April 24, 2024
Abortion law status remains unclear, even as lawmakers near repeal of ban
PHOENIX - As state lawmakers push to repeal a near-total ban on abortion, Planned Parenthood of Arizona confirmed Wednesday that it will continue to provide abortions up to 15 weeks of pregnancy "until the last legal moment." But when that last legal moment is depends on who's talking. Abortion opponents argue that the ban should have taken effect this week, while Attorney General Kris Mayes said it would not take effect until June at the earliest - and she would not enforce it then. It could take weeks yet for final Senate approval of a repeal, and even then it would be months before the law took effect. In the meantime, providers and prosecutors are all saying they do not expect abortion services to stop anytime soon. "Unfortunately, without an emergency clause that would allow the repeal to take effect quickly, we may still be looking at a period of time when the 1864 law could potentially take effect," Mayes said in a statement Wednesday. "My office continues to look at every legal option available to prevent that from ever happening." [related-story-right box-title="Related story" link="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024/04/24/house-votes-to-repeal-near-total-abortion-ban-bill-still-needs-senate-ok/" image="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/biggertattoo-1024.jpg" headline="House votes to repeal near-total abortion ban; bill still needs Senate OK"] The 1864 law makes abortion a felony, except to save the life of the mother. It had been on hold since 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court recognized a right to an abortion in its Roe v. Wade decision. But the Arizona law was never taken off the books. When the Supreme Court reversed its Roe decision in 2022, it opened the door to resurrection of the territorial-era law, even though the Legislature had passed a new law just weeks before Roe was overturned that allowed abortions up to 15 weeks of pregnancy. After two years of legal fights, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled on April 9 that the 1864 law was still valid and that it trumped the 2022 15-week threshold. It put its order on hold for two weeks to allow abortion advocates to challenge the ruling. As far as Jake Warner is concerned, that means the 1864 law should be in effect now. "As we read the orders and the relevant law, county prosecutors can begin enforcing the law within 14 days of the Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling,” said Warner, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, which argued for the court to restore the territorial-era law. "Life is a human right, and it always will be." But Mayes said in an April 9 letter to health care providers that, under an agreement in a separate abortion case, the state would not enforce the 1864 law for 45 days after the court's final order. That clock started Tuesday, she said, meaning the law cannot be enforced until June 8. In the meantime, Democrats in the Legislature have been pushing unsuccessfully to repeal the 1864 law - until Wednesday, when three House Republicans joined all Democrats to approve repeal on a 32-28 vote. [caption id="attachment_230981" align="alignright" width="350"]
A small group of abortion opponents gathers outside the state Capitol, where the House by a narrow margin Wednesday voted to repeal a near-total ban on abortions in the state. (Photo by Martin Dreyfuss/Cronkite News)[/caption]
That measure now goes to the Senate, which could take weeks to give it final approval and send it to Gov. Katie Hobbs, who has said she will sign it. But the repeal would not take effect until 90 days after the end of the current legislative session.
"The result of today's vote is disappointing, but it doesn't change the fact that every life is valuable from the moment of conception," Warner said in a prepared statement. "Government officials - especially those who have promised to affirm life - should do everything they can to protect unborn children."
Abortion opponents may still have some options: While the deadline to introduce bills has passed, the House Rules Committee on Wednesday voted to let GOP leaders introduce late legislation - presumably abortion bills.
All the back and forth comes against the backdrop of a ballot initiative, the Arizona Abortion Access Act, that would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. If approved by voters, it would guarantee abortion up to fetal viability, considered to be around 24 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for abortions after that.
While the actual law could veer from one extreme to the other between now and November, prosecutors have taken a hands-off approach.
Gov. Katie Hobbs issued an executive order last year that allows Mayes to prohibit county attorneys from bringing charges against abortion providers or patients.
[related-story-right box-title="Related story" link="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024/04/12/harris-arizona-democrats-seize-on-abortion-ban-to-blast-trump-gop/" image="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/veepharris-1024.jpg" headline="Harris, Arizona Democrats seize on abortion ban to blast Trump, GOP"]
"Attorney General Kris Mayes has been clear she will not prosecute any doctor or woman for an abortion,” Mayes spokesperson Richie Taylor said in an email. "Even without the executive order … she would use her statutory supervisory authority to prevent county attorneys from prosecuting abortion cases.”
Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, a Republican, said earlier this month that she would not prosecute women who receive an abortion, but made no mention of abortion providers.
"My priority always has been to protect women, not prosecute them," Mitchell said in the April 9 statement. "Likewise, I have made it clear that this office will not prosecute abortions that were the result of rape, incest, or molestation."
Her office confirmed Wednesday that it has not received a single request to file abortion charges, which would be required before a prosecution could proceed.
If all else fails for abortion-rights advocates, they can always go to California. Gov. Gavin Newsom on Wednesday unveiled emergency legislation that would let Arizona doctors perform abortions in his state.
"We have seen a 10% increase in the last year or so of out of state requests for care," Newsom said. "This Arizona law is the first border state law that will directly affect the state of California.”]]> April 24, 2024
House votes to repeal near-total abortion ban; bill still needs Senate OK
PHOENIX – The Arizona House voted Wednesday to repeal the state’s near-total ban on abortion, with three Republicans joining all Democrats to reverse the law despite emotional rhetoric from anti-abortion lawmakers. The 32-28 vote came just two weeks after the Arizona Supreme Court reinstated the 1864 law that criminalizes abortion except to save the life of the mother, and it was the third try by Democrats to reverse that ruling. The measure still needs Senate approval before it goes to the governor, who has said she would sign it. Even though it took weeks, House Republicans called the vote rushed and said the 1864 law should be allowed to stand. "While a few tweaks to the pre-Roe law may be in order to provide some clarity on miscarriages and an additional exception for rape, along with the current exception to save the life of the mother, a complete repeal is a betrayal of everything Arizona stands for and has always stood for," said Rep. Jacqueline Parker, R-Mesa. [related-story-right box-title="Related story" link="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024/04/24/abortion-law-status-remains-unclear-even-as-lawmakers-near-repeal-of-ban/" image="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Roe-Arizona-Protests-7-1024x640-1.jpg" headline="Abortion law status unclear, even as lawmakers near repeal of ban"] But GOP members who voted for repeal called it a preventive action, saying they feared that leaving the law on the books would spur voters to approve "unlimited abortions" when they vote on an abortion initiative this fall. Republican Reps. Matt Gress of Phoenix, Tim Dunn of Yuma and Justin Wilmeth of Phoenix voted for repeal. In statements released after the vote, Gress and Dunn said they are still anti-abortion but that the 1864 law is "unworkable." "Should the pre-Roe law remain in effect, I firmly believe more lives will be lost over time," Dunn's statement said. "The public backlash would result in codifying disturbing and unlimited abortions in the Arizona Constitution, which is something that I cannot allow to happen." Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, D-Tucson, in January introduced the bill to repeal the then-dormant 1864 law, but her bill never got a hearing. After the Supreme Court reinstated the territorial era law on April 9, however, lawmakers moved to bring Stahl Hamilton's bill directly to the House floor for a vote - a motion that was blocked for the past two weeks by Republicans. Gress and Dunn crossed the aisle Wednesday, allowing for the vote, and Wilmeth joined them for final passage. Stahl Hamilton became emotional while speaking to reporters after the vote. "We know that a greater percentage of the people of Arizona want this law to repeal so that folks can get the care that they deserve," she said. The Senate last week introduce a mirror repeal measure after Republican Sens. T.J. Shope of Coolidge and Shawnna Bolick of Phoenix voted with Democrats to suspend the rules and allow for the late introduction of a bill. That bill cannot come up for a vote until next week as it first needs to be read three times on the floor under the state constitution. But Rep. Lupe Contreras, D-Avondale, said Wednesday he now expects the Senate to swap out its bill for the House version, which could allow for a vote next week. [caption id="attachment_224684" align="alignright" width="350"]
Since the U.S. Supreme Court said in 2022 that abortion rights are a state decision, Arizona has become a major battleground: The National Women's March, above, was held in Phoenix in January. (Photo by Marnie Jordan/Cronkite News)[/caption]
If the repeal passes the Senate and is signed by Gov. Katie Hobbs, it still would not go into effect until 91 days after the Legislature adjourns. That could be after the 1864 law takes effect, but Attorney General Kris Mayes has said she will not enforce the law and will not let county attorneys do so either. So far, no one has tried to bring a case under the territorial ban.
Both Mayes and Hobbs released statements celebrating the House vote and saying there’s still more to be done to protect abortion in the state.
"I encourage every Arizonan to make their voice heard at the ballot box this November as Arizonans decide on enshrining reproductive freedoms in our state’s constitution," Hobbs said in her statement.
If the ban is repealed, abortions would be allowed in Arizona up to 15 weeks of pregnancy, under a law passed in 2022. The proposed ballot initiative would allow abortion up to fetal viability, which considered to be about 24 weeks, with exceptions after that for the health of the mother.
But Republicans may not be done fighting.
Before Wednesday's vote, the House Rules Committee gave GOP leadership permission for late introduction of bills. Republicans last week indicated that they might use a ballot referral to offer an anti-abortion alternative in November to counter the Arizona Abortion Access Act.
House Speaker Ben Toma, R-Glendale, said in a statement Wednesday that he was "disappointed" by the vote and he admonished Democrats for rushing the bill through the legislative process.
"It would have been prudent and responsible to allow the courts to decide the constitutionality of the pre-Roe law," Toma's statement said. "Instead, we are rushing to judgment for reasons I simply cannot understand."]]> April 22, 2024
Supreme Court turns down Lake, Finchem suit to ban electronic vote tallies
PHOENIX - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned down an appeal from Kari Lake and Mark Finchem, apparently ending their two-year bid to block the use of electronic voting tabulation in Maricopa and Pima counties. Lake, the failed GOP nominee for governor in 2022 who is now running for U.S. Senate, and Finchem, the failed 2022 Republican nominee for secretary of state, had claimed in court filings the tabulating machines were susceptible to hacking. But a district court judge rejected those claims as highly speculative, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed. That set up their appeal to the Supreme Court, which declined without comment to hear the case. Neither Finchem nor Lake responded to requests for comment Monday, but Lake criticized the order on social media. "The Supreme Court of the United States did not believe that the issue of election integrity was worth the court's time during another crucial presidential race," Lake posted to X, formerly known as Twitter. But election officials welcomed the order, saying "this decision by a conservative Supreme Court underscores deniers' inability to produce a legitimate argument against our elections system." [related-story-right box-title="Related story" link="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024/02/13/state-officials-call-for-federal-funds-to-protect-election-systems-workers/" image="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/electionpanel-1024.jpg" headline="State officials call for federal funds to protect election systems, workers"] "It’s time to stop breathing oxygen into these dying narratives that inspire unhinged attacks on our democracy," Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said in a prepared statement. "What I'm asking for is that we focus on the great work our election workers are doing to ensure safe, secure and fair elections." Lake and Finchem originally sued over their 2022 losses: Lake lost to Gov. Katie Hobbs by 17,117 votes and Finchem lost to Fontes by 120,208 votes. Their suit named Fontes and the boards of supervisors for Maricopa and Pima counties, as well as the individual supervisors. The two claimed their elections were tainted by the tabulation machines, citing statements from what the courts called "purported experts" about alleged problems with voting machines in other states. But a federal district court rejected that complaint, which it said "relies on 'a long chain of hypothetical contingencies' that have never occurred in Arizona and 'must take place for any harm to occur.'" On appeal, Lake and Finchem dropped their attempt to reverse the 2022 elections and sought instead to prevent future use of the voting machines. But the 9th Circuit tossed out that claim, saying the two "simply have not plausibly alleged a 'real and immediate threat of' future injury." Tom Collins, the executive director of Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, said the Supreme Court was right to reject the case. He hopes the order can begin to repair the damage brought to Arizonans' confidence in elections, which he said is hurt by claims like those made in the lawsuit. "No judge who has looked at this case has found anything validating this case," Collins said. "Unless you're going to expand your theories all the way up to the very top of the federal courts. ... They have all agreed this case is not well pled." Fontes called the high court's order just another instance of election deniers' "inability to produce a legitimate argument" to support their claims. He referenced the historical effectiveness of Arizona’s elections that he says has “delivered diverse candidates.” Collins rejected Lake's claim that the court does not care about election integrity, saying it is proper for the justices to deny cases not based on fact. "Thirteen judges of different parties and different backgrounds have looked at this case and said there isn't anything there," Collins said. "When lawyers bring cases that are not well researched in their factual basis, the ordinary saying is they get dismissed."]]>April 18, 2024
Abortion-rights advocates, opponents continue to spar, with eye on fall ballot
PHOENIX - While lawmakers inside the Capitol were jockeying over efforts to repeal a near-total abortion ban from 1864, advocates on both sides of the issue who gathered outside the Capitol Wednesday were looking forward to fights at the ballot box this fall. Hundreds showed up over the course of the day, carrying signs, handing out literature and manning tables in hopes of recruiting people to their cause. It came as Democrats tried - and failed - for a second week to repeal the 19th century law that was revived last week by the Arizona Supreme Court, that makes abortion a felony except to save the life of the mother. But the effort inched forward in the Senate, before both chambers adjourned until next week. "This is a good law I think," Patrick Williams said of the 1864 law. "It does make an exception for the life of the mother; it penalizes only the physician with prison time, not the mother. "I don’t think any women will die from this law,” said Williams, one of the abortion opponents who gathered outside the Capitol Wednesday morning. [related-story-right box-title="Related story" link="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024/04/17/republicans-stall-but-dont-kill-effort-that-would-repeal-1864-abortion-ban/" image="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/rallywide-1024.jpg" headline="Republicans stall, but don't kill, effort that would repeal 1864 abortion ban"] That could not be farther from the position advocated by Chris Love and others who turned out to push for repeal and rally support for a proposed ballot initiative that would enshrine abortion rights in the Arizona Constitution. "Arizona wants to see this issue on the ballot. Regardless of what happens over there (in the Capitol) our campaign is moving forward," said Love, standing in front of a table where volunteers were collecting petition signatures for the Arizona for Abortion Access initiative to make abortion a "fundamental right" up until fetal viability. The ballot initiative's supporters said last week that they had already collected more than 500,000 petition signatures, more than 100,000 above the number they will need by July 3 to put the issue on the November ballot. But they said they plan to continue gathering signatures and educating supporters. Abortion opponents, meanwhile, turned out with graphic posters showing fetal development and aborted fetuses, and sporting shirts and signs that said "baby lover," "abortion is murder" and "Jesus is love." Despite the emotional nature of the debate, protests outside the Capitol were entirely peaceful Wednesday. While one side occasionally shouted over the other, they were just as likely to talk to one another - or listen. Rep. Alma Hernandez, D-Tucson, a leader of the repeal effort on the House floor Wednesday, could be seen outside the Capitol engaged in a respectful debate with an abortion opponent. As advocates waited in line to get into the Capitol, members of the anti-abortion group Women Speak Out were overheard asking others in line to go door to door to campaign against the abortion-rights initiative, pitching it as a great job for retirees and high schoolers alike. [caption id="attachment_230571" align="alignright" width="350"]
While some carried graphic signs, most of the abortion protest outside the Capitol this week was civll, Both sides of the debate gathered as lawmakers debeated a repeal of a state law that would ban almost all abortions. (Photo by Martin Dreyfuss/Cronkite News)[/caption]
Debate inside the Capitol was restrained as well, after Democratic outbursts in the House last week when Republicans blocked an attempt to force a vote on a repeal bill. Despite the same results this week, there were no outbursts Wednesday after House Republicans narrowly blocked a vote on a series of procedural measures.
Attorney General Kris Mayes said in a prepared statement after the votes, that, "Once again, the legislature has failed."
"It is abundantly clear that the majority party wants this 160-year-old law to take effect," her statement said. "Complicated or complex decision making is not required to repeal this insane law that doesn’t even include exceptions for rape or incest."
While House action stalled, Senate Democrats, joined by Republican Sens. T.J. Shope and Shawnna Bolick, were able to introduce a repeal bill Wednesday. But it could be weeks before that measure comes up for a vote.
The Supreme Court put its ruling on hold to allow for legal challenges, but without action the near-total ban would take effect - overriding a 2022 law that allows abortions up to 15 weeks of pregnancy. That's why Love and others say action is needed now.
"Quite frankly, we would love a repeal because one day without abortion services in this state is one too many," Love said. "But regardless of the outcome, whether it’s an 1864 ban or a 15-week ban, it’s a ban and bans hurt pregnant people.”]]> April 17, 2024
Republicans stall, but don’t kill, effort that would repeal 1864 abortion ban
PHOENIX – The Arizona Senate took tentative steps toward a repeal of the state’s 1864 abortion ban Wednesday, just hours after House Republicans blocked efforts to do so. Senate Democrats, with the support of Republican Sens. T.J. Shope and Shawnna Bolick, were able to introduce a bill to repeal the territorial-era law that bans virtually all abortions, a law that was resurrected by the Arizona Supreme Court last week. That ruling is currently on hold, but abortion-rights activists have been scrambling to stop the ban from taking effect. Attempts last week to overturn the law, just days after the court ruling, were blocked by Republicans in both the House and Senate. House Republicans stalled a similar vote Wednesday with a series of procedural moves, angering House Democrats. "There are so many people who are watching right now and watching what Arizona is doing," said Rep. Alma Hernandez, D-Tucson. "The fact that we will not even entertain a motion to allow those who have been raped or pregnant by incest to be able to have an abortion is extremely, extremely disappointing." Shortly after their debates, both chambers adjourned until next Wednesday, meaning it will take another several weeks before the law could be repealed. [related-story-right box-title="Related story" link="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024/04/10/clinics-vow-to-continue-providing-abortions-but-unsure-for-how-much-longer/" image="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Roe-Arizona-Protests-7-1024x640-1.jpg" headline="Clinics vow to continue providing abortions, but unsure for how much longer"] Sen. Ken Bennett, R-Prescott, joined Shope, Bolick and Senate Democrats to stymie GOP efforts to table the bill, but ultimately did not vote for the motion to introduce the measure. But he said he does not see a point to delaying a vote with procedures like those used by House Republicans. "I think we need to take care of this issue sooner than later and just delaying it by adjourning or postponing doesn't make sense to me," Bennett said. "There's obviously two members of the caucus that I think will support the repeal and once we know that we need to move and get that done." It was a different scene in the House, where Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, D-Tucson, moved to call a vote on a bill to repeal the 1864 law, which she introduced at the beginning of this legislative session but which never got a hearing. That was blocked by Rep. Jacqueline Parker, R-Mesa, who said Stahl Hamilton’s motion violated House rules. House Speaker Ben Toma agreed and the House voted 30-30 to uphold Toma's decision, with Republican Rep. Matt Gress of Phoenix joining Democrats. Toma argued on the floor Wednesday that there was no need to rush a vote on the bill. But Rep. Oscar De Los Santos, D-Phoenix, noted that Democrats have introduced the same bill in each of the last six legislative sessions, only to see it bottled up by Republican leadership. Hernandez said Democrats were not asking for anything unusual, noting that members often suspend House rules to revive dead bills or get a bill through the chamber faster. "If you want to talk about process, great, we are doing what many times has been done in this chamber in order to give people in Arizona, especially women, the right to be able to make their own decisions," Hernandez said. "I'm still really disheartened that we're even having this conversation about whether or not we should even have these conversations." [caption id="attachment_230537" align="alignnone" width="1024"]
Anti-abortion materials outside the Capitol, where activists gathered, along with abortion-rights advocates, while state lawmakers were inside debating proposals to repeal a nrear-total ban on abortions that was reinstated last week by the Arizona Supreme Court. (Photo by Martin Dreyfuss/Cronkite News)[/caption]
Gress said he believes there are enough votes to repeal the 1864 ban, pointing to Republicans like Reps. David Cook and Tim Dunn who have expressed a willingness to repeal. Republicans would first have to defy Toma in order to allow the vote to occur, but Gress thinks that could happen given more time and conversations with those on the fence.
Stahl Hamilton said she understands that asking Republicans to go against party leadership is a "tall ask" but she still hopes a compromise can be reached.
"There's been some good across-the-aisle conversations, but ultimately the trickiest piece is getting the bill on the board," she said. "If we can get the bill on the board, I believe that we have the votes to pass it and move it along in the process.”
The attempts come one week after Gress and House Democrats tried to force a repeal vote, just one day after the Supreme Court revived the law, overriding a 2022 law allowing abortion up to 15 weeks of pregnancy. When Republicans moved instead for a recess, the chamber devolved into chaos, with Democrats chanting and shouting at GOP members as they left the House floor.
[related-story-right box-title="Related story" link="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024/04/12/harris-arizona-democrats-seize-on-abortion-ban-to-blast-trump-gop/" image="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/veepharris-1024.jpg" headline="Harris, Arizona Democrats seize on abortion ban to blast Trump, GOP"]
A similar attempt in the Senate was shut down last week when Republicans moved to adjourn, ignoring an attempt by Sen. Mitzi Epstein, D-Tempe, to append the repeal language to another bill. Epstein and Sen. Lela Alston, D-Phoenix, filed an ethics complaint Monday against Shope and Senate President Warren Petersen for violating Senate rules by not acknowledging Epstein.
The House gallery was packed Wednesday after anti-abortion groups encouraged supporters to show up and fill seats. After beating back repeal efforts, GOP members turned to the gallery to applaud abortion opponents sitting there. Those groups support the abortion ban and say attempts to repeal it are "cowardly."
"The best decision is to uphold the ban now," said Daniel Statham, a member of End Abortion Now, an anti-abortion Christian group in Arizona.
Abortion-rights groups were also on hand for the session and held a news conference during the House recess saying they are still focused on passing an abortion-rights ballot measure in November. Scores showed up to rally outside the Capitol during Wednesday's sessions.
"Regardless of what happens over there, our campaign is moving forward,” said Chris Love, a spokesperson for Arizona for Abortion Access.
"Before the Supreme Court made their announcement on Tuesday, we did announce that we had more than 500,000 Arizona voters sign in support of putting our initiative on the ballot. Arizona voters want to see this issue on the ballot, they don't want to see whatever's happening in there," she said, referring to the House.]]> April 17, 2024
State asks Supreme Court to reject new trial for Arizona death row inmate
WASHINGTON - State officials told the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday that a lower court gave too much weight to mitigating factors when it ordered a new sentencing for Danny Lee Jones in a pair of brutal 1992 murders in Bullhead City. But Jones' attorney argued just the opposite. While conceding that Jones was guilty of "brutal crimes," including the strangulation of a 7-year-old girl, the defense attorney said a lower court judge "serially nit-picked" evidence of Jones' brain damage and abusive childhood to support the death sentence for him. "You know, brutal crimes here. We acknowledge that, but there's a lot of mitigation," said Jean-Claude Andre, pointing to "long-standing childhood trauma, a lot of head injuries" and more that were not introduced until after Jones was convicted and sentenced. But Deputy Solicitor General Jason Lewis said lower courts correctly balanced those factors against the brutality of Jones' crime. "In our view, the aggravating evidence is so compelling and the mitigating evidence that was developed in the federal evidentiary hearing is … is so slight," Lewis told the court. [caption id="attachment_166806" align="alignright" width="350"]
Danny Lee Jones was convicted in the 1992 beating death of a friend, strangulation of the friend's daughter and attempted murder of the friend's grandmother. (Photo courtesy Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry)[/caption]
The case began in March 1992 when Jones and Robert Weaver were involved in a violent fight, after consuming large amounts of drugs and alcohol. During the fight, Jones beat Weaver to death with a baseball bat, then turned on Weaver's grandmother and daughter, 7.
The girl was dead at the scene and the grandmother died months later of her injuries. Jones stole Weaver's guns and the grandmother's car and fled, according to state documents.
Jones was convicted in September 1993 on theft, attempted murder and two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in December 1993.
But Jones later argued that his defense was flawed by an ineffective trial attorney, a public defender with just three years in practice and no experience handling capital cases.
Among other problems, the attorney failed to fully investigate Jones' troubled past until after his conviction. It was only on appeal, after his sentencing, that the attorney presented fuller evidence of "mitigating factors" - elements balanced against aggravating factors to determine if a convicted criminal should get the death penalty.
The attorney subsequently presented evidence that Jones had received treatment for mood disorders, had attempted suicide, spent time in a mental institution, and suffered multiple neurochemical deficiencies.
"Not only do you have, again, actual diagnoses that are finally coming in 2006, that the sentencer didn't hear in 1993, you also have additional facts that give rise to those various diagnoses," Andre told the justices Wednesday. "So you have additional head injuries and you have a dramatically more significant history and pattern of abuse."
[related-story-right box-title="Related story" link="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024/01/10/supreme-court-considers-right-to-face-accusers-in-yuma-drug-case/" image="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/scotusfacade-1024.jpg" headline="Supreme Court considers right to face accusers in Yuma drug case"]
That new evidence "would have dramatically changed the sentencing calculus both in the trial court and before the Arizona Supreme Court on its independent review," Andre said. But a federal district judge disagreed, saying the aggravating factors still outweighed the new mitigating factors.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling in 2021, later affirming its own ruling in 2022. That sparked the state's appeal. Lewis said Wednesday that the circuit court "erred by failing to meaningfully consider the aggravating evidence or its weight."
Justices appeared to struggle with the question of how much fact-finding an appeals court should do or whether that should be left entirely to trial courts. Chief Justice John Roberts at one point asked Lewis, "What do you want us to say that we haven't said already?" to help guide lower courts.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor also asked Lewis why the state was asking the court to reverse the circuit court rather than simply vacating the lower court's ruling and sending the case back for the appellate court to reconsider. Lewis said that the case has dragged on long enough.
"The circuit court has had this case for so long and has spent so much time granting relief on certain issues, reserving other ones, and then having it sent back continuously, it has to end at some point," he said.]]> April 15, 2024
Biggs ready for his day in impeachment spotlight, even if it’s short-lived
WASHINGTON - Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs said he is prepared to tell the Senate, and the American public, the "historical basis" of high crimes and misdemeanors and how they apply to the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. If he gets the chance. The Senate is expected to quickly dismiss articles of impeachment that will be sent over this week from the House, which indicted Mayorkas in February on two articles, including willful refusal to comply with the law and "breach of public trust." Biggs is one of 11 House managers scheduled to present the case to the Senate, which one analyst called a "reinforcement of brand on steroids" for the Gilbert Republican who is one of the leaders for the far-right Freedom Caucus in the House. "There is profound frustration on both sides of the aisle with what's taking place on the border," said Arizona political consultant Jason Rose, who called the impeachment a significant opportunity for Biggs. "For Congressman Biggs, this is as close to political nirvana as it gets." After initially failing to muster a majority, the House in February voted 214-213 to impeach Mayorkas, arguing that his handling of the border and fentanyl crisis rose to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" laid out in the Constitution for impeachment. The articles passed over the opposition of three Republicans and every Democrat in the House. [related-story-right box-title="Related story" link="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024/02/15/january-sees-sharp-drop-in-border-numbers-after-record-setting-december/" image="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/tumbleradio-1024.jpg" headline="January sees sharp drop in border numbers after record-setting December"] A House vote just starts the impeachment process - the Senate has the final say after holding a hearing on the case presented by the House, and must vote by a two-thirds majority to remove the subject from office. After languishing in the House since February, the articles of impeachment could be sent to the Senate on Tuesday, according to news reports. Biggs was tapped as one of a handful of Republicans to present the House case to the Senate, but some senators have expressed doubt about whether the allegations against Mayorkas rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors. Biggs says that if he gets the chance to speak, his primary focus would be on "letting people know what high crimes and misdemeanors are." "I think people tend to think, 'Oh, that's felonies and misdemeanors,' but that's not the constitutional definition," Biggs said recently. "I will provide that historical basis, all the way from the beginning of our country to where we sit today. The next thing I would do is tie those to the articles of impeachment, which would show how the evidence related to the law." Biggs expressed concern about whether managers would be able to fully plead their case, saying that they may "have a little bit of time to talk as managers, but we won't get a talk on this probably on the Senate floor, based on what I'm hearing." If senators move to table or quickly dismiss the articles, it would be in stark contrast to recent impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump in 2020 and 2021 and President Bill Clinton 1998. In both cases, House managers presented lengthy arguments to the senators. Unlike those impeachments, however, the Mayorkas case is only the second time Congress has tried to impeach a Cabinet member - the last was in 1876. Critics say it is the latest example of the "weaponization" of the constitutional impeachment process. [related-story-right box-title="Related story" link="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024/03/22/1-2-trillion-budget-bill-racing-against-shutdown-funds-more-border-security/" image="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/budgetwide-1024.jpg" headline="$1.2 trillion budget bill, racing against shutdown, funds more border security"] Paul Bentz, senior vice president of research and strategy for HighGround Inc., said the meaning of impeachment has changed, calling it "political theater," and suggesting that it's merely a part of Republicans' overall campaign strategy. "I think the goal or at least one of their major goals is to just increase the negativity surrounding the Biden administration," Bentz said. Since negativity "generally has a cooling effect on voter turnout," it could benefit Republicans, Bentz said. "Lower-turnout elections tend to benefit Republicans because there are fewer younger voters, fewer independent-leaning voters, who will show up in a presidential year if they feel like it's incredibly negative." Bentz is not as convinced as Rose that being an impeachment manager will be a big deal for Biggs, who is from "a very safe congressional district" and does not necessarily need the exposure. "There's no risk for Biggs to manage an impeachment like this. This isn't raising his profile to maintain that competitive advantage in that district or anything to that effect," Bentz said. "His district is incredibly safe for Republicans, and he can hold it probably as long as … you'd want to." While Rose agrees with Bentz that the ultimate purpose of impeachment has changed, he thinks that those in office will ultimately correct their missteps. "Of course, the purpose has changed. Yes, it's been weaponized," Rose said. "But here's the thing about politics: It's no different than the free market. It always fixes itself. Always. And when people go too far, when people look goofy, the political marketplace will remind them that that's not acceptable behavior."]]>April 12, 2024
Harris, Arizona Democrats seize on abortion ban to blast Trump, GOP
TUCSON - Vice President Kamala Harris blasted former President Donald Trump Friday as "the architect" of new abortion restrictions sweeping the country, including the near-total ban that was resurrected this week in Arizona. The hastily arranged Tucson campaign stop came just three days after a divided Arizona Supreme Court ruled that, since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned its Roe v. Wade decision in 2022, an 1864 abortion ban that was still on the books in Arizona was back in effect. "What has happened here in Arizona is a new inflection point. It has demonstrated, once and for all, that overturning Roe was just the opening act … of a larger strategy to take women's rights and freedoms,” said Harris, who called the Arizona ruling "one of the biggest aftershocks" of the reversal of Roe. "Donald Trump is the architect of this health care crisis," Harris said. "And as much harm as he has already caused, a second Trump term would be even worse." Trump has bragged repeatedly in the past about appointing three U.S. Supreme Court justices who tilted the court in favor of overturning the federal right to an abortion in Roe and returning that power to the states. But he said in a social media post Friday that Arizona "went too far" and he called on state lawmakers to rein in the law. [related-story-right box-title="Related story" link="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024/04/10/attempt-to-repeal-abortion-ban-fails-as-house-devolves-into-raucous-shouting/" image="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/flattaxdome-1024.jpg" headline="Attempt to repeal abortion ban fails, as House devolves into raucous shouting"] "Remember, it is now up to the States and the Good Will of those that represent THE PEOPLE," Trump said in a Friday morning post on Truth Social. "We must ideally have the three Exceptions for Rape, Incest, and Life of the Mother." Trump, who accused Democrats of being extremists on the issue, also said earlier this week that he would not sign a federal abortion ban, a comment made in response to the Arizona ruling. After Roe was reversed, Arizona courts were asked to decide if the 1864 law - which makes it a felony to provide an abortion except to save the life of the mother - overrode a law passed in 2022 that allowed abortions up to 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies. A divided Arizona Supreme Court said Thursday that the only reason the 1864 law had been on hold was because of Roe. Once that was overturned, the 19th century law was back in effect, the justices said. As Harris outlined the restrictions in the territorial-era law, a crowd of more than 100 invited guests who were packed into a meeting room chanted "shame, shame." They cheered as Democrats on the stage blasted Trump and the GOP. "We need to fight back," said Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Phoenix, who is running for Senate this fall. "We need to turn that pain, that heartbreak, that anger, and that shock into action." For Gallego, that action includes beating Kari Lake, the front-runner for the GOP nomination for Senate this fall. Lake, like Trump, said this week that the 1864 law is out of line with what Arizona voters want, but Gallego has repeatedly pointed to Lake calling the near-total ban a "great law" in a 2022 interview. [related-story-right box-title="Related story" link="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024/04/10/clinics-vow-to-continue-providing-abortions-but-unsure-for-how-much-longer/" image="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Roe-Arizona-Protests-7-1024x640-1.jpg" headline="Clinics vow to continue providing abortions, but unsure for how much longer"] Gallego was one of a half-dozen elected Democrats flanking Harris on Friday, including state Sen. Eva Burch, D-Mesa, who made national headlines in March when she announced on the Senate floor that she was going to have an abortion after learning that her pregnancy was not viable. "Today, I am livid that in spite of all of our progress, we have rolled the clock back 160 years here in Arizona," she said Friday. "The decision about when and how to start a family belongs to all of us as individuals. It belongs to me and nobody else." Burch touted the proposed ballot initiative that would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow abortions up to fetal viability, and include exemptions for the life, physical, and mental health of the mother. Backers to that initiative announced last week that they had already collected more than 500,000 signatures, far more than the 383,923 necessary by July 1 to get the measure on the ballot in November. And volunteers from Arizona for Abortion Access were outside Friday's campaign event looking to collect more signatures. "I know that it's hard for people to share the most private moments of their lives at a time when they're feeling a loss, when they're feeling vulnerability," Burch said. "But it’s moments like those that remind people how much is at stake if we don't speak out.”]]>April 12, 2024
Shaman sidelined: Chansley among more than 70 to miss signature threshold
WASHINGTON - Jacob Angeli-Chansley, better known as the "Qanon Shaman," will not be going back to Washington - at least not in any official capacity. Angeli-Chansley was one of more than 70 would-be candidates for federal office who failed to meet the April 1 deadline to turn in petition signatures to the secretary of state's office that were needed to get their names on the ballot. While that narrowed the field, it still left dozens of candidates who will compete in this fall's primary and general elections - some of which are already shaping up to be bitter, high-profile bloodbaths. The largest winnowing was in the race to replace Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, I-Arizona, who took herself out of the running in early March when she said she would not seek reelection. Of the 30 candidates who filed a statement of interest for the seat with the secretary of state's office, just six remain after the petition deadline. Senate candidates still standing include Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Phoenix; Republicans Kari Lake, Elizabeth Jean Reye and Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb; and Green Party hopefuls Michael Norton and Arturo Hernandez. Most analysts expect the race to be between Gallego and Lake, the failed GOP nominee for governor in 2022, who had already raised millions between them by the end of last year. There has also been a shaking out in the race to replace Gallego in Congressional District 3. Phoenix Vice Mayor Yassamin Ansari and former Arizona Democratic Party Chair Raquel Terán are seen as the strongest candidates in the Democratic primary, which is likely the only race that matters in the solidly blue district. [related-story-right box-title="Related story" link="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024/03/05/sinema-wont-run-again-decries-system-where-compromise-is-a-dirty-word/" image="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/sinemacamera-1024.jpg" headline="Sinema won't run again, decries system where 'compromise is a dirty word'"] In the First District, incumbent Rep. David Schweikert, R-Fountain Hills, is down to one primary challenger, Robert Backie. But the field of Democrats to challenge Schweikert remains deep: Candidates include former state Rep. Amish Shah, former Arizona Democratic Party Chairman Andrei Cherny, businessman Conor O'Callaghan and former journalist Marlene Galan-Woods. Angeli-Chansley was one of 11 candidates who failed to make the cut in the race to replace outgoing Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Peoria, in Congressional District 8. But that still leaves six big-name hopefuls competing in the heavily Republican district. Lesko's district is one of the most crowded Republican primary fields in the state, which includes 2022 Attorney General nominee Abe Hamadeh, former U.S. Senate nominee Blake Masters, Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma, R-Glendale, and state Sen. Anthony Kern, R-Glendale. It also includes former Rep. Trent Franks, who held the seat before Lesko but resigned amid an ethics investigation in 2017. The primary for Lesko's seat is among the most important in the state, said Paul Bentz, senior vice president of research and strategy at HighGround Public Affairs Consultants. He said it will likely determine her successor. "It's an 11-point Republican registration, something like a 17-point participation advantage for Republicans. Trump won the district by 14 points in 2020," Bentz said. "So the race is the primary, and with a crowded primary like this, it's building up that base of support and getting in front of as many of those conservative Republicans as possible." Arizona political consultant Jason Rose believes that despite a field of heavyweights, endorsements of Hamadeh from Lake and former President Donald Trump make this "absolutely" Hamadeh's race to lose. "I mean, Donald Trump has become the biggest and most important referee in Republican politics since Ronald Reagan," Rose said. "So when you have the ultimate referee saying, 'This is my guy,' you get to 33, 35% (of the primary vote) pretty quick." [related-story-right box-title="Related story" link="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2023/12/11/leskos-retirement-starts-stampede-of-high-profile-hopefuls-in-8th-district/" image="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/leskostage-1024.jpg" headline="Lesko's retirement starts stampede of high-profile hopefuls in 8th District"] Rose did say that if Masters sees an uptick in fundraising, he might be able to claw the race back from "Hamadeh because he has already been anointed by Trump." "For Blake Masters to overcome that, he has one advantage, which is money because there's only so much money the others can raise," Rose said. "And so that's what's going to be, you know, his challenge: Can he disqualify Hamadeh beyond issues?" However, Bentz said that Masters and Hamadeh are not the only candidates with a chance in District 8. "Don't sleep on Ben Toma," who he said could be an intriguing alternative to some voters. Toma "actually lives in the district; neither Hamadeh nor Masters lives in that district. Toma has been endorsed by Lesko and by (former) Gov. (Jan) Brewer, who was very popular in that area," Bentz said. "It's still certainly a very difficult challenge for Toma because he doesn't have the name ID that either Masters or Hamadeh would have … but he's got good conservative credentials," he said. Bentz did concede that Hamadeh is "the front-runner at this point," but that it's too early to write off any candidate in the crowded field, pointing out similar trends the last time the seat was vacated. "We saw with the special election that originally elected Lesko, folks forget that that was a very crowded race with a lot of people jumping in. The front-runner … started to slip near the end, especially once people started going after him," Bentz said. "I think Hamadeh would be the front-runner, but that also puts a target on him."]]>April 10, 2024
Clinics vow to continue providing abortions, but unsure for how much longer
PHOENIX - One day after the Arizona Supreme Court resurrected a law that makes it a felony to perform an abortion, clinics around the state said they will continue offering care even as they scramble to figure out how long they can do so. The court ruled Tuesday that an 1864 law banning abortions in all cases except to save the life of the mother is still in effect, overriding a 2022 law that allowed abortions up to 15 weeks of pregnancy. But the justices put the ruling on hold to allow for legal challenges in lower courts - a delay that different groups have said could be 14 days or two months. "We have to talk to attorneys," said Dr. Ronald Yunis of the Acacia Women's Clinic about the amount of time the clinic has to continue providing abortions. "I spoke with the attorney general yesterday, and she said the law goes into effect in 10 days." Officials with Planned Parenthood Arizona, which operates seven clinics around the state, said in a statement Tuesday that they plan to continue providing abortions while the reinstated 19th century law is on hold. During that time, the 15-week abortion law will remain in effect. [related-story-right box-title="Related story" link="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2024/04/10/attempt-to-repeal-abortion-ban-fails-as-house-devolves-into-raucous-shouting/" image="https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/flattaxdome-1024.jpg" headline="Attempt to repeal abortion ban fails, as House devolves into raucous shouting"] "While today’s (Tuesday's) ruling makes clear that the near-total ban on abortion will be enforced, it is important to note that abortion is still accessible in Arizona for a limited period of time," said a statement from Planned Parenthood. "Despite today's ruling, Planned Parenthood Arizona will continue to provide abortion services through 15 weeks for a short period of time.” In published reports, officials said their next step would be to work with neighboring states to help patients cross state lines for abortion procedures. News reports said that Planned Parenthood organizations in neighboring states are bracing for an influx of patients from Arizona seeking to safely and legally obtain the procedure. The 1864 law had been on hold for almost 50 years, after the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, recognizing right to an abortion nationwide. But when the court overturned Roe in 2022, the 19th century law was still on the books in Arizona. Also on the books was the 15-week ban, which state lawmakers had approved shortly before Roe was overtuned. With two laws in effect, abortion opponents sued to have the 1864 law enforced, and the Arizona Supreme Court agreed with them Tuesday, ending two years of legal fights. The 19th century law makes it felony to provide an abortion, except when it's done to save the life of the mother. There are no exceptions for rape or incest. But even if the old law takes effect, Attorney General Kris Mayes has said her office will not prosecute any provider for performing an abortion. That was reinforced by an executive order issued by Gov. Katie Hobbs last June, giving Mayes sole authority over abortion-related prosecutions. Some county attorneys have challenged that order, but Mayes said she will not charge anyone under Arizona Supreme Court ruling that she called "unconscionable and an affront to freedom." The "decision to re-impose a law from a time when Arizona wasn’t a state, the Civil War was still raging, and women could not vote will go down in history as a stain on our state," Mayes said Tuesday.]]>