bowers. rusty spkr

beaten in primary flanked by trumpista // Boyer bailed

:{US primaries: Rusty Bowers, who defied Trump, loses re-election bid:(style="margin:0px;padding:0px;border:0px;font-style:inherit;font-variant:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-stretch:inherit;vertical-align:top;display:inline-block;max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;text-overflow:ellipsis;white-space:nowrap"):}:

Aug 3, 2022Rusty Bowers was hoping to fight for election to the Arizona state senate, but lost the party's primary vote to David Farnsworth. The staunch conservative also testified against Mr Trump to the...

an 8 22

Former President Donald Trump suffered a major humiliation in Georgia when, in May, Gov. Brian Kemp and Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger crushed their “Stop the Steal” challengers in GOP primaries; Kemp, in fact, defeated the Trump-backed former Sen. David Perdue by a brutal 52 percent. But in Arizona, another key swing state that President Joe Biden won in 2020, there were much different outcomes in Republican primaries that found the most extreme, far-right “Stop the Steal” MAGA candidates defeating more traditional conservatives. The Big Lie promoters who are now competing with Democratic nominees in the general election in Arizona include gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake, secretary of state nominee Mark Finchem and state attorney general nominee Abraham Hamadeh.

Lake, Finchem and Hamadeh have all falsely claimed that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from Trump in Arizona through widespread voter fraud. It wasn’t; recount after recount has made it abundantly clear that Biden defeated Trump fair and square in Arizona, where on Election Night 2020, right-wing Fox News’ decision desk was the first to call the Grand Canyon State for Biden.

In an article published by Politico on August 18, Phoenix-based journalist Hank Stephenson — who co-founded the Arizona Agenda newsletter — describes a conflict within the Arizona GOP: far-right MAGA conspiracy theorists versus traditional conservatives. And Arizona’s traditional conservatives, according to Stephenson, fear that they’re losing the battle.

“When Arizona state lawmaker Mark Finchem, a 2020 election denier who deals in fringe legal theories, won the Republican nomination for secretary of state earlier this month, many of his GOP colleagues in the (Arizona) State Legislature couldn’t believe it,” Stephenson explains. “To be clear, they knew he would win — he had Donald Trump’s endorsement — but they were still stunned. Mark Finchem. Him. A back-bench lawmaker best known locally for his over-the-top drugstore cowboy get-ups and extreme ideas, Finchem would be in charge of the state’s elections should he win in November. That would also put him first in the line of succession for the governorship since Arizona doesn’t have a lieutenant governor.”

The political landscape in Arizona has changed dramatically from what it was back in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. In those days, Arizona was known for being a deep red state and was closely identified with Goldwater conservatism — as in Sen. Barry Goldwater and his successor, Sen. John McCain. Now, it is a swing state with two centrist Democratic U.S. senators: Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly, who is running for reelection this year and is up against Trump-backed MAGA Republican Blake Masters.

These days, it isn’t uncommon to hear Arizona Democrats say that they miss the days of Goldwater/McCain conservatism — which is ironic in light of the fact that when Goldwater won the 1964 GOP presidential nomination, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) successfully painted him as an extremist who would get the U.S. into a nuclear war (the that sunk Goldwater’s 1964 campaign can be found on YouTube). But the MAGA Republicans of 2022 are way to the right of Goldwater, who was considered an arch-conservative in his day, and McCain. Democrat Sinema often praises McCain, who was proud to call himself a Goldwater conservative.

But while Arizona on the whole is much more of a swing state than it was 30 or 40 years ago, much of the Arizona GOP has been moving more and more to the MAGA far right.

“Trump’s slate of political insurgents swept the GOP nomination for every state office in which he offered his blessing, from the U.S. Senate down to state Senate races,” Stephenson explains. “After decades of civil war, the Arizona primaries mark a decisive swing in the state GOP’s balance of power. The center-right, pro-business wing of the party led by the late Sen. John McCain and Gov. Doug Ducey has been defeated, at least for now. Finchem and other far-right outsiders — the original Tea Party activists and the new Trumpist hardliners — have taken over…. Lake, a former TV news anchor, fended off more than $20 million in spending against her to narrowly capture the nomination, despite her opponent’s backing from Ducey, former GOP Gov. Jan Brewer and former Vice President Mike Pence.”

Stephenson warns that if Lake, Finchem and other MAGA Republicans are victorious in November and Trump runs for president in 2024, Trump could have “a slate of statewide officials who could steal the election for him” in Arizona.

Arizona State Sen. Paul Boyer, a conservative Republican who received death threats from MAGA extremists after refusing to go along with the Big Lie, decided not to seek reelection in 2022. Discussing the Arizona primary results with Politico, Boyer commented, “Abe Hamadeh for AG? Kari Lake for governor? It’s very simple. If you can fog up a mirror and win the ‘Arizona Apprentice,’ you’re good.”

Many Never Trump conservatives are hoping that if Democrats enjoy a lot of victories in Arizona in November, the Arizona GOP will move away from extremism. But Barrett Marson, a GOP consultant in the Grand Canyon State, isn’t so sure that MAGA losses in November would discourage the Arizona Republican Party from continuing to move in the direction.

Marson told Politico, “It may take a drubbing at the polls this year to get Republican voters off the Trump train. Or maybe they’ll just double down.”

no cleta or thomas

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000928883/pdf/GPO-J6-TRANSCRIPT-CTRL0000928883.pdf

[call w djt and rudy?]

give you the evidence that you were looking for, and he said he would. 2 Did Mr. Giuliani give you the evidence that you were asking for in that 3 conversation? 4 Not then and not a week later, not 2 weeks later, not now. Never. 5 A Q Okay. The other thing I want to follow up on, I thought you said that there 6 were two components to the ask and one of them you've just described, which is that 7 there be an official committee meeting by a standing committee. What was the other 8 component of the ask by Mr. Giuliani? 9 A And then he said in this flowing of the conversation said: We understand 10 from someone -- and I remember the phrase "high up in Republican circles" in the 11 legislature who said that Arizona law allows for you to call for the dismissal of the Biden 12 electors and the replacement of those electors by a new slate of electors for President 13 Trump if there was sufficient cause. 14 And the flavor of the discussion was that the committee meeting would prove 15 sufficient cause to allow us then to move to number two, which would be the dismissal or 16 the questioning of the electors that had already been elected. I mean, the vote had 17 already been taken by the people, you know, 2 and a half weeks earlier. 18 Q I'm sorry. Speaker Bowers, did Mr. Giuliani identify this high up person in 19 the Republican circles in the legislature? 20 A He did not. I said: I would very much like to know who that is. 21 And he declined. 22 23 24 25 Q A Q A So you were the leading Republican in the House as speaker, I assume? I presumed I was. And Ms. Fannwas the leading Republican in the Senate? Yes.

...Speaker Bowers, the meeting, the legislative committee meeting, that Mr. Giuliani asked you to convene during that first call with President Trump and Mr. Giuliani, 21 is this gathering at the hotel, did that qualify as an official committee meeting of the 22 Arizona legislature?

A Absolutely not. Why not? Because there was senators, representatives, and I think there was even 1 couple of nonelecteds that were in the room and participating. It was a weird -- it was 2 just a gathering of people, you know. They were kind of electeds. I'm looking at Mr. Pappas. I don't have a breakdown of everybody who was on that committee there at the hotel, but I do remember there was some -- a couple of senators, Peterson was a 5 senator-elect and Townsend was a senator-elect, Finchem was there.6 7 Q A Understood. Mr. Cook was there, I believe. Mrs. Griffin, I believe, was there. Others 8 were there. Both in the room and at the dais. 26 9 Q Understood. Thank you. So it's fair to say that Mr. Giuliani did not get his 10 first ask that he raised on that phone call with you of official committee meeting, but 11 rather just participated in this unofficial gathering at the hotel ballroom? 12 A He did. He did participate in that gathering, but that is not -- I don't know 13 what he thinks. I never asked him whether he thought it was official, but it certainly 14 wasn't official.

...

That kind of thing, you know. I thought somebody's trying to sell me a used car. Q That they didn't even have on the lot? A They certainly didn't have any proof. When he came, he said he would 4 bring the proof. He didn't bring the proof, but he did bring COVID. That's about the 5 only thing that's lasted in Arizona. I've never seen any proof. 6 Q Do you recall any specific allegations? I know there was no proof, but do 7 you recall specific allegations that were made -- 8 9 10 A Oh, yes. Q -- at this meeting? A Again, I don't remember -- like if he said 6,000 dead people or 60,000 dead 11 people or a huge number of illegal aliens and I mean large. I think one time he said that you have 5 million illegal aliens in this State and Senator Fann said: Rudy, we've only got 13 7 million people in the State. Are you telling me that 5 million of them are illegal aliens? 14

And it was not -- it was not a little Sunday school class meeting. It was a very -- it 15 was a very tough meeting. 16 17 18 19 20 Q And I think you've referenced -- A I'm sorry. Q Go ahead, Speaker Bowers. A I was done. Q I think you said earlier that, in response to Mr. Schiff's questions, that Mr. 21 Giuliani took note of the fact that the -- that it was somewhat of a tense and he called 22 hostile meeting. 23 A At least twice, if not more, but at least twice and specifically would say: 24 Man, I thought we were all Republicans. This is -- this is -- this is a little more hostile a 25 reception. I'm amazed at the reception I'm getting here

...

Was there an ask at this meeting? And, just to be clear, was the meeting 2 on December 1st? 3 A Yes. The Monday -- let's see. It was on December 1st. It was -- it was 4 that -- the Hyatt Regency meeting. I don't believe that was on a Sunday. So I'm not 5 looking at a calendar. I just have notes.November 30th was the unofficial meeting at the Regency,was the day that Governor Ducey and Brnovich canvassed the elections, and it was on the 1st that we met with Mr. Giuliani's team. 8 Q Okay. That's consistent with my understanding as well. I just wanted to 9 make sure that we can use a shorthand for that meeting. So, at this December 1st 10 meeting, was there an ask by Mr. Giuliani?

A Well, the general ask was that we would give them a committee hearing. Same thing that came up in the call on November 22nd? Yes. Yes. That was -- I don't think he asked -- I don't recall him asking in 14 that meeting that we recall the electors. I don't recall, but, Andrew, do you have any 15 recollection of that? And I know you're not asking the questions here, but at that point, 16 I do remember he asked for the committee. 17 Q 18 correct? 19 20 A Q So the same ask -- that was part of the ask on the November 22nd call, Yes. And you told him that was a nonstarter. It wasn't going to happen because 21 you didn't have a super majority that would agree to call the House back in session? 22 A And I wasn't going to do anything on the second ask until I had legal counsel 23 discuss it, and I needed him to talk to them, which he had not done, which was part of the reason when I walked in that room I wasn't in a great mood anyway because he didn't fulfill any of the things that he said he would do

...

Mr. Bowers. Yes, that is correct. I'm sorry. Five million were in the State. 4 believe they said it was in the hundreds of thousands of illegal votes cast by aliens, not 5 illegal votes by military personnel or people who weredead or other -- but by 6 alien --alien presence in the State. 7 Mr. Schiff. And did they ever provide any proof of that? 8 Mr. Bowers. No. I did say, I said: Do you have names? I mean, do you have 9 the names of the illegal aliens in our State? 10 Yes. 11 And then: Have you cross-referenced those so that you know who voted? 12 mean, do you have the names of the illegal aliens? Because their signature is on the 13 outside of the ballot envelope. Did you cross it? 14 15 16

Oh, yeah. It was that kind of thing: Yeah, we've got it. And the dead people, you know, who they were? And did -- you have their 17 envelopes? I mean, you have the names? Because we can pull on that envelope. 18 They don't hold it together, but they're available. 19 Oh, yeah, we've got it. 20 21 22 23 I said: But don't you think you ought to give that to me? I want to see it. And, again, I got -- I was just, this is just a -- this is not going to be productive. Mr. Schiff. And, Mr. Speaker, are you still waiting to this day to see that proof? Mr. Bowers.

I was promised proof by Boris Epshteyn, what, 3 months ago-ish. 24 I'll say that. In the milieu of the legislative timeframe I'd probably get mixed up. But 25 he called on a Saturday and took some period of time. And I kept saying: You guys 34 1 have told me for a year and a half I'm going to get the proof. Where is it? 2 And he said: I'll call Finchem. He'll get it to you. 3 And they brought me a document, a couple of -- 3 days later, a pile of documents, 4 about 3 quarters of an inch thick. It had a term paper of Mr. Finchem. It had 5 Mr. Eastman's -- a couple of papers from him, Mr. Mendelson (ph) something. It had a 6 transcript from a committee meeting where Mr. Biggs had spoken and a bunch of transfer 7 sheets from the counting center that were supposedly of some importance, 100 of them 8 to be, I think -- I think that's exactly. There was 100.

And I took those to the counting center, and I said: Tell me what this is. And they said: That's transfer sheets. I said: What does that mean? She goes: I don't have the faintest idea. So that was it. That was the proof. Mr. Schiff. And, Mr. Speaker, one last question before I turn it back. In leaving 15 the meeting with Giuliani and the State senators, what did you say when you'd enough 16 and it was time for you to leave? 17 18 Mr. Bowers. I said: That's -- that -- I'm done. I've got to go. And I stood up, and they all, you know, kind of stood up and kind of started 19 breaking things up. You can feel in a meeting when, you know, we're just running in 20 circles. And I had lots to do, so I stood up and said: I'm out. 21 I did shake hands with the former police commissioner of New York on the way 22 out and mentioned: Hey, wasn't Teddy Roosevelt your predecessor? 23 And he said: Yeah, in fact, he was. 24 25 I said: Well, good to meet you. See you later. Mr. Schiff. Okay. Mr. Speaker, I'll hand it back to my colleagues.

... rudyjenna] where a President's electors could be replaced. And then she opined, you know. She 2 gave her opinions on the subject. 3 One thing was, because we -- I had pushed for evidence: Have you got the 4 evidence? 5 I remember, I don't know if it was just an off-the-cuff comment or what, but 6 he -- Mr. Giuliani said something like: We have -- we don't have the evidence, but we 7 have lots of theories. 8 And I -- in retrospect, I think, at least he said that right, you know. But it was -- it 9 was something that he had said that we later, we all looked at each other and said: Did 10 he really say that? 11 Yes, he did. 12 So it was an illuminative moment, which he went on at length. 13 And I seem -- you know, as I think of it now, that's one of the things that Lynch 14 really went after was the idea of throwing out the election and -- I'm sorry, not Lynch, 15 Leach, Mr. Leach, Senator Leach, that he really went after that point. That was an 16 exercised point.

...

On January 4th, you had a call with Mr. Eastman? A I do remember speaking with Mr. Eastman. I'm not -- let me -- yes, I see it 18 in my notes. Yes, that meeting did occur. 19 Q How did that call come about? 20 A We had been pressed by Mr. Finchem and others for me to talk to 21 Mr. Eastman, Mr. Mendelson (ph) to -- in the hopes of convincing me of the 22 constitutional quality of taking an action about having a committee meeting or 23 doing -- now, it was shifted more to -- let's see -- yes, more to the electors, and that there 24 was this, you know, high-level legal minds and decisions on this, not court decisions, but 25 legal decisions, you know, thoughts, papers, and that I should talk to John Eastman, one 44 1 of the highest constitutional lawyers in the country.

And so I said, sure. I shouldn't say 2 I said sure. That sounds flippant. I acquiesced. I said: I would like to know if there 3 is any evidence that anybody has and if there's any legal precedence or thoughts on the 4 issue. 5 And that -- and so Mr. Eastman -- I don't know John Eastman, but I was told Mr. Pappas knew Mr. Eastman from sometime back in California when he was a candidate for attorney general, knew him from other associations. And he talked to me 8 about the man, and that he was, you know, he had a reputation, and that it would be 9 good at least to hear it. I mean, he would -- nobody was a cheerleader for the 10 conversation, but -- I mean, on my staff. There were cheerleaders but not from my 11 staff. And so we took that call. 12 13 14 Q A Q Can you describe the phone call for us? It was lengthy. And -- Well, how about a very high-level summary of what was covered in the call 15 with Mr. Eastman on January 4th. 16 A Well, one of the things was about what the plenary power of authority of the 17 legislature would be and where we would secure that. We talked about the -- the only 18 other kind of a close decision in the area of Article II was the Hawaii case with President 19 Nixon and Mr. -- and President Kennedy and how those two competing groups ended up 20 being a factor. 21 And -- but the -- but the principle that I -- we -- I talked about was that, as it was 22 explained, I said, but the issue wasn't whether or not there was fraud; the issue was -- is 23 that -- well, there might have been. Who knows. The issue was that you had a 24 recount, a mandatory recount because the vote was within the margin of error, or it was 25 within the margin of Hawaiian law, and so they had a recount. And, in the recount, t

...

Was there some alternative that he offered or suggested? 2 Q A And then the second was, if investigations -- I'm reading from the note: If 3 investigations are ongoing and the legislature can't yet determine whether illegal votes affected the outcome of the election, then at least get a resolution that decertifies the 5 existing slate. 6 So both -- both one and two focused on a justification of sorts to decertify. And 7 then, if that wasn't enough, that at least -- we -- Mr. Finchem had passed around a letter, which I vociferously and strongly asked my colleagues, please, get off the letter campaign where everybody has to -- is being asked to sign on whatever it might be to asking this -- the counties to do that, sending a letter to Congress. This just divides us and 11 hurts -- it's going to be used in campaigns that you didn't do this and you didn't do that 12 and why didn't you stand up -- so that -- here we came again that I would -- I was being 13 asked by Eastman to sign a letter from Mr. Finchem that he had circulatedasking Mr. Pence to not certify the election and to do that before the 6th of January. That was 15 the third ask. If you can't decertify them or are not willing to decertify them, blah, blah, 16 blah, at least be willing to sign on to ask Pence not to certify until sufficient information 17 can be obtained in the lack of evidence, you know, at least hold it off, it's too quick type 18 of thing. 19 B 20 Q Thank you, Speaker Bowers. And did you respond to Mr. Eastman's 21 suggestions of these possible courses of action for you in a similar manner as you did 22 when similar suggestions were made by Mr. Giuliani, including on that first phone call 23 with President Trump? 24 A Yes. Again, we went through my oath and that I wasn't going to 25 experiment with my oath, that I -- that mentality. I wasn't going to play with the oath

...

[liberal said] know you're not a pedophile," which was one of the things that they'd put up on their 2 video trucks as they went by. 3 And this was -- I couldn't ever -- I never went out to interview them and say: 4 Now, exactly who sent you today? 5 But part of it was from a group called the Patriot Party of Arizona. They'd call 6 themselves that and have tried to become a separate party. A Daniel McCarthy, he was 7 very active in agitating on social media and in person, et cetera. There were the 8 people -- different groups. I know that he specifically did that, but I -- again, I don't 9 know all of who came or why. I just know they came

...

And, ultimately, that went over a period of months with some regularity, you 11 know. I think there was nine times totally that they came, with the ninth time being 12 rather recent. But it was -- I have a whole different view. I have been in some 13 situations in my life, pretty tough. And they just seemed like unhinged, you know, the 14 screaming and the yelling and the loudspeakers broadcasting my perversions to the 15 neighborhood and that I was, you know, horrible, on the take, corrupt, all this. 16

When they stopped, when actual people got out and started to come on my 17 property, I would say, "Don't come on my property," you know, loudly. They kept 18 coming: Don't come on my property. Go back. 19 And they never rushed the place. They did -- somebody did come in and cut my Christmas lights, you know. Okay. That's pretty juvenile. And it wasn't like antifa. They were -- you know, might get a little more directed. But the police would always come. They had spotters. So, when they spotted the police, they would call, and everybody would kind of flee like quail. 24

And then -- but one -- at the end, there was a gentleman, a Three Percenter. He 25 had it on his T-shirt. It was on his car, and he had a pistol. And when I -- I was already 54 1 so close but not close enough, and so I got closer. I got closer, because if he pulled that out, I had to be close enough to get on him. I mean, why would I even have to think that standing on my own property, but that's what I thought. And just vain, vile, screaming at me and my neighbors.

And so then one of them, a lady hit my neighbor with her car, and he flipped up on the hood, and she just kept right on going. And, later on, she sent the police because he damaged her car. We'd say: Well, that's cool. We -- she came to you. That's the lady that hit my neighbor, you know.

It just was so -- it was -- and the cops would say: Did you ever feel threatened? I said: Well, yeah. My wife said: Yeah, I did. And, at the same time, we had a daughter who was very, very ill and inside and 13 wondering what was all the noise and causing her disruption and angst. And the whole 14 thing was just -- it was very unsettling. 15 I never felt like I was in imminent danger, per se, but in those situations all it takes 16 is one of them to think: I'm going to prove that I'm a great patriot and so I'm going to 17 pull out a gun and shoot this guy. 18 I mean, those thoughts came to my mind because they have happened. And so 19 that's, you know -- it was unsettling.

And has this continued, I mean, past January 2021? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. To this day? Well, none recently. The last one was a couple of months ago-ish. You 24 know, I don't -- I have a journal somewhere, but I don't have it with me. And 25 broke -- it ebbed off for a while, but it just became less frequent. There is only nine in

...

j6 ch 5

President Trump’s Allies Filed Lawsuits Seeking a Court Order Directing Vice President Pence Not to Count Certain Electoral Votes.

One of President Trump’s congressional allies, Representative Louie Gohmert (R–TX), pushed a version of Eastman’s theory in the courts. On December 27, 2020, Representative Gohmert and several of the Trump Campaign’s fake electors for the State of Arizona (including Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward) filed suit against Vice President Pence in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.67 As Ward explained to Marc Short in a phone call the day the suit was filed, President Trump was aware of the lawsuit and had signed off on it: “We wouldn’t have done that without the president telling us it was okay,” she told him.68

In the suit, the Plaintiffs alleged that there were “competing slates” of electors from five States.69 They asked the court to rule that portions of the Electoral Count Act of 1887 were unconstitutional and that “the Twelfth Amendment contains the exclusive dispute resolution mechanisms” for determining an objection raised by a Member of Congress to the electors submitted by any State.70 Essentially, Representative Gohmert was asking the court to tell Vice President Pence that he was prohibited from following the procedures set forth in the Electoral Count Act. Much like Eastman’s theory, the Gohmert plaintiffs asserted that the Vice President has the “exclusive authority and sole discretion” to determine which electoral votes to count.71

Although the Gohmert suit was premised on the same theory Eastman advocated, Eastman did not agree with the decision to file suit. Eastman argued that filing a suit against the Vice President had “close[] to zero” chance of succeeding, and there was a “very high” risk that the court would issue an opinion stating that “Pence has no authority to reject the Biden-certified ballots.” 72 As highlighted by Judge Carter, Eastman’s theory was that Vice President Pence should take this action “without asking for permission” from Congress or the courts.73 Another attorney, Bill Olson, stated that getting a judicial determination “that Pence is constrained by [the Electoral Count Act]” could “completely tank the January 6 strategy.” 74 Those who were advocating to press on with the Eastman scheme did not want to bring it before a Federal judge because of the high risk that a court’s determination that the scheme was illegal would stop the plan to overturn the election dead in its tracks.

Eastman himself pushed this cavalier attitude towards the courts and compliance with the law during a call with Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers on January 4th. During this call, just two days before the joint session, Eastman pressed Speaker Bowers to bring the Arizona House into session to certify Trump electors or decertify the Biden electors.75 Speaker Bowers responded as he had previously responded to similar entreaties by Giuliani and President Trump: by explaining that doing so would require him to violate his oaths to the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions and that he “wasn’t going to take such an action.” 76 Undeterred, Eastman still pushed Speaker Bowers to “just do it and let the courts sort it through.” 77

https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2022/12/22/final-jan-6-report-cites-san-diegos-oan-peter-navarro-and-sdsus-christina-bobb/

no lnx

Final Jan. 6 Report Cites San Diego’s OAN, Peter Navarro and SDSU’s Christina Bobb

Ken Stone

Christina Bobb appears on Dan Ball’s show recently on One America News. Image via OAN.

San Diego’s One America News and ex-San Diego politico Peter Navarro are noted in the final report of the congressional panel probing the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Final report of Jan. 6 committee (PDF)

The 845-page report, released Thursday night, also cites testimony and emails mentioning Donald Trump lawyer Christina Bobb, a San Diego State University graduate.

Bobb produced materials for the House select committee.* But Navarro, the Trump aide who repeatedly failed in runs for San Diego office, refused to cooperate with the select committee and was indicted for contempt of Congress.

In end notes, the Jan. 6 committee said it interviewed Bobb on April 21 — but her deposition wasn’t among those released this week.

Bobb, a former OAN correspondent facing civil suits over promoting stolen-election lies, spoke Monday on “Real America with Dan Ball.”

Asked about the four criminal referrals — whichBall called “insane charges”— Bobb said they were all about preventing Trump from running in 2024 “because he’s not approved by the political elite. He doesn’t play by their rules. And he wants to return power back to the American people.”

“This is a show trial,” she said. “It’s trying to stir people up to believe that Donald Trump is somehow bad.”

She said Trump has a “very solid criminal defense team” in place.

“This has nothing to do with democracy or January 6th,” she said. “They tried this with the Impeachment Hoax 1 and the Impeachment Hoax 2 and the Russian Collusion Hoax. What hoax number are we on now?”

Click to see OAN segment featuring Christina Bobb.

The report said that less than two weeks after the election, President Trump pushed “Team Normal” aside because its members didn’t tell him what he wanted to hear.

“In their place, Trump promoted Rudy Giuliani and his associates — men and women who spread baseless and extreme claims of election fraud,” including Bobb, the report said.

But Bobb couldn’t point to any evidence of wrongdoing by Dominion Voting Systems — which is suing OAN, Fox News and others about airing lies about it “switching votes” to Joe Biden, the report said.

Arizona’s vote was a source of contention as well.

Trump retweeted a post by campaign lawyer Bobb that accused Arizona House Speaker Russell “Rusty” Bowers of “intentionally misleading the people of Arizona.”

San Diego-based OAN was cited as a conduit of stolen-election lies.

On Nov. 19, 2020, Trump tweeted and retweeted a link to a segment on OAN titled, “Dominion-izing the Vote.”

“The segment claimed that Dominion had switched votes from Trump to Biden. OAN featured a supposed cyber expert, Ron Watkins, a key figure in the QAnon conspiracy movement,” the report said.

“On his own Twitter account, Watkins celebrated and thanked his supporters just minutes after President Trump tweeted the clip, and President Trump went on to share the clip again several times in the days that followed.”

OAN executives didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Though Navarro refused to cooperate with the committee, he referenced Steve Bannon’s “Green Bay Sweep” bid to overturn the election in his book “In Trump Time: A Journal of America’s Plague Year.”

“Although he doesn’t fully explain in his book … how Bannon’s sweep was intended to work, Navarro writes that Vice President Pence was envisioned as the ‘quarterback’ who would “assert his constitutional power” to delay certification of the electoral vote Jan. 6, the report notes.

“Navarro writes that his own role was to ‘carefully document the fraud and myriad election irregularities,’ while Bannon’s “role was to figure out how to use this information — what he called the ‘receipts.’”

The report says Navarro’s account helped explain why Trump and his loyalists became so fixated on Pence.

“They saw Vice President Pence as their last hope for keeping President Trump in office,” the report says. “Navarro writes of Pence’s supposed ‘betrayal.’ In a telling sentence, Navarro likens Vice President Pence to Brutus, a Roman politician and the most famous assassin of Julius Caesar.”

Navarro wrote in his book:

On this cold, momentous day, I shiver as I think to myself, “January 6 will be either Mike Pence’s finest hour or the traitorous ‘Et tu, Brute?’ end of both his and Donald Trump’s political careers.

The committee report outlines its case that Trump should face criminal charges of inciting the deadly riot.

The House of Representatives Select Committee also made public the transcripts of a number of its interviews and witness testimonies earlier on Thursday and on Wednesday.

The report is based on nearly 1,200 interviews over 18 months and hundreds of thousands of documents, as well as the rulings of more than 60 federal and state courts.

The report lists 17 specific findings, discusses the legal implications of actions by Trump and some of his associates and includes criminal referrals to the Justice Department of Trump and other individuals, according to an executive summary released earlier this week. It report also lists legislative recommendations to help avert another such attack.

OAN segment on House committee’s criminal referrals shows book by Christina Bobb. Image via OAN

On Monday, the committee asked federal prosecutors to charge the Republican former president with four crimes, including obstruction and insurrection, for what they said were efforts to overturn results of the November 2020 election and sparking the attack on the seat of government.

“Rather than honor his constitutional obligation to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’ President Trump instead plotted to overturn the election outcome,” the House panel had said earlier in a 160-page summary of its report.

In comments posted on his Truth Social network after the final report’s release, Trump called it “highly partisan” and a “witch hunt”. He said it failed to “study the reason for the (Jan. 6) protest, election fraud.”

The request by the Democratic-led panel to the Justice Department does not compel federal prosecutors to act, but marked the first time in history that Congress had referred a former president for criminal prosecution. Trump announced in November that he would run for president again.

Among the transcripts released on Wednesday and Thursday was one that showed a former lawyer for ex-White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson told her to “downplay” her knowledge of events leading to the Capitol riot, telling her “the less you remember, the better.”

Attorney Stefan Passantino advised Hutchinson in preparing for a February deposition before the panel to say that she could not recall certain events, she told the committee in September, according to the transcript of her testimony.

Trump gave a fiery speech to his supporters near the White House the morning of Jan. 6, and publicly chastised Pence for not going along with his plan to reject ballots cast for Democrat Joe Biden.

The former president then waited hours to make a public statement as thousands of his supporters raged through the Capitol, assaulting police and threatening to hang Pence.

The 2020 election results were being certified by Pence and lawmakers when the Capitol was attacked after weeks of false claims by Trump that he had won that election.

Updated at 10:17 a.m. Dec. 23, 2022

flipped fox straight?!

no lnx

Fox News host admits 'stunning' lack of evidence supporting Trump’s election fraud claims

Image via Screengrab.blone

Daniel Villarreal and The New Civil Rights Movement June 23, 2022

Fox News host Martha MacCallum has said that there’s a “stunning” lack of evidence supporting former President Donald Trump’s baseless claims that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” from him by an unprecedented nationwide conspiracy of voter fraud.

MacCallum made her comments when discussing recent testimony by Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers to the U.S. House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. Bowers said that Trump’s campaign attorney Rudy Giuliani kept telling that the Trump campaign had a list of dead people who had voted and other irregularities that would prove fraud. Though Giuliani promised to give lists of names and irregularities to Bowers, the Trump campaign never provided them.

At one point, Bowers said that Giuliani commented, “We’ve got lots of theories (of election fraud), we just don’t have the evidence.” Indeed, over 60 court cases brought by Trump and Republicans alleging election fraud were dismissed due to lack of evidence.

MacCallum said, “It is very compelling and the lack of evidence is the huge, stunning, clear moment here where these people are saying, ‘Look I supported you, please give me something to work with,’ and it simply doesn’t materialize.”

MacCallum’s statement marks a distinct change from Fox News’ rhetoric casting doubt on President Joe Biden’s election victory leading up to the January 6, 2021 Capitol riots.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

'Those were the Trump years': Panelist brilliantly destroys Fox News ... ›

How Franz Kafka predicted Fox News - Alternet.org ›

Fox News host busts Dr. Oz for implying he's winning Pennsylvania ... ›

all purpose demon term // nazi putin? recall judge race //willie horton?

On Tuesday, June 21, Rusty Bowers — the conservative Republican who serves as speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives — testified at one of the hearings being held by the January 6 select committee. Bowers recalled his refusal to promote the Big Lie following the 2020 presidential election and the abuse from MAGA extremists that he suffered because of it — abuse that included being falsely accused of being a “pedophile.”

Journalist Ali Breland, in an article published by **Mother Jones**on June 21, points to Bowers’ experiences as a prime example of the type of tactics that QAnon extremists and far-right conspiracy theorists will resort to if a politician stands up to former President Donald Trump and the MAGA movement in any way. And Breland emphasizes that QAnon won’t hesitate to go after Republicans as well as Democrats.

“For years, ‘pedophile,’ often shortened to ‘pedo,’ was used as semi-ironic 4Chan shorthand for anyone internet trolls thought was a weirdo,” Breland explains. “More recently, QAnon’s misplaced ‘save the children’ paranoia has helped this sentiment germinate among the non-4Chan normie masses. For a bit, the pedophile accusations were reserved for elite, liberal gatekeepers — the high-profile Democrats featured in John Podesta’s hacked e-mails, for example. But now, literally anyone who stands even slightly in the way of the right’s agenda might be called a pedophile.”

Breland continues, “Testifying Tuesday before the January 6 committee, Rusty Bowers — the Republican speaker of the Arizona Statehouse — somberly explained how this happened to him after he refused to help Donald Trump overturn Joe Biden’s victory in that state. In response, right-wing protesters began showing up at his home, where he lives with his wife and daughter.”

Bowers is a prime example of the fact that QAnon extremists will not cut a politician any slack simply because they are a conservative Republican. If they consider them disloyal to the MAGA movement or a RINO (Republican In Name Only), they are a target for a false accusation of pedophilia.And Bowers has not been a Never Trumper.

“These kinds of often-unfounded accusations have become increasingly common weapons wielded by conspiratorial right-wingers who believe the election was stolen from Trump,” Breland observes. “But they also fit into a longstanding framework of weaponizing children as a part of far-right political projects. In 2019, while QAnon was gaining steam but had not yet gone fully mainstream, I wrote about the history of political movements baselessly portraying children as being in grave danger, as in the moral and Satanic panics of the 1980s.”

Breland notes that QAnon’s influence asserted itself this year when Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri made “attempts to smear Biden’s Supreme Court Justice nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, as a pedophile sympathizer.”

QAnon believes that the United States’ federal government has been hijacked by a sinister international cabal of pedophiles, child sex traffickers, Satanists and cannibals and that Trump was elected president in 2016 to fight the cabal. And QAnon, Breland warns, has “normalized” such thinking.

“QAnon, and the ‘80s moral panics that preceded it, established a more elaborate and convoluted mythos,” Breland writes. “Children were being kept in tunnels for a sprawling child sex trafficking ring run by elite pedophiles, and the proof was sitting in plain sight for anyone willing to do the research. This has become so normalized that people attacking Bowers might not even waste their time concocting fabulous stories. They just cut straight to the chase and call him a pedophile. They don’t explain any further, because they don’t need to.”

testified day 4 praise RR on election day transfer miracle; dtr term ill, big pathos; xian // VP staff/lawyer in basement 1/6?

https://www.alternet.org/2022/06/donald-trump-rusty-bowers/ attack cohen ctr-punch BS?

https://www.alternet.org/2022/06/arizona-gop-lawmaker/

An Arizona Republican lawmaker is speaking out about the pressures he faced from former President Donald Trump, his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and the former president's allies amid Republicans' attempts to overturn the presidential election.

According to NPR.org, Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers (R) recently testified and shared details about his conversations with Giuliani where he claimed undocumented voters were responsible for casting illegal ballots. He also claimed votes had been cast on behalf of a substantial number of deceased individuals.

But instead of just running with Giuliani's claims, Bowers and other Republican legislators requested he provide solid evidence to back the tall accusations. "In my recollection," Bowers said of Giuliani, "he said, We have lots of theories we just don't have the evidence.'"

Bowers also recalled how Giuliani also "pressured him to call the Arizona legislature back into session — a unilateral move Bowers said he cannot do — to recall the electors that would be going to President Biden after Biden beat Trump in the state."

"It is a tenet of my faith that theConstitution is divinely inspired," he said, growing visibly emotional. "I would not do it."

He noted that the former president also echoed similar sentiments but he didn't believe the evidence they provided to back their claims "merited a hearing."

"You are asking me to do something against my oath, andI will not break my oath," he said he told Trump and Giuliani, to which the former New York mayor said: "Aren't we all Republicans here? I would think we'd get a better reception."

Trump-supporting lawyer John Eastman also contacted Bowers by phone as he echoed Trump and Giuliani's demands. "His suggestion was that we would do it, and I said I can't," Bowers said, adding that Eastman pressured him by telling him to "just do it and let the courts sort it out."

In addition to pressure from Trump's allies, Bowers also noted that the former president's supporters also expressed concern about the outcome of the election. He revealed, per NPR.org, that "his office was subject to over 20,000 emails, thousands of voicemails and texts from those who believed he was wrong to not recall the electors."

"Up until recently, it is a new pattern in our lives to worry what will happen on Saturdays," he said of his family. "Because we have various groups come by."

Bowers has also faced a litany of accusations including being called "a pedophile and corrupt politician" as video trucks drive through his neighborhood and threaten his neighbors."It was disturbing," he said emotionally as he recalled what transpired.

3% gun on hip verbally threat neighbor "I knew I had to get close" to WHAT?!

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/eastman-pitch-coup-plan-arizona-gop-leader

john Eastman, the conservative legal scholar who drew up a full scheme to have then-Vice President Mike Pence throw out certain states’ 2020 electoral votes to steal the election for Donald Trump, reportedly took his ideas straight to at least one Republican leader in a state Trump lost.

According to the Arizona Republic’s latest report in its multi-part series on Trumpworld’s efforts to invalidate Joe Biden’s victory in Arizona, Eastman reached out to state House Speaker Rusty Bowers (R) personally on Jan. 4 to pitch a legal theory on how Arizona’s electors ought to be tossed away before Congress certifies the electoral votes on Jan. 6.

Eastman has claimed he was only ever offering hypotheticals and had no intention of overturning the election. But Jan. 4 — the day he spoke to Bowers — was also the day he presented his election-stealing scheme to Pence.

Both reported examples show Eastman pressing Republicans to subvert the election, not simply offering disinterested legal advice.

bowers reportedly asked Eastman during their talk, “Has this ever been done before?”

The lawyer said no, but told Bowers he ought to do it anyway and let Trump’s legal team deal with whatever litigation might arise from the gambit, the Arizona Republic reported.

But the GOP leader reportedly wasn’t sold.

“It’s never been done in the history of the country, and I’m going to do that in Arizona?” he asked, according to the Arizona Republic. “No.”

Eastman’s reported conversation with Bowers fell on the same day as the attorney’s Oval Office meeting with Pence, during which Eastman laid out his now-infamous memo explaining how the vice president could hijack Congress’ certification process to keep Trump in power. Eastman proposed that Pence throw out electors from the swing states Biden had won, including Arizona, and let the GOP-controlled state legislatures or U.S. House Republicans choose new electors.

Since details about Eastman’s blueprint for his proposed coup came out this September, the lawyer has publicly insisted that he never thought that the memo’s legal theories carried any weight and that it was only intended to detail “available scenarios that had been floated.”

But Eastman’s denials utterly collapsed in late October, when the lawyer told an undercover progressive activist that he absolutely believed his reasoning in the memo was solid.

The Arizona Republic’s new report on Eastman apparently trying to personally lobby an individual state Republican leader reveals the extent to which the lawyer tried to make his cloak-and-dagger scheme, which was fully backed by Trump, a reality.

https://www.alternet.org/2021/11/trump-attorney-eastman-went-directly-to-arizonas-house-speaker-with-his-insurrectionist-scheme-report/

John C. Eastman — a far-right attorney, Donald Trump ally, MAGA Republican and prominent figure in the Claremont Institute — has horrified constitutionalists because of his authoritarian plan to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. And one of the Republicans he reached out to directly, according to the Arizona Republic, was Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers.

Referencing reporting in the Arizona Republic, Talking Points Memo's Cristina Cabrera notes that on January 4, 2021, Eastman contacted Bowers directly "to pitch a legal theory on how Arizona's electors ought to be tossed away before Congress" certified "the electoral votes on January 6."

Arizona was one of the five states that went for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election but flipped to now-President Joe Biden in 2020; the others were Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin. Trump falsely claimed that he was the real winner in Arizona but was deprived of a victory because of widespread voter fraud, but official bipartisan recounts confirmed that Biden, in fact, won the state.

Regardless, Trump lawyer Eastman was more than happy to promote Trump's false claims of widespread voter fraud. And because of Eastman, Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell and other Trump lawyers, the United States came dangerously close to a constitutional crisis during the late 2020/early 2021 lame duck period. The violent insurrectionist assault on the U.S. Capitol Building on January 6 was unprecedented in U.S. history.

Cabrera notes, "Eastman has claimed he was only…. offering hypotheticals and had no intention of overturning the election. But January 4, the day he spoke to Bowers, was also the day he presented his election-stealing scheme to (Vice President Mike) Pence. Both reported examples show Eastman pressing Republicans to subvert the election, not simply offering disinterested legal advice."

The fact that Eastman has been so prominent in the Claremont Institute is important. Founded in 1979, the right-wing think tank has been around for 42 years — and in the past, it favored a more traditional brand of conservation. Claremont's founder, the late Harry V. Jaffa, was a speechwriter for Sen. Barry Goldwater during his 1964 presidential campaign. But Claremont has taken an increasingly dark and authoritarian turn in recent years, fully embracing Trump's MAGA movement and pushing far-right conspiracy theories. In a notorious essay for the American Mind published on March 24 and headlined "Conservatism Is No Longer Enough," Glenn Ellmers (a Claremont senior fellow) argued that most people living in the U.S. are no longer Americans in the true sense. Ellmers' essay was right out of the Viktor Orbán/Vladimir Putin/Marine LePen school of hyper-nationalist far-right authoritarianism.

Eastman, like Ellmers, has championed the MAGA movement vigorously. And more traditional conservatives and libertarians such as those at The Bulwark have been appalled by his scheme, outlined in a two-page memo, for overturning the 2020 election results.

According to Cabrera, "Eastman's reported conversation with Bowers fell on the same day as the attorney's Oval Office meeting with Pence, during which Eastman laid out his now-infamous memo explaining how the vice president could hijack Congress' certification process to keep Trump in power. Eastman proposed that Pence throw out electors from the swing states Biden had won, including Arizona, and let the GOP-controlled state legislatures or U.S. House Republicans choose new electors…. The Arizona Republic's new report on Eastman apparently trying to personally lobby an individual state Republican leader reveals the extent to which the lawyer tried to make his cloak-and-dagger scheme, which was fully backed by Trump, a reality."

Legislative history

SB 1070, also called the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, was introduced in the Arizona State Senate in January 2010 by Senator Russell Pearce (R). The bill passed the senate 17-13 in February 2010, and in April the house passed a modified version of the bill 35-21. Governor Jan Brewer (R) signed the bill into law on April 23,2010.[3][4]

Provisions

SB 1070 contained four primary provisions related to immigration enforcement:[5]

The first provision made it a state crime to reside in the United States without legal permission.
The second provision made it a state crime to work in the United States without legal permission
The third provision required law enforcement officers to verify the legal status of all individuals who were arrested or detained
The fourth provision allowed law enforcement officers to arrest individuals without a warrant based on probable cause of unlawful presence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Bowers

russell "Rusty" Bowers^[1] (born October 20, 1952) is an American politician and the current Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives. A member of the Republican Party, he has represented the 25th legislative district since 2015.^[2][3] He was elected Speaker in 2019.

Bowers previously represented the 21st legislative district in the Arizona House from 1993–1997 and in the Arizona Senate from 1997–2001.^[4] He is a classically trained artist specializing in watercolor, oil painting, and sculpting,^[5] and has also been involved in the construction and education industries.^[6]

In February 2022, Bowers filed paperwork to run for the Arizona Senate in the 10th district.^[7][8][9] He will face Dave Farnsworth in the Republican primary.^[10]

Early life and education[

Bowers attended Mesa Community College, Arizona State University, and Brigham Young University. A member of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he spent two years as a Mormon missionary in Mexico.^[11]

Resistance to recall Arizona electoral votes of the 2020 United States presidential election[

Bowers refused to cooperate with the attempts to recall Arizona electoral votes of the 2020 United States presidential election by publicly stating that there was no evidence of election fraud that would mandate rejection of the results of the 2020 United States presidential election in Arizona.^[12] On June 21, 2022, Bowers testified to the January 6 commission. As part of his testimony, he stated that when he asked Rudy Giuliani for evidence that there was fraud, Giuliani responded "We have lots we evidence we already presented".^[13]

Bowers also killed a bill in the Arizona House of Representatives which would have allowed the state legislature to override the results of a presidential election in Arizona.^[14]

For his efforts in resisting the attempts to overturn the 2020 election results, Bowers was awarded the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award. He was one of five honorees to receive the award in 2022.^[15]

Personal life[

Russell Bowers is married to Donetta Russell, with whom he has seven children.^[16]

Elections[

2014 Bowers and Olson defeated Haydee Dawson, Michelle Udall and Jerry Walker in the Republican primary. Olson and Bowers defeated David Butler, Sheila Ogea, and Libertarian Michael Kielsky in the general election, with Bowers receiving 33,220 votes.^[17]
2016 Bowers and Udall defeated Ross Groen in the Republican primary. Bowers and Udall defeated Kathleen Rahn, with Bowers receiving 51,160 votes.^[18]
2018 Bowers and Udall defeated Marlene Hinton in the Republican primary. Bowers and Olson defeated Johnny Martin in the general election, with Bowers receiving 30,712 votes.^[19]

References[

^ "Russell Bowers's Biography". Project Vote Smart. Retrieved December 30, 2013.
^ "Russell Bowers". Phoenix, Arizona: Arizona State Legislature. Retrieved December 30, 2013.
^ "Profile: Rep. Russell Bowers (R-AZ)".
^ "Russell W. Bowers (Republican Party)".
^ "About". Retrieved December 1, 2018.
^ http://www.azrlvf.com/leadership-bowers/
^ https://arizonadailyindependent.com/2022/02/18/speaker-bowers-to-run-for-arizona-senate-again-termed-out-of-house/
^ https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/02/18/arizona-house-speaker-rusty-bowers-run-arizona-senate/6851029001/
^ https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2022/02/18/house-speaker-bowers-files-for-senate-run-in-22/
^ https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=979718
^ http://www.azrlvf.com/leadership-bowers/
^ Christie, Bob; Riccardi, Nicholas (November 14, 2020). "GOP leaders in 4 states quash dubious Trump bid on electors". Associated Press.
^ Bustillo, Ximena (June 21, 2022). "Arizona lawmaker Rusty Bowers details the pressure put on him by Trump and Giuliani". NPR.
^ Rose, Andy; Stracqualursi, Veronica (February 4, 2022). "Arizona Republican House speaker effectively dooms GOP bill to allow state legislature to reject election results". CNN.
^ Stone, Kevin (May 23, 2022). "Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers receives JFK Profile in Courage Award". KTAR-FM.
^ http://www.azrlvf.com/leadership-bowers/
^ "State of Arizona Official Canvass 2014 General Election November 4, 2014" (PDF). Phoenix, Arizona: Secretary of State of Arizona. p. 9. Retrieved March 18, 2016.
^ "Arizona House of Representatives District 25". Retrieved December 1, 2018.
^ "Arizona House of Representatives District 25". Retrieved December 1, 2018.

External links[

Official page at the Arizona State Legislature
Campaign site
Ballotpedia Page

Arizona House of Representatives	Arizona House of Representatives	Arizona House of Representatives
Preceded by Stan Barnes	Member of the Arizona House of Representatives from the 21st district 1993–1997 Served alongside: Leslie Whiting Johnson, Marilyn Jarrett	Succeeded by Dean Cooley
Preceded by Justin Pierce	Member of the Arizona House of Representatives from the 25th district 2015–present Served alongside: Michelle Udall	Incumbent
Arizona Senate	Arizona Senate	Arizona Senate
Preceded by Stan Barnes	Member of the Arizona Senate from the 21st district 1997–2003	Succeeded by Jay Tibshraeny
Political offices	Political offices	Political offices
Preceded by J. D. Mesnard	Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives 2019–present	Incumbent

show

Arizona House of Representatives

show

Statewide political officials of Arizona

show

Speakers of State Houses

Categories:

https://ballotpedia.org/Russell_Bowers

ballotpedia see 2021 recall

no lnx

Russell Bowers (Republican Party) (also known as Rusty) is a member of the Arizona House of Representatives, representing District 25. He assumed office on January 12, 2015. His current term ends on January 9, 2023.

Bowers (Republican Party) is running for election to the Arizona State Senate to represent District 10. He is on the ballot in the Republican primary on August 2, 2022.

Bowers began serving as state House speaker in 2019.

To read more on the recall effort against Rep. Bowers in 2021, click here.

Biography

Representative Bowers graduated from Mesa High School and subsequently attended Mesa Community College, Arizona State University, and Brigham Young University. He later did his post-graduate work at Arizona State University. Representative Bowers enjoyed a career in construction and education, and is also a professional artist and musician.[1]

Committee assignments

This membership information was last updated in March 2021. Ballotpedia completes yearly updates of committee membership. If you would like to send us an update, email us at: editor@ballotpedia.org.

2021-2022

Bowers was assigned to the following committees:

House Rules Committee

2019-2020

Bowers was assigned to the following committees:

Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committee

House Rules Committee

2017 legislative session

At the beginning of the 2017 legislative session, this legislator served on the following committees:

[hide]Arizona committee assignments, 2017

• Appropriations

• Education

• Energy, Environment and Natural Resources, Chair

2015 legislative session

At the beginning of the 2015 legislative session, Bowers served on the following committees:

[show]Arizona committee assignments, 2015

Sponsored legislation

The following table lists bills sponsored by this legislator. Bills are monitored by BillTrack50 and sorted by action history. The following list may not be comprehensive. To see all bills sponsored by this person, click on the legislator's name in the title of the table.

Bills Sponsored By: Russell Bowers

AZ HB2873 - Water infrastructure financing; supply; augmentation.

Water infrastructure financing; supply; augmentation.

06/22/2022: House Natural Resources, Energy & Water (09:00 6/22/2022 HHR 1)

AZ HB2853 - Arizona empowerment scholarship accounts;appropriation

Arizona empowerment scholarship accounts; appropriation

06/21/2022: House minority caucus: Do pass

AZ HB2854 - K-12; school finance;weights

K-12; school finance; weights

06/20/2022: House read second time

AZ HR2015 - Herschella Horton; death resolution

Herschella Horton; death resolution

05/31/2022: Transmitted to Secretary Of State

AZ HB2780 - Voter lists; images; voting records

Voter lists; images; voting records

05/31/2022: Senate majority caucus: Do pass

AZ HCR2043 - Bob McLendon; death resolution

Bob McLendon; death resolution

05/26/2022: Transmitted to Secretary Of State

AZ HB2637 - Divestment; K-12; abortion; explicit material

Divestment; K-12; abortion; explicit material

05/17/2022: Senate majority caucus: Do pass

AZ HCR2044 - Allister Adel; death resolution

Allister Adel; death resolution

05/17/2022: Transmitted to Secretary Of State

AZ HB2034 - CTEDs; associate degrees

CTEDs; associate degrees

04/29/2022: Chapter 198

AZ HB2696 - Mandatory sentences; children; trafficking; smuggling

Mandatory sentences; children; trafficking; smuggling

04/28/2022: Chapter 197

AZ HB2101 - Electric energy; reliability; public policy

Electric energy; reliability; public policy

04/26/2022: Chapter 191

AZ HCR2042 - Death resolution; Jimmie Muñoz, Sr.

Death resolution; Jimmie Muñoz, Sr.

04/25/2022: Transmit to Senate

AZ HB2449 - Care facilities; clergy visitation

Care facilities; clergy visitation

04/25/2022: Chapter 179

AZ HB2707 - Public schools; moment of silence

Public schools; moment of silence

04/12/2022: Chapter 119

AZ HB2650 -Critical incident bureau; establishment; DPS

Critical incident bureau; establishment; DPS

03/31/2022: Senate Appropriations (10:30 3/31/2022 SHR 109)

AZ HB2055 - Harquahala non-expansion area; groundwater transportation

Harquahala non-expansion area; groundwater transportation

03/28/2022: Senate majority caucus: Do pass

AZ HB2057 - Water supply development fund; revisions

Water supply development fund; revisions

03/25/2022: Chapter 63

AZ HB2112 - Classroom instruction; race; ethnicity; sex

Classroom instruction; race; ethnicity; sex

03/23/2022: Senate FIN Committee action: do pass amended/strike-everything, voting: (7-1-2-0)

AZ SB1708 - Motion picture production; tax credits

Motion picture production; tax credits

03/23/2022: House APPROP Committee action: Do Pass Amended, voting: (8-5-0-0-0-0)

AZ HB2840 - Precinct committeemen; 2022 election cycle

Precinct committeemen; 2022 election cycle

03/18/2022: Transmit to Senate

AZ HCM2008 - Romania; visa waiver program

Romania; visa waiver program

03/17/2022: Transmitted to Secretary Of State

AZ HB2651 - Appropriation; Cesar Chavez Boulevard.

Appropriation; Cesar Chavez Boulevard.

03/15/2022: Senate APPROP Committee action: Do Pass, voting: (9-1-0-0)

AZ HB2226 - Fireworks; use; overnight hours; prohibition.

Fireworks; use; overnight hours; prohibition.

03/15/2022: Senate majority caucus: Do pass

AZ HCR2040 - Olivia Cajero Bedford; death resolution

Olivia Cajero Bedford; death resolution

03/10/2022: Transmitted to Secretary Of State

AZ HB2839 - Candidate nominations; signatures; redistricting.

Candidate nominations; signatures; redistricting.

03/03/2022: Chapter 3

Elections

2022

State Senate

See also: Arizona State Senate elections, 2022

General election

The primary will occur on August 2, 2022. The general election will occur on November 8, 2022. Additional general election candidates will be added here following the primary.

General election for Arizona State Senate District 10

Nick Fierro is running in the general election for Arizona State Senate District 10 on November 8, 2022.

Candidate

Silhouette Placeholder Image.png

Nick Fierro (Independent)

Ballotpedia Logo

There are no incumbents in this race.

Candidate Connection = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Republican primary election

Republican primary for Arizona State Senate District 10

Russell Bowers and David Farnsworth are running in the Republican primary for Arizona State Senate District 10 on August 2, 2022.

Candidate

Image of https://s3.amazonaws.com/ballotpedia-api4/files/thumbs/100/100/Russell_Bowers.jpg

Russell Bowers

Image of https://s3.amazonaws.com/ballotpedia-api4/files/thumbs/100/100/David_Farnsworth.png

David Farnsworth Candidate Connection

Ballotpedia Logo

There are no incumbents in this race.

Candidate Connection = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.

Campaign finance

2022 election (Jan. 1, 2021 - March 31, 2022*)

Contributions $47,430

Number of unique donors 108

Expenditures $6,676

Number of unique payees 6

Top Donors

Arizona Leadership Fund $5,300

Ried G Hoffman $2,000

Wendy Briggs $2,000

Associations Inc PAC $1,500

Southwest Gas Arizona PAC $1,500

Jay Kaprosy $1,250

Adam Hawkins $1,000

American Express $1,000

Arizona Chapter of Naiop Inc Azpac $1,000

Arizona Dairymen PAC $1,000

Top Payees

Camelback Strategy Group $4,094

Max Skabelund $2,026

Pay Pal $246

Verizon $204

First Watch Cafe $75

Power Postal $30

State House

See also: Arizona House of Representatives elections, 2022

Russell Bowers was not able to file for re-election due to term limits.

2020

See also: Arizona House of Representatives elections, 2020

General election

General election for Arizona House of Representatives District 25 (2 seats)

Incumbent Michelle Udall and incumbent Russell Bowers defeated Suzanne Hug in the general election for Arizona House of Representatives District 25 on November 3, 2020.

Candidate % Votes

✔

Image of https://s3.amazonaws.com/ballotpedia-api4/files/thumbs/100/100/Michelle-Udall.jpg

Michelle Udall (R) 38.7 69,049

✔

Image of https://s3.amazonaws.com/ballotpedia-api4/files/thumbs/100/100/Russell_Bowers.jpg

Russell Bowers (R) 35.5 63,412

Image of https://s3.amazonaws.com/ballotpedia-api4/files/thumbs/100/100/shug.jpg

Suzanne Hug (D) Candidate Connection 25.9 46,180

Ballotpedia Logo

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 178,641

Candidate Connection = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Democratic primary election

Democratic primary for Arizona House of Representatives District 25 (2 seats)

Suzanne Hug advanced from the Democratic primary for Arizona House of Representatives District 25 on August 4, 2020.

Candidate % Votes

✔

Image of https://s3.amazonaws.com/ballotpedia-api4/files/thumbs/100/100/shug.jpg

Suzanne Hug Candidate Connection 100.0 17,519

Ballotpedia Logo

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 17,519

Candidate Connection = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Republican primary election

Republican primary for Arizona House of Representatives District 25 (2 seats)

Incumbent Russell Bowers and incumbent Michelle Udall defeated Kathy Pearce in the Republican primary for Arizona House of Representatives District 25 on August 4, 2020.

Candidate % Votes

✔

Image of https://s3.amazonaws.com/ballotpedia-api4/files/thumbs/100/100/Russell_Bowers.jpg

Russell Bowers 42.2 23,271

✔

Image of https://s3.amazonaws.com/ballotpedia-api4/files/thumbs/100/100/Michelle-Udall.jpg

Michelle Udall 30.0 16,569

Silhouette Placeholder Image.png

Kathy Pearce 27.8 15,358

Ballotpedia Logo

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 55,198

Candidate Connection = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Campaign finance

2020 election (Jan. 1, 2019 - Dec. 31, 2020)

Contributions $225,814

Number of unique donors 330

Expenditures $176,206

Number of unique payees 48

Top Donors

Russell W Bowers Campaign $77,081

S Robson Walton $5,200

Southwest Gas Arizona PAC $4,800

Pinnacle West Capital Corporation PAC $4,500

General Motors Company PAC (GM PAC) $4,000

Vicki and Jim Click Jr $3,000

Wellcare PAC $3,000

Salt River Project $2,700

David S Alexander $2,500

Raytheon PAC $2,500

Top Payees

Russell W Bowers Campaign $77,018

Americopy $53,229

Amagine Communication $29,606

Camelback Strategy Group $6,114

White Stallion Ranch $2,799

newegg.com $1,626

Tia's Royal Islanders $1,595

Kevin Demenna $647

Donetta Bowers $499

Russell W Bowers Bowers Art Services $452

2018

See also: Arizona House of Representatives elections, 2018

General election

General election for Arizona House of Representatives District 25 (2 seats)

Incumbent Michelle Udall and incumbent Russell Bowers defeated Johnny Martin in the general election for Arizona House of Representatives District 25 on November 6, 2018.

Candidate % Votes

✔

Image of https://s3.amazonaws.com/ballotpedia-api4/files/thumbs/100/100/Michelle-Udall.jpg

Michelle Udall (R) 39.8 52,075

✔

Image of https://s3.amazonaws.com/ballotpedia-api4/files/thumbs/100/100/Russell_Bowers.jpg

Russell Bowers (R) 36.0 47,067

Image of https://s3.amazonaws.com/ballotpedia-api4/files/thumbs/100/100/JohnnyMartin.jpg

Johnny Martin (D) 24.1 31,540

Ballotpedia Logo

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 130,682

Candidate Connection = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Democratic primary election

Democratic primary for Arizona House of Representatives District 25 (2 seats)

Johnny Martin advanced from the Democratic primary for Arizona House of Representatives District 25 on August 28, 2018.

Candidate % Votes

✔

Image of https://s3.amazonaws.com/ballotpedia-api4/files/thumbs/100/100/JohnnyMartin.jpg

Johnny Martin 100.0 12,286

Ballotpedia Logo

There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 12,286

(100.00% precincts reporting)

Candidate Connection = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Republican primary election

Republican primary for Arizona House of Representatives District 25 (2 seats)

Incumbent Russell Bowers and incumbent Michelle Udall defeated Marlene Hinton in the Republican primary for Arizona House of Representatives District 25 on August 28, 2018.

Candidate % Votes

✔

Image of https://s3.amazonaws.com/ballotpedia-api4/files/thumbs/100/100/Russell_Bowers.jpg

Russell Bowers 43.3 20,522

✔

Image of https://s3.amazonaws.com/ballotpedia-api4/files/thumbs/100/100/Michelle-Udall.jpg

Michelle Udall 37.5 17,759

Silhouette Placeholder Image.png

Marlene Hinton Candidate Connection 19.2 9,081

Ballotpedia Logo

Incumbents are bolded and underlined. The results have been certified. Source

Total votes: 47,362

(100.00% precincts reporting)

Candidate Connection = candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.

Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

2016

See also: Arizona House of Representatives elections, 2016

Elections for the Arizona House of Representatives took place in 2016. The primary election took place on August 30, 2016, and the general election was held on November 8, 2016. The candidate filing deadline was June 1, 2016.[2] Incumbent Justin Olson (R) did not seek re-election.

Michelle Udall and incumbent Russell Bowers defeated Kathleen Rahn in the Arizona House of Representatives District 25 general election.[3][4]

[hide]Arizona House of Representatives, District 25 General Election, 2016

Party Candidate Vote % Votes

Republican Green check mark transparent.png Michelle Udall 40.15% 55,941

Republican Green check mark transparent.png Russell Bowers Incumbent 36.72% 51,160

Democratic Kathleen Rahn 23.13% 32,225

Total Votes 139,326

Source: Arizona Secretary of State

Kathleen Rahn ran unopposed in the Arizona House of Representatives District 25 Democratic Primary.[5]

Michelle Udall and incumbent Russell Bowers defeated Ross Groen in the Arizona House of Representatives District 25 Republican Primary.[6]

[hide]Arizona House of Representatives, District 25 Republican Primary, 2016

Party Candidate Vote % Votes

Republican Green check mark transparent.png Michelle Udall 33.10% 14,045

Republican Green check mark transparent.png Russell Bowers Incumbent 40.05% 16,997

Republican Ross Groen 26.85% 11,396

Total Votes 42,438

2014

See also: Arizona House of Representatives elections, 2014

Elections for the Arizona House of Representatives took place in 2014. A primary election took place on August 26, 2014. The general election was held on November 4, 2014. The signature filing deadline for candidates wishing to run in this election was May 28, 2014. David Butler and Sheila Ogea were unopposed in the Democratic primary. Incumbent Justin Olson and Russell Bowers defeated Haydee Dawson, Michelle Udall and Jerry Walker in the Republican primary. Olson and Bowers defeated Butler, Ogea, and Michael Kielsky (L) in the general election.[7][8][9][10]

[hide]Arizona House of Representatives District 25, General Election, 2014

Party Candidate Vote % Votes

Republican Green check mark transparent.pngJustin Olson Incumbent 34% 34,451

Republican Green check mark transparent.pngRussell "Rusty" Bowers 32.8% 33,220

Democratic David Butler 14.9% 15,145

Democratic Sheila Ogea 14.7% 14,866

Libertarian Michael Kielsky 3.6% 3,661

Total Votes 101,343

[hide]Arizona House of Representatives, District 25 Republican Primary, 2014

Candidate Vote % Votes

Green check mark transparent.pngJustin Olson Incumbent 33.7% 15,907

Green check mark transparent.pngRusty Bowers 27.9% 13,158

Michelle Udall 26.1% 12,332

Haydee Dawson 6.3% 2,978

Jerry Walker 6% 2,812

Total Votes 47,187

Campaign themes

2022

Ballotpedia survey responses

See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection

Candidate Connection

Russell Bowers has not yet completed Ballotpedia's 2022 Candidate Connection survey. Ballotpedia is seeking 100 percent participation so voters can learn more about all the candidates on their ballots.

Who fills out Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey?

694 candidates completed the survey in 2021. This number represented 13.5% of all 5,138 candidates Ballotpedia covered in 2021. Out of the 694 candidates who completed Ballotpedia's candidate survey, 147 won their election. Candidates from 36 states completed the survey. Noteworthy respondents included Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin and Boston Mayor Michelle Wu. Read the 2021 report for more information about that year's respondents.

4,745 candidates completed the survey in 2020. This number represented 16.4% of all 29,002 candidates Ballotpedia covered in 2020. Out of the 4,745 respondents, 743 won their election. Candidates from all 50 states completed the survey. Noteworthy respondents included U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff, U.S. Representative Kat Cammack, and U.S. presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen. Read the 2020 report for more information about that year's respondents.

You can ask Russell Bowers to fill out this survey by using the button below or emailing russellwbowers@yahoo.com.

2020

Russell Bowers did not complete Ballotpedia's 2020 Candidate Connection survey.

2016

On his 2016 campaign website, Bowers listed three main issues: jobs and the economy, education, and public safety.[1]

2014

Bowers' campaign website highlighted the following issues:[11]

Jobs and the Economy

Excerpt: "We must make fair and honest dealing with each other a priority. Important values such as giving an honest day's work for an honest day's pay are still the best way to build long-term individual and business success. When people have real opportunities and are able to find quality jobs, we strengthen our communities, our businesses and most importantly our families, friends and neighbors."

Education

Excerpt: "With an acquired confidence, people can move into career opportunities prepared and ready to make long term contributions to our economy, our communities, our families and other individuals - it is a blessing that must be available for everyone in our state."

Public Safety

Excerpt: "We can do better. One of my top priorities is the protection of individuals, families, and seniors from violent crime, fraud, and predators of any kind. I am a strong supporter of law enforcement and believe that we should hold accountable those who abuse or take advantage of the innocent."

Campaign donors

Ballotpedia Logo Note: The finance data shown here comes from the disclosures required of candidates and parties. Depending on the election or state, this may represent only a portion of all the funds spent on their behalf. Satellite spending groups may or may not have expended funds related to the candidate or politician on whose page you are reading this disclaimer. Campaign finance data from elections may be incomplete. For elections to federal offices, complete data can be found at the FEC website. Click here for more on federal campaign finance law and here for more on state campaign finance law.

Russell Bowers campaign contribution history

Year Office Result Contributions

2018 Arizona House of Representatives District 25 ✔ $77,649

2016 Arizona House of Representatives, District 25 ✔ $26,629

2014 Arizona State House, District 25 ✔ $41,845

2000 Arizona State Senate, District 21 ✔ $63,048

1998 Arizona State Senate, District 21 ✔ $31,174

1996 Arizona State Senate, District 21 ✔ $17,092

Grand total raised $257,437

Source: Follow the Money

2018

Arizona House of Representatives District 25 2018 election - Campaign Contributions

Top individual contributors to Russell Bowers's campaign in 2018

BRIGGS, WENDY G $1,490.00

ROBSON, EDWARD JAMES $1,000.00

HALLMAN, HUGH L $1,000.00

SANDQUIST, JEFFREY A $1,000.00

WALTEMATH, DAVID $1,000.00

Total Raised in 2018 $77,648.97

Source: Follow the Money

2016

Bowers won re-election to the Arizona House of Representatives in 2016. During that election cycle, Bowers raised a total of $26,629.

[hide]Arizona House of Representatives 2016 election - campaign contributions

Top contributors to Russell Bowers's campaign in 2016

Pinnacle West $2,000

Salt River Project $1,650

Arizona Association Of Realtors $1,400

Balance Forward $1,389

Tucson Fire Fighters Local 479 $1,000

Total raised in 2016 $26,629

Source: Follow the Money

2014

Bowers won election to the Arizona House of Representatives in 2014. During that election cycle, Bowers raised a total of $41,845.

[show]Arizona House of Representatives 2014 election - Campaign Contributions

2000

Bowers won re-election to the Arizona House of Representatives in 2000. During that election cycle, Bowers raised a total of $63,048.

[show]Arizona House of Representatives 2000 election - Campaign Contributions

1998

Bowers won re-election to the Arizona House of Representatives in 1998. During that election cycle, Bowers raised a total of $31,174.

[show]Arizona House of Representatives 1998 election - Campaign Contributions

1996

Bowers won election to the Arizona House of Representatives in 1996. During that election cycle, Bowers raised a total of $17,092.

[show]Arizona House of Representatives 1996 election - Campaign Contributions

Scorecards

See also: State legislative scorecards and State legislative scorecards in Arizona

A scorecard evaluates a legislator’s voting record. Its purpose is to inform voters about the legislator’s political positions. Because scorecards have varying purposes and methodologies, each report should be considered on its own merits. For example, an advocacy group’s scorecard may assess a legislator’s voting record on one issue while a state newspaper’s scorecard may evaluate the voting record in its entirety.

Ballotpedia is in the process of developing an encyclopedic list of published scorecards. Some states have a limited number of available scorecards or scorecards produced only by select groups. It is Ballotpedia’s goal to incorporate all available scorecards regardless of ideology or number.

Click here for an overview of legislative scorecards in all 50 states. To contribute to the list of Arizona scorecards, email suggestions to editor@ballotpedia.org.

2021

[show]To view all the scorecards we found for this legislator in 2021, click [show].

2020

[show]To view all the scorecards we found for this legislator in 2020, click [show].

2019

[show]To view all the scorecards we found for this legislator in 2019, click [show].

2018

[show]To view all the scorecards we found for this legislator in 2018, click [show].

2017

[show]To view all the scorecards we found for this legislator in 2017, click [show].

2016

[show]To view all the scorecards we found for this legislator in 2016, click [show].

2015

[show]To view all the scorecards we found for this legislator in 2015, click [show].

https://archive.org/details/6419432-Amicus-brief-of-Rusty-Bowers-Speaker-of-the

2019

Espinoza v. Montana Dep't of Revenue, No. 18-1195

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espinoza_v._Montana_Department_of_Revenue

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, 591 U.S. _ (2020), was a landmark^[1][2][3][4] United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a state-based scholarship program that provides public funds to allow students to attend private schools cannot discriminate against religious schools under the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution.^[5]

Background[

:{Kendra Espinoza, primary plaintiff, on:(style="background-color:#f8f9fa;"):}::{ :(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:Reason TV in 2020

The state of Montana passed a special income tax credit program in 2015 to help fund non-profit scholarship organizations to help low-income families pay for private schools. For tax payers, they were able to pay up to US$150 into the program and receive a dollar-for-dollar state tax credit to support it. This type of tax-credit scholarship program for private school selection is similar to ones in eighteen other states as of 2019.^[6]

Montana, as with 37 other states, have so-called Blaine amendments in their constitutions which were originally designed to prevent funding Catholic schools in the 19th century.^[7][3] Jonathan A. Greenblatt, chief executive of the Anti-Defamation League, said that the continued purpose of these Blaine amendments "serve significant government interests — leaving the support of churches to church members, while also protecting houses of worship against discrimination and interference from the government."^[8]

Montana's constitution bars the uses of "any direct or indirect appropriations or payment" to any religious organizations or schools affiliated with religious organizations, also known as the "no-aid" provision.^[7] The Montana Department of Revenue (DoR) developed the program's rules around the no-aid provision and disallowed religious-affiliated schools from receiving any of the scholarship money, otherwise known as "Rule 1".^[9] Rule 1 was controversial even within the state government, as both state legislators and the attorney general had asserted it was not needed, but the DoR implemented it against their cautions, asserting that the scholarship funds were equivalent to appropriations and thus covered by the no-aid provision.^[9]

Three low-income families who had children attended Stillwater Christian School in Flathead County and would have been eligible for scholarships through the program outside of their school choice filed a lawsuit against the state and sought an injunction against the program, asserting that Rule 1 unnecessary against the no-aid provision and that it discriminated against them due to their religion under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.^[9] Their lawsuit was supported by the Institute for Justice, a non-profit organization that has fought against state laws that enforce the Blaine amendments in their constitutions.^[1] They obtained the injunction to block the DoR from enforcing the rule in April 2016.^[9] The state began to appeal this ruling, but otherwise continued the program with the ordered injunction, which allowed additional scholarships to be granted for several children attending Stillwater.

The state's appeal to the Montana Supreme Court was decided in December 2018, which ruled in a 5–2 decision that the entire program was unconstitutional because it benefited religious schools.^[10] The Court majority stated that the "[Constitution of Montana] more broadly prohibits 'any' state aid to sectarian schools and draws a more stringent line than that drawn by [the U.S. Constitution]."^[11] Further, the Court found that even with the DoR's Rule 1 in place, the program still could not prevent any type of aid from the program from ending up at a religious school, and thus nullified the entire program.^[10][11]

Supreme Court:{:(style="margin-right:0.25em"):}:[edit:{]}:

The families petitioned to the United States Supreme Court for review, seeking review of the Montana Supreme Court's decision to terminate the program on the basis of the Religion Clauses or Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in June 2019.^[6]

Oral arguments were heard on January 22, 2020. The Justices focused on whether the Montana Supreme Court's decision to shut down the entire program was discriminatory towards the secular schools, as well as trying to resolve this case with recent decision related to the Free Exercise Clause, such as Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer,^[12] in which the Court previously ruled that blocking public funds to be used by a church to improve playground safety was a violation of the Free Exercise Clause.^[7]

Majority opinion[

The Court issued its decision on June 30, 2020.^[13] The 5–4 decision reversed the Montana Supreme Court's ruling and remanded the case.^[14] Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Roberts wrote in his opinion that the no-aid provision (Rule 1) in the program violated the Free Exercise clause,^[15] as it "bars religious schools from public benefits solely because of the religious character of the schools" and "also bars parents who wish to send their children to a religious school from those same benefits, again solely because of the religious character of the school."^[16] Roberts also asserted that the Montana Supreme Court was wrong to invalidate the entire program on the basis of the no-aid provision in the state constitution.^[16] Roberts wrote that "A state need not subsidize private education. But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious."^[1] Roberts based part of the majority's opinion on the previous Trinity case where the public funds were used for a non-secular purpose (church playground improvement), while contrasting it from the decision of Locke v. Davey,^[17] where the Court found that preventing the use of public scholarship funds for students entering into theology studies was constitutional.^[18]

Concurrences[

Justice Thomas wrote his own concurrence which was joined by Gorsuch. While he agreed with the judgement, Thomas believed the court should have relied on the Establishment Clause, in which the scholarship program, without Rule 1, would not have established any government-backed support of any specific religion.^[19]

Alito's concurrent discussed the history of the Blaine amendments, including mention of the 1871 political cartoon by Thomas Nast "The American River Ganges".

Justice Alito also concurred. Alito cited the Court's earlier decision in Ramos v. Louisiana,^[20] in which judgement was partially based on the motivation of outdated Jim Crow laws in the nature of jury verdicts. Alito wrote that the no-aid provision in Montana's constitution must be considered the same way: "Montana's no-aid provision was modeled on the failed Blaine Amendment to the Constitution, which was prompted by virulent prejudice against Catholic immigrants. Montana's claim that the provision merely reflects a state interest in preserving public schools ignores that the public-school (or common-school) movement at the time was itself anti-Catholic. It is also not clear that the anti-Catholic animus was scrubbed from the no-aid provision when it was re-adopted at Montana's constitutional convention in 1972."^[19][21]

Justice Gorsuch also wrote a concurrence, emphasizing that the Free Exercise Clause "protects not just the right to be a religious person, holding beliefs inwardly and secretly; it also protects the right to act on those beliefs outwardly and publicly. Our cases have long recognized the importance of protecting religious actions, not just religious status."^[19]

Dissents[

Separate dissents were written by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, with Justice Elena Kagan joining on both Ginsburg and Breyer's dissents. Ginsburg, in her dissent, acknowledged to Roberts' point that states are not required to subsidize private education and in the case of Montana, their court discontinued the program, which does not affect the Free Exercise Clause. She wrote, "Petitioners may still send their children to a religious school... There simply are no scholarship funds to be had."^[22][23] Sotomayor called the majority's ruling "perverse" in requiring Montana "to reinstate a tax-credit program that the Constitution did not demand in the first place."^[24]

Impact[

The Espinoza decision is seen likely to impact subsequent rules in the 38 states with Blaine amendments.^[7][3][25] At the time of the decision 17 states had scholarship programs similar to Montana's, though some like Florida and Indiana had already found means to allow such funds to be used for selection of religious schools despite no-aid clauses in their constitutions. The Institute for Justice, which represented the parents, plans to use the ruling to challenge programs in Maine and Vermont which do block such funds. U.S. Department of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, a proponent of school choice and who has been seeking a federal-level tax-credit program, also praised the decision.^[26]