SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
As IRS Scandal Spirals, Progressives Defend Rights 'Even the Tea Party Deserves'
" />
May 14, 2013
"It shouldn't need to be said," announced two of the ACLU's top staff said on Monday in a rebuke of the IRS targeting of rightwing advocacy groups, but they said it anyway: "Even the tea party deserves First Amendment protection."
Despite the grave concern many progressives have about the rise of secretive, "dark-money" independent groups that grew up in the aftermath of the Citizens UnitedSupreme Court decision, none are defending what increasingly looks like inappropriate behavior by officials at the independent agency in charge of administrating the nation's tax system.
In their op-ed quoted from above, Michael Macleod-Ball and Gabe Rottman at the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, say that what appears to be "aggressive enforcement" and "unconstitutional practices" by the IRS should be troubling to all Americans regardless of ideology or party affiliation.
The episode, they said, exhibits why everyone--"from the most liberal to the most conservative"--should vigilantly "guard their First Amendment rights" and gives just one more example of "why giving the government too much power to limit political speech will inevitably result in selective enforcement against unpopular groups."
Meanwhile, new reporting suggests that much more was known about the nature of the agency's focus on rightwing groups and that it may have extended well beyond the office in Cincinnati, where early statements from IRS spokeswoman Lois G. Lerner on Friday said the controversial activity was contained.
As the Washington Postreports:
Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved with investigating conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear that the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.
IRS officials at the agency's Washington headquarters sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea-party-affiliated groups, the documents show.
IRS employees in Cincinnati told conservatives seeking the status of "social welfare" groups that a task force in Washington was overseeing their applications, according to interviews with the activists.
Lois G. Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the IRS, told reporters Friday that the "absolutely inappropriate" actions were undertaken by "front-line people" working in Cincinnati to target groups with "tea party," "patriot" or "9/12" in their names.
And the Associated Press reports that higher-ups were informed about the aggressive auditing of specific groups, but failed to disclose the details to Congress despite possible opportunities to do so:
When members of Congress repeatedly raised concerns with the IRS about complaints that tea party groups were being harassed last year, a deputy IRS commissioner took the lead in assuring lawmakers that the additional scrutiny was a legitimate part of the screening process.
That deputy commissioner was [Steven T. Miller], who is now the acting head of the agency.
Camp and other members of the Ways and Means Committee sent at least four inquiries to the IRS, starting in June 2011. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, sent three inquiries. And Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House oversight committee, sent at least one.
None of the responses they received from the IRS acknowledged that conservative groups had ever been targeted, including a response to Hatch dated Sept. 11, 2012 -- four months after Miller had been briefed.
In several letters to members of Congress, Miller went into painstaking detail about how applications for tax-exempt status were screened. But he never mentioned that conservative groups were being targeted, even though people working under him knew as early as June 2011 that tea party groups were being targeted, according to an upcoming report by the agency's inspector general.
The IRS has not made new comments to address these recent reports, but Miller is expected to testify before Congress regarding the scandal later this week.
As the lawyers from the ACLU acknowledge, the fact that some of the IRS behavior can be attributed to the "growth in applications and the pressure to uncover "sham" 501(c)(4) groups" spawned by Citizens United, there is still no excuse of the appearance that the audits were politically motivated. They write:
Although the IRS claims this was an honest mistake, these revelations are troubling on many levels. For instance, there are several proposals circulating in Washington right now that would make it much easier for the IRS and other regulators to force political groups to disclose their donors. These disclosure requirements would apply even when the group is advocating purely on an issue of public interest, from clean air to abortion, and would apply to groups of all political persuasions and not just to groups supporting or opposing candidates for office.
The ACLU has expressed concern with these disclosure requirements precisely because they open the door to selective enforcement. Such concerns are often dismissed as speculative and overly pessimistic, but the IRS apology shows that concerns over selective enforcement are prescient. Those in power will always be tempted to use political speech restrictions against opposing candidates or causes.
New reality in post-Citizens United world
MSNBC's Chris Hayes dug deeper on Monday, showing that as 'scandal-fever' strikes the Obama administration this week, there are layers to the IRS story--including a "scandal you're not hearing about"--that should not be ignored.
And the Huffington Post also explored the significant increase of political actions groups in recent years:
This increase came after two major Supreme Court decisions -- Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life in 2007 and Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 -- opened the door for 501(c)(4) groups to engage in increasing amounts of political activity.
"There's a pretty direct link between the Citizens United line of cases and why the IRS is put in this position," said Rick Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California-Irvine, "although it does nothing to explain how the IRS decided to deal with this problem."
The Supreme Court rulings undid a string of campaign finance regulations and opened up loopholes for groups to avoid disclosure. The tax-exempt 501(c)(4) nonprofit, which can accept unlimited contributions from any source and whose donors can be kept secret, became the primary vehicle for operatives looking to engage in politics with "dark" money. The number of applications for 501(c)(4) status spiked, thrusting the IRS into a precarious position of overseeing partisan politics in a way that it had never done before.
"It's just another example of just the inability of the IRS to really enforce what are really political election campaign regulations," said Ofer Lion, a lawyer who works with tax-exempt organizations at Hunton & Williams. "These are career civil servants down in the IRS basement somewhere without adult supervision trying to deal with problems they don't know how to deal with."
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
"It shouldn't need to be said," announced two of the ACLU's top staff said on Monday in a rebuke of the IRS targeting of rightwing advocacy groups, but they said it anyway: "Even the tea party deserves First Amendment protection."
Despite the grave concern many progressives have about the rise of secretive, "dark-money" independent groups that grew up in the aftermath of the Citizens UnitedSupreme Court decision, none are defending what increasingly looks like inappropriate behavior by officials at the independent agency in charge of administrating the nation's tax system.
In their op-ed quoted from above, Michael Macleod-Ball and Gabe Rottman at the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, say that what appears to be "aggressive enforcement" and "unconstitutional practices" by the IRS should be troubling to all Americans regardless of ideology or party affiliation.
The episode, they said, exhibits why everyone--"from the most liberal to the most conservative"--should vigilantly "guard their First Amendment rights" and gives just one more example of "why giving the government too much power to limit political speech will inevitably result in selective enforcement against unpopular groups."
Meanwhile, new reporting suggests that much more was known about the nature of the agency's focus on rightwing groups and that it may have extended well beyond the office in Cincinnati, where early statements from IRS spokeswoman Lois G. Lerner on Friday said the controversial activity was contained.
As the Washington Postreports:
Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved with investigating conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear that the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.
IRS officials at the agency's Washington headquarters sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea-party-affiliated groups, the documents show.
IRS employees in Cincinnati told conservatives seeking the status of "social welfare" groups that a task force in Washington was overseeing their applications, according to interviews with the activists.
Lois G. Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the IRS, told reporters Friday that the "absolutely inappropriate" actions were undertaken by "front-line people" working in Cincinnati to target groups with "tea party," "patriot" or "9/12" in their names.
And the Associated Press reports that higher-ups were informed about the aggressive auditing of specific groups, but failed to disclose the details to Congress despite possible opportunities to do so:
When members of Congress repeatedly raised concerns with the IRS about complaints that tea party groups were being harassed last year, a deputy IRS commissioner took the lead in assuring lawmakers that the additional scrutiny was a legitimate part of the screening process.
That deputy commissioner was [Steven T. Miller], who is now the acting head of the agency.
Camp and other members of the Ways and Means Committee sent at least four inquiries to the IRS, starting in June 2011. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, sent three inquiries. And Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House oversight committee, sent at least one.
None of the responses they received from the IRS acknowledged that conservative groups had ever been targeted, including a response to Hatch dated Sept. 11, 2012 -- four months after Miller had been briefed.
In several letters to members of Congress, Miller went into painstaking detail about how applications for tax-exempt status were screened. But he never mentioned that conservative groups were being targeted, even though people working under him knew as early as June 2011 that tea party groups were being targeted, according to an upcoming report by the agency's inspector general.
The IRS has not made new comments to address these recent reports, but Miller is expected to testify before Congress regarding the scandal later this week.
As the lawyers from the ACLU acknowledge, the fact that some of the IRS behavior can be attributed to the "growth in applications and the pressure to uncover "sham" 501(c)(4) groups" spawned by Citizens United, there is still no excuse of the appearance that the audits were politically motivated. They write:
Although the IRS claims this was an honest mistake, these revelations are troubling on many levels. For instance, there are several proposals circulating in Washington right now that would make it much easier for the IRS and other regulators to force political groups to disclose their donors. These disclosure requirements would apply even when the group is advocating purely on an issue of public interest, from clean air to abortion, and would apply to groups of all political persuasions and not just to groups supporting or opposing candidates for office.
The ACLU has expressed concern with these disclosure requirements precisely because they open the door to selective enforcement. Such concerns are often dismissed as speculative and overly pessimistic, but the IRS apology shows that concerns over selective enforcement are prescient. Those in power will always be tempted to use political speech restrictions against opposing candidates or causes.
New reality in post-Citizens United world
MSNBC's Chris Hayes dug deeper on Monday, showing that as 'scandal-fever' strikes the Obama administration this week, there are layers to the IRS story--including a "scandal you're not hearing about"--that should not be ignored.
And the Huffington Post also explored the significant increase of political actions groups in recent years:
This increase came after two major Supreme Court decisions -- Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life in 2007 and Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 -- opened the door for 501(c)(4) groups to engage in increasing amounts of political activity.
"There's a pretty direct link between the Citizens United line of cases and why the IRS is put in this position," said Rick Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California-Irvine, "although it does nothing to explain how the IRS decided to deal with this problem."
The Supreme Court rulings undid a string of campaign finance regulations and opened up loopholes for groups to avoid disclosure. The tax-exempt 501(c)(4) nonprofit, which can accept unlimited contributions from any source and whose donors can be kept secret, became the primary vehicle for operatives looking to engage in politics with "dark" money. The number of applications for 501(c)(4) status spiked, thrusting the IRS into a precarious position of overseeing partisan politics in a way that it had never done before.
"It's just another example of just the inability of the IRS to really enforce what are really political election campaign regulations," said Ofer Lion, a lawyer who works with tax-exempt organizations at Hunton & Williams. "These are career civil servants down in the IRS basement somewhere without adult supervision trying to deal with problems they don't know how to deal with."
"It shouldn't need to be said," announced two of the ACLU's top staff said on Monday in a rebuke of the IRS targeting of rightwing advocacy groups, but they said it anyway: "Even the tea party deserves First Amendment protection."
Despite the grave concern many progressives have about the rise of secretive, "dark-money" independent groups that grew up in the aftermath of the Citizens UnitedSupreme Court decision, none are defending what increasingly looks like inappropriate behavior by officials at the independent agency in charge of administrating the nation's tax system.
In their op-ed quoted from above, Michael Macleod-Ball and Gabe Rottman at the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office, say that what appears to be "aggressive enforcement" and "unconstitutional practices" by the IRS should be troubling to all Americans regardless of ideology or party affiliation.
The episode, they said, exhibits why everyone--"from the most liberal to the most conservative"--should vigilantly "guard their First Amendment rights" and gives just one more example of "why giving the government too much power to limit political speech will inevitably result in selective enforcement against unpopular groups."
Meanwhile, new reporting suggests that much more was known about the nature of the agency's focus on rightwing groups and that it may have extended well beyond the office in Cincinnati, where early statements from IRS spokeswoman Lois G. Lerner on Friday said the controversial activity was contained.
As the Washington Postreports:
Internal Revenue Service officials in Washington and at least two other offices were involved with investigating conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status, making clear that the effort reached well beyond the branch in Cincinnati that was initially blamed, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post.
IRS officials at the agency's Washington headquarters sent queries to conservative groups asking about their donors and other aspects of their operations, while officials in the El Monte and Laguna Niguel offices in California sent similar questionnaires to tea-party-affiliated groups, the documents show.
IRS employees in Cincinnati told conservatives seeking the status of "social welfare" groups that a task force in Washington was overseeing their applications, according to interviews with the activists.
Lois G. Lerner, who oversees tax-exempt groups for the IRS, told reporters Friday that the "absolutely inappropriate" actions were undertaken by "front-line people" working in Cincinnati to target groups with "tea party," "patriot" or "9/12" in their names.
And the Associated Press reports that higher-ups were informed about the aggressive auditing of specific groups, but failed to disclose the details to Congress despite possible opportunities to do so:
When members of Congress repeatedly raised concerns with the IRS about complaints that tea party groups were being harassed last year, a deputy IRS commissioner took the lead in assuring lawmakers that the additional scrutiny was a legitimate part of the screening process.
That deputy commissioner was [Steven T. Miller], who is now the acting head of the agency.
Camp and other members of the Ways and Means Committee sent at least four inquiries to the IRS, starting in June 2011. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, sent three inquiries. And Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House oversight committee, sent at least one.
None of the responses they received from the IRS acknowledged that conservative groups had ever been targeted, including a response to Hatch dated Sept. 11, 2012 -- four months after Miller had been briefed.
In several letters to members of Congress, Miller went into painstaking detail about how applications for tax-exempt status were screened. But he never mentioned that conservative groups were being targeted, even though people working under him knew as early as June 2011 that tea party groups were being targeted, according to an upcoming report by the agency's inspector general.
The IRS has not made new comments to address these recent reports, but Miller is expected to testify before Congress regarding the scandal later this week.
As the lawyers from the ACLU acknowledge, the fact that some of the IRS behavior can be attributed to the "growth in applications and the pressure to uncover "sham" 501(c)(4) groups" spawned by Citizens United, there is still no excuse of the appearance that the audits were politically motivated. They write:
Although the IRS claims this was an honest mistake, these revelations are troubling on many levels. For instance, there are several proposals circulating in Washington right now that would make it much easier for the IRS and other regulators to force political groups to disclose their donors. These disclosure requirements would apply even when the group is advocating purely on an issue of public interest, from clean air to abortion, and would apply to groups of all political persuasions and not just to groups supporting or opposing candidates for office.
The ACLU has expressed concern with these disclosure requirements precisely because they open the door to selective enforcement. Such concerns are often dismissed as speculative and overly pessimistic, but the IRS apology shows that concerns over selective enforcement are prescient. Those in power will always be tempted to use political speech restrictions against opposing candidates or causes.
New reality in post-Citizens United world
MSNBC's Chris Hayes dug deeper on Monday, showing that as 'scandal-fever' strikes the Obama administration this week, there are layers to the IRS story--including a "scandal you're not hearing about"--that should not be ignored.
And the Huffington Post also explored the significant increase of political actions groups in recent years:
This increase came after two major Supreme Court decisions -- Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life in 2007 and Citizens United v. FEC in 2010 -- opened the door for 501(c)(4) groups to engage in increasing amounts of political activity.
"There's a pretty direct link between the Citizens United line of cases and why the IRS is put in this position," said Rick Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California-Irvine, "although it does nothing to explain how the IRS decided to deal with this problem."
The Supreme Court rulings undid a string of campaign finance regulations and opened up loopholes for groups to avoid disclosure. The tax-exempt 501(c)(4) nonprofit, which can accept unlimited contributions from any source and whose donors can be kept secret, became the primary vehicle for operatives looking to engage in politics with "dark" money. The number of applications for 501(c)(4) status spiked, thrusting the IRS into a precarious position of overseeing partisan politics in a way that it had never done before.
"It's just another example of just the inability of the IRS to really enforce what are really political election campaign regulations," said Ofer Lion, a lawyer who works with tax-exempt organizations at Hunton & Williams. "These are career civil servants down in the IRS basement somewhere without adult supervision trying to deal with problems they don't know how to deal with."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
Columbia Yanks Degrees From Pro-Palestine Protesters Amid Outrage Over Khalil Arrest
The impacted students and graduates are accused of participating in the occupation of a university building that protesters renamed in honor of a child killed by Israeli forces in Gaza.
Mar 13, 2025
As the Trump administration's effort to deport Mahmoud Khalil sparks legal battles and demonstrations, Columbia University announced Thursday that it has revoked degrees from some other pro-Palestinian campus protesters.
A campuswide email reported by The Associated Press and shared on social media by Drop Site News says that "the Columbia University Judicial Board determined findings and issued sanctions to students ranging from multiyear suspensions, temporary degree revocations, and expulsions related to the occupation of Hamilton Hall last spring."
According to both news outlets, the university's email did not say how many students and graduates were impacted by each action.
As part of nationwide protests over the U.S. government and educational institutions' complicity in Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip, Columbia students took over the building last April and renamed it Hind's Hall, in honor of a young Palestinian girl killed by Israeli forces. With support from the university's leadership, New York Police Department officers stormed the campus.
Columbia's new sanctions against protesters were widely condemned on social media. Iowa-based writer Gavin Aronsen quipped, "This is a great PR strategy, come to Columbia where you'll get a solid education as long as you never speak your mind."
News of the university's latest action on Thursday came after over 100 people were arrested outside Trump Tower in New York City during a Jewish-led protest over the government's attempt to deport Khalil, a green-card holder who finished his studies at Columbia in December.
"The Trump administration's outrageous detention of Mahmoud Khalil is designed to sow terror and stop people of conscience from calling for Palestinian freedom," said Ros Petchesky, an 82-year-old MacArthur fellow and Columbia alumna. "We are Jewish New Yorkers and we remain steadfast in our commitment to Palestinian freedom, to protecting free speech and the right to protest, and to defending immigrants and all under attack by the Trump regime."
Meanwhile, during a Thursday interview with NPR about Khalil's detention, Troy Edgar, deputy homeland security secretary, equated protesting and terrorism.
Judge Orders Trump Administration to Reverse 'Sham' Mass Firing of Federal Workers
"It is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that's a lie."
Mar 13, 2025
A U.S. judge on Thursday ruled that the Trump administration must reinstate thousands of government workers fired from half a dozen federal agencies based on the "lie" that their performance warranted termination.
U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California William Alsup—an appointee of former President Bill Clinton—granted a preliminary injunction supporting a temporary restraining order against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and acting Director Charles Ezell on the grounds that the mass firing of probationary federal employees is "unlawful" because the agency lacked the authority for the move.
Alsup—who last month also found the OPM firings illegal—ordered the Trump administration to immediately reinstate all probationary employees terminated from the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.
"The reason that OPM wanted to put this based on performance was at least in part in my judgment a gimmick to avoid the Reductions in Force (RIF) Act, because the law always allows you to fire somebody for performance," Alsup said, referring the process used by federal agencies reduce the size of their workforce during reorganizations or budget cuts.
Last month, Trump signed an executive order directing Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency to institute RIFs across federal agencies as part of a so-called "workforce optimization initiative."
"It is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that's a lie," Alsup wrote. "That should not have been done in our country. It was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements."
While the White House blasted Alsup's ruling as "absurd and unconstitutional" and lodged an appeal, advocates for government workers cheered the decision.
Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), said in a statement that the union "is pleased with Judge Alsup's order to immediately reinstate tens of thousands of probationary federal employees who were illegally fired from their jobs by an administration hellbent on crippling federal agencies and their work on behalf of the American public."
"We are grateful for these employees and the critical work they do, and AFGE will keep fighting until all federal employees who were unjustly and illegally fired are given their jobs back," Kelley added.
Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), said: "Public service workers are the backbone of our communities in every way. Today, we are proud to celebrate the court's decision which orders that fired federal employees must be reinstated and reinforces they cannot be fired without reason."
"This is a big win for all workers, especially AFSCME members of the United Nurses Associations of California and Council 20, who will be able to continue their essential work at the Department of Agriculture, Veterans Affairs Department, and other agencies," Saunders added.
Violet Wulf-Saena, founder and executive director of Climate Resilient Communities—a California-based nonprofit that "brings people together to create local solutions for a healthy planet"—also welcomed Thursday's ruling.
"The mass firing of public service employees is a direct assault on the environmental justice movement and will harm people living in heavily polluted communities," she said. "Today's decision represents a key win for our movement because our lifesaving work cannot proceed without the vital infrastructure and support of our federal employees."
Congressman Raúl Grijalva, Defender of Working People and Planet, Dead at 77
"Rep. Grijalva fought a long and brave battle," his staff said. "He passed away this morning due to complications of his cancer treatments."
Mar 13, 2025
Condolences and remembrances swiftly mounted on Thursday after the staff of U.S. Congressman Raúl Grijalva announced that the Arizona Democrat died at the age of 77, following a fight with lung cancer.
"Rep. Grijalva fought a long and brave battle. He passed away this morning due to complications of his cancer treatments," according to the office of the late congressman, who announced his diagnosis last April.
Grijalva, who represented Arizona's 7th District, was first elected to Congress in 2002. While on Capitol Hill, he rose to leadership roles, including co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and chair of the House Natural Resources Committee.
"From permanently protecting the Grand Canyon for future generations to strengthening the Affordable Care Act, his proudest moments in Congress have always been guided by community voices," Grijalva's staff said. "He led the charge for historic investments in climate action, port of entry modernization, permanent funding for land and water conservation programs, access to healthcare for tribal communities and the uninsured, fairness for immigrant families and Dreamers, student loan forgiveness, stronger protections for farmers and workers exposed to extreme heat, early childhood education expansion, higher standards for tribal consultation, and so much more."
"From Tucson to Nogales and beyond, he worked tirelessly for transformational improvements. Rep. Grijalva pushed for new public parks, childcare centers, healthcare clinics, local businesses, and affordable housing [that] breathed new life into neighborhoods across Southern Arizona. Improvements to our roads, bridges, and streetcar system have improved our daily lives and attracted new businesses and industries to the area," the office added. "Rep. Grijalva's passion was not only for his community, but for preservation of the planet."
Grijalva's colleagues also highlighted key parts of his legacy. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a former House member, said that "I am heartbroken by the news of Congressman Raúl Grijalva's passing. For climate justice, economic justice, health justice—Raúl fought fearlessly for change. We served a decade together on the Natural Resources Committee, and I will forever be grateful for his leadership and partnership."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who also previously served in the lower chamber, said that "I mourn the death of Rep. Raúl Grijalva, a former colleague of mine and one of the most progressive members of the U.S. House. Raúl was a fighter for working families throughout his entire life. He will be sorely missed."
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called his death "a genuinely devastating loss," adding: "Raúl Grijalva stood as one of the biggest champions for working people in all of Congress. His leadership was singular. He mentored generously and was an incredible friend. I will always be grateful for his lifelong courage and commitment."
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) said that "today we lost a dedicated progressive leader in Raúl Grijalva. The son of a bracero, Rep. Grijalva's 12-term commitment to our environment, to immigrant communities, and to his constituents in Tucson enriched this country. His passing is a monumental loss for our caucus and communities."
Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.) wrote: "Wow. This is such a loss for Arizona and our country. Chair Raúl Grijalva has been a champion for progressive change his entire life. From the school board to Congress, his leadership and voice inspired so many. Myself included. Rest in power, Chairman Grijalva."
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), elected to Congress in November, said that "I'm devastated to hear of the passing of my colleague Raúl Grijalva. He was a fighter for Arizonans and a champion for Indigenous communities and our planet. We will all miss him dearly. My thoughts are with his family, friends, loved ones, and constituents."
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), who switched chambers after the last election, said that "Congressman Grijalva was not just my colleague, but my friend. As another Latino working in public service, I can say from experience that he served as a role model to many young people across the Grand Canyon State. He spent his life as a voice for equality."
"In Congress, I was proud to see firsthand his leadership as chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee as he stood up for Arizona's water rights, natural beauty, and tribes," Gallego added. "I am praying for his family during this time of grief, and I hope that they find comfort knowing his legacy is one that will stand tall for generations."
Advocacy group leaders also weighed in, with Kierán Suckling, executive director and founder of the Center for Biological Diversity, calling his death "a heartbreaking, devastating loss for the people of Southern Arizona and everyone around this nation who loves the natural world."
"Raúl was a great friend and partner in our fight for clean air and water, our beautiful public lands, and wildlife great and small," Suckling said. "We can all look to him as the model of what every member of Congress and every person of dignity and hope should aspire to be."
"From Mexican wolves to spotted owls to the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, every creature in this country had a friend in Raúl," Suckling added. "He was as fierce as a jaguar, and that's why we called him our Macho G. I'll miss him dearly."
According to KVOA, the NBC affiliate in Tucson, Grijalva's office "will continue providing constituent services during the special election" to fill his seat.
Grijalva's death follows that of Congressman Sylvester Turner (D-Texas), who died on March 5. His seat will also need to be filled by a special election.
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.