If enough signatures are obtained, the following question would appear on the November 2028 ballot: “Should California leave the United States and become a free and independent country?” as per a California Secretary of State press release.

To be clear, this is not a vote for secession directly, but rather to determine if there is public support for secession. Specifically, the initiative language reads: "REQUIRES FUTURE VOTE ON WHETHER CALIFORNIA SHOULD BECOME INDEPENDENT COUNTRY. INITIATIVE STATUTE".

The petition requires 546,651 registered voters (5% of the total votes cast in the 2022 gubernatorial election) to make it onto the ballot.

"If at least 50% of registered voters participate in that election, and at least 55% vote “yes”, it would constitute “a vote of no confidence in the United States of America” and “expression of the will of the people of California” to become an independent country, but would not change California’s current government or relationship with the United States," as per the press release.

The proponent of the measure, Marcus Ruiz Evans, appears to be present on the X social media platform as '@realmarcusruiz', and overtly claims association with the Socialist Party of California (@CalSocialism).

The legality of this initiative at a federal level is uncertain. No specific language exists in our Constitution for the dissolution of states from the union. However there is a Supreme Court precedent that gives our nation guidance on this issue (Texas v. White, 1869).

"Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, writing for the majority, declared that the Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States. He stated that once a state enters the Union, it cannot lawfully secede on its own accord," claims Grok AI. "The opinion held that the Union was perpetual and that no state could unilaterally withdraw from it. The Court argued that the Constitution did not provide for the dissolution of the Union by any means short of mutual consent or revolution."

Leading up to the 2024 general election, everyone’s anxiety was heightened. Americans were being fed the narrative by both candidates and the mainstream media that if you didn’t vote for Kamala Harris, it would be the end of democracy, but also that if you didn’t vote for Donald Trump, you wouldn’t have a country anymore. There was a binary choice to be made.

There was also a world war barreling along. Brutal fighting continued in Ukraine and Israel was at total war against Hamas and Hezbollah, and in turn, the Palestinian and Lebanese people were caught in the crossfire.

Those were the stakes, according to the narrative. But there was a third option few knew about: Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party.

It is in this latter conflict that the Biden-Harris administration would meet its political end, choosing to financially and materially support what the international community calls an active genocide against Arabs in the Middle East, ultimately bleeding critical votes away from Democrats in key ethnic strongholds across the country.

This would prove to be detrimental to the Harris campaign in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona, all with notable Arab-American populations.

If there were any doubts about this claim of genocide, the International Criminal Court (The Hague) just issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and former Israeli Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity. (Hamas commander-in-chief Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri was also held to account for his role in the conflict despite his reported death in August.)

Arab-Americans had an ally in this struggle. The Green Party, led by Dr. Jill Stein chose to advocate for these marginalized people. She recognized that Israeli violence against Palestinians was indiscriminately being applied in retaliation for Hamas’ attacks on Israel on Oct. 7th, in an effort to root out Hamas and rescue hostages. Arab civilian lives were being treated as an expendable means to an end.

It was in the middle of this timeline that Zakir Siddiqi, the 26-year-old campaign manager for the ‘Abandon Harris’ movement in Arizona, and now co-chair of the Arizona Green Party, arrived to Arizona’s political landscape.

The Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein was slated to arrive in Phoenix on a brief campaign stop. The ‘Abandon Harris’ movement coordinated the visit at his family’s coffee shop.

Local mainstream media failed to show up, not paying the situation much attention. A lone Associated Press reporter stood in their place reporting on the visit along with yours truly.

Waiting for Dr. Stein’s arrival, I struck up conversations with attendees. I spoke with the 2012 Miss Arab USA, Suz Yatim, a Palestinian-American who explained to me the lasting struggle of her people and her life experience.

She being a Palestinian-American, I asked her about Oct. 7th, and specifically about how the violence Palestinians now face was different from the actions of Hamas. I curiously sought her perspective.

“Oct. 7th, what Israelis experienced then is sort of a day in the life of Palestinians. We’ve had 76 years of Oct. 7th’s,” said Yatim. She explained to me her own first-hand account of Israeli violence towards her people, and shared how her mother had been taken from their home and beaten by the Israelis when she was a kid.

She humanized the conflict from an Arab perspective and explained that there was a long-term pattern of violence and retaliation in the region. To people like Yatim and Siddiqi, the situation demanded peace through the resistance to what they view as an apartheid state. The destruction of entire families in the name of reciprocity from what they view as an illegal occupation is unacceptable.

“I wish for peace, but I know peace has been met with bloodshed time and time again,” says Siddiqi.

All across the United States, people like Yatim and Siddiqi were advocating for an end to the genocide. They seek to stop the violence. They wince at the idea that our nation is directly providing the finances and weapons to perpetuate what much of the world largely deems a genocide against other human beings.

In their view, seeking an end to the conflict was not anti-American or anti-Semitic. It was about embracing humanity and valuing human life.

According to X’s Grok AI, there are some 137K civilian casualties (both killed and wounded), many of them women and children. That’s the equivalent population of Yuma, Ariz. And the Arab-American population saw the Biden-Harris administration directly complicit in this outcome.

So you see, this campaign stop at a coffee shop, one week away from the 2024 general election was a lot more than showing that the Green Party had showed up to compete at the ballot box for a mere 2% of the vote. It was a statement that there were like minded people unwilling to consent to violence against a people that could not defend themselves, and ‘Abandon Harris’ was behind the scenes, coordinating these types of visits in cafe’s, community centers, and parks all across the battleground states and in fact the country.

It is in this struggle that the ‘Abandon Harris’ campaign had found an ally in the Arizona Green Party and a base of support in Arizona’s Arab-American community.

Supporters came from all over the state to see Dr. Stein, and show their support for the candidate who saw them for their humanity, while openly rejecting Harris who was in a position to stop the violence immediately, not later if they just gave her their vote, as she was in fact part of the current administration.

The visit was brief, but Dr. Stein’s reception among the people was what stood out to me. People admired her. They respected her. And those feelings were clearly mutual. She wasn’t a spoiler candidate, she was an advocate.

“We do not end this violence by crushing Hamas. We end this violence by ending apartheid occupation…” said Dr. Stein to her supporters. She went so far as to call the genocide a holocaust of the Palestinian and Lebanese people, a carefully crafted message.

Her campaign manager even stated: “Genocide deserves losing”.

(Privately, I asked her how a Green Party presidency helped Arizonans. She explained how elements out of the Green New Deal like universal healthcare would benefit the people. Her platform was more than anti-genocide. I digress.)

The venue for Dr. Stein’s visit to Arizona shifted to a community center in Mesa where she met with thousands of Arab-Americans.

Muslim leaders from across Arizona’s Arab-American community came out in force to endorse Dr. Stein. Her reception was electric. She was the guest of honor. She spoke with love for a marginalized people. She advocated for a shift in both domestic and foreign policy and most notably, she spoke out against the Biden-Harris administration’s overt support to Israeli-handed genocide. She understood their pain and publicly recognized it.

These people felt abandoned by Biden when the war started and Palestinians were under fire, and now it was their turn to ‘Abandon Harris’ now that she was the Democratic Party’s leading candidate.

The Green Party had now firmly secured the Arab-American vote not just in Arizona, but across the nation, and with 11 electoral votes on the line in Arizona, it would surely impact the end result, and in all fairness to Harris, they had given her every opportunity to change course.

I broke that down by the numbers.

There are roughly 37K Arab-Americans in Arizona (according to the U.S. Census), and when factoring out children, that leaves approximately 28K potential registered voters out of this demographic (or 0.6% of all registered voters across the state).

If these 28K voters were to cast their ballot for either Stein or Trump, it would surely bleed key votes away from Harris in an already tight race, favoring Trump. Over 18K people cast their vote for Stein in Arizona.

Trump won 11 electoral votes here in Arizona, and went on to secure the battleground states of Pennsylvania and Michigan, again, all with notable Arab-American populations, and it was in part because of the collectivity on this issue of for Arab-Americans across this nation through the ‘Abandon Harris’ movement, and their deep determination to not consent to genocide, or worse apathy.

The ‘Abandon Harris’ movement and its ties to the Arab-American community was thus a key factor in this election.

Harris’ supporters would even go so far as to blame the Arab-American community for her loss, as if consenting to sanctioned genocide was acceptable in order to “save democracy”. Zakir himself received hateful text and social media messages. Democrats acted as if the Green vote somehow audaciously belonged to Harris to begin with, which it didn’t.

Votes are earned. To the Arab-American population, Harris had earned her outcome.

Speaking towards Kamala Harris upon her political loss, the ‘Abandon Harris’ campaign said: “Did we not make it clear that we’d fight to make sure you lost every single swing state? Did we not warn you that you cannot commit genocide and walk away unscathed? Did we not tell you, without a hint of doubt, that a reckoning was on its way and that we’d be the ones to rip the ground out from under you? Look closely. These are the consequences of your genocidal actions.”

This ‘Abandon Harris’ movement encapsulated the idea that we cannot allow ourselves to normalize the killing of civilians. Humanity deserves that much. Genocide was on the ballot, and the nation and in fact the world was watching.

And what’s worse than genocide? Ignoring it.

According to the State of Arizona’s October ‘Registration Report’, which was compiled and issued by the Secretary of State, 35.77% of all registered voters were Republican and 29.00% were Democrat, leaving approximately 35.24% as 3rd party or independent voters. This means that there is approximately a 6.77% advantage for Republicans over Democrats, before factoring in 3rd party or independent voters.

Comparing these registrations to ballots returned (as per Uplift Data), we find that as of November 2nd, Republicans led Democrats in ballots returned by almost 188K (or about 8.3%).

Assuming party lines, we can statistically infer that Republicans in Arizona now have an approximate 1.53% advantage over Democrats, as they have proportionately cast more ballots. This quantitative inference is mathematically based on the premise that every registered voter will cast a ballot that will generally align with their political party view.

Interestingly, several key populations within Arizona may be the deciding factor.

It is unknown how independents will lean, but ‘ballots returned’ data show that independents are not voting as aggressively as previous years, and with them accounting for 35.24% of the vote, the end result could still shift either way.

This is the most significant factor which makes Arizona a true swing-state. The less independents that turnout to vote will have a positive statistical effect on a Republican outcome, as that population would have a lesser effect on the total vote.

Arizona is also home to a sizable Arab-American population (around 37K), which tends to lean green, supporting both national and state Green Party candidates, whom overwhelmingly reject a Kamala Harris presidency due to her material and financial support of Israeli violence towards Palestinians and Lebanese. Arab-Americans and the Green Party openly declare that conflict a genocide, which will be an influential factor that will likely bleed votes away from Democrats.

Assuming that children statistically comprise 24.2% of this population (as per the U.S. Census), the Arab-American community likely has around 28K registered voters (or around 0.6% of the total vote), enough to directly aid that Republican advantage of 1.53%.

When analyzing this data set, our swing state’s margins for this general election will be very tight, but Republicans seem to have a slight advantage at this time.

Notably absent from this discourse however was Arizona Green Party candidate Eduardo Quintana (G), who at the eleventh hour, and among fellow Green Party protesters, showed up at the debate’s production studio to debate Gallego and Lake.

Law enforcement respectfully denied Quintana entry into the venue citing his lack of invitation, which was based on an editorial decision previously communicated to him.

This editorial decision was made by the ‘AZ Clean Elections’ commission, formerly known as the ‘Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission’, in conjunction with the Arizona Media Association (AMA). Both organizations stuck to their decision, barring Quintana from the debate.

The decision involved the application of an organizational rule that requires any potential debate candidate to receive 1% of the total vote during the primary election. Quintana did not receive the necessary votes to meet this organizational threshold.

“The challenge that we continue to face, as we try to chart away to get these debates in front of more people is that to get the type of media attention that an event like this provides we don’t have an unlimited amount of time to do a debate… I’m sure we will continue to learn and evolve through it, but we built it with intention and without any malicious intent to first and foremost through all of the primary debates, welcome anybody and everybody possible that’s on the ballot that wants to come,” says Chris Kline, President and CEO of the Arizona Media Association.

Kline described how having too many candidates within the production of the debate “left very little time for discussion”. Knowing that challenge, Kline says they structured this cycle of debates with a “slightly different strategy”, by focusing on more popular candidates.

“It left us in an impossible position, because how do you create equity and at the same time figure out a way to make sure that folks at home can actually hear from the candidates that are most likely to win without shutting out other voices? And so we made what we thought was the lowest possible barrier of entry which was 1%, and we did it not with intention to block anyone out.

“Our job is not to say you can’t be a part of the conversation. Our job is simply to say we want to make sure that voters have a chance to hear from candidates and the way to do that is to build a debate that can get (a lot of coverage) and we can’t do that if we only have a forum where people can speak for 5 or 10 minutes,” continues Kline. “The only way we can do that is if we build the type of setting and scenario that’s fair and equitable across all debates, but does have a small barrier to entry, otherwise we would not have (the news coverage we have).

“I respect the Green Party perspective. If I were in their shoes of course I want to be a part of the conversation. All I’m asking them to do is respect the position we’re in and respect that we’re not trying to exclude them, we happily want to find other forums to support them, but this wasn’t the forum where we were able to do that.”

Leading up to this debate however, the Arizona Green Party and other affected candidates took to social media, voicing their own disapproval with this decision, mainly because in practice, the ‘1% rule’ mentioned by Kline effectively prevents smaller political parties in Arizona from participation.

For example, there were 1,276,749 registered voters in July’s primary. Quintana would have needed to receive approximately 12,768 votes of this aggregate to satisfy this editorial rule. The Arizona Green Party only has 3,344 registered voters in total, making this rule virtually unattainable.

Notably however, Quintana’s candidacy did show interest, as it secured over 63,000 signatures from Arizonans to even run in the primary election in the first place (which accounts for roughly 1.5% of all registered voters in Arizona).

Outside the studio, Quintana (holding a megaphone) and his supporters chanted from the perimeter of the property, “Clean elections you can’t hide, we charge you with taking sides!”.

Just this month, State Senator Jake Hoffman (R), believing that the commission had breached state law with this rule, launched his own investigation, determining that the commission should comply with state law, citing a lack of oversight and proper procedures of the applied ‘1% rule’.

Quintana has formally filed a complaint regarding this situation with the Office of the Attorney General.

This was Arizona’s only remaining scheduled debate for the U.S. Senate race as early voting in Arizona began today.

In a recently obtained letter between the ‘AZ Clean Elections’ commission and State Senator Jake Hoffman, the commission adamantly defends its application of a ‘1% rule’ and subsequent decision to bar Arizona Green Party candidates from upcoming scheduled debates that feature mainstream political party candidates.

This letter comes on the heels of Senator Hoffman’s own investigation and inquiry into the matter, public outcry, independent media inquiry, and Green Party condemnation of the commission’s decision.

In this letter the commission states:

“The Commission is empowered to sponsor debates among candidates and has been granted broad discretion to do so. Because this requires substantial time, expertise and effort, the Commission has contracted with a local advertising and marketing firm and the Arizona Media Association (“AMA”) to produce broadcast debates for select statewide and congressional offices.”

“In order to ensure that these debates are widely available and watched by the voting public, Commission staff agreed to delegate editorial decision making to its broadcasting partner, the AMA. This includes determination of a showing of a minimal amount of support for a candidate to appear on stage in broadcast debates. Media partners throughout the country often set minimum requirements for candidates to participate.”

“AMA’s minimal standards ensure voters get as much information as possible in a limited time. The Commission signed off on those requirements, recognizing debate sponsors often set minimum thresholds using metrics that include polling or fundraising. This editorial decision recognizes viewer and broadcaster interests, as well as important logistical and preparation considerations.”

“This editorial policy is not a rule under the Arizona Procedures Act. Nor is it contrary to Ariz. Admin. Code (section) R2-20-107. Indeed, Mr. Quintana (a Green Party candidate) is not, evidently, qualified as a “candidate” under the applicable law.”

The commission’s letter leaves more critical questions on the table than answers:

• Why has the commission abdicated the responsibility to restrict “qualified candidates” to the Arizona Media Association (AMA), a registered non-profit corporation, which is now seemingly in control of which candidate voices are heard in the conduct of an Arizona election? This move seemingly places public electoral powers into the hands of a private corporate entity. Is this what Arizonans should expect from its government; private control of a public electoral process?

• If the Secretary of State recognizes the Green Party candidates as being officially on the ballot (not a write-in candidate), how can the commission or the AMA fail to recognize those candidates as “qualified”? How is there a difference in the definition of qualification between the Secretary of State’s office (the state’s official elections agency) and ‘AZ Clean Elections’?

• The commission openly admits that “(this) editorial decision recognizes viewer and broadcaster interests”. How is a private entity permitted to filter out voices of official balloted candidates and decide for themselves what the “viewer interest” is? It further seemingly sows distrust of mainstream media, highlighting broadcaster interests as pertinent to the conversation, despite the reality that corporations have no vote in elections, the people do. What ‘broadcaster interests’ are at risk by the Green Party participating?

• The commission states that “debate sponsors often set minimum thresholds using metrics that include polling or fundraising”. According to official polling by ‘InteractivePolls’, Eduardo Quintana (G) is polling at 3%, three times greater than the ‘minimum’ required by this ‘1% rule’. How does he remain “unqualified”?

“(‘AZ Clean Elections’) is attacking the (democratic rights) of all Arizona voters, putting its thumb on the scale… (election interference) in (a) national (#DebateGate) scandal,” says Quintana on the X social media platform.

Quintana is running for U.S. Senate against mainstream candidates Kari Lake (R) and Ruben Gallego (D) and wants to debate them in the upcoming Oct. 9th debate.

‘AZ Clean Elections’ has not responded to my requests for comment on this matter.

To understand its context you first need to understand that over the past several weeks, the Arizona Green Party has been fighting to get five candidates to appear in ‘AZ Clean Elections’ televised debates, but they have been barred from appearing because of a ‘1% rule’, placed upon candidates by the the state’s ‘Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission’ (AZCCEC), more widely known as ‘AZ Clean Elections’.

This rule essentially prevents smaller political parties in Arizona, like the Green Party, from debating because it requires them to garner 1% of the total vote in the primary election. For the Green Party, this means that they would need around 12K votes, despite the fact that they only have around 3K voting members in total.

“The rule creates an outright ban against some political parties' candidates from ever being eligible to participate in general election debates,” says Hoffman.

“After a thorough review of the process in which the rule was adopted, and a response provided by the Commission's Executive Director, it's been determined the rule was not submitted for approval to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) for compliance with the Arizona Administrative Procedures Act (APA). This maneuver violates the 2018 voter-approved Proposition 306,” adds Hoffman.

This makes Hoffman the first government official to declare the commission’s actions in violation of state law because according to Hoffman, the rule was not properly established.

The commission’s own rulebook states that for the general election, only write-in candidates can be disqualified. These Green Party candidates have officially made the ballot, as verified to me directly by the Secretary of State’s office.

To make this situation even more unique is the fact that Republicans openly support the idea of Green Party inclusion. Democrats have no comment.

Kari Lake (R), the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate has gone so far as to say: “The Arizona Clean Elections Commission is supposed to be a non-partisan entity funded by taxpayers. Yet, their recent decision to exclude the Green Party nominee (Eduardo Quintana (G)) from the U.S. Senate debate goes directly against their mission.”

“The voters of Arizona deserve better. We stand for an open and honest debate where all voices can be heard,” adds Lake.

Hoffman is further calling on the commission to properly submit the rule for approval and “invite all qualified candidates to general election debates until any new rules are appropriately adopted in a transparent and lawful manner”.

"Arizona law only gives the Commission discretion to determine the manner in which debates are conducted. It does not give the Commission unfettered discretion to pick and choose which candidates get to participate," says Hoffman.

"If the Commission believes this rule is a good idea, then there should be nothing to fear from holding an open and public process for promulgating rules. Evading this process invites litigation, calls into question the independence of the Commission, and deprives Arizona citizens of the protections afforded under the APA."

There is still time left for the commission to reverse its decision if it chooses to; the upcoming U.S. Senate debate is scheduled for Oct. 9th.

‘AZ Clean Elections’ has yet to respond to Hoffman’s public records request or my requests for comment, and it is unknown if Attorney General Kris Mayes will investigate or prosecute this violation.

Lake further challenges her Democratic opponent Ruben Gallego (D) on “(blocking) the inclusion of (Quintana)”.

Lake’s full statement follows:

“We agree with Eduardo Quintana’s call for fairness. Every candidate on the ballot deserves a spot on the debate stage, and the Kari Lake campaign encourages the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission to allow him to participate.

The Arizona Clean Elections Commission is supposed to be a non-partisan entity funded by taxpayers. Yet, their recent decision to exclude the Green Party nominee from the U.S. Senate debate goes directly against their mission.

It's disappointing that Ruben Gallego continues to block the inclusion of the Green Party candidate. If Ruben and the Democrats truly believe that climate change is the most pressing issue of our time, as they claim, they should welcome the voice of the Green Party. 

Instead, Ruben is acting like a coward, refusing to let voters hear from a candidate whose platform aligns closely with their supposed priorities.

The voters of Arizona deserve better. We stand for an open and honest debate where all voices can be heard.”

Eduardo Quintana (G), the recent Arizona Green Party candidate barred from debating his Republican and Democratic opponents, has issued a statement publicly accusing the ‘AZ Clean Elections Commission’ of election interference, for an alleged ‘illegal rule’ that effectively prevented him from participating in an upcoming debate.

To qualify as a “candidate” according to the commission, Quintana would have needed around 12K votes in July’s primary election (1% of the total vote); the Arizona Green Party only has around 3K registered party members. All this despite the fact that he is legally on the ballot according to the Secretary of State’s office.

Quintana’s Full Statement:

“Attention Director Collins and Director Kline:

The mission statement of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission (AZCCEC) reads “to improve integrity of Arizona state government” and “to promote public confidence in the Arizona political process.” The exclusion of written ballot candidates from AZCCEC-sponsored televised debates violates your own mission statement, your own rules prescribed for Candidate Debates as well as more than 20 years of established precedent.

AZCCE is a public entity while Arizona Media Association (AMA) is a private entity. The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission surrendered their responsibility to the citizens of Arizona by abdicating to the Arizona Media Association which has no such obligations. 

What part of the rules for candidate debates from AZCCEC specifies this phony, arbitrary and fraudulent 1% rule which the commission made up in January then promptly filed away only to be discovered by the media recently?

Where is the AMA granted the authority to decide who can and cannot be on the debate stage?

Why are both organizations interfering with the election by suppressing democracy and actively discouraging voter participation? The AZCCEC, supposedly non-partisan, put its thumb on the scale in favor of the Democrat and Republican candidates and denied the democratic rights of 4.5 million Arizona voters including 63,000 petition signers who put the Green Party on the ballot.

Your election interference is suppressing the voice of the Green Party and constitutes an attack on the democratic rights of all Arizona citizens.

Statewide Green Party candidates Eduardo Quintana, Nina Luxenberg and Mike Cease have been wrongly excluded from your fraudulent debates. They and the Arizona Green Party are currently filing formal complaints with the Election Integrity Unit of the office of Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.

Sincerely,

Eduardo Quintana”

Publication of this press release in neither an endorsement of Eduardo Quintana or the Arizona Green Party. The claims in this letter belong to Quintana alone; we are presenting them as his perspective.

Hoffman opened this investigation this past Thursday stating:

“I opened an investigation into allegations that the (Clean Elections Commission) illegally engaged in rulemaking designed to exclude certain qualified candidates from participating in the U.S. Senate debate”.

“At best, the Clean Elections Commission seems to be creatively, yet intentionally, blocking some candidates from participating in the debate… At worst, the taxpayer-funded Commission has knowingly broken the law, in an apparent attempt to benefit one particular political party,” says Hoffman.

“Either action offends the non-partisan intent of the Clean Elections Act.”

Quintana, the senate candidate in question, won the Green Party’s nomination in the recent party primary, but was excluded because he had not received 1% of the total vote from the state-wide primary, a rule placed on him by the commission despite not being in the commission’s own approved rule book.

To qualify under this prescribed rule, Quintana would have needed some 12K votes, despite the fact that the Green Party in Arizona only has around 3K registered voters (as of July’s primary), making this rule practically unattainable.

This prescribed rule is not in the official ‘Clean Elections’ rulebook (section R2-20-107 ‘Candidate Debates’, paragraph (C)), which lists two disqualifying reasons that a candidate would not be invited to debate. It explicitly states that a candidate is disqualified to debate if for the general election, they are a write-in candidate.

Quintana was officially placed on the ballot by the Secretary of State (i.e. not a write-in candidate) and should be eligible.

Senator Hoffman goes further accusing the commission of “rigging the U.S. Senate debates to help Democrat Ruben Gallego against Republican Kari Lake”.

“(This) rule was not submitted for approval to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) for approval under the Arizona Administrative Procedures Act,” adds Hoffman.

When the story broke, Lake (who supports the idea of debating Quintana), made mention in a X/Twitter post that the decision was up to Gallego to approve of Quintana’s inclusion, beckoning questions as to:

1) Did the commission tell Lake (or her campaign) that it was up to Gallego for Quintana to debate? What is the actual procedure being used to disqualify Quintana? Is it this 1% rule or is it lack of approval from Gallego?

2) Why/how has this 1% rule been applied by the commission without legislative oversight or approval?

Despite all the fire and fury, Quintana says, “One of the primary goals of the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act is to promote public confidence in the Arizona political process… Do the right thing so we can all move on and address the important business at hand”.

AZCCEC has until Thursday, Sep. 12th to respond to the senator.

The three Green Party candidates slated to debate are: Cody Hannah, who is running for State House Legislative District 13; Scott Manor, who is running for State House Legislative District 14; and Tre Rook, who is running for State House Legislative District 18.

These invitations, absent from the discourse for over a week, have come only within the last 24 hours, and followed numerous media inquiries into this issue and social media outcry from the public and notable figures like Republican Kari Lake — an indication that the commission is aware of the issue and trying to remedy the problem.

“For a ‘nonpartisan’ organization to blatantly not include ‘Greens’ is deeply undemocratic and favors the duopoly candidates,” said Hannah.

As of Thursday, the rest are not listed as even being invited to participate in any debates, all according to the commission’s own website, leading some to believe that the “nonpartisan” commission is in practice, acting in a biased manner.

The Green Party confirms this current slate. The most pressing debate for the Green Party is for the U.S. Senate seat, as their candidate Eduardo Quintana seeks to run against and debate Democrat Ruben Gallego and Lake.

“Clean Elections said that Gallego would first have to agree to (include) Quintana in the debate as well,” according to Lake’s campaign, causing some to wonder why the approval authority for a third-party candidate to debate is his opposing candidate and not the clean elections commission itself.

Lake welcomes the opportunity to debate both Gallego and Quintana.

“The deliberate refusal by AZCCEC to include Green Party candidates is voter suppression and an affront to the concept of a free, fair and equal democracy. Our candidates won their primaries and made it onto the General Election ballot fair and square, and without taking thousands of dollars from corporations and special-interest groups… not including the Green Party candidates is meant to keep voter turnout for our party low and silence our voices,” said a spokesperson for the Arizona Green Party.

The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission was established by the Citizens Clean Elections Act of 1998 (known as Proposition 200) as a nonpartisan state agency that provides public campaign funds for qualified candidates, sets campaign contribution and spending limits, mandates reporting requirements, and enables public debate.

These are the five Green Party candidates snubbed out of scheduled debates:

●      Eduardo Quintana (candidate for the U.S. Senate)

●      Vincent Beck-Jones (candidate for the U.S. Rep. CD4)

●      Athena Eastwood (candidate for the U.S. Rep. CD6)

●      Mike Cease (candidate for the Arizona Corporation Commission)

●      Nina Luxenberg (candidate for the Arizona Corporation Commission)

I have repeatedly reached out by phone and email asking the commission why these candidates have been excluded. The commission has not responded to my inquiries

.

Recent data obtained from the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) shows that violent crime in Arizona is decreasing by 3.82 percent over the past year – and down 12.7 percent from a five-year high in 2022.

And yet according to the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, the state is currently ranked 17th in the nation for firearm deaths. This ranking accounts for 1,365 total deaths, which is 18.3 deaths per 100,000 people. Despite this mortality rate, homicides are down 8.8 percent since 2023, and down 18.4 percent from the five-year high in 2022.

We also found that most homicide victims are white (70.2 percent) between the ages of 25 and 34 and are divided equally among gender. Offenders arrested for violent crimes are predominantly white males between the ages of 25 and 34.

“I’m very glad (there is a decline in violent crime). It’s certainly important. We want safe communities,” says Arizona State Rep. Laura Terech (D-LD4). “We know that the causes of violent crime are things like poverty, access to opportunities, quality education, jobs… Governor Hobbs has added 80,000 jobs in the first two years of her administration, and so when people have opportunities like that we are investing in our communities, we do see that drop.”

According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, there were 14,270 police officers in Arizona in 2022, and 20,240 in 2023 (by the end of the year). This sum includes the three occupational categories of First-Line Supervisors of Police and Detectives, Detectives and Criminal Investigators, and Police and Sheriff's Patrol Officers. There are now approximately 6,000 more officers on the force statewide today than there were two years ago at the statistical high, and nearly 7,000 more than five years ago in 2019 (at the beginning of this data set).

In Arizona however, approximately 25 percent of all violent crime in Arizona involves a firearm, and nearly 70 percent of all homicides involve a firearm. Comparatively, nearly 70 percent of veteran suicide deaths(nationwide) occur with a firearm.

“We don’t have anything aimed at gun safety legislation,” says Terech. “I really don’t like using the term gun control because that’s not really what it is. I’m a Second Amendment supporter and I understand that folks choose to have firearms for a wide variety of reasons; I wouldn’t want to infringe on that. But there are things that we can and should do to ensure (responsible ownership). … I would love to see us pass policy that we know will keep people safe, that’s worked in other states.”

Terech, who has championed anti-gun violence legislation in the past, looks at the situation pragmatically. “I wanted to work on gun safety legislation, or safe schools from gun violence, and so I researched the states that have the lowest number of school shootings relative to population, and then I looked at what they had done. And I found a Louisiana law… with bipartisan support, that exempts school blueprints and floorplans from public records requests. So there is a wide variety of options that we have available to us.”

Those options also included closing loopholes for gun purchases and stricter background checks.

A higher rate of female victims could also suggest higher rates of domestic violence, although that hypothesis could not be definitively confirmed from the available data.

“It’s simply about keeping people safe and keeping guns out of the hands of criminals,” says Terech. “We know from the statistics that a huge number of women who are killed in domestic violence incidents are killed by a firearm, and if there is a prior conviction there or there is an order of protection in place, then that’s not an individual who needs to have a gun at this moment in their life. And domestic violence calls are also some of the most dangerous calls for our law enforcement to go on, and I want to make sure they are safe as well.”

According to an independent for-profit research group called World Population Review, Arizona is purportedly ranked the 5th-highest for domestic violence in the United States, with some 43 percent of women reporting some level of intimate partner violence in their relationship.

While the data indicates downward trends in overall violence, further investigation into the underlying factors driving these changes is essential.

Curiously, the neighboring states of New Mexico and California are ranked 3rd and 43rd respectively for firearm mortality (New Mexico being a high rate, and California being a low rate, despite social narratives otherwise).

Conservative proponents of the Second Amendment have varied views on the solutions for gun violence. They also believe in holding criminals responsible for their actions, but view the idea of gun control as a non-starter when it comes to gun violence legislation.

We asked a firm Second Amendment advocate, Rep. Quang Nguyen (R-LD1): How do we realistically address gun violence and violent crime in Arizona without violating the Second Amendment?

“The first firearms in existence can be dated back to the 13th century. I assure you that violent crimes involving firearms existed before the ratification of the 2nd Amendment (in 1791),” says Nguyen. “The 2nd Amendment was never a part of the solution in reducing crimes then, so why now? Let’s concentrate on criminalizing criminals rather than infringing on our rights to keep and bear arms.”

“You don’t take spoons away from thin people to keep heavy people from eating,” adds Nguyen. “I survived and lived through a communist war. My family members were killed and imprisoned,” he explains, referring to the importance of the right to bear arms.

This is an important perspective to recognize, as it rationalizes the need for the Second Amendment not for the purpose of countering crime, but rather a tool to defend the people from a tyrannical government; an experience that is unique to Nguyen’s personal life experience of living under an oppressive Communist regime.

“With a tremendous amount of respect for my colleagues, I would ask them what they are willing to compromise with us on. This is just about keeping our community safe,” explains Terech. “There is this narrative out there that people want to take your guns away. We’ve really moved past that. I will say I don’t believe in citizens owning military grade assault weapons, we’ve just seen those used to such deadly force, but I think there are really reasonable policies that the majority of Arizonans and the majority of Americans support. We see support for closing loopholes or background checks upward of 75-80 percent. When something is that broadly supported by the electorate, it’s disheartening that we are not able to move forward with things like that.”

Artificial Intelligence was used in part to develop research and analysis for this article.

You may not know, but our journalism is now on X/Twitter too!! Follow this link, which will take you directly to my X profile (@jamie_kranich). Smash that ‘Follow’ button and see the breaking and developing news about Arizona that doesn’t make it into full fledged articles! (There is a lot more going on than any one journalist can cover!) The more we grow, the more we influence, so your support goes a long way. Help us defeat the algorithm and spread the word that NU Newsmedia is here to stay.

- Jamie

Chandler, Ariz. - Auto enthusiasts from throughout the Southwest revved their engines en masse at Firebird Motorsports Park on Sunday for the 11th annual Import Face Off (IFO).

Motorsport aficionados gathered at the newly rebranded raceway to participate in a full lineup of events, including a meetup, a car show, drifting, a stereo contest, a burnout contest, 1/4-mile drag racing, a 2-step competition, a low-car limbo and a dyno contest.

Joseph Warasky brought out his 2004 Toyota Celica all the way from Hemet, Calif., to participate in the day’s events, leaving his house at 3 a.m. in order to arrive at Firebird on time to stage his car. “I’ve evolved my car to be able to compete in a lot of different categories besides just the Toyota category… It’s always a good vibe here.”

Warasky had a professional display, and every inch of his ride was well manicured, which enabled him to take home his 173rd car show trophy to add to his growing collection. He also really appreciated the point-based judging system, which he said set IFO apart from other events that seemed to be more political.

“I get pretty lucky, my cars are pretty versatile. Normally I have my import, and this is my backup car,” says Jamie Wertz of locally based Narcissistic Car Club, and a veteran IFO award winner who brought his pristine bright yellow 1972 Karmann Ghia out to compete in the car show. “Last IFO I won best old school.” This year Wertz took home a trophy for Best European and his club received the trophy for “Best Club Participation” and a $300 prize.

The car show also brought out Greg Cooper of Tucson and his big turbo 500 horsepower 2015 Volkswagen Golf R to compete for the top European award. Cooper explained that the biggest power gain of his build came from an E85 conversion that allowed him to push 35 pounds of boost. “Once I hit 10 seconds (in the quarter mile) I’m like okay (that’s enough)… I run it every once in a while, mainly just around the streets is fun, it’s just a fun car, it’s fast as hell. I know what it can do. To try to chase nines is just (too much). This is gonna be just a show car, when I go for nines it’s gonna be in something different.” Cooper went home empty handed, but notably lost to Wertz’s Karmann Ghia; tough competition for such a clean and stout street car.

Legendary professional drifter and Arizona local Forrest Wang showcased his skills and was on hand to field some questions and offer his take on the day’s events. “Import Face Off is where we come out, we bring out our imports, we get ‘em sideways, go down the dragstrip, whatever you’re into…. It’s just a good time.”

What’s his advice for the next generation of drifters? “Keep it fun, that’s all I gotta say; don’t forget why we start doing this. A lot of us will forget that… you get too serious with it and it can take the fun out of it. Don’t forget your roots, don’t forget why we are here.” And Wang hasn’t forgotten his own ohana roots, as he still sports a Hawaiian license plate on the back of his 180SX drift car.

We also caught up with Michael Burrell of State 48 Performance & Fabrication, who has been coming to IFO for about seven years now. “Honestly, we just come out to support the community. We’re big in the Supra community, every Supra here we’ve probably touched. It’s a big community for us and that’s just what we do,” says Burrell, who won a trophy for Best Toyota Supra.

What was the fastest 1/4 mile pass of the day? A 2009 Skyline GT-R with a 7.8 second run at a 146 mph trap speed. Not to disappoint, but the domestic crowd also showed up to grudge match the wide array of formidable imports. One such Corvette ZR1 turned a 9.5 second pass, upsetting nearly every other import in attendance. But still, many other tuners turned out consistent high-10’s and low-11’s, which was impressive.

Import Face Off has been a huge success nationwide, with well over 500 past events in the books, as auto enthusiasts seek a healthy, safe and legal outlet for their motorsports addictions. Cliff Wallace, owner of Hybrid Entertainment, the organizer and promoter of the event, explains that “the main reason (Import Face Off) has succeeded while other import tours have failed is because it is run by true import enthusiasts.”

“(Import Face Off) is not some big corporate structure that is out of touch with the scene. We never worked for the media, and we were never professional racers. We are regular, everyday car enthusiasts,” said Wallace.

And the event proves this lineage with heads up drag racing, drifting and showmanship as its main staples. Power, technique and style are equally represented, and the car culture is strong. There is something for everybody, which makes this experience unique. No one category dominated over the other.

The event series had humble beginnings in Louisiana more than 23 years ago.

“I founded (Import Face Off) in 2001 when I was 22 years old,” said Wallace. “The local import enthusiasts and I were tired of only bracket racing for trophies against domestics every weekend at the local drag strip. … Since the track would never host an import event, I decided to step up, rent the track out, and host one myself.”

Wallace didn’t stop there though. He risked everything he had to pay for track rental fees and winner payouts.

“All of my money and hard work could all be for nothing and (Import Face Off) was looking to only be a dream,” continued Wallace. “Despite the bad weather and to everyone's surprise, (1,900 people) attended the first event. … I quit my day job as a medical technologist and took on promotions full time. (Import Face Off) has since grown from a small, local race in South Louisiana to the largest touring import series in the nation with (over 100K people) through the gates annually.”

Enthusiasts can look forward to a scheduled return of Import Face Off next year at Firebird Motorsports Park. But if you didn’t get enough thrills, Import Face Off’s next regional event is at Las Vegas Motor Speedway on Dec. 8, 2024.

Event sponsors included: M&H Tires, Action Clutch, High End Autosports, TheFOAT.com, and Insane Shafts.

Vegas Drift sponsored and facilitated the drifting portion of events.

Recent data obtained from the Arizona Secretary of State elections services division shows that independent, also known as “no party” voter registration has grown by 4 percent since 2020.

This independent designation, known to the state’s elections office as “other,” is on equal footing with the established Democratic and Republican parties, particularly regarding Arizona’s GOP, where statistically, they are neck and neck in numbers (the GOP having 34.58 percent of registered voters, and Independents now having 34.38 percent). This fact indicates that Arizona’s “swing-vote” is more powerful than ever, which will likely be the deciding factor in this year’s general election. 

And one thing is clear: no single party is safe this coming election when so many candidates face such narrow margins for victory. Voter trends in Arizona suggest that overall, voters lean slightly right by a margin of only 4 percent (when analyzing federal election results).

Registered independents have grown in recent years, possibly due to the bitter partisanship and vitriol between the Republican and Democratic parties and their members. And the numbers don’t lie, as they indicate that voters are clearly migrating away from mainstream politics and either going inactive or registering as an independent, or “no party,” voter.

“I became an independent around 2016 because the two choices we had in the election were probably the worst I had ever seen,” said one such voter who is a registered independent, a decorated military veteran and who wished to remain anonymous given the current political climate. “I really felt like that was the start of big money playing huge roles in politics. This year, much like 2016, we have (terrible choices). One will hurt us less than the other, and that is who I will have to vote for.”

“As an independent, I feel more free to vote for who I believe is the best candidate for a political office (sic) and not feel constrained by party lines,” said another decorated military veteran who has voted independently for over 20 years and also wished to remain anonymous. “I believe both parties have a lack of desire to compromise and waste an extreme amount of time focused on partisan politics, … I also don’t like feeling pigeon-holed into voting for a candidate who I may not feel is the right candidate, just because they align to a specific party.”

It is important to note that this data reflects greater attrition from both the Republican and Democratic parties than what is seemingly gained by this ‘other’ (independent) category. The rise in independent voters doesn’t necessarily indicate an exodus from a particular party, but rather identifies an election procedure that requires inactive voters to be removed, indicating that many voters have become uninterested or disenfranchised from state politics.

This procedure seems to be another added reason for why voter registration has dropped across the parties, as approximately 250,000 inactive voters were purged from the state’s registration roll. Also, based on the timeline of the procedure itself (which requires failure to participate in two subsequent federal election cycles), disenfranchisement among voters had to have begun around the 2016 election cycle. Notably, this automatic purging of voters is prohibited by federal law within a 90-day period leading up to an election.

With this clearly noted however, the official data does show that the number of registered Republicans and Democrats has dropped by 6 percent and 12 percent respectively in the same period (libertarians saw a 15.5 percent loss), and further suggests that twice as many Democrats than Republicans are either becoming inactive or switching party affiliation.

We reached out to Arizona’s GOP, Democratic, and Libertarian parties for comment on their reported registered voter losses; no party returned our requests for comment.

Of note, the establishment of the No Labels party in Arizona in early 2023, accounts for approximately 26,000 voters (or 0.63 percent of the total vote) and was drawn from the existing pool of registered voters. This newly formed centrist and bipartisan party aims to unite Americans under the common belief that “American leaders and citizens alike (should) declare their freedom from the anger and divisiveness that (is) ruining our politics and most importantly, our country,” according to the party’s website.

“We seek to restore America's faith that democracy remains the best means to bring out the good in every one of us, thus ensuring a brighter future for generations to come,” according to the No Labels party.

The arrival of the No Labels party is not without contention though. The Democratic Party of Arizona unsuccessfully sued to block state recognition of the party in mid-2023, and the motive could be evident in the released data, as Arizona Democrats have lost 12.1 percent of their registered voters since the 2020 general election, some of whom having likely joined this new party.

So it seems, that Arizona’s political establishment has both a growing and opposing political base and a new party which has the potential to threaten future elections for either Republicans or Democrats, depending on the beliefs and subsequent swing of those voters. One thing is for certain however, those swing votes will undoubtedly be the deciding factor in this November’s general election.

One hundred and six years ago, it was the summer of 1918. American, French, and Siamese forces were pitted against an entrenched German army in what would be known as the Meuse-Argonne offensive. Casualties were fierce. Progress was at a stalemate.

So, the United States Army Air Service’s 27th Aero Squadron was called in to help break the deadlock. Over the course of the summer, then-2nd Lt. Frank Luke Jr. and his wingman 1st Lt. Joseph Frank Wehner patrolled the skies over northeastern France in their SPAD XIII biplanes. Together they would fly sortie after sortie terrorizing the German lines and specifically the artillery observation balloons overwatching them.

Luke would go on to destroy 14 German observation balloons and four airplanes before his death, earning himself the title of ace, the nickname “Arizona Balloon Buster”, two Distinguished Service Crosses, and the Congressional Medal of Honor. Both Luke Air Force Base in Glendale, Arizona and Lukeville in southern Arizona are named in his honor.

“Had Lt. Luke lived he would have put me out of business as the leading ace long ago,” once famously said by Capt. Eddie Rickenbacker, undeniably the most successful and most decorated American ace of World War One.

On Sept. 29, 1918, Luke was shot down by enemy aircraft and intense ground fire following a hair-raising aerial dogfight. Luke survived the crash of his aircraft but was killed by German troops when he refused to surrender, fighting on to the bitter end with his Colt Model 1911. He was buried by the Germans with honor two days later.

The 27th Aero Squadron would go on to many more aerial victories, becoming the 27th Pursuit Squadron, and eventually evolving into the 27th Fighter Squadron, fighting in Europe again during World War Two and later the Persian Gulf War, and protecting the skies over northern Iraqi Kurds during Operation Northern Watch.

The squadron does not fly the SPAD XIII anymore, but rather the F-22 Raptor out of Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia. Yes, the same apparent squadron and type of aircraft launched for last year’s balloon intercept mission. (The 1st Fighter Wing, the headquarters to the 27th Fighter Squadron, of the United States Air Force declined to comment any further on this story nor officially confirmed the squadron connection.)

Given this seeming connection, were these callsigns by design of military leaders or merely a coincidence? Either way, it is quite a fitting tribute to Frank Luke Jr’s aerial legacy.

“(Frank Luke Jr) was a wild and crazy guy. He didn’t really like to follow orders. … Frank was a very good pilot, and he was an excellent marksman and hunter. He actually developed the sighting on top of the Vickers machine gun [on the SPAD XIII]. … He was very daring,” says historian Bill Simon of the Lt. Frank Luke Jr. Museum in Goodyear, Ariz. “He’s the first medal of honor recipient that we had born and raised in Arizona when we were a territory. … It’s part of our history, why let it go?”

“I was proud and delighted they remembered him,” says Don Luke, Frank Luke Jr.’s surviving nephew, and president of Bill Luke Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram in Phoenix, Ariz. “You know if we don’t remember the past and what we went through, I just think it’s all part of history and part of what makes us who we are,” adds Luke.

Readers who are interested in hearing more on the exploits and achievements of this brave young aviator can visit the Lt. Frank Luke Jr. Museum and chat with Bill Simon at 1045 South Camino Oro Drive in Goodyear. The museum is open Monday thru Friday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Admission to the museum is free but supported by donations.

To continue to receieve more insightful stories about Arizona, please susbcribe by hitting the button below. Support our local journalism!

Subscribe now

We’d love to grow NU, please share our publication with your friends and family!!!

Share A "NU" Approach to Journalism

The Arizona Department of Education’s most recent quarterly Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program report shows that a vast majority of its ESA recipients has been awarded to the general public, diverting funds from Arizona public schools to the tune of $944 million.

In fact, 45,157 of the 61,689 applications (73.2 percent) were categorized as “K-12 Universal,” which means the qualified student must be at least 5 years old at the time of application, have a birth certificate, and be a resident of Arizona. These criteria are drawing contempt from Democratic lawmakers.

Read more

Please consider a subscription if you haven’t already. It allows our journalists to do more to bring you insightful and relevant stories about the great state we love, Arizona!

Subscribe now

Located just a short drive from State Farm Stadium, the brothers serve up over 130 pizzas a day, the weekends being their busiest. Their pepperoni pizza and wings are their most popular items on the menu. “It’s always pepperoni, even in Italy, pepperoni… it’s top of the line,” says Patriot, but they also serve up some mean calzones, chicken and pasta dishes, and hot and cold subs too.

Originally from Albania, Patriot served two years in the army, and had received a re-enlistment notice from the communist-led government (forced conscription if we are being honest). As the threat of war loomed on the Balkan Peninsula, he escaped his homeland to Italy in search of a life free of conflict and war.

Once in Italy, Patriot learned the trade of a pizzaiolo, learning traditional Neapolitan techniques from his mentor and friend Pasquale. In 2002, Patriot immigrated to the United States, finding his way to Buffalo, where he perfected his trade in his brother Armand’s pizza shop. It’s also why they make some killer wings.

Patriot and Armand made their way to Arizona in 2013, eventually opening Don’s NY Pizza in Peoria. This venture was so successful, Patriot decided to open a second shop in west Phoenix in 2016. Patriot sold that first shop a few years ago and now operates this second shop exclusively with his brother Armand. He lives the American dream.

“Being from Long Island, I am always skeptical when an Arizona pizzeria claims to have NY pizza. Don's does,” says Deborah Holland, a satisfied customer of Don’s.

“It's the closest thing to a (New York style) pie I've had out here”, says Dennis Clark, another satisfied customer. “This is as good as it gets if you grew up in (the New York area),” he adds.

What’s Patriot’s trade secret to success? “Fresh dough, fresh sauce we make it every day, and good cheese,” he says. “You need to pay (for good ingredients),” he adds. Their cheese is perfectly salty, the crust is both crunchy and chewy, and the sauce has a hint of sweetness - everything you’d expect in an authentic pie.

Patriot’s passion for pizza is apparent. He enjoys satisfying his customers. He sees his business “like your son, you see (them) growing up,” he explains. “It’s not about money. In pizza you (are) not going to make big money. If you want to make money you (are) in (the) wrong business, (but) it’s an honest job. America is special. Here you have opportunity.”

His biggest challenge (other than finding workers in this tight economy) is English. It is a real barrier to operating his business when dealing with suppliers and sometimes customers, but it’s also what makes his experience unique and authentic.

Despite this challenge, Patriot puts the hours in to make his business successful. He starts his day around 8 a.m. and closes around 9 p.m. almost daily. He shares this responsibility with his family, mainly his son Milot and brother Armand. “You need to bring (in) your family if you want to (be successful); we are always working,” he says.

“Not a lot of people can really (build what he built). (Our family) was broke; they had nothing. (My dad) is just the hardest worker… he provides for (the entire family),” adds Milot.

One bite and you will see for yourself, these pies are a culmination of a three-decade-long pizzamaker’s journey. Find this neighborhood gem at 9971 West Camelback Road, in the Home Depot plaza, or on Yelp or Google with an above 4-star rating.

To continue to recieve more insightful stories about Arizona, please susbcribe by hitting the button below. Support our local journalism!

Subscribe now

We’d love to grow NU, please share our publication with your friends and family!!!

Share A "NU" Approach to Journalism

So far this year, we have:

·      Identified a grassroots effort to repeal Arizona’s long-standing right-to-work statute; voters may decide the state’s economic future in the 2024 general election. (Grassroots Petition Seeks to Repeal Arizona’s Right to Work Statute; Weighs Wages Against Inflation)

·      Celebrated the survival of Wild Horse Pass Motorsports Park; racers across the southwest will continue to have a premier racing venue for years to come. (Wild Horse Pass Motorsports Park Continues to Thrive; Racers Compete at ‘Street Car Takeover 2023’)

·      Covered Arizona’s continued water supply struggle and the inflection point we find ourselves in; identifying a non-partisan schism within the state government on how to address this complicated issue. (Arizona Water Supply at Inflection Point; Government Divided on Solution)

We look forward to what 2024 has to offer, and hope to continue to bring you relevant stories that impact Arizona. Happy New Year!!!

Please share our platform with your own people, hit the button below, and let’s grow this movement!

Share NU Newsmedia: A "NU" Approach to Journalism

That is why experts gathered to discuss the state’s water supply status in detail at the ‘Arizona Talks: Water’ forum held on Dec. 5 in Scottsdale. Representatives from the public and private sector reported on water supply conditions, discussed challenges with supply and promoted positive policy change.

“(We) are in an inflection point,” said Christa McJunkin, senior director of water supply for the Salt River Project (SRP). “We have had decades of being able to grow based on water supplies that were secured in the past. Now we are at the point where if we want to continue that pace of growth, we need to make investments and make decisions to acquire new (water) supplies, to change how we use water, to pump water supplies to use in different ways.”

Read more