Arizona
The last 10 years of 6th-round draft picks for the Arizona Cardinals
The Cardinals have drafted a bunch of players in the sixth round. Almost all have made at least a small contribution
The 2025 NFL draft will commence soon, on Thursday, April 24 with the first round. Rounds 2 and 3 will follow on Friday with the remaining four rounds on Saturday the 26th.
The Arizona Cardinals have selections in the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and seventh rounds. They don’t have a sixth-round pick currently.
Let’s look at the last several years of picks and see how those picks have worked out.
Below are the last 10 years of sixth-round picks for the Cardinals.
The last 10 years of Cardinals sixth-round picks
- 2024: WR Tejhaun Palmer
- 2023: CB Kei’Trel Clark, DL Dante Stills
- 2022: RB Keaontay Ingram, OL Lecitus Smith
- 2021: OLB Victor Dimukeje, CB Tay Gowan
- 2020: LB Evan Weaver
- 2019: WR KeeSean Johnson, OL Lamont Gaillard
- 2018: CB Christian Campbell
- 2017: S Rudy Ford
- 2016: DB Harlan Miller
Only one ‘failed’ pick
Of all the sixth-round picks the Cardinals have selected in the last 10 years, only Campbell contributed nothing to the Cardinals. He never made a roster and never made the practice squad.
Weaver only spent time on the practice squad.
Gowan never played for the Cardinals but was used in the trade to acquire tight end Zach Ertz.
Palmer spent his rookie season on the practice squad.
Get more Cardinals and NFL coverage from Cards Wire’s Jess Root and others by listening to the latest on the Rise Up, See Red podcast. Subscribe on Spotify, YouTube or Apple podcasts.
Arizona
Arizona lacrosse leaders believe sport is poised to grow
Arizona
This Arizona city named among top 23 small US towns to visit
Stunning places every Arizonan should visit at least once
From the Grand Canyon to Sedona’s red rocks to dramatic views of Havasupai Falls, here are some must-see places every Arizonan should check out.
Arizona is always making headlines for its breathtaking scenery, top travel destinations and highly ranked cities. Now, another Arizona gem is earning national recognition, with this famous city ranking No. 14 on Y Travel’s list of the 23 small towns in the USA to visit.
Y Travel, also known as Y Travel Blog, is an independent travel publication. The site has built a reputation for publishing firsthand destination guides, road-trip itineraries and family travel advice based on places the couple behind it has personally visited.
The ranking celebrates small towns that offer memorable travel experiences. According to Y Travel, the towns were selected based on their unique character, scenic beauty, walkable downtowns, local culture, history, outdoor recreation, food and the authentic experiences they provide to visitors rather than simply their popularity.
Here’s which city ranked top in Arizona.
Sedona named a small town to visit by Y Travel
Coming in at No. 14, Sedona stood out for its colorful blend of desert landscape, luxury resorts and spas, red rock formations, Bell Rock and Cathedral Rock
The website mentioned how the city has natural vortices and 300+ miles of hiking and biking trails nearby, with lots of outdoor activities to explore.
Got a story you want to share? Reach out at Tiffany.Acosta@gannett.com. Follow @tiffsario on Instagram.
Looking for the best things to do in Arizona? Sign up for our newsletter.
Arizona
Judge weighs whether Arizona anti-DEI measure can be on November ballot | Arizona Capitol Times
Key Points:
-
Judge considers ballot qualification challenge to anti-DEI ballot measure
-
Plaintiffs claim measure illegally combines disjointed constitutional provisions
-
Supporters claim stronger anti-discrimination, foes fear free speech violations
A Maricopa County judge is considering whether a measure that would broadly ban diversity, equity, and inclusion in government is legally eligible to appear on the November ballot.
House Concurrent Resolution 2044, sponsored by House Speaker Steve Montenegro, R-Godyear, and referred to voters by the Republican majority this past session, follows the federal government’s efforts to eliminate state-sanctioned DEI programs.
The measure would amend the state Constitution and cement the existing ban on preferential treatment and discrimination based on race or ethnicity in public employment, education and contracting.
But it would take a step further in banning institutions from requiring or asking for support of, providing training on, or mandating any courses that teach DEI or the belief that “colorblind” law, policy or institution contributes to racial oppression, injustice or privilege.
It would also bar all K-12 schools and universities from using public monies to influence the composition of the faculty or student body, and generally bar any public bodies from enacting policy, providing special benefit or mandating training referencing race, ethnicity, sex or sexual orientation.
In a lawsuit filed June 22, the progressive political action committee Will of the People and an elector sued the state, claiming HCR2044 violates the separate amendment rule, which bars ballot measures from “logrolling” unrelated provisions in the same act.
Josh Barro, attorney for Will of the People, claims HCR2044 presents a noncontroversial provision already enacted in Arizona – the ban on practicing and spending public money on discriminatory or preferential treatment based on race or ethnicity – but “smuggles in” anti-diversity, equity and inclusion provisions.
“You have a popular, established right paired with a distinct, controversial policy,” Barro said.
Barro argued the remaining provisions targeting employee training on race, ethnicity, sex, gender identity or sexual orientation contradict the initial intent of the measure.
“If you can’t mention race, or you can’t train your employees to be mindful of diversity, or pursue equity in the workplace, you are literally promoting discrimination,” Barro said.
He told the court the provisions stand directly at odds with each other, rendering the measure insufficiently connected as required by law.
“On one hand, HCR 2044 aims to prohibit discrimination,” Barro said. “On the other hand, HCR 2044 uses the smuggled content to restrict programs that aim to accomplish the same goal.”
Both the attorney general and secretary of state declined to defend the law. But Kory Langhofer, attorney for the Legislature, claims the provisions in HCR2044 do not replace or continue the original language in the state Constitution as Barro claims.
He contends that the measure closes a loophole and “builds out specific examples of types of invidious discrimination that are prohibited in state institutions in Arizona.”
Langhofer contended all components of the measure are aimed at and connected in ending discrimination and governmental bias.
“It’s all going in the same direction,” Langhofer said.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Julie Mata took the matter under advisement.
If the measure does ultimately end up on the ballot, groups are already lined up to offer support and prod opposition.
The Goldwater Institute, a primary backer of HCR2044, celebrated the measure’s intent to shut down DEI-related offices and training and prohibit the use of diversity statements in employment and education.
Coursework at public universities would fall under fire under the new policy, too.
In April, the Goldwater Institute released a report claiming that Arizona’s public universities were requiring DEI in a long list of classes but failing to meet academic standards set by the Arizona Board of Regents.
Classes flagged by the organization included: “Anthropology of American Democracy,” “Surveillance and Society,” “Introduction to Military Studies,” and “Current Issues in National Politics.”
Though HCR2044 may survive litigation challenging its qualification for the ballot, legal challenges to the measure’s substance could come down the line.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona already claims HCR2044 restricts academic freedom in colleges and universities, violates the First Amendment rights of students, teachers and administrators, and targets viewpoints based on race, sex and discrimination.
“Ideas are not illegal, and there is no ‘government-approved’ speech exception to the First Amendment,” Darrell Hill, policy director for the ACLU of Arizona, said in a statement. “The state cannot adopt a policy or rule that punishes faculty, administrators, or students for expressing their beliefs or prohibits wide scopes of ideas from being debated at universities.”
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 minutes ago‘Moana’ is a triumph for Pacific Islander representation on the big screen
-
Detroit, MI26 minutes agoFive shot during funeral at Detroit church
-
San Francisco, CA38 minutes agoSan Francisco Giants Announce Intriguing Roster Move Ahead of Mariners Series
-
Dallas, TX44 minutes agoDallas seafood wholesaler fined $250K for false salmon labeling
-
Miami, FL50 minutes agoAbsolutely Not: Florida woman’s “suggestive” license plate goes viral
-
Boston, MA56 minutes agoAriana Grande fan gets better tickets to TD Garden concert in Boston after resolving StubHub issue
-
Denver, CO1 hour agoMitchell Fraboni will be the Bronco long snapper in 2026
-
Seattle, WA1 hour agoSeattle real estate owner sentenced to prison for $4.7 million tax evasion scheme – MyNorthwest.com