| NEWS | Debate Distraction Katie Hobbs won’t debate Kari Lake in Arizona governor’s race. BY ELIAS WEISS K atie Hobbs, the Democratic nominee for governor, again demurred an olive branch from the Citizens Clean Elections Commission and made it official: She will not debate Kari Lake, the Republican nominee and former TV news anchor. The action by Hobbs, Arizona’s secre- tary of state, is the latest twist in the weeks- long debate over the debate. Hobbs cited the circuslike spectacle of the GOP primary debate in June and Lake’s penchant for peddling debunked conspiracy theories in her refusal. The commission rejected Hobbs’ over- tures of compromise after she suggested that each candidate entertain a 30-minute solo interview with Arizona Horizon moderator Ted Simons in lieu of a tradi- tional debate. On September 8, the commission voted to give Hobbs an extra week to acquiesce. It only took 48 hours for Hobbs to make up her mind. “Unfortunately, debating a conspiracy theorist like Kari Lake — whose entire campaign platform is to cause enormous chaos and make Arizona the subject of national ridicule — would only lead to constant interruptions, pointless distrac- tions, and childish name-calling,” said Hobbs’ campaign manager, Nicole DeMont, in a Sunday statement. “Arizonans deserve so much better than Kari Lake, and that’s why we’re confident Katie Hobbs will be elected our next governor.” By declining to debate, Hobbs handed Lake 30 minutes on Arizona PBS for an interview with Simons on October 12. Sunday’s decision likely nixed any debate ahead of the November election, which is forecast to be a toss-up. DeMont noted that Hobbs “remains willing and eager to participate in a town hall-style event,” but the commission rendered those pleas futile last week. In the Democratic primary, Hobbs also refused to debate opponent Marco Lopez. Josselyn Berry, a spokesperson for the Arizona Democratic Party, declined to answer whether the party agreed with Hobbs’ decision not to debate. “We’ll let the Hobbs campaign comments stand,” she said. In other statewide races, Democratic candidates agreed to participate in tele- vised debates organized by the elections commission. They include U.S. Senator Mark Kelly, who will debate Republican Blake Masters on October 6; Adrian Fontes, who will debate Republican Mark Finchem in the secretary of state race on September 22; and Kris Mayes, who will debate Republican Abe Hamadeh in the race for attorney general on September 28. Democratic candidates for corporation commissioner, superintendent of public instruction, and treasurer in Arizona have also committed to debates in September and October. “Kari will keep her promise to the voters and debate,” Lake’s campaign spokes- person, Ross Trumble, said in a statement on September 11. “The empty chair across from her will show Arizonans just how little Katie Hobbs cares about them.” Kyle Conklin, a 48-year-old self-styled Libertarian from Show Low, said Hobbs’ decision, “isn’t a good look for her” and is “absolutely disrespectful of the voters of Arizona.” “A debate is one of the more memorable Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons Democratic gubernatorial nominee Katie Hobbs. aspects of each political cycle,” Conklin told Phoenix New Times. “I still haven’t heard a solid reason from [Hobbs’] campaign why she isn’t willing to debate Kari Lake. I’m uncertain why Katie Hobbs is expecting special treatment here when every other major race is willing to do the traditional debate format.” The lack of a debate between Hobbs and Lake even has some Republicans concerned. “While it is a shame we won’t see a debate, the consequence is Kari Lake will enjoy unfettered access to voters,” Phoenix-based GOP consultant Barrett Marson told New Times. “It’s a loss for voters not to see a true debate. And it’s a loss for Katie Hobbs, who will not reach a large audience.” Camera Hogs Federal judge temporarily blocks Arizona’s ban on recording police. BY KATYA SCHWENK court on September 9. The American Civil Liberties Union of A Arizona and several news organizations sued over the law last month, arguing that it’s flagrantly unconstitutional. No one seems to disagree. During the hearing earlier this month, U.S. District Court Judge John Tuchi granted the ACLU’s motion for a preliminary injunction and blocked the law — at least temporarily. The law was set to take effect on September 24. Notably, none of the defendants in the case were interested in defending it. Attorneys for the three defendants — Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, Maricopa County Sheriff Paul Penzone, and Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich — appeared at the hearing and said they didn’t oppose the injunction. “Neither one of those defendants advo- cated for this law. Neither one of those defendants were seeking to enforce that law at any point,” Joseph Vigil, a deputy county attorney at the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office representing both Penzone and new law in Arizona that would ban video recordings within eight feet of police officers had its day in Mitchell, told the court. He said that the two agencies had no interest in defending the law in the future. The three defendants were named because they represent some of the most powerful law enforcement and prosecutorial agencies in the state. In the past, the attorney general’s office has defended laws that it wanted to enforce. But Brnovich, it seems, is not interested in enforcing the new law. Attorneys for the county agencies and the attorney general declined to comment to media outlets after the hearing. State Representative John Kavanagh, a Republican from Fountain Hills, authored and pushed the law through the legislature this year. Despite being warned that the bill was likely unconstitutional, lawmakers passed it anyway. In July, Governor Doug Ducey signed it into law. The law bans all video recording of police officers within an eight-foot perimeter. Doing so without an officer’s consent — unless you are the subject of a traffic stop or police contact — would be a class three misdemeanor, punishable by up to 30 days in jail. In its lawsuit, the ACLU argued that the law clearly violated the First Amendment. Ten media organizations joined the suit and said that the law would seriously interfere with their ability to report the news. To support that argument, attorneys argued that the law was a “content-based” restric- tion — a speech restriction based on the speech’s substance. “It prohibits video recording of only one topic: law enforcement activity,” attorneys wrote in the lawsuit. At the hearing, Tuchi told attorneys he believed that the law was “clearly” a content- based restriction and deserved a more serious level of scrutiny, which he doubted that the law would survive. Given the threat of a constitutional violation, Tuchi said he was justified in his decision to enjoin the law. “It’s a huge win,” ACLU staff attorney Benjamin Rundall told Phoenix New Times after the hearing. “It means that the rights of every resident in Arizona are protected.” So, Arizonans can still film police officers freely — for now. Tuchi set a September 16 deadline for anyone else to intervene in the suit. While Brnovich, Mitchell, and Penzone have no interest in defending the law, Arizona lawmakers — or other agencies — might. But legislative leaders said before the deadline that they weren’t interested in defending the law, either. The case will then turn to the question of a permanent injunction, which would block the law permanently. Rundall said the ACLU will wait until the court battle’s trajectory becomes more clear. “We’ll respond accordingly,” he said. 9 phoenixnewtimes.com | CONTENTS | FEEDBACK | OPINION | NEWS | FEATURE | NIGHT+DAY | CULTURE | FILM | CAFE | MUSIC | PHOENIX NEW TIMES SEPT 22ND–SEPT 28TH, 2022