Connect with us

Politics

Court: Democrat Election Chief’s Rulebook Illegally Restricts Arizonans’ Free Speech

Published

on

Provisions in Arizona’s election rulebook restricting voters’ free speech are “unenforceable,” a state judge ruled on Monday.

Writing for the Maricopa County Superior Court, Judge Jennifer Ryan-Touhill determined that the 2023 Election Procedures Manual (EPM) issued by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, contains guidance that infringes upon Arizonans’ First Amendment right to free speech.

“The EPM’s language has restricted what the Secretary finds acceptable regarding behavior, both speech and acts. Our state constitution guarantees a right to speak freely and is only restricted for an abuse of that right,” Ryan-Touhill wrote.

In Arizona, the EPM provides guidance to election officials relating to mail ballots, voter registration, and other election-related matters. The secretary of state is required to produce the guidance by Dec. 31 of every odd-numbered year and receive approval from the governor and attorney general before it can be finalized for use in elections.

In its initial lawsuit filed against Fontes in February, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) alleged the EPM’s restrictions on activities such as “watching drop boxes, speaking to people at election sites, and photographing activity at election sites” criminalizes conduct “which is plainly protected by the First Amendment and article 2, sections 5-6 of the Arizona Constitution.” That allegation is in reference to provisions within the EPM permitting local election officials to develop measures inhibiting individuals’ ability to observe ballot drop boxes and classifying behavior at polling sites, such as “raising one’s voice or taunting a voter or poll worker,” as

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Politics

Fontes, GOP Ask AZ Supreme Court To Allow 100K Electors To Vote Full-Ballot Following Registration ‘Error’

Published

on

Arizona’s Democrat secretary of state and Republicans are asking the state supreme court to allow nearly 100,000 electors to vote “full-ballot” this November after it was discovered an error by government officials put their ability to vote in state and local races in jeopardy.

“We will not stand by as voters are disenfranchised, especially so close to an election,” Arizona GOP Chair Gina Swoboda said in a statement. “Rushing to disenfranchise voters now would not only be illegal but would severely undermine confidence in our elections.”

As my colleague Brianna Lyman reported, the issue in question came to light earlier this week when state officials revealed they “found approximately 97,000 voters who are currently listed as full-ballot voters despite having not fulfilled the requirement to provide documentary proof of citizenship to vote in statewide elections.” The error appears to have resulted “from the way the Motor Vehicle Division provides driver’s license information to the state’s voter registration system,” according to left-leaning Votebeat Arizona.

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said these voters “lean more heavily Republican” and are between 45-60 years old, as reported in the Votebeat article.

In Arizona, voters registering via state registration form must provide documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) to vote in state and local races. Those who are unable to provide such proof are registered as “federal-only” voters and can only cast ballots in federal races.

Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer filed a lawsuit with the Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday, asking that the secretary be forced

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Conservative Legal Group Sues Gavin Newsom For Hiding Child Gender ‘Transitions’ From Parents

Published

on

A conservative legal nonprofit is suing California Gov. Gavin Newsom for state prohibitions that prevent schools from telling parents about student requests to identify as a different gender without the student’s consent.

In July, the state’s far-left governor signed Assembly Bill 1955, which bars school officials from notifying parents when their children go by different names or request to use bathrooms for the opposite sex unless the children consent to the notification. The bill further bars any policy that would require schools to inform parents of their child’s gender “transition.” The pro-Trump legal foundation, America First Legal, filed a lawsuit Wednesday to challenge the law on behalf of California parents and the City of Huntington Beach, which has been resisting Sacramento radicalism since conservatives captured a majority on the town council two years ago.

“This law violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees the rights of parents to make decisions about their minor children regarding all medical treatment — in this case, social ‘transitioning,’” the nonprofit said in a press release. “Fit parents are presumed to act in the best interest of their child. The government cannot intervene in their relationship simply because it does not like the parents’ decision.”

The California law is the first of its kind at the statewide level, as many parents grapple with whether to remain on the West Coast given the hostility toward parents who protest radical gender policy. Last year, California Republican state Sen. Scott Wilk bluntly recommended parents “flee” to keep their children.

“In the

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Melania Trump Must Pick Up Where Michelle Obama Unsuccessfully Left Off In Tackling Childhood Obesity

Published

on

Former First Lady Melania Trump is already preparing to resurface as a presidential spouse next year, and she has an opportunity to drive change and forge unity in confronting the most desperate long-term health crisis in centuries.

Now running with the unprecedented endorsement of a legacy Kennedy, the Trump family may soon reclaim White House authority and with it the opportunity to pick up where former First Lady Michelle Obama left off. Childhood obesity represents one of the few issues on which the new Republican White House can reclaim moral authority and also galvanize a bipartisan political movement with a major push to end this destructive epidemic.

When the Obama family came into office, the epidemic of childhood obesity catalyzed what at first had seemed an optimistic initiative to tackle the health care crisis plaguing our children. By 2009, nearly 17 percent of children aged 2-19 were obese, representing a striking increase from just 5 percent in 1971. In 2017, the number had grown even higher, with more than 19 percent of children in America, or nearly 1 in 5, struggling with obesity. The number of kids and teens coping with “severe obesity” reached 6 percent for the first time ever by 2013, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The first lady’s movement obviously failed, and the campaign did so for two probable reasons: 1) half the country wrote off the celebrity-infused campaign as an unserious example of nanny-state finger-wagging from elites in D.C., and 2)

CLICK HERE to read the rest of this ARTICLE. This post was originally published on another website.

Continue Reading

Trending