Is Fountain Hills looking for more litigation?

Adobe Stock

As Election Day Approaches

To allow candidates the right to respond to criticisms about their candidacy before Election Day, the last day Independent Newsmedia will publish new election-related letters in our weekly print editions is Oct. 21, and the last day they will publish online is Oct. 27. Candidates may submit a 150-word reply addressing criticisms only and should email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org along with their name, address, contact number and the headline of the letter they’re addressing.

OPINION — Item 9c on the agenda for the Oct. 20 town council meeting is obliquely described as “Discussion: Regarding a proposed ordinance relating to Sharia Law.” Is this the unnecessary ordinance Allen Skillicorn volunteered to draft banning the application of Sharia law in Fountain Hills? The ordinance that, if enacted, is likely to result in another lawsuit taxpayers will pay for?

If so, what is the point of this “discussion?” Is our town council looking for another lawsuit?

The United States and Arizona constitutions take precedence over any local ordinance and already prohibit the application of any “foreign law,” a term that by statute encompasses any law, rule, legal code or legal system.

After learning of the proposed ordinance targeting Muslims, the Arizona Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (“CAIR-AZ”) sent a letter to Mayor Friedel urging the town to abandon the proposal as unnecessary and unconstitutional.

CAIR-AZ suggested a meeting to engage in “dialogue” but cautioned that if an ordinance targeting Muslims was enacted, it was prepared to litigate. After successfully challenging Oklahoma’s targeted ban, the executive director of CAIR’s Oklahoma Chapter recovered more than $300,000 in attorney’s fees.

Councilwomen Kalivianakis and McMahon were the only members of the town council who agreed to meet with CAIR-AZ representatives. In a recent post on her Facebook page, Kalivianakis questioned Friedel’s judgment in continuing consideration of an ordinance that served no demonstrated need and would further divide the community. Friedel responded by describing Kalivianakis as a “disgruntled candidate.”

During the June 16 town council meeting, Friedel referred to the “dozens of lawsuits and notices of claims” that have consumed the town attorney’s time over the past year. Why then is he intent on discussing an unnecessary ordinance likely to result in another lawsuit?

Please submit comments at yourvalley.net/letters or email them to AzOpinions@iniusa.org. We are committed to publishing a wide variety of reader opinions, as long as they meet our Civility Guidelines.