By Daniel Stefanski |
An Arizona ballot proposition regarding tipped workers remains on track for consideration in November’s General Election.
Last this week, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter A. Thompson denied a request from Raise the Wage AZ for an issuance of a preliminary injunction against SCR 1040, the Tipped Workers Protection Act, which was passed by the Arizona Legislature this past spring and transmitted to the state’s Secretary of State for inclusion on the November ballot.
The measure will be Proposition 138 on the ballot.
According to the fact sheet provided by the Arizona Senate, SCR 1040 would “constitutionally establish minimum hourly wage requirements for employees who customarily and regularly receive tips or gratuities from patrons or others (tipped employees).” If approved by voters in November, the amendment would “authorize an employer to pay a tipped employee a wage of up to 25 percent per hour less than the statutory minimum wage if the employer can establish that for each week, when adding tips or gratuities received to wages paid, the employee received not less than the minimum wage plus $2 for all hours worked” – among another provisions.
Andrew Gould, a former Arizona Supreme Court Justice, helped to lead the defense of this ballot measure in Superior Court. He said, “Holtzman Vogel is proud to defend the right of Arizonans to voice their opinion on this important matter. The proposed amendment, SCR 1040, protects the jobs of tipped workers while allowing the businesses that employ them to survive financially. This is a victory for the people of Arizona against anti-business politics.”
Arizona Restaurant President and CEO, Steve Chucri, told a local media outlet that, “Without passage of Prop 138, you can bet the imposters behind One Fair Wage will be back with a future attempt to install a California-style pay system in Arizona. That means lower tips for workers, lost jobs for employers and higher costs for everyone. Passage of Prop 138 is the first step to prevent that from happening.”
In his order, Judge Thompson wrote, “Far from voter fraud, the legislative process used for SCR 1040 is created by the Arizona Constitution. There is no allegation that the proper process was not followed… Plaintiffs have failed to cite to specific authority which would permit this Court, or any court, to remove an Initiative or proposed Legislative Constitutional Amendment because it interferes with or makes passage of a competing ballot measure more or less likely. Placement of the proposed Constitutional Amendment (SCR 1040) on the November General Election Ballot will not undermine the sanctity of the election process. In fact, it is part of the democratic process enshrined in the Arizona Constitution with choice being left to the voters.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
