The Guy Who Could Save Our Republic: Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich - Politicrossing
Connect with us

News

The Guy Who Could Save Our Republic: Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich

Published

on

During a time when many Republican officials have been unwilling to do anything to battle election fraud, a few are holding firm. Last year, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich got involved with six election lawsuits, including successfully suing the Democratic County Recorder when he tried to send out mail in ballots to everyone in Maricopa County. Brnovich wrote to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors a few days after the election urging them to more than double the hand audit. He also filed an amicus brief in support of the Arizona State Senate demanding that the supervisors turn over the Dominion voting machines for inspection.

 

Now, he’s taking on the DNC in a case at the Supreme Court that is going to determine whether states can take measures to combat election fraud. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 2. This will likely determine whether the election fraud we saw in the presidential race can continue or whether states will be able to stop it. 

 

The litigation arose before the 2016 election and involves two laws Arizona implemented against election fraud. Two separate cases were consolidated, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee. One law requires that a ballot be thrown out if it was cast in a precinct other than the one matching the voter’s home address. The other law bans ballot harvesting, where third parties (with a few obvious exceptions including close family, household members and caretakers) are allowed to turn ballots in. The DNC sued Arizona over the two laws, claiming racism (no surprise). The federal district court judge and a three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Arizona, but the full Ninth Circuit panel overruled the smaller panel. 

 

In order to prove racial discrimination under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, there must be proof of a substantial disparate impact. There is no evidence of this. The district court found that the out-of-precinct policy had no impact on 99.9% of non-minority voters and 99.8% of minority voters. So the DNC is attempting to get the court to ignore the word “substantial” to get around this. Brnovich said in his brief that doing so would lead to chaos. For example, one slight change in voting laws could increase Hispanic voter turnout by 2% while decreasing black turnout by 2%. As for the ballot harvesting ban, the DNC (and Arizona’s Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs) failed to provide any purported evidence of racial discrimination.  

 

Ten senators, led by Ted Cruz, filed a brief supporting Arizona. The Trump administration also filed a brief in support of Arizona, saying the laws do not promote racial discrimination in voting. Surprisingly, when Biden first took office his administration supported that position. Since then, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler backtracked slightly and said in a letter to the court that the administration disagrees on a few points, but didn’t go any further than that. “The Biden administration basically agreed that our voting laws don’t violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” Brnovich told The Daily Signal.   

 

If banning ballot harvesting is racist, then 19 other states must be racist too since they also ban the practice. Most states also require citizens to vote at their assigned precinct. 

 

We saw plenty of evidence from the 2020 election where unscrupulous Democrat activists harvested ballots from voters, coerced them into filling them out or filled them out for them, and turned them in. Project Veritas caught activists taking advantage of elderly Somali immigrants in order to add votes for Rep. Ilhan Omar in Minneapolis. Project Veritas also caught the Biden campaign’s Texas Political Director Dallas Jones harvesting ballots from dead people, homeless people and nursing home residents. There are countless more stories like this. It is a real problem. 

 

This is a key decision because if laws like this can be struck down for being racist, you could make the argument that a lot of election integrity laws could be struck down as racist. Let’s say common sense precautions such as requiring extra poll watchers from both parties results in 1% fewer minority votes. That is so small it is statistically insignificant. But under the Democrats’ standard, that tiny difference would constitute racism.

 

We may not have been able to defeat election fraud in the 2020 election in time; they broadsided us. But it is imperative to stop it or Republicans may never hold significant offices again. It is the single most important issue we must focus on right now. The future of our country hinges on this decision.

 

Brnovich is going to be under one of the most horrendous attacks by the left we have ever seen. They already have their sights on him. He was the first state attorney general to sue Google. He filed a lawsuit immediately after Biden took office over the administration’s 100 day freeze on deportations. He led several amicus briefs defending the Second Amendment and religious liberty. He’s taken on the higher education establishment and continues to fight them in state court. And before becoming AG, he served as director of the Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute. 

 

This will be one of the biggest political fights of our lifetime. Although the Biden administration has backed down on the case, the so-called conservatives on the Supreme Court have proven they cannot be trusted. Most political fights are fought very publicly in the legislative and executive arenas, which is where most major policy is made. The Supreme Court only accepts about 80 cases each year, but a handful of its cases have profound implications. This is the sleeper case no one knows about that may end up like a Roe v. Wade.

 

Disclaimer: The author worked with Mark Brnovich at the Arizona Attorney General’s Office in the early 2000s before he became Attorney General.

 

We'd love to hear your thoughts about this article. Please take a minute to share them in the comment section by clicking here. Or carry the conversation over on your favorite social network by clicking one of the share buttons below.


Rachel Alexander is a conservative political writer and pundit. She is the editor of Intellectual Conservative and a recovering attorney. She was ranked by Right Wing News as one of the 50 Best Conservative Columnists from 2011-2019.



  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
 
 
 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.



Education

Scottsdale School District Retaliates Against Parents Over Curriculum Meeting

Published

on

Last week, a group of Scottsdale Unified School District Parents hosted a meeting to discuss the controversial new curriculum and to educate parents on what content to be on the lookout for. In response to this meeting the school district send a cease and desist order over the use of “SUSD”.  Parents are shocked Scottsdale Unified School District administration would waste resources over such a simple matter.  One parent involved Amy Carney had the follow reaction “This time the school board has crossed a new threshold and must be held accountable for abusing their power to intimidate parents through legal action. Parents were sent a cease and desist letter for using the Scottsdale Unified School District initials to describe our recent event and for using “SUSD” as a part of a group of concerned parents in the districts’ social media name.”

Unfortunately, this situation is playing out across the country as parents continue to ask questions about their children’s education.

 

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: Multitasking Renders You Less Productive

 Full statement and Letter

STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO SCOTTSDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’S LETTER SENT TO PARENTS TO CEASE AND DESIST USE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT’S INITIALS TO ORGANIZE NON DISTRICT APPROVED EVENTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Scottsdale, Arizona—Scottsdale Unified School Board President, Jann Michael Greenburg, approved using taxpayer’s dollars to target and harass Scottsdale public school district parents for hosting an information night on July 28 for community members and parents.
Scottsdale mom of six, Amy Carney, co-organizer of the event, says, “We hosted this event because parents need to know what to expect when sending their kids back to school. The district is not transparent or truthful with parents so we hosted the event to share what we’ve learned and give parents the tools and information to take action this upcoming school year. The board President is now retaliating against us parents for circumventing their ability to control the conversation.”

Since August, 2020 parents have held the district and board accountable for gaslighting families on everything from school closures, to mask mandates and curriculum. On record, the board President has tried to intimidate theseoutspoken parents into silence by harassing them on social media and canceling their voices at school board meetings. Carney says, “This time the school board has crossed a new threshold and must be held accountable for abusing
their power to intimidate parents through legal action. Parents were sent a cease and desist letter for using the Scottsdale Unified School District initials to describe our recent event and for using “SUSD” as a part of a group of concerned parents in the districts’ social media name.

Unknown to the group, the board trademarked the initials in October of 2020 and is now selectively choosing who can and cannot use the Scottsdale Unified School District initials. The district’s attorney gave the unofficial Facebook group of moms and dads (formerly known as SUSD-CAN) until Friday afternoon to change the group’s name which is now the Scottsdale Unified CAN (Community Advocacy Network). Co-admin of the Facebook group (formerly known as SUSD-CAN) Trish Olson says, “Why didn’t they just ask us directly to change the name? We’ve met with Scottsdale Superintendent Dr. Scott Menzel monthly, as recently as
July 8. If they wanted to keep lines of communication open with parents, why get lawyers involved?”

Scottsdale parent and Co-organizer of the event, Amanda Wray, raised awareness in the community last week when SUSD sent a controversial form by “mistake” asking parents for consent to have their child surveyed with questions about medical and mental health history and gun and ammunition ownership in the home. The district replaced the
consent form and issued a statement of retraction. Wray says, “Unfortunately, this just looks and feels like retaliation for scrutinizing the district over the repeated missteps and lack of transparency with parents. Our mission and efforts will not be diluted or discouraged by such trivial and punitive actions against our group. We encourage all parents in public schools to get involved in their child’s education and ask questions when things don’t seem right.”

 

SUSDGUSTLAWLETTER

Continue Reading

News

Sowing the Wind and Reaping the Whirlwind: California and its Epic Wildfires

Published

on

California
Photo credit: Patrick Luscri

Like the 2018 Camp Fire, California’s Dixie Fire is epic. It has burned more than 220,000 acres and at least 40 structures. It’s the largest conflagration since the Camp Fire that destroyed Paradise. Sadly, California wildfires are becoming as common as Florida hurricanes. Why is this happening and who’s to blame? In a word, California.

By mismanaging its forests and water sources and enabling a power provider to place profits over people, the Golden State has sown the wind and is reaping the whirlwind.

Why is every California fire season scarier and more destructive than the last? The reasons can be boiled down to these:

  1. Decades of forest mismanagement caused by environmentalists shaping policy
  2. Co-opted Northern California watersheds and water supply diversion
  3. Hotter temperatures and historic drought conditions caused by climate change
  4. Failing PG&E infrastructure
Forest mismanagement

We live five miles from the southeastern edge of the Dixie Fire. Our little mountain town of Quincy is under an evacuation warning. Many of our fellow residents live in areas of mandatory evacuation and some have lost their homes. Local firefighters and forest experts have known for years this was inevitable.

It’s common sense, really. When forest undergrowth and dead limbs and logs are allowed to pile up between trees, you may as well stack logs at their bases and light a match. Wise forest managers remove forest floor fuels and keep forests from growing dangerously dense.

Foolish forest managers allow undergrowth to flourish in order to “protect” ecological environments of certain species at the expense of overall forest ecology. This hands-off approach is pushed in Sacramento by those who think we’re only one species sharing our environment rather than caretakers of our environment.

Wise gardeners prevent weeds from diverting moisture from produce plants by removing them. This ensures a healthy garden. Why wouldn’t smart forest management include removal of undergrowth and dead or dying trees?

Water diversion

A few years ago, state biologists “gill-netted” vast quantities of fish in our local Silver Lake in order to prevent them from feeding on a certain frog. This decimated the fish population in favor of the frog population. How is this an ecological balance?

Similarly, allowing natural water sources to feed rivers and streams provides better hydration for trees—and raises critical moisture levels for forests. Diverting water from Northern California sources when levels are low exacerbates the deadly dryness of moisture-starved Sierra forests. Shouldn’t there be a better balance based on water levels?

As climate change continues to affect moisture and heat, smart and balanced water management becomes more critical. Yet California continues to base policy decisions reactively rather than proactively. If Northern California watershed areas burn for lack of moisture, poor water management will be partially to blame.

So will California’s reliance on hydroelectric power over traditional (and more effective) fossil-fuel plants. The state gets nearly 2/3 of its power from non-fossil fuel production, which is why it has to buy electricity from states like Oregon, Arizona and others.

Failing PG&E

Failed PG&E power lines are responsible for devastating California wildfires for the last five fire seasons. According to PG&E’s initial report the day the Dixie Fire started, an employee responding to an outage noticed a blown fuse at Cresta Dam in a heavily forested area of Butte County around the Feather River Canyon. He found two blown fuses and a tree leaning on a power conductor. He also found a fire on the ground near the base of the tree.

When the 2018 Camp Fire erupted, a PG&E employee noticed flames caused by a faulty transmission line in Feather River Canyon. Many of these lines are supported by electrical towers from the early 1900s. PG&E customers pay modern rates for modern electricity delivered via century-old towers.

In fairness, PG&E is finally taking steps to modernize its infrastructure with underground line burial and other measures. Sadly, these measures are long overdue and are too little too late for victims of the Camp Fire and now for those dealing with the Dixie Fire. Worse, PG&E seems to be continuing their foot-dragging regarding reporting system failures when they point to a wildfire start.

Closed market

According to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), PG&E ignored regulations that require it to report wildfire-related infrastructure failures within two hours of the event. PG&E took five days to report the Dixie Fire-related failure to CPUC. As a state agency, CPUC answers to Governor Gavin Newsom and Sacramento politicians. PG&E is supposed to answer to CPUC, yet is still failing to follow the rules.

Not only is there a lack of meaningful accountability, the relationship between California and PG&E is dysfunctional. The average citizen wonders why Sacramento continues enabling a repeat offender of a power company. Another question is why California refuses to open up its utility market to competitors in order to force PG&E to modernize its infrastructure.

Something has to change or California will continue to burn every fire season. Close to home, people in our community love living in Northern California, but the Golden State will lose even more citizens if residents have to flee the flames every summer.

 

Continue Reading

 

Our Newsletter

Become a Politicrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Sites We Like

Our Newsletter

Become a PolitiCrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Trending

Politicrossing
 
Send this to a friend