' Hoffman said, accusing Contreras of violating the Arizona Constitution and state statute. Contreras initially answered that his office was following U.S. Department of Labor grant requirements, but Hoffman dismissed that explanation, arguing that the OEO doesn't have to participate in a grant program with what he called discriminatory requirements. Ortiz called the suggestion that the state forgo federal grants that have requirements that Hoffman disagrees with 'ridiculous.' 'We are in a situation as a state where we need to look for opportunities for funding anywhere that we can,' she said. 'The purpose of these federal grant programs is to provide that additional support for states in order to strengthen our economies, strengthen our workforce.' As Hoffman became increasingly hostile, Contreras struggled to answer the chairman's numerous versions of the same question about the grant scoring process, saying that the office did not select grant winners based solely on race. 'You're gonna struggle if you keep up obfuscating like this. OK?' Hoffman said. 'Your own documents say that you award greater points for those characteristics.' The scoring system for BuilditAZ grant proposals does give priority to 'certain demographic groups to ensure equitable access to workforce development programs and services.' But that's not an idea that Contreras came up with on his own: It's a requirement of the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which funded the grants. One of the main goals of the WIOA is to help groups who face barriers to employment obtain high-quality jobs. The first several times Hoffman asked Contreras about the points system, the senator only mentioned the categories of race, sex and English language learners, but the list is much more extensive than that. It includes people with low incomes, those with disabilities, young people, displaced workers and military veterans. Hoffman's focus on race, sex and English proficiency, while leaving out so many other groups, was telling, Ortiz said. 'I think it makes it very clear that Chairman Hoffman believes that certain jobs should only be for certain people,' she said. 'And that is a racist and sexist viewpoint that does not make our workforce stronger. If we're leaving out crucial demographic groups and we are leaving out different perspectives, then we are going to be at a disadvantage as a state.' All of the groups mentioned in the BuilditAZ grant scoring rubric were outlined as priority groups in Arizona's Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act state plan for 2020-2023, which was created under the direction of then-Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican. Ortiz told the Mirror that the usage of the same language in plans created by a GOP governor showed that the criticism was not actually based on the grant language, but was just a way to go after the Democratic governor. 'That is just further evidence of this process being politicized in a way that it should not be,' Ortiz said. 'And who is paying for that? It is our hardworking public servants.' As Hoffman repeatedly told Contreras that his office had violated anti-discrimination laws in both the Arizona Constitution and state statute, Ortiz interjected to request input from one of the Senate's nonpartisan attorneys. Hoffman quickly cut her off, saying that she should have asked more hard-hitting questions when it was her turn. Ortiz told the Mirror that, as an elected Senator, she should have the same authority to call points of order and to request clarification as anyone else on the committee, but that has not been the case. '(Hoffman) has been so patronizing and has treated every member of that committee like we are children that I have to sit there and bite my tongue and not call points of orders when I know that he's wrong,' Ortiz said. Hoffman was adamant that federal law doesn't supersede state law in this case, and that it was not acceptable that the grant scoring rubric 'directly conflicts with provisions of the Arizona Constitution.' The Arizona Constitution states that the state 'shall not grant preferential treatment to or discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.' However, just two lines down in the same section, the constitution stipulates that those rules do not 'Prohibit action that must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, if ineligibility would result in a loss of federal monies to this state.' The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution says that, when they conflict, federal law generally supersedes state law. At the request of Sen. John Kavanagh, a Fountain Hills Republican and the vice chairman of the committee, Hoffman agreed to adjourn the meeting without making any recommendation on the nomination to give time for Contreras and members of the committee to consult with attorneys about the legality of the grant scoring system and what to do if state and federal law pertaining to it conflict. Legislative Council, the legislature's in-house division of attorneys, did not respond to the Mirror's request for clarification of the state and federal laws and how they intersect. Ortiz said that it was unfortunate that Hoffman 'unnecessarily' delayed Contreras' confirmation. 'I hope that Chairman Hoffman comes more prepared (to the next committee hearing), understanding the Supremacy Clause and understanding our state constitution before dragging all of us through this dog and pony show,' she said, 'because not only is it a waste of our time, it is a waste of precious state resources.' Hoffman suggested that all interested parties reach out to the U.S. Department of Labor for updated guidance on grant requirements since they have likely changed since Trump took office in January. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Axios
28-05-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Lawsuit challenges Arizona abortion limits
A new lawsuit seeks to overturn a trio of abortion restrictions based on the sweeping reproductive rights measure Arizona voters approved last year. The big picture: Voters in November overwhelmingly passed Proposition 139, which guarantees the right to an abortion through fetal viability, which is generally around 24 weeks. The amendment to the Arizona Constitution also prohibits any law that "denies, restricts or interferes" with abortion access before fetal viability, unless it's justified by a compelling state interest and "achieved by the least restrictive means." Yes, but: The abortion rights guaranteed by the measure don't go into effect automatically, and laws restricting abortion rights must be challenged in court before they can be struck down under Prop. 139. Why it matters: Abortion rights advocates have long argued that many state laws are unnecessarily restrictive and needlessly make it more difficult to get an abortion. Catch up quick: Under Prop. 139, abortion rights advocates quickly targeted the state's 15-week abortion ban, which a judge struck down in March, and pledged future lawsuits against other restrictions that Arizona enacted through the years. Driving the news: A lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court on Thursday by two doctors and the Arizona Medical Association argued that various laws and sets of restrictions are in violation of Prop. 139. Those laws: Prohibit abortions because of nonfatal genetic abnormalities in the fetus Require patients to get an ultrasound at least 24 hours before an abortion, which forces them to make multiple trips to a provider, and require doctors to provide information about abortion alternatives Ban telehealth for abortion and prohibit the mailing of abortion pills What's next: The Arizona Attorney General's Office is reviewing the new lawsuit and hasn't decided yet whether it will defend the laws, spokesperson Richie Taylor told Axios. The Center for Arizona Policy (CAP), a conservative nonprofit that champions anti-abortion laws, also has not yet determined whether it would intervene in the lawsuit if Attorney General Kris Mayes declines to defend the laws, president Peter Gentala told Axios. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative group that recently defended the genetic abnormalities law and a fetal personhood law in court, couldn't immediately be reached for comment. Mayes agreed the 15-week ban violated Prop. 139. What they're saying: "Arizona voters took back the power to make their own reproductive health care decisions. Yet they still must jump through hoops to get abortion care," Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights which represents some plaintiffs in the case, said in a press statement. "These burdensome restrictions have been in place for far too long, so we're going to court to strike them down once and for all."
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
After Hobbs signs Axon carve-out bill, opposition group plans multi-pronged response
Axon brought a mobile tactical simulator to the Arizona Capitol on March 4, 2025, as part of its effort to back legislation that would stop a ballot referendum in Scottsdale brought by residents opposed to the company's plans to build a 74-acre campus near the Loop 101 and Hayden Road. Photo by Jerod MacDonald-Evoy | Arizona Mirror After a contentious battle at the legislature and a signature by Gov. Katie Hobbs to create a legal carve-out, those opposed to law enforcement technology company Axon's planned massive headquarters and housing project are looking at all their options — including asking Arizona voters to repeal the new law. But whether that 2026 ballot measure happens remains to be seen. 'We're not prepared to say which way we are going to go yet,' Bob Littlefield, a former Scottsdale City Councilman who has been at the head of efforts to lead a local referendum vote against the project, told the Arizona Mirror. 'We are going to keep our options open.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Littlefield is part of a group called Taxpayers Against Awful Apartment Zoning Exemptions, or TAAZE for short, which led the charge to gather signatures to hold a referendum on the project in Scottsdale. The Arizona Constitution gives residents the right to refer matters to the ballot. Axon came to the Capitol in 2025 aiming to bar voters in every city and town in Arizona from being able to challenge zoning and development decisions, like the one TAAZE mounted in Scottsdale. But when that bill failed to garner enough support, the company and its allies pivoted instead to merely stripping away the right of Scottsdale voters to challenge the police weapons manufacturer's HQ project near Hayden Road and the Loop 101. In addition to the firm's international headquarters, the project will include a luxury hotel and roughly 1,900 apartments, some of which will be offered to Axon employees at a discounted cost. Last month, Gov. Katie Hobbs gave Axon what it wanted, signing into law the legislation that cancels the referendum vote. 'I think this is pretty clear: These guys want their apartments, they don't care what Scottsdale residents think,' Littlefield said. 'They made it pretty clear who they are and what they're going to do, so I think it is up to us to do whatever we can to thwart that.' TAAZE has now filed paperwork with the Secretary of State's Office for a statewide referendum on that legislation. But Littlefield said it is just one option that his group is looking at pursuing. 'We believe we have the law on our side. We believe this bill is a special interest (gift), which is illegal,' Littlefield said. The opposition group is likely to file a legal challenge soon, and TAAZE is also supportive of legal steps being taken by the City of Scottsdale, which opposed the bill, as well. 'We think we can beat this in court,' he said. The new law says that any municipality with between 200,000 and 500,000 residents — Scottsdale had 241,000 residents in the 2020 census — must 'allow hotel use and multifamily residential housing' for land zoned like the Axon parcel 'without requiring any type of application that will require a public hearing' if certain criteria is met. If the statewide referendum is to happen, TAAZE would need to gather 127,975 signatures in order to qualify for the 2026 ballot. But it cannot begin doing so until the legislative session ends — and it must collect all the signatures within 90 days. Littlefield said he is confident that the group will be able to meet that challenge, if needed, though it won't be easy to go head-to-head against an opponent worth over $50 billion. 'In Scottsdale, TAAZE was able to use dark money to hide the source of the funds that paid for more than 90 percent of the signatures they gathered,' Axon spokesman David Leibowitz said in a statement to the Arizona Mirror. 'Since that won't be the case at the state level, we look forward to seeing who's funding their campaign. Especially given that a statewide signature effort will likely cost more than $2 million.' Leibowitz added that Axon will 'vigorously defend' the project, which the company says will create '5,500 jobs' and have 'more than $4 billion in economic impact.' Local activists, backed by a signature-gathering effort linked to a California labor union, gathered more than 25,000 signatures to send the rezoning decision made by a lame-duck city council — the votes for the project came from councilors who had been voted out of office — to the ballot in a voter referendum, which must happen by November 2026. Littlefield shot back at Leibowitz's remarks, citing their own campaign finance reports. 'You can see our campaign finance report, all our stuff is disclosed,' Littlefield said. 'Axon's been lying their way through this, and to call us liars? That's kind of hilarious actually.' The sponsor of the Axon legislation, Rep. Tony Rivero, R-Peoria, did not respond to requests for comment. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
In taking up ‘dark money' disclosure law, AZ Supreme Court could reshape free speech standards
Photo by iStock / Getty Images Plus The Arizona Supreme Court will decide whether a measure that voters overwhelmingly approved to require disclosure of most anonymous campaign spending is constitutional — and, in the process, it could potentially reshape free speech jurisprudence in the Grand Canyon State. The case centers on the Voters Right to Know Act, which won 70% of the vote in 2022. It requires any person or organization making campaign media expenditures of more than $50,000 on a statewide election or $25,000 on local elections to disclose the original source of any contributions totaling more than $5,000. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX It was challenged by the anti-abortion advocacy group Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, a dark money nonprofit. The political groups argued that mandating disclosure of the source of political spending violates the Arizona Constitution's protections of free speech, association, privacy and separation of powers. Those arguments were rejected by a trial court and the Arizona Court of Appeals, which unanimously ruled in late 2024 that free speech and privacy claims were outweighed by the Arizona Constitution's intent to compel financial disclosure of groups that seek to influence the results of an election. 'The government has strong informational and anti-corruption interests, which are sufficiently important to justify the modest burden the Act places on donors' association rights,' Judge Jennifer Campbell wrote in the court's opinion. 'Plaintiffs fail to articulate why the Act's disclosure requirements are not substantially related to the State's interest in having an informed electorate.' Under federal tax law, neither the Arizona Free Enterprise Club or the Center for Arizona Policy's political arm have to disclose donors. But under Prop. 211, they will be forced to do so for their election-related activities. The two groups lobbied against the passage of Prop. 211, claiming that it was an enshrinement of 'cancel culture.' And CAP, which has a history of pushing anti-LGBTQ+ laws, said it feared the harassment it already received would be directed to its donors if they're forced to be revealed. Neither organization was able to provide proof of a chilling effect or that their financial supporters would face harassment and reprisals, the judges found. In reaching their decision, the appellate judges followed federal precedent regarding disclosure requirements and used an 'exacting scrutiny' standard to evaluate the act's disclosure requirements rather than the tougher 'strict scrutiny' that the dark money groups wanted. But when it accepted the appeal on Wednesday, the Supreme Court told the parties it wants them to argue whether the federal standard for First Amendment cases is applicable to the Arizona Constitution's free speech protections. The state constitution's free speech clause provides broader protections than the First Amendment, and says that every Arizonan 'may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.' By instructing the parties to make their case for what standard should be applied, the Supreme Court made clear it is considering a foundational question about Arizona constitutional interpretation. And the impacts could be significant. If the justices determine that the Arizona Constitution provides greater protection for free speech than the U.S. Constitution, it might apply the 'strict scrutiny' standard. Not only would that force the dark money disclosure law to clear a higher constitutional hurdle, but it would affect any future free speech cases in Arizona. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that the state constitution could have greater free speech protections, but followed federal precedent because the Supreme Court has never determined what standard should be applied. Now the high court will determine whether that was correct or if Arizona should chart its own course on free speech standards. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
19-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Hobbs sides with Axon over Scottsdale voters, signs bill to cancel election challenging HQ project
Axon brought a mobile tactical simulator to the Arizona Capitol on March 4, 2025, as part of its effort to back legislation that would stop a ballot referendum in Scottsdale brought by residents opposed to the company's plans to build a 74-acre campus near the Loop 101 and Hayden Road. Photo by Jerod MacDonald-Evoy | Arizona Mirror Gov. Katie Hobbs has signed legislation to give law enforcement technology company Axon a carve-out in state law that will let it avoid voter review of its planned massive headquarters and housing project in north Scottsdale. Axon came to the Capitol in 2025 aiming to bar voters in every city and town in Arizona from being able to challenge zoning and development decisions. But that bill failed to garner enough support, so the company and its allies pivoted instead to merely stripping away the right of Scottsdale voters to challenge the police weapons manufacturer's HQ project near Hayden Road and the Loop 101. In addition to the firm's international headquarters, the project will include a luxury hotel and roughly 1,900 apartments. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX With Axon pledging to leave Arizona if the election was allowed to stand — Scottsdale voters are notoriously anti-development — their bill earned support from a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers who feared the homegrown firm would leave for another state. The Scottsdale City Council and every legislator from the city vociferously opposed the bill — and there are concerns the measure is unconstitutional — but Hobbs signed Senate Bill 1543 late Friday, along with a slew of other bills. The Scottsdale City Council had been urging residents to reach out to Hobbs asking her to veto the bill and had previously stated on social media that Hobbs had refused to meet with them after the bill passed out of the Senate. The Arizona Constitution gives residents the right to refer matters to the ballot. 'Today marks a defining moment for Axon, for Scottsdale, and for the state of Arizona. I am incredibly grateful to Gov. Katie Hobbs for signing SB1543 into law, and to the many Arizona legislators, business leaders, and community members who stood behind this important measure,' Axon CEO Rick Smith said in a written statement. 'The hundreds of Axon team members and Scottsdale residents who made their voices heard played a critical role in shaping this outcome — and I offer my thanks to each of them.' Axon has been lobbying aggressively for lawmakers to scrap the local election. Last month, the company held a large press conference outside the House of Representatives that included a large number of employees, technology, food and more, as lawmakers rubbed elbows with Axon's C-suite and team of lobbyists. Local activists, backed by a signature-gathering effort linked to a California labor union, gathered more than 25,000 signatures to send the rezoning decision made by a lame-duck city council — the votes for the project came from councilors who had been voted out of office — to the ballot in a voter referendum, which must happen by November 2026. With the legislation that was signed by Hobbs, even if voters overwhelmingly disapprove of the project, it would be protected by the legislation. The measure says that any municipality with between 200,000 and 500,000 residents — Scottsdale had 241,000 residents in the 2020 census — must 'allow hotel use and multifamily residential housing' for land zoned like the Axon parcel 'without requiring any type of application that will require a public hearing' if certain criteria is met. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
