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
kris mayes
As Hobbs Signs Repeal, Arizonans Push Abortion Rights Ballot Measure
"We cannot afford to celebrate or lose momentum. The threat to our reproductive freedom is as immediate today as it ever was," said the campaign behind the ballot initiative.
May 02, 2024
While Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs on Thursday signed legislation repealing an 1864 abortion ban, reproductive rights advocates in the state reiterated that fuller freedom over family planning requires passing a November ballot measure.
In response to an
Arizona Republic opinion piece noting that there is no emergency clause in House Bill 2677, the law repealing the ban, "which means it won't go off the books until 90 days after the Legislature adjourns," Arizona for Abortion Access stressed that "Arizonans will still be living under a law that denies us the right to make decisions about our own health."
"We cannot afford to celebrate or lose momentum. The threat to our reproductive freedom is as immediate today as it ever was," the campaign behind the ballot initiative said, adding that only passing the Arizona Abortion Access Act "changes that for good."
The Arizona Abortion Access Act is a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prohibit many limits on abortions before fetal viability and safeguard access to care after viability to protect the life or physical or mental health of the patient. Arizonans were fighting for it even before the state Supreme Court reinstated the 160-year-old ban.
Even Hobbs recognized that the battle for reproductive freedom is far from over, saying Thursday that "today, we should not rest, but we should recommit to protecting women's bodily autonomy, their ability to make their own healthcare decisions, and the ability to control their lives."
"Let me be clear: I will do everything in my power to protect our reproductive freedoms, because I trust women to make the decisions that are best for them, and know politicians do not belong in the doctor's office," the Democrat pledged.
Her signature came just a day after the Arizona Senate approved H.B. 2677, following its state House passage last month. In both cases, a couple of Republican lawmakers voted with Democrats to advance the legislation—defying not only party members in the state but a national GOP that is hellbent on ending access to abortion care.
Democratic Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said Wednesday that the Senate vote "to repeal the draconian 1864 abortion ban is a win for freedom in our state" and she was looking forward to Hobbs signing the bill.
"However, without an emergency clause that would allow the repeal to take effect immediately, the people of Arizona may still be subjected to the near-total abortion ban for a period of time this year," Mayes acknowledged. "Rest assured, my office is exploring every option available to prevent this outrageous 160-year-old law from ever taking effect."
Law Dork's Chris Geidner pointed out that "on Tuesday—though technically unrelated—Mayes' office asked the Arizona Supreme Court to stay the issuance of the mandate in the case holding the near-total ban enforceable."
According to Geidner:
If granted, that would push the issuance of the mandate to July 25—90 days beyond the date when the Arizona Supreme Court denied Mayes' request for reconsideration—which would then block enforcement to at least 45 days beyond that, to September 8.
At that point, the repeal law passed on Wednesday likely will have gone into effect—meaning that the 15-week ban would remain the applicable law throughout this entire time—and the expected vote on the proposed constitutional amendment will be less than two months away.
Planned Parenthood Arizona took similar action after the Senate vote on Wednesday. The group's CEO, Angela Florez, explained that "we have said all along that we will use every possible avenue to safeguard essential care for our patients and all Arizonans, and that's exactly what we're doing with today's motion."
"While anti-abortion extremists in the state Legislature will continue to do everything in their power to undermine Arizonans' freedom and criminalize essential healthcare, Planned Parenthood Arizona is taking action to prevent a harmful total ban on abortion from taking effect in our state," Florez continued. "The court's April 9 ruling was both tragic and wrong, but it rested on trying to discern legislative intent. The Legislature has now spoken and clearly does not want the 1864 ban to be enforced."
"We hope the court stays true to its word and respects this long-overdue legislative action, by quickly granting our motion to end the uncertainty over the future of abortion in Arizona," added Florez, whose group supports the ballot measure.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Grand Jury Indicts Top Trump Aides, 11 Arizona Republicans Over 'Fake Electors' Scheme
Had it succeeded, said the state's attorney general, the scheme would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
Apr 25, 2024
A grand jury in Arizona on Wednesday charged seven aides to Donald Trump and nearly a dozen Republican officials over a "fake electors" scheme in the state that aimed to keep the former president in power after his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.
Trump, who is currently facing nearly 90 charges across four criminal cases as he runs for another White House term, was described as "unindicted co-conspirator 1" in the 58-page indictment, which was announced by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.
"The people of Arizona elected President Biden," Mayes, a Democrat, said Wednesday. "Unwilling to accept this fact, the defendants charged by the state grand jury allegedly schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency. Whatever their reasoning was, the plot to violate the law must be answered for."
The indictment names former Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, sitting state Republican Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, former U.S. Senate candidate Jim Lamon, and seven others as the "fake electors" who sought to declare Trump the rightful winner of the state's presidential contest.
The names of other individuals indicted by the state grand jury are redacted, but the document's descriptions make clear that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and top Trump legal strategist Boris Epshteyn are among those facing felony charges—including fraud, forgery, and conspiracy.
"In Arizona, defendants, unindicted coconspirators, and others pressured the three groups of election officials responsible for certifying election results to encourage them to change the election results," the document reads. "Discussions about using the Republican electors to change the outcome of the election began as early as November 4, 2020. Those plans evolved during November based on memos drafted by [an attorney for the Trump campaign, Kenneth Chesebro]."
Mayes said Wednesday that had the fake elector scheme succeeded, it would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
"It effectively would have made their right to vote meaningless," said Mayes.
A state grand jury, made up of everyday, regular Arizonans, has handed down felony indictments in the ongoing investigation into the fake elector scheme in Arizona. pic.twitter.com/Nu8GcD4ZqJ
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) April 24, 2024
Alex Gulotta, state director of All Voting Is Local Action Arizona, said Wednesday that "the indictment of the eleven fake electors is one of the first steps required in holding these election deniers accountable for their alleged attempts to take power away from voters by disrupting our free and fair elections."
"Arizonans deserve to trust the election officials responsible for administering our elections and preserving our democracy," said Gulotta, "and this is a positive step forward as we continue to strengthen the foundations of our democracy and restore faith in our elections."
The Arizona Republicreported Wednesday that "several of the Arizona electors have previously claimed they were merely offering Congress a backup plan, though nothing in the documents they sent to Congress and the National Archives backs up that assertion."
"The indictment includes several statements the false electors made on social media that contradict those claims," the newspaper observed.
Jenny Guzman, director of Common Cause's Arizona program, said the indictment "marks the start of a new chapter for the fake elector scheme that has plagued Arizona."
"Arizonans are still dealing with the fallout from the false electors and the Big Lie about the 2020 elections," said Guzman. "We are relieved that the investigation by Attorney General Mayes has concluded and Arizonans can now know that what comes next is accountability. These efforts by these fake electors to undermine the will of Arizona’s voters have had implications far beyond their failed attempt to overthrow the 2020 election."
"This indictment can reassure all Arizonans that if anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, attempts to undermine their vote, consequences will follow," Guzman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DOJ, 16 States Challenge Apple's 'Monopoly Power' in Landmark Antitrust Suit
"No company, even one as big as Apple, is above the law," said Arizona's attorney general.
Mar 21, 2024
The U.S. Department of Justice and 16 states on Thursday filed an antitrust lawsuit accusing Apple of illegally monopolizing the smartphone market by throttling competitors and stifling innovation.
The lawsuit, filed in a New Jersey federal court, alleges that the California-based tech titan unlawfully blocks innovative competitive apps, suppresses mobile cloud streaming services, excludes cross-platform messaging apps, diminishes the functionality of non-Apple smartwatches, and limits third-party digital wallets.
These actions, the DOJ says, run afoul of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, one of three main federal antitrust laws.
"Each step in Apple's course of conduct built and reinforced the moat around its smartphone monopoly," the lawsuit states. "The cumulative effect of this course of conduct has been to maintain and entrench Apple's smartphone monopoly at the expense of the users, developers, and other third parties who helped make the iPhone what it is today."
"Despite major technological changes over the years, Apple's power to control app creation and distribution and extract fees from developers has remained largely the same, unconstrained by competitive pressures or market forces," the filing continues. "That this conduct is impervious to competition reflects the success of Apple's efforts to create and maintain its smartphone monopoly, the strength of that monopoly, and the durability of Apple's power."
U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland said in a statement that "consumers should not have to pay higher prices because companies violate the antitrust laws."
"If left unchallenged, Apple will only continue to strengthen its smartphone monopoly," Garland added.
Attorney General Merrick Garland announces antitrust lawsuit against Apple: "Apple has maintained its power not because of its superiority, but because of its unlawful exclusionary behavior." pic.twitter.com/2ow6rWH2YV
— CSPAN (@cspan) March 21, 2024
Democratic New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said that "Apple's dominance in the smartphone market is not an accident."
"Instead, Apple has gone to great lengths to create a monopoly that affected not only the smartphone industry, but also the choice of apps, payment systems, smartwatches, and more," Platkin continued. "The end result is you pay more for an inferior product—all while Apple collects billions in profits."
Kris Mayes, Arizona's Democratic attorney general, contended that "Apple has used its monopoly power to block competition, stifle innovation, and extract higher prices from consumers."
"No company, even one as big as Apple, is above the law," she continued. "Apple's anticompetitive behavior has violated antitrust law and harmed consumers. Holding Apple accountable is critical to ensuring a competitive market where innovation can flourish and consumers can access a wide range of affordable products and services."
"Fair competition protects consumer choice and encourages innovation, leading to better products and services for everyone," Mayes added.
Apple said in a statement that "this lawsuit threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets."
"If successful, it would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple—where hardware, software, and services intersect," the company added. "It would also set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people's technology."
As The New York Timesreported:
Apple has effectively fought off other antitrust challenges. In a lawsuit over its App Store policies that Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite, brought in 2020, Apple persuaded the judge that customers could easily switch between its iPhone operating system and Google's Android system. It has presented data showing that the reason few customers change phones is their loyalty to the iPhone.
It also has defended its business practices in the past by saying its "approach has always been to grow the pie" and "create more opportunities not just for our business, but for artists, creators, entrepreneurs and every 'crazy one' with a big idea."
Consumer advocates welcomed the suit.
"Apple has been an outlier in its willingness to make changes to products and services to the benefit of consumers and developers," Sumit Sharma, senior researcher for tech competition at Consumer Reports, said in a statement.
"We've seen Apple limit access to hardware and software for competing services and products like smartwatches and contactless payments, and that's harmed innovation and competition," Sharma added. "Apple claims to be a champion of protecting user data, but its app store fee structure and partnership with Google search erode privacy."
Barry Lynn, executive director of the Open Markets Institute, said that "for more than a decade, Apple has engaged in unfair competition designed to entrench its monopoly control in the smartphone market and in multiple closely related marketplaces such as wireless apps."
"Today's groundbreaking lawsuit seeks to fully pry open Apple's restrictive practices so that fair competition can thrive in ways that deliver the public real choice and opportunity, and improve the quality of both hardware and software products," Lynn added.
The lawsuit is the latest effort by the Biden administration to tackle Big Tech monopolies. The administration has previously targeted companies including Amazon, Google, and Meta.
Apple is also under scrutiny by European regulators. Earlier this month, the European Commission hit the company with a $2 billion fine for violating antitrust rules by suppressing competition from rival music streaming services including Spotify.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular