REVISED – UPDATED PRESS CONFERENCE TIME IS 9 AM

ALRA Chairman Joins Federal Immigration Lawsuit to Defend Arizona and SB 1070

Phoenix, AZ – The Chairman of the Arizona Latino Republican Association (ALRA), Jesse Hernandez, is expected to announce that he and ALRA have signed on to a federal immigration lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice.

ALRA will be represented by Freedom Watch, Inc. – a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and promoting freedom in the United States and around the world.  The organization is participating in the lawsuit to demonstrate support for Arizona and challenge the Obama Administration on the issue of states’ rights.

ALRA is the first Hispanic organization to publicly challenge the U.S. Department of Justice in support of SB 1070.

WHO:                    Arizona Latino Republican Association

Freedom Watch, Inc.

WHAT:                  Joint Press Conference

WHERE:                Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) Headquarters

1102 West Adams Street

Phoenix, AZ 85007

WHEN:                  Thursday, July 22, 2010

9 a.m. (Revised Time)

About ALRA

The mission of the Arizona Latino Republican Association (ALRA) is to foster the conservative principles of the Republican Party in Arizona’s Latino community creating an empowered network of Republican Latino leaders and grassroots activists.

Jesse Hernandez, Chairman

mexgop@yahoo.com

4th of July UWSFA show on the Constitution

Despite protestations to the contrary from the law’s sponsor and others, this law turns the Arizona drivers license  (actually any state license) into a national id.

It’s a common misconception to believe that the national id must be a card or a chip.

National ID not a card or a chip, but is the data that the federal government has on you.  What the federal government has been attempting to do for many years, most notably under the Clinton administration, was to find a way to integrate all of the various data they have on American citizens into an easily searchable, easily sharable database and data exchange format.

SB1070 states

F. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the purposes of determining eligibiltiy for any … license and for the purposes of verifying any claim of residence or domicile.

This section removes ALL restrictions from the exchange of license data between any state agency and any federal agency.  This section applies to ANY PERSON.  This section includes ANY LICENSE.  Under this section ANY state agency may exchange ANY person’s license data with ANY federal agency without any restriction whatsoever.

This problem has nothing to do with what occurs at a police stop. It removes ALL restrictions from data exchange, including a full data dump, or including full back and forth real-time queryability, between any state license database and any or ALL federal agencies, beginning July 1, including the IRS or Homeland Security.

Protestations from the bill’s sponsor have included:  “That’s not what it says.”  “That’s not what it means.”  “It’s not in there.”

Yes, Mr. Pearce, but that’s what the law SAYS word for word, in black and white, in 8th grade level English, no lawyers required.

Other  protestations such as in this post include playing word games….

The fact that A.R.S. section 11-1051 allows for the sending, receiving, maintaining or exchanging of immigration status information with any federal, state or local agency does not in any way invoke the application of RIDA (REAL ID Act) in Arizona.

First, what does the REAL ID act have to do with it?   Nothing.  The REAL ID Act was a single federal program which attempted to force the state to turn over certain data to the feds.  This bill turns over the same data that the REAL ID Act mandated, but does so voluntarily by the state, having nothing to do with REAL ID, but having everything to do with national id once the federal government gets their hands on the data.  REAL ID here is completely irrelevant.

Second, what is “immigration status” relative to a citizens’ domicile?  Or how would you verify a citizen’s eligibility for a drivers license (or any license) via exchange of that citizen’s data with the federal government?  Why would you need to?  Where is the limitation to the term “immigration status” in the data exchange with the federal government in checking a citizen’s domicile information with the feds or a citizen’s eligibility for a driver’s license (or a business license, or a hunting license - ANY license, remember). Nowhere.  Why would the state need to do so relative to its citizens?  But that’s precisely what the law enables.

The county attorney’s office goes onto state:

Subsection F states four limiting “official purposes.” If a public agent or bureaucrat cannot demonstrate that he accessed a person’s information pursuant to subsections F’s official purposes

A bureaucrat accessing the person’ s information is not at question here.  Removal of all restrictions in sending law abiding citizen’s data to the federal government relevant to check the citizen’s domicile and/or eligibility for a license is.

Arizona law cannot dictate what the federal government does with law abiding citizen’s data once it is handed over to the feds.  The feds, of course, will promptly put the data into whatever database they want which accomplishes their longstanding goal to implement a national id system.

Again, national id is NOT a card. It is the unique identifiers such as your name, SSN, domicile and biometric data such as your digitial photo on file with the MVD, once turned over to the feds and put into their national id database.  Once the data is placed into the national id database, then your DL can be run against that national id database and is, VOILA, a national id.

Russell Pearce continues to protest stating that he’s against national ids and that this bill does not contain national id.

And, yet, he fails to address the matter of the data exchange of law abiding citizens’ license data with “any agency” of the federal government, including Janet Napolitano’s agency, who is dying to get her hands on this information, especially gun owners’ information.

The only time the exchange of citizens’ data has ever been addressed was in the opinion that Andrew Thomas’ office wrote, linked to above, which stated it’s not REAL ID.   So what?  REAL ID is not the only national id program.  PASS ID, BELIEVE ID, or just drivers’ license database dumps into the Homeland Security database all turn state drivers licenses into national ids…..

….but only if the state hands over the data.  Which SB1070 does, willingly, of all citizens.

Russell Pearce is quoted as saying, “If we don’t turn over all of our data to the federal government, then how will be know who is SUPPOSED to be here.”

Wait a second, Senator Pearce, I thought this bill was supposed to be about who is NOT supposed to be here.

Senator Pearce, if you’re telling the truth and are against national id, THEN FIX THE LAW and prohibit the exchange of law abiding citizens’ data with the federal government.

No patriot hands over the private data of law abiding citizens to the feds, such as you have done in SB1070.

Anyone who does betrays the hard work of conservative patriots who have been fighting national ids since before the Clinton administration and since.

Fix the law before July 1. Otherwise, welcome to the leftist globalist Clintonista agenda as implemented by the right.

Lastly, Ronald Reagan opposed national ids http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa237.html

Gun Owners of America oppose national ids because they state that once the federal government has your drivers license data, they have enough information to track gun purchases…

“Since I need a driver’s license to purchase a gun from a dealer, BATFE would finally have its long-coveted tool to impose gun control on targeted groups — particularly under a liberal anti-gun administration. If you believe in the Second Amendment, please vote against this anti-gun monstrosity.” http://seclists.org/politech/2005/Feb/0016.html

Not to mention the fact that from the federal side of the fence, they plan on using the SAME SYSTEM to enable AMNESTY.   We can’t have it both ways – to use secure ids to keep illegal aliens out and at the same time use secure ids to let them in.

Fix the law, Senator Pearce.

PHOENIX – When several new education reforms become law in late July, Arizona legislators and other state officials must seize the opportunity to improve student learning, says a new report from the Goldwater Institute.

“During the 2010 session, the Legislature embraced some innovative ideas that already are improving student learning in other states,” said report author Matthew Ladner, Ph.D., Goldwater Institute vice president for research. “But this is the first step of a journey. Ultimately, the goal of these reforms is to change the culture of public schools so they focus on improved learning for every child, whether they are at the top of their class or the bottom.”

The report, “On the Road to Excellence: Next Steps to Match Florida’s Success in Educating Children,” says Arizona policymakers will have to resist the pressure to weaken these reforms during implementation. After a decade of reform, Florida’s fourth-grade students have improved their reading test scores by 20 points, which is the equivalent of moving up two entire grade levels.

The Arizona Department of Education now will have the chance to carry out similar reforms, such as providing clear descriptions of a school’s performance with letter grades of A, B, C, D, or F; requiring third graders to read before entering the fourth grade; and offering tests for career professionals to teach in public schools.

Dr. Ladner notes there are at least two additional Florida reforms that Arizona lawmakers should consider in 2011. To reduce the number of third-grade students who are held back, Florida has required extensive teacher retraining in the fundamentals of reading instruction. Dr. Ladner recommends that Arizona schools use existing teacher professional development funds to contract with private companies for affordable online training programs to equip teachers with more effective techniques.

Florida also has tied additional funding for schools to improved student performance. As one example, the report explains that Florida schools and teachers earn bonus money for each student who passes an advanced placement exam. Dr. Ladner recommends that funding for K-12 education in Arizona be linked directly to student achievement and sent directly to schools – bypassing bureaucratic school district offices – to improve the chances that the money actually will make it to classrooms.

Read “On the Road to Excellence: Next Steps to Match Florida’s Success in Educating Children” here.

The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

What if you discovered a diabolical plot decades in the making to transform America into something sinister that could strip away your freedoms? Would you do all you could to reveal the plan and try to save the country, even if speaking out might destroy your life? That is the question facing the protagonist of Glenn Beck’s new novel The Overton Window.

Set for release on June 15, the political thriller is based on a theory developed by the late vice president of Michigan’s Mackinac Center, Joseph Overton, called The Overton Window. The theory states that policy proposals in any given area can be arranged from the most freedom to the least free. But only a narrow window of those policy options is considered politically acceptable to politicians. This smaller list of policy options does not necessarily reflect the stance a lawmaker would prefer to take on an issue. Rather, this “window” looks onto the range of choices the lawmaker believes he or she can support and still win re-election. As ideas change in society, the window shifts to include new policies or exclude old ones.

Policy research organizations such as the Goldwater Institute and the Mackinac Center play a critical part in shifting the Overton Window in the right direction. We call attention to good ideas that the public doesn’t know about. In turn, lawmakers recognize where these ideas fit within the range of policy options they can support. As Mackinac Center President Joseph Lehman puts it: “Today’s unacceptable ideas become acceptable. Yesterday’s acceptable policies become unacceptable. Change ideas to shift the Overton Window. Shift the window, and you change policy.” The Goldwater Institute has, and always will, work to move the Overton Window toward those policies that protect and expand your liberty.

Dan Guerin is a communications associate with the Goldwater Institute.

“SB 1070 has been enacted, and I think what we have to look at now is, what does Arizona do now? How do we put a good step forward to show that Arizona is not as a whole, a biased state. And that we appreciate and respect the Hispanic population in our state very much.”

Maybe Justice O’Connor can use her elite Stanford Law School education to educate us on how we might possibly prove a negative–that we are NOT a bigoted state.  And why in the world do we have to apologize essentially for passing this law?  There is nothing bigoted about it–as Russell Pearce says, illegal alien is not a race.

The nationwide call for state autonomy has grown so passionate that some are attempting to hijack it for wicked purposes.

H.R. 5034, sponsored by Representative Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, invokes the language of states’ rights to advance one of the few powers clearly denied the states in the original Constitution: economic protectionism. This bill would give states the power to regulate interstate alcohol shipments, even in a discriminatory manner if there is a “justification” for doing so.

The law essentially would overturn Grandholm v. Heald, a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that I argued, in which the Court struck down discriminatory barriers that blocked wine shipments to consumers across state lines. The regulations benefited liquor wholesalers, who want to control every drop of alcohol and charge hefty middleman fees, while hurting wine consumers who want to buy directly from a vineyard in another state. With the advent of the Internet, this battle plays out every day over products ranging from cars to contact lenses, as middlemen seek to protect their delivery monopolies.

The Commerce Clause was intended to end protectionist trade barriers by the states. Over time, Congress has abused its power under the Commerce Clause to regulate activities that have little or nothing to do with interstate commerce. We must curb the abuses without destroying the critical purpose of the Commerce Clause: to ensure an open national market.

True federalism gives states the power to expand liberty, not to diminish it. Regulation of interstate commerce is a power our Constitution’s framers thought the states could not be trusted to exercise fairly – and they were right.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

But in an open letter sent to Congress Wednesday, eight former Federal Election Commission commissioners, including Goldwater Institute Senior Fellows Lee Ann Elliot and Bradley Smith, ask federal lawmakers to defend the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. These eight experts say the DISCLOSE Act will repress campaign speech just liberated by the Supreme Court. With this public petition, the former commissioners have joined the Institute’s effort to make clear to lawmakers and to the public that complex and burdensome campaign spending rules interfere with everyone’s right to speak freely during elections.

According to the letter Senator Schumer’s bill “makes the law even more complex, more incomprehensible to ordinary voters, and more open to subjective enforcement and manipulation by those seeking partisan gain.” The letter’s analysis mirrors the reasoning of “Citizens United v. FEC: A Case for Limiting Campaign Finance Regulations,” a Goldwater Institute policy report that explains why federal and state governments should be scaling back campaign regulations instead of adding new ones.

The Citizens United decision struck down federal election laws that prevented corporations, unions and other groups from directly spending money on campaign messages in the days leading up to an election. Congress and states around the country are now required to rewrite their own election laws to lift such bans and ease requirements on people and groups who spend money on campaign messages.

Instead, the DISCLOSE Act attempts to bring back many of the unconstitutional restrictions. For example, it would prohibit any company with a federal contract of more than $50,000 from making any independent expenditures or electioneering. But this prohibition would not apply to government employee unions. The $50,000 threshold is so low that it would literally exclude thousands of businesses from engaging in constitutionally protected political speech, the very core of the First Amendment. Yet public employee unions that negotiate directly with the government for benefits worth many times more than $50,000 would have a free pass to speak their minds.

Sophisticated politicians can easily navigate complex campaign finance rules with armies of lawyers and other professionals. But most people won’t go to such lengths and that creates a barrier to the exercise of First Amendment rights that should no longer be tolerated.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is Director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

The opening passage of the bill is clear: “The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, health care and mental health of their children is a fundamental right.” State and local governments “shall not infringe these rights without demonstrating that the compelling governmental interest as applied to the child involved is of the highest order, is narrowly tailored and is not otherwise served by a less restrictive means.”

The bill preserves protections against child abuse, and requires school districts to notify parents of rights under other state laws that many (including me) didn’t know they have.

The U.S. Constitution protects the right of parents to control the upbringing and education of their children. But in most cases the courts defer to school districts rather than parents. For instance, legal challenges to mandatory student community service routinely have been rejected, and parents’ concerns about sex education or political correctness in the schools often reach deaf ears among school officials who are quite sure they know best.

This bill reverses the equation, making parents the masters of their children’s upbringing and school officials their agents. This bill is a great example of how much can be done to protect freedom at the state level. Our federal constitution provides the baseline for our liberties. But states are empowered to go beyond those freedoms.

Arizona sets the standard for doing just that. For parents who believe they can better determine their children’s best interests than the state, Arizona is now the place to be.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Calculating how much he can spend

According to his campaign brochure, “Konopnicki opposes bigger government and party politics at taxpayer expenses” … Bill has “listened to your concerns … represented YOU and your issues…”  And finally, Bill Supports “… solving the budget problem.” [that he helped create]

The following oldie but goodie from the vault clearly illustrates where this term limited House member’s heart is – and just when Arizona’s economy was beginning to show signs of what was to come.

No wonder your county officials love him, they’re underpaid.

Az House-Senate panel clears way for county officials’ pay
Arizona Capitol Times, May 18, 2007 | by Luige del Puerto

A group of Arizona lawmakers stripped off an amendment to a proposal that would have required elected county officials to vote to accept a pay hike.

The current version of H2102, sponsored by Rep. William Konopnicki, R-5, seeks to raise the annual salary of seven county officials by approximately 13 percent. Affected officials include the county
attorney, assessor, recorder, sheriff, superintendent of schools, supervisors and treasurer.

In the original bill, the county attorney, for example, is guaranteed an increase to $123,678 from $109,450, and the sheriff, an increase to $100,824 from $89,225, beginning January 2009.
On May 15, six lawmakers – three members from each chamber – met in a conference committee and
adopted the House version of H2102. That version, which contains the sponsor’s original intent, now

goes back to the Senate and the House for final votes.
Konopnicki was opposed to the Senate amendment, offered by Sen. Ron Gould, R-3. His intent was to
remove the amendment in the conference.

Gould, who represented the Senate side together with Senators Jake Flake, R-5, and Rebecca Rios, D-23, anticipated the move.  Immediately after the House side voted to adopt the House version, Gould offered a verbal amendment to the Senate version of the bill.  The gist of his verbal motion was to require the county board of supervisors to take a majority vote to accept all or part of the proposed pay raise.

Arizona recently earned an F on a government transparency report card produced by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Fortunately, Arizona now is poised to leapfrog many states and move to the forefront of government disclosure in the Internet age.

The state Department of Administration soon will launch a website revealing state finances in greater detail as a result of a bill passed two years ago. Special districts were given a similar mandate in 2009. HB2282, championed by Representative Steve Montenegro, Senator Russell Pearce, and former state Senator Jonathan Paton, covers most other local governments including cities, counties and school districts and must be implemented by 2013.

The vision of government transparency is not complete, though. We have to make sure government releases information that is understandable and follows common sense. In addition, not all aspects of government are covered by the law; small towns have been exempted even though there are few costs involved in providing public information on the Internet. Finally, government should reveal even more than its checkbook. It should also justify what it’s spending by posting information about the actual performance of agencies and employees.

Arizonans can be happy that our elected officials took action to make sure the state rates higher than an F in transparency. But there is still a way to go before the state gets the A+ that we all deserve as taxpayers.

Dr. Byron Schlomach is an economist and the director of the Center for Economic Prosperity at the Goldwater Institute.

Ten years ago Florida implemented a set of education reforms that transformed their schools from among the worst performers on national tests to among the best. Several of the bills that Governor Brewer has signed into law are modeled on Florida’s success.

–Arizona now will annually issue schools a letter grade of A, B, C, D, or F.
–The state now will have a robust program for experts in math, science and other areas to teach their subjects without first getting a teaching certificate from a college of education.
–Lawmakers have curtailed social promotion by holding back some third graders who have yet to learn the basics of reading.
–Legislators expanded the sources available to launch new charter schools.
–Lawmakers increased the size and transparency of the state scholarship tax credit program and changed to the date for claiming the tax credits from December 31 to April 15.
–The Legislature also specified school districts cannot use “years on the job” as the only criteria when deciding which teachers to keep. The Arizona Department of Education will be required to develop teacher and principal evaluations that include how well students score on specific tests.

Each bill contains important policy changes that will improve education by holding educators accountable to parents and taxpayers. The “A” to “F” school labels and teacher evaluation reforms could revolutionize Arizona’s public schools if properly implemented.

We have many people to thank for these remarkable changes. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Patricia Levesque, the executive director for the Foundation for Excellence in Education, spent their valuable time here in Arizona. Key philanthropic and business community leaders aided with both their money and their time. Governor Jan Brewer and her staff made it a priority to win legislative approval of the Florida-based reforms. The chairmen of the Senate and House education committees, Senator John Huppenthal and Representative Rich Crandall, personally introduced several of the key bills. Most of the measures gathered strong, bipartisan support.

This year, Arizona lawmakers demonstrated with action, not just words, that they will not accept Arizona permanently sitting near the bottom of student achievement rankings. We will not see overnight improvement, and much hard work lies ahead. We have, however, taken the first vital steps to turning our school performance crisis around.

Dr. Matthew Ladner is vice president of research for the Goldwater Institute.

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

Friday, May 7, 2010

How long will it take before the Arizona Republic finally asks John McCain the direct question “Do you support SB 1070?” Paging Dan Nowicki. Paging Dan Nowicki…

Click here to view the embedded video.

SB1398 leverages the fact that federal agencies are required by many federal laws to “coordinate” with local governments to ensure that new federal regulations will be enforced consistently with existing local laws. In other states, local governments have successfully used their coordination rights to block the introduction of wild horses into public and private lands, as well as to prevent new listings of endangered species. Despite these successes, most local governments simply do not exercise their coordination rights, perhaps for fear of upsetting federal agencies.

Now, whenever a new federal regulation clashes with a less restrictive local law, plan or policy, SB1398 requires Arizona cities, counties and special districts to demand that the responsible federal agency sit down at a bargaining table and make every reasonable effort to modify the federal regulation to become consistent with local priorities. If local governments ignore this obligation, ordinary citizens will have the power to compel their local elected officials to justify their inaction at a public hearing, guaranteeing local accountability.

But the effort to restore federalism does not end with the passage of SB1398. To stake out an initial bargaining position that will blunt one-size-fits-all federal regulations, local governments in Arizona need to start developing freedom-friendly land use policies before the need for coordination arises.  Fortunately, the Goldwater Institute policy report “A New Charter for American Cities” shows how that can be done.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is Director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.