A former candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives, District 17, Liz Harris, shows citizens how to be an effective activist and get results. Starting in December, she managed to call to action over 800 bi-partisan, unpaid volunteers throughout the state with her It Smells Funny website form where she asks people to volunteer their time to help with election integrity research. “It was truly a grassroots effort,” said Harris.
During a Dec. 29 interview with HUB radio Phoenix, Harris explained how she decided to “take a look at a list of people over the age of ninety” from the state of Arizona to verify whether they voted. While her initial list was a small one, she found that about one-third of those on the list were indeed deceased. She then requested a bigger list.
Initially, she found that while there were deceased voters who had “voted,” it wasn’t a large enough number to make a difference. However, as she looked through the list, she noticed that “one out of five people didn’t exist in Arizona or the National Database couldn’t even find a record of them.” She then asked mathematician and investment advisor, Bobby Piton, to review the list. According to Harris, he found “irregularities and abnormalities in [the] voter rolls that were just stunning.” He found about 120,000 to 306,000 “fake people” on the rolls.
One of the most important findings was that “from 1998 until today, Arizona’s population has grown by approximately 44%, yet the voter rolls increased by 200%.” Harris and her volunteers went door-to-door looking at all the people who had “suspect names, addresses that are suspect… a laundry list of irregularities” sourced from the random sample that Bobby Piton pulled together for the volunteers to use in their efforts. He estimated he found “between 160,000 to 460,000 illegal ballots.”
Among other things, Piton’s findings report that the volunteers knocked on over 1400 doors and “touched” about 700 people. Harris then collected, indexed, and notarized all the affidavits and put them in huge binders.
Harris conducted forty-minute training meetings every day at 7:00, 11:00, and 7:00 via Zoom, setting each volunteer up with an app that targeted households to canvass. She is careful to emphasize that the people whose homes they knocked on did nothing wrong. It is a “systematic issue,” she explained.
The respondents were given a declaration to fill out—or a neighbor completes it if the house is abandoned. The affidavits are sent to volunteers at the end of the day and then filed and indexed. As of the end of December, she and her volunteers had collected “well over 1500 affidavits.” She explained that there were more than 1400 doors because some of the affidavits came from places like apartment complexes where a leasing manager confirmed names of people who had never lived there.
Colleges and Universities were also able to confirm those who “had never attended the school.” For example, at Grand Canyon University, the volunteers found many 80 and 90- year-olds who were registered to vote there but, in fact, were not in attendance.
They found that voting out of P.O. Boxes and commercial addresses was a “rampant problem” there. Other places canvassed were; “vacant lots, hotels, county buildings, apartment complexes with no corresponding apartment number, abandoned properties, non-existent addresses, homes for elderly, churches, sports arenas, homeless shelters, native American reservations with addresses that were listed as “dummy 1,2,3.” Homeless shelters and churches can be valid addresses for registered voters but not in the numbers found.
The categories denoted were; “fabricated address, not at this address, deceased, out of state voter, non-U.S. citizens, convicted felons, double voters”—to name just a few.
Election Integrity Fight in Arizona
The Arizona State Senate has been fighting for weeks to get the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to turn over voting machines and ballots from the November election. The Senate issued subpoenas, all of which were ignored. Arizona voters have jammed the phone lines demanding a forensic audit because many believe the election was stolen. Arizona State Senate President and Arizona Republican Party Chair, Kelli Ward, have been fighting for a fair, objective forensic audit of the vote. On Monday, Republicans who control the Senate fell one vote short of holding in contempt the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors for failing to surrender the ballots and machines. Republican Sen. Paul Boyer broke ranks and voted with the Democrats.
In her interview with Steve Bannon on Feb. 4, Harris lays out what she thinks should happen next.
- Gain access to the original 2.1 million ballots that are currently locked up, including but not limited to early ballots, election day ballots, and provisional ballots.
- Deep dive into election log files, election settings, accounts and tokens, windows servers and desktops, Dominion Voting Systems Equipment, Dominion Network, access to logins for the Dominion records, election systems and software, and all voter rolls.
Harris says that Arizona is the perfect place to look at ballots because it is one of the few that still has intact ballots. She says this is not a partisan issue. “Let’s get to the bottom of how voter fraud actually works from A-Z…The Arizona State Senate needs to be united.” Everyone needs to jump on board and agree to a deep dive. “We have to be united and say election integrity is important…there is no voter suppression here. We want every vote to count, and we want to make sure there are no shenanigans.”
*For more information on how to actively participate in holding your elected officials accountable, local initiatives and election integrity, please see some of the following suggestions:
KEN BENNETT, State Director for the Action AZ51 Voter Project reports:
In the past six years, the Republican voter registration lead in Arizona has been reduced from 6% to 3% through the actions of the Dems with their George Soros money. Our AZ51 Voter Project founder, is a strong conservative, US military veteran and a successful Arizonian entrepreneur, and has had enough of the Soros influence in our state and has provided funds to AZ51 Voter Project to immediately rectify and reverse this trend. But I need you to join our fight today. While our state legislators are working on 10 new laws to reinstate voter integrity in our election process, AZ51 Voter Project launched on 1 February with our goal of registering 250,000 new Republican voters by the next election in November 2022. Once we reach our goal, we will work to turn out the vote, and send the 51st Republican Senator from Arizona and take back the US Senate! We need your help building voter registration teams to secure new Republican voter registrations across our state…AND we will pay you for your efforts. We also provide you the training and supplies that you need. Contact us today at info@AZ51.org to be put in contact with the AZ51 Voter Project Regional Director for your area. There is not a day to waste with this Red Wave Arizona building to the next election! Bennett is the past president of the AZ Senate and for former Secretary of State.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich urged the Supreme Court on March 2 to affirm that his state’s electoral integrity laws were consistent with the federal Voting Rights Act and should be upheld.
The case Arizona’s top prosecutor argued is actually two consolidated cases: Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Arizona Republican Party v. DNC.
Although the justices peppered counsel for Arizona and the state’s Republican Party with at-times hostile-sounding questions, members of the Supreme Court seemed receptive to their arguments. Except for the more liberal members, the justices did not seem convinced that Arizona’s election laws violated the Voting Rights Act.
The Supreme Court threw out a series of Republican-initiated legal challenges on Feb. 22 to voting processes and results in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin that were left over from the 2020 election cycle. And on March 1, the court dismissed an election challenge from Arizona, In Re Tyler Bowyer, and one from Wisconsin, In Re William Feehan, that were brought on Dec. 15, 2020, by pro-Trump attorney Sidney Powell.
The oral arguments in Brnovich’s case before the Supreme Court came days after an Arizona judge ruled in a separate case that state lawmakers have the right to access 2.1 million ballots cast in the state’s most populous county, Maricopa County, and related electronic materials in order to carry out an audit of the Nov. 3, 2020, election results, as The Epoch Times previously reported.
The Supreme Court agreed on Oct. 2, 2020, to hear the case at hand, which concerns efforts that Republicans say would undermine electoral integrity measures and throw the Grand Canyon State open to ballot-harvesting and out-of-precinct voting.
“I think we all should agree at this point that we want to have confidence in our election system,” Brnovich, the state’s Republican attorney general, said in an exclusive interview with The Epoch Times days before his Supreme Court appearance, in which he shared his views about the upcoming oral argument at the high court and electoral integrity measures in general.
“We want orderly elections,” he said, adding that he was optimistic that the court appearance would help to generate momentum for electoral integrity measures nationwide.
More Americans need to become active in defending the nation’s founding and the institutions that came out of it, he said.
There is a certain amount of establishment thinking out there “that just wants to go along to get along … [but] the stakes are so high right now in this country that we need champions that understand what the framers of our Constitution established here in this country.”
There is a “need to understand traditional notions of federalism and to understand that the Constitution is all about protecting rights, and that the government is supposed to be limited and its powers defined.”
Forbidding unlimited third-party ballot harvesting is a “commonsense” way to protect the secret ballot, and to prevent undue influence, voter fraud, ballot tampering, and voter intimidation, Brnovich said.
“We have seen in the past where people have used ballot harvesting to undermine the integrity of elections. We also know that no less than Jimmy Carter in 2005 had recommended that there be commonsense measures in place when it came to ballot harvesting because absentee ballots were one of the largest sources of potential fraud,” he said.
The bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, found “absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud” and “vote-buying schemes are far more difficult to detect when citizens vote by mail.”
“There was a time when this was a bipartisan issue, when all sides could agree that we want to make sure that we have safe and secure elections, and now, for whatever reason, it’s become a partisan issue,” Brnovich said. “It’s unfortunate because everyone should have confidence in our elections.
“I think as a public official there is no higher priority among public officials than maintaining the public integrity of our elections, so we want to make sure that people are prevented from voting multiple times, we want to protect against voter intimidation, we want to preserve the secrecy of the ballot, and I think that’s what our laws were designed to do.”
Arizona, like other states, has adopted rules to promote the order and integrity of its elections.
One is an “out-of-precinct policy,” which excludes provisional ballots cast in person on Election Day outside of the voter’s designated precinct. Another is a “ballot-collection law,” known as H.B. 2023, that allows only specific persons such as family and household members, caregivers, mail carriers, and election officials to handle another person’s completed early ballot. Most states require voters to vote in their own precincts, and around 20 states limit ballot collection by third parties.
A U.S. district court upheld Arizona’s rules, which were challenged under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). A fortnight ago, the Biden administration sent a letter to the court in which it appeared to acknowledge the challenged Arizona laws were consistent with the VRA.
Section 2 of the VRA prevents states and localities from imposing any “qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure … in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”
A panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court but then reversed at the en banc stage, going against the recommendations of the Trump administration.
“Arizona’s policy of wholly discarding, rather than counting or partially counting, out-of-precinct ballots, and H.B. 2023’s criminalization of the collection of another person’s ballot, have a discriminatory impact on American Indian, Hispanic, and African American voters in Arizona, in violation of the ‘results test’ of Section 2 of the VRA,” Judge William A. Fletcher, a Clinton appointee, wrote for the court.
H.B. 2023’s ban on collecting another person’s ballot “was enacted with discriminatory intent, in violation of the ‘intent test’ of Section 2 of the VRA and of the Fifteenth Amendment.”
The Arizona laws in question are unfair because American Indian voters, other minorities, renters, and poor people are disadvantaged because they have difficulty receiving and sending mail, Fletcher wrote.
“Minority voters rely on third-party ballot collection for many reasons,” he added, citing the testimony of a community organizer. That court stayed enforcement pending appeal, allowing Arizona’s laws to remain in place for the 2020 election.
Brnovich said in the interview that he rejects those court findings, which were consistent with legal arguments made by Democrats.
“The state of Arizona endorses without qualifications the goals of the Voting Rights Act in racial discrimination and voting,” he said.
“Our laws do not violate section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.”
But Republicans, Brnovich added, have been falsely accused of racism for a long time.
“Accusing someone of racism is the last resort of an exhausted mind,” he said. “Unfortunately, nowadays there are too many people that are intellectually lazy on the left and that’s what they fall back on.”
The Arizona Senate passed a bill Thursday that would grant the Arizona legislature the authority to subpoena election records like ballots and tabulating equipment, and ignore any laws to the contrary.
The bill amends a portion of the Arizona statutes such that county election equipment, systems and records, and other information that is under the control of county personnel “may not be deemed privileged information, confidential information, or other information protected from disclosure.” It also subjects such records to a subpoena and stipulates that they “must be produced” and the legislature’s authority to conduct related probes “may not be infringed by any other law.”
The rule change is to be retroactive as of Dec. 31, 2019, meaning it would apply to records around the November election.
State Sen. Warren Petersen, a Republican, introduced the bill amid a battle between Republican Senate leaders and Maricopa County officials over the attempt by GOP senators to audit the 2020 election.
Republican lawmakers in the Arizona Senate have issued subpoenas to Maricopa County demanding that it turn over a range of election records, calling for a scanned ballot audit and a forensic audit of ballot tabulation equipment and software. But the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted against complying with the subpoenas, instead seeking judgment from a court about whether they have to comply. Arizona senators filed a countersuit, asking the court to enforce the subpoenas, which was subsequently dismissed.
County officials alleged the subpoenas were “far in excess” of the state legislature’s power. “The subpoenas are unlawful,” the county said in its lawsuit. A Maricopa County Superior Court judge will hear arguments in the case next week and is expected to rule on the matter in short order, according to the Arizona Mirror.
Arizona’s attorney general has also weighed in on the case, saying that the state legislature has the authority to issue subpoenas regarding the administration of elections.
“The Arizona Legislature has broad power to issue subpoenas regarding election administration in connection with the 2020 general election, both to review how the county discharged its duties during that election and to craft future election legislation. Any argument by the county otherwise should fail,” Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, said in a court filing.
The passage of Senate Bill 1408 on Thursday gives further impetus to Republican senators’ efforts and their subpoenas, which were spurred by claims of irregularities in the November election.
But Sen. J.D. Mesnard, a Republican, told the Arizona Mirror that the bill is less about continuing to litigate the November election as it is about ensuring that the legislature’s investigative authority is clarified and protected to allow a greater impact on election integrity in the future.
“This is a much broader statement about the legislature and our subpoena powers, because as of late, it seems those powers are not respected,” Mesnard told the outlet. “Our subpoenas are supposed to matter. This is making that very clear.”
“Even if you set aside this election, if something nefarious happens in the future, regardless of whether you believe it happened now, and suddenly you wanted to investigate it, you would find yourself in the very same situation,” he added.
Arizona State Sen. Martin Quezada, a Democrat, took aim at the bill, saying it serves to spread disinformation about the election.
“The more we continue down this path, we continue to spread the ‘Big Lie’ that something was wrong with our elections. The more we continue to go after the county board of supervisors and try to subpoena all this information … we are furthering and perpetuating this lie,” Quezada told the Arizona Mirror.
Meanwhile, Maricopa County officials said in late January that they will carry out a comprehensive forensic audit of its voting systems to allay concerns raised by some constituents about the integrity of the November 2020 election.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously at a Jan. 27 meeting to hire two independent companies to conduct an audit that will review whether voting machines counted votes correctly, and whether they were tampered with or hacked in any way.
The Republican-dominated board defended the accuracy of the county’s election results, while expressing hope that a comprehensive equipment and software audit would dispel concerns that the results were inaccurate.
“Maricopa County elections were administered with integrity throughout 2020. That’s a fact. Multiple audits to date have proved as much, and multiple court rulings have concurred,” Chairman Jack Sellers said in a statement.
“It’s also true that a significant number of voters want the additional assurance that a full forensic audit of tabulation equipment might bring, especially given all the misinformation that spread following the November 3 election,” Sellers said.
Senate Bill 1408 now heads to the Arizona state House for reconciliation, after which it would head to the desk of Gov. Doug Ducey for a possible signature.
A polling firm known as OH Predictive Insights has Mrs. Bill Clinton leading Donald Trump in Arizona, 46.6 percent to 42.2 percent. The poll was taken June 20.
It’s still early, yes, but Democrats usually never lead in Arizona presidential polls.
And if the Republican doesn’t win Arizona, he has absolutely no chance to win the November election.
The poll surveyed 1,060 likely voters based on a projection of the November turnout.
Breaking down this poll, Trump is leading by six points in rural Arizona — which is not a good indicator.
Mrs. Bill Clinton, an ardent socialist advocating for over-control of the American individual, family and private business, has a whopping 17-point lead in Pima County, and that’s no surprise because it’s dominated politically by leftists.
Another bad indicator for Trump is a tie in Maricopa County, the county where Republican candidates can usually count on running up the score and overcoming deficits elsewhere in the state.
Women in Arizona gave Mrs. Bill Clinton a 12-point edge, despite her history of looking the other way while her husband used and abused women and her state department underpaying women.
OH Predictive Insights is a subsidiary of Owens Harkey Advertising. It’s located in Phoenix.
Arizona superstar conservative Congressman David Schweikert confirmed he is not planning to run against entrenched U.S. Senator John McCain in this year’s Republican Primary.
We have long recommended Schweikert for a Senate run, but we know it will be extremely difficult to get the RINO out of the Senate. Too many people have been wasting their vote on a veteran and former POW to give him the boot. That’s a sad, but true, fact of life in Arizona.
It will be left to Arizona Senator Dr. Kelli Ward to brawl with McCain, who does two things every time he’s up for election:
First, he claims to be a conservative.
Second, he destroys any conservative who gets in his way.
McCain lacks the temperament and the principle to be a good Senator. His career is one of complacency and under-performing. We deserve better representation.
Senator Jeff Flake is a McCain puppet, and we strongly recommend Schweikert go after his Senate seat at the first opportunity. Again, Arizonans deserve better representation than we are getting from this McCain shadow.
By The Goldwater Institute
The proponents of mandatory reporting of private civic activities have won a major marketing victory by the widespread use of the phrase, “dark money.” As one commentator put it, “Dark money. The name itself carries ominous undertones, undertones that critics of this relatively new campaign-finance phenomenon claim reflect a genuine threat to democracy.”[x] But the term is misleading. “Dark money” would be more aptly referred to by what those who find free speech objectionable actually support – mandated government disclosure. The use of such terms is intended to cast suspicion on those who contribute to various civic causes so the debate revolves around ad hominem attacks rather than engaging on the issues.
So, what is “dark money”? It conjures images of shady political operatives greasing the palms of politicians in dark, smoked-filled rooms. But does it also apply to traditional political activities, like you and your neighbor contributing your time and money to civic and social activities that you support? And is it really a threat to democracy, or are those who seek to silence the voice of opposition and limit speech the real threats?
“Dark money” generally refers to funds spent for political activities by businesses, unions, nonprofit organizations, and individuals who are not required by law to disclose the identities of their donors. Depending on where supporters of government disclosure draw the inherently arbitrary line, dark money could refer to donations made to the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) or to your local church or soup kitchen.
As a general matter, all spending that calls for the election or defeat of a political candidate or constitutes “electioneering communications” involves some level of disclosure to the government. In fact, there are more disclosure obligations on the books today than at any other time in our nation’s history.[xi] Nevertheless, some supporters of government disclosure claim that current laws do not go far enough. They assert that certain charitable and social welfare organizations, including those organized under § 501(c) of the federal tax code, should be forced to disclose the identities of their individual donors when those organizations engage in political activity, even if that is not their primary function.[xii]
Those calling for the elimination of “dark money” are thus attempting to dramatically extend the reach of government-mandated disclosure to a wide variety of organizations, activities, and communications.
Advocates for expanded disclosure call for such dramatic and far-reaching regulations despite the fact that “dark money” is not a pervasive element in American politics. Some government disclosure advocates claim that so-called “dark money” expenditures constitute a significant portion of political spending in the United States.[xiii] But the characterization is inaccurate. In the 2014 election cycle, the Federal Elections Commission reported approximately $5.9 billion in total spending on federal elections.[xiv] Of that $5.9 billion, roughly $173 million came from groups that are not required by law to disclose donors.[xv] This represents a mere 2.9 percent of all spending on federal elections – hardly a significant portion. In fact, this figure represents a decline from the 2012 election cycle, where such expenditures amounted to 4.4 percent of spending on federal races.[xvi] As the Center for Competitive Politics observed from the 2012 election cycle, “Nearly all of the organizations that financed such independent expenditures . . . were well-known entities, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Rifle Association, Planned Parenthood, the National Association of Realtors, the National Federation of Independent Business, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the Humane Society.”[xvii] As a result, there is no secret as to what causes and issues such groups support.
Under existing campaign finance laws, the identities of these groups must be revealed when making direct contributions to candidates or political parties or engaging in other electioneering communications. Additionally, donor identities must be disclosed when they specifically earmark their donations to nonprofit organizations to be used for electioneering communications. Those types of donations can hardly be characterized as “dark money” in need of further regulation when under existing disclosure rules, anyone can see that the NRA contributed to Candidate X and Planned Parenthood contributed to Candidate Y. The positions of those organizations are well known. Characterizing those expenditures as “dark money” is, therefore, disingenuous. But forcing further disclosure of donor identities is at best unnecessary, as donors may contribute to organizations to support the overall mission rather than any specific political candidate. Their donations are intended to support certain issues, not politicians.
Claims that “dark money” is distorting American politics are even more tenuous when leveled at 501(c)(3)s, considering these nonprofit organizations are prohibited from participating in any partisan political activity.
By Michelle Moons, Breitbart.com
Senator John McCain (R-AZ)’s campaign team is getting called out by the very organization whose rating it cited on Twitter. Team McCain advertised his 91 percent rating in 2014 from conservative group ACU as the Washington insider heads into a tough 2016 campaign season. What it doesn’t mention is his abysmal 2013 rating of 52 percent or his history of higher ratings going into re-election fights.
The American Conservative Union (ACU), host of the hugely popular Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), rates Congressional officeholders year over year.
McCain’s lifetime ACU based on 32 years in office is 82.13 percent. Looking back over the past decade, the numbers vary widely, and spiked during his 2010 primary challenge.
2006: 65 percent
2007: 80 percent
2008: 63 percent
2009: 96 percent
2010: 100 Percent (as he faced primary challenger J.D. Hayworth)
2011: 80 percent
2012: 92 percent
2013: 52 percent
2014: 91 percent
McCain certainly seems concerned. He’s taken to Twitter to boost his image:
— Team McCain (@TeamMcCain)
The ACU replied to McCain’s tweet with the following:
Yo @TeamMcCain get the numbers right. he got a 91 in ’14, but a 52 in ’13. Even by Common Core standards thats a 72% or a D+
— The ACU (@ACUConservative)
Arizonans have wearied of McCain. What many Arizonans remember is the promise he made in his infamous “build the danged fence” border security campaign ad.
Republicans in his own state officially censured him in 2014, the year he claims a lofty conservative rating. Since the censure reports have surfaced that McCain and his allies have launched a political cleansing of their Arizona leadership, ousting one conservative Republican after another. Politico reported that after the censure, McCain’s team sought to, “unseat conservative activists who hold obscure, but influential, local party offices.”
Just before announcing his re-election effort, worried emails began pouring from the McCain camp. “I’m going to be the target of a wide array of powerful groups,” he said in a plea for his own re-election. That letter was quickly followed with a worried message from his wife, emphasizing fear-invoking dangers in the world and a plea to keep her husband in office.
Arizona State Senator Kelli Ward opened an exploratory committee in March that will help her determine whether she has the political and financial path available to challenge McCain in what she has called a battle on the scale of David vs. Goliath.
U.S. Representative Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) has been quiet about whether he intends to challenge McCain, but that remains a possibility. Salmon told the Hill he has yet to announce whether he’s in or out or will even run for re-election to his seat in the House. GOP party leaders have indicated Salmon could delay his decision until the fall.
Republicans will maintain control of the Arizona Legislature. Republicans are on their way to victory in 16 state Senate races, the party of CONTROL* has won 13 seats. The only issue in doubt is in District 6.
Former lawmakers Sylvia Allen (Republican) and Thomas O’Halleran (Independent) are locked in a very close race. With just over half the precincts reporting, O’Halleran leads by about 600 votes. Allen got into the race very late when the conservative incumbent, Chester Crandall, died in a horseback riding accident near Heber just days before the August primary. The late Crandall won unopposed, but Allen was able to replace him on the GOP ticket.
If Allen wins the seat, the GOP will have a 17-13 Senate majority. If O’Halleran wins the seat, the GOP will hold 16 seats, the party of CONTROL 13 and there would be one Independent seat.
Republicans are claiming 37 Arizona House of Representative seats, CONTROL 23 seats.
So Governor-elect Ducey will have a Republican majority to work with for the first two years of his first term.
Doug Ducey appears on his way to becoming Arizona’s next governor. Fellow Republicans are leading Democrats in all of the other statewide office elections with 1,103 of 1,566 precincts reporting in these state office contests.
Ducey, former state treasurer, leads Comrade Fred DuVal of the party of CONTROL 53-41 percent. The good news is that Arizona will avoid the record spending binges and budget deficits that DuVal would have accrued had he been elected. It would have been a repeat of the Napolitano years when the former governor spent money far faster that the state could generate revenues. But under Governor Ducey, fiscal sanity is a certainty.
We also believe — and certainly hope — Ducey’s administration will be friendly to life, liberty and family. He gave every intention to the Center for Arizona Policy that this would be the case, and we urge him to hold true.
In the race for attorney general, GOP Mark Brnovich has a lead of 66,000 votes over CONTROL candidate Felicia Rotellini, 53.4 percent to 46.6 percent.
Secretary of state race is a little closer. Liberal Republican Michele Reagan has 52 percent of the vote, surprising frequent CONTROL candidate and former attorney general, Terry Goddard, 48 percent.
Closer still is the race between Republican Diane Douglas and CONTROL’s David Garcia. Douglas leads by about 1,500 votes, with 50.87 percent of the vote to Garcia’s 49.08. Douglas wants to get rid of the Big Socialism education curriculum, Common Core. Garcia would be a disaster for Arizona’s children.
Jeff DeWit, another Republican, is running unopposed for state treasurer.
The party of CONTROL refused to allow its members to select candidates for governor or attorney general. No one other than Comrade DuVal, who wants to move Arizona forward communist style, or Rottelini, were allowed to compete for those nominations in the August primary election.
Conservative Congressmen Matt Salmon, Trent Franks, Paul Gosar and David Schweikert are all sailing to victory.
Salmon said: “Tonight’s election results make one thing exceedingly clear: Arizonans want their elected officials to get government out of the way and support policies that will let the private sector thrive and create jobs.”
CONTROL incumbents Kyrsten Sinema, Ron Barber, and Raul Grijalva are all on their way to re-election as well.
Ann Kirkpatrick, another CONTROL incumbent, is pulling away from Andy Tobin in a congressional race, and now leads by 5 percentage points with 177 of 327 precincts in.
Ruben Gallego (CONTROL) has sewn up election in the congressional seat held for many years by the retired Ed Pastor.
The top vote-getters, in order, for Arizona Corporation Commission are Republicans Doug Little and Tom Forese and then CONTROL’s Sandra Kennedy a distant third.
Among judges up for retention, Scott Bales is winning handily. He was appointed by former Gov. Janet Napolitano (CONTROL).
Prop 122, which will stem out of control federal government interference with Arizona, is barely ahead, by just one percent.
The Right to Try prop, 303, is winning big.
And as it has done numerous times, the attempt to raise state legislator pay (Prop 304) is losing bigtime.
In Phoenix, the unfunded/pension spiking madness is likely to continue. Prop 487 is up 55 to 45 percent.
All in all, it’s a good night for America and Arizona (on the 11th anniversary of The Arizona Conservative, No. 1 cultural commentator in the state). Though politics is downstream from culture, tonight’s results are a good sign that people have had enough of Big Government Socialism, the Obama Administration, and the do-nothing U.S. Senate under Harry Reid’s abdication of responsibility and leadership. This is also a great day for the sanctity of life, for families, and especially for free speech and religious liberty.
We remember the wisdom of President Reagan, one of the five truly great presidents in this nation, who said during his first inaugural address:
“We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.”
Thank you for coming here to consult our election recommendations and coverage.
May God bless America.
* The reason we refer to Democrats as the party of CONTROL is because their radical philosophy is to try to control every aspect of your lives — to your detriment.