Arizona Capitol Times publisher Michael Gorman issued a statement on Monday defending the actions of the news outlet’s reporter Camryn Sanchez after receiving a restraining order barring her from coming near State Senator Wendy Rogers (R-Flagstaff). Rogers shared screenshots of Sanchez showing up at her homes uninvited both at night and during the day, and said her neighbors reported that Sanchez had contacted them. Sanchez has 10 days to appeal the injunction against harassment, which was issued on April 19.
“We are strongly opposed to the Injunction Against Harassment that State Senator Wendy Rogers obtained against our reporter Camryn Sanchez,” Gorman said. “Senator Rogers obtained the injunction, ex parte (that is, without informing Ms. Sanchez and without the chance or opportunity for Ms. Sanchez to oppose the petition). We intend to challenge this injunction on behalf of Ms. Sanchez because it is baseless and an unconstitutional prior restraint against a reporter investigating public allegations involving the Senator.”
Gorman stated that the paper’s parent company BridgeTower Media also backed the reporter. BridgeTower Media was the B2B media division of GateHouse Media in 2016. GateHouse Media merged with Gannett in 2019 and then was acquired by New Media Investment Group, making it the largest newspaper publisher in the United States. Fortress Investments – New York private equity firm owned by the diversified Japanese tech firm Softbank – operates Gannett. The Arizona Republic is also owned by Gannett.
In 2020, the California-based private equity firm Transom Capital Group acquired the BridgeTower Media, calling it “a business media and marketing platform providing authoritative content.”
Arizona’s law governing injunctions against harassment states that they will be granted “[i]f the court finds reasonable evidence of harassment of the plaintiff by the defendant during the year preceding the filing of the petition or that good cause exists to believe that great or irreparable harm would result to the plaintiff if the injunction is not granted before the defendant or the defendant’s attorney can be heard in opposition.”
That law defines harassment as “[a] series of acts over any period of time that is directed at a specific person and that would cause a reasonable person to be seriously alarmed, annoyed or harassed and the conduct in fact seriously alarms, annoys or harasses the person and serves no legitimate purpose.”
Sanchez (pictured above) has not publicly articulated the reason(s) for her repeated visits to Rogers’ home. Requests for comment and context to the Capitol Times reporter from The Arizona Sun Times have gone unanswered.
However, political watchers say Sanchez’s “investigation” stems from questions about the Republican’s residence, since Rogers also owns a home near the state capitol. Rogers told The Sun Times that her Flagstaff home has been her primary residence since 2015. She produced numerous pieces of identification tied to Flagstaff to the The Sun Times, including her voter registration card with her Flagstaff address.
Many rural legislators have opted to establish secondary lodging near the state capitol – instead of in their districts – during the part-time legislative session in order to avoid an extended commute.
Meanwhile, the Arizona courts have made it clear that there is a high bar to find a violation of the state Constitution’s minimal residency requirements. The Arizona Constitution provides “[n]o person shall be a member of the Legislature unless he shall be a citizen of the United States at the time of his election, nor unless he shall be at least twenty-five years of age, and shall have been a resident of Arizona at least three years and of the county from which he is elected at least one year before his election.”
An article in The Arizona Republic listed several legislators whose residency came under fire in recent years, and none of them lost their positions due to the challenges. Columnist Abe Kwok stated, “The cases affirm the notion that candidates called into question get the benefit of the doubt.” He noted that one superior court judge ruled that residency is a “state of mind.”
Despite the opposing case law, Gorman doubled down. “News reporters such as Ms. Sanchez have the right to investigate matters relating to elected officials, which is precisely what Ms. Sanchez has been doing,” he said. “Senator Rogers went far beyond trying to restrict Ms. Sanchez from approaching her multiple residences (which is also well within Ms. Sanchez’s rights).”
Nevertheless, should Sanchez press the matter, her legal troubles may not end with a restraining order. The crime of harassment is generally a Class 1 misdemeanor and punishable by fines of up to $2,500 and up to one year in jail. A.R.S. 13-2921 states in part, “A person commits harassment if the person knowingly and repeatedly commits an act or acts that harass another person or the person knowingly commits any one of the following acts in a manner that harasses.” An example of this would be if a person “[c]ontinues to follow another person in or about a public place after being asked by that person to desist.”
Sanchez was told by the Arizona Senate leadership to stay away from Rogers.
Furthermore, the Capitol Times journalist could find herself in jeopardy of running afoul of Arizona’s anti-stalking law. The legislation provides in part, “A person commits stalking if the person intentionally or knowingly engages in a course of conduct that is directed toward another person and if that conduct causes the victim to … [s]uffer emotional distress.” It is not necessary to prove or show anything else. A first-time offense is a Class 5 felony, or Class 3 if there is a threat or fear of death. If there is a protective order that prevents someone from contacting the victim – like the restraining order granted by the court on Roger’s behalf against Sanchez – then additional charges may be filed along with stalking.
Arizona criminal defense attorney David Black said about the law, “Your reaction may be that the statute is so broad that it would include all kinds of communications and conduct that are not intended to harm anyone, but which could cause emotional distress to the recipient. And you’d be correct.”
Mark Finchem, who is still challenging his election loss to Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, responded to The Capitol Times’ tweet about the statement, “Should we show up at Cameron Shanchez’ [sic] home & harass her? Is she not a guardian of the first amendment? This is a rhetorical question of course, in everyone’s case your home is your sanctuary, how about we just leave that off-limits? limits to access elsewhere. @WendyRogersAZ.”
Should we show up at Cameron Shanchez’ home & harass her? Is she not a guardian of the first amendment? This is a rhetorical question of course, in everyone’s case your home is your sanctuary, how about we just leave that off-limits? I limits to access elsewhere. @WendyRogersAZ
— Mark Finchem for AZ Senate (@RealMarkFinchem) April 25, 2023
– – –
Rachel Alexander is a reporter at The Arizona Sun Times and The Star News Network. Follow Rachel on Twitter. Email tips to [email protected].
Photo “Camryn Sanchez” by Wendy Rogers.
