A state senate committee will discuss a bill Monday that protects individuals, businesses, schools, medical providers, and the government from civil liability for actions taken in response to public health pandemics unless a litigant can prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that willful misconduct or gross negligence was involved.
The bill, SB1377, sponsored by Sen. Vince Leach (R-LD11) would be retroactive to March 11, 2020, the date Gov. Doug Ducey declared a state of emergency due to COVID-19. Its passage out of the Senate Rules Committee is seen as a sure thing after the Senate Committee on Judiciary passed it last week on a 5 to 3 vote.
Leach has said he introduced the bill to ensure a presumption that any person or “provider” acted in good faith to protect a customer, student, tenant, volunteer, patient, guest or neighbor, or the public from injury or loss through reasonable attempts to comply with rely on published guidance issued by a federal or state agency in connection to a public health pandemic.
“Unfortunately, there will always be people who will try to take advantage of the situation and file reckless lawsuits,” Leach said after the judiciary committee vote. “I hope this legislation will give people the assurance that if they’re following health and safety precautions, they won’t be hit with a nuisance lawsuit.”
Under the legislation, a provider is defined as a person who furnishes consumer or business goods or services or entertainment, as well as an educational institution or district, school district or charter school, property owner, property manager or property lessor or lessee, a nonprofit organization, a religious institution, a state or a state agency or instrumentality, a local government or political subdivision (including a department, agency or commission), a service provider, a health professional, or a health care institution.
Anyone wishing to claim an “injury, death or loss to person or property” based on a failure to protect the litigant from the effects of the public health pandemic must be able to show the person or provider acted with “willful misconduct or gross negligence.” The liability protection also includes inactions which are alleged to have caused harm.
PHOENIX – Newly-elected Senator Mark Kelly stunned moderate Democrats and Republicans during the recent “vote-a-rama,” in which the U.S. Senate began the process to pass a COVID-19 relief bill via reconciliation.
While a majority of Arizonans believe that abortion should only be legal in some cases, Kelly came out in favor of denying lifesaving care to children who survive abortions.
“Senator Kelly’s vote against compassionate legislation to protect babies born alive after failed abortions is deeply disturbing and out of step with Arizona pro-life values,” said Mallory Quigley, spokeswoman for Susan B. Anthony List. “This popular, common ground legislation to provide lifesaving care to children who survive abortions should have easily passed. Arizona voters are watching and looking ahead to 2022. We will ensure Arizonans do not forget that their newly-elected senator failed to stand up for the most vulnerable. Mark Kelly is too extreme for Arizona.”
A large majority of Americans believe babies born alive during failed abortions should be protected under the law. That majority is even larger in Arizona.
A new report by Tessa Longbons, a research associate at Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI), shows that protections for babies who survive abortions are inconsistent across the United States, with fewer than half of states maintaining sufficient protections. However, Arizona has been on the forefront of laws protecting mothers and babies including those survivors of botched abortions.
A bill proposed by Arizona State Rep. Walt Blackman that would criminalize abortion was soundly condemned by both pro-life and pro-choice groups reflecting the more moderate stand on the issue.
The Arizona State Commerce Committee has passed Rep. Jeff Weninger’s HB2772, which will make sports betting legal in Arizona on a 9-1 vote. The bill was supported by Gov. Doug Ducey, numerous sports teams and Native American tribes.
Sen. TJ Shope is running a mirror of the bill in the Senate.
The bills would allow pro sports teams like the Arizona Diamondbacks and tribes that already run casinos to have sports betting operations, according to an Associated Press report.
The bills would legalize fantasy sport betting from online operators, and it would allow new betting at horse racing tracks and groups like the VFW, which would be able to sell Keno tickets.
Ducey’s General Counsel Anni Foster testified in front of the Committee as to the status of current discussions with the tribes and asserted that the state already “has an agreement in principle” with them. That agreement is critical for the bill to take effect this year due to the fact that the Gaming Compact between the State and tribal governments essentially controls gaming in Arizona.
All federally recognized tribes in Arizona have a Gaming Compact with the State. The Compact with each of the 22 tribes is substantially identical.
The Compacts gave tribes exclusive rights to operate slot machines and casino style gaming, limited the number of slot machines and casinos, established comprehensive rules governing gaming, and set minimum internal control standards for casino operations.
Rep. Pam Powers Hannley was the lone “no” vote. She expressed concerns about the lack of information about what data will be gathered from the bettors using the systems.
At a time when more Arizonans are trading stocks online and are choosing to protect big-ticket purchases with service contracts and extended warranties, several Democrats want to amend the state law that keeps those sales from being calculated into a retailer’s gross income tax basis.
Rep. Pamela Powers Hannley (D-LD9) and five co-sponsors have introduced HB2245 which deals with Arizona Revised Statute 42-5061A, the classifications of retail sales of tangible personal property. The tax base for such classifications is the gross proceeds of sales or gross income, but state law currently includes 57 exempted retail categories.
One of those exemptions is the retail sale of warranty and service contracts. Another is the retail sale of stocks and bonds.
There is no requirement for retailers to pass along their higher costs if the bill passes, but the current economic reality is that the majority of businesses will not be able to absorb the increased tax base. The result, economists say, will be higher costs to customers.
HB2245’s likely higher costs for online retail traders in Arizona comes as companies like Charles Schwab and E*Trade experienced record-high retail business in 2020. The average daily volume of the largest e-brokers in December 2020 was 6.6 million shares and jumped to 8.1 million shares in January, CNBC reported.
“This influx has been driven by millions of Americans with more time on their hands, and in some cases out of work, due to the impact of the coronavirus pandemic,” according to a 2020 report by Jeremy Moses, Lead Industry Research Analyst for ISISWorld.
Moses noted that the pandemic accelerated “the rise of individual day traders participating in the market” in part driven by the popularity of app-based brokerages, particularly those offering commission-free trades.
The co-sponsors of the legislation are Reps. Richard Andrade, Charlene Fernandez, Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, Athena Salman, Raquel Teran. HB2245 has been assigned by House Speaker to the Committee on Ways & Means, but the committee has not yet taken up the legislation.
The other 55 exemption categories to the retail classification tax base will remain unaffected by HB2245. Some of those categories include livestock and poultry for ranching, lottery tickets, prescriptions, natural gas used to propel a motor vehicle, food service items sold to a commercial airline, and sales of fine art shipped by a gallery to an out of state buyer.
PHOENIX – In response to the escape of two inmates from the prison in Florence last month, State Rep. David Cook has introduced new legislation that would toughen penalties for correctional facility escapees.
“Following the recent successful capture of two dangerous escaped state prison inmates, I was dismayed to learn that they could only be charged with a Class 4 felony,” said Cook in a press release. “It is only by the grace of God that nobody was injured, or worse, while these criminals were at large. The penalty needs to fit the crime and this change in statue does exactly that.”
Inmates John B. Charpiot and David T. Harmon escaped from a medium security unit at Arizona State Prison Complex-Florence on January 23. The two men managed to break into a tool room and steal tools to cut through the outside fence. After they escaped, the men attempted to rob an employee at a nearby hotel. They were captured on January 28, in Coolidge.
Cook’s bill, HB 2790, cosigned by Representatives Kevin Payne (R-21), Frank Pratt (R-8), Bret Roberts (R-11), Ben Toma (R-22), and John Fillmore and Jacqueline Parker (R-16), as well as Senators Vince Leach (R-11), T.J. Shope (R-8), and Kelly Townsend (R-16) increases the penalty for escape from a Class 4 to a Class 2 felony.
Cook says his bill gives prosecutors and judges a “wider array of options and greater discretion when charging or sentencing an offender.”
A Class 2 felony is the highest non-murder felony classification in state law and carries a sentencing range of anywhere from 3-35 years imprisonment, depending on the offender’s prior criminal history and whether a weapon was used. Under the law, any sentence for an escape conviction must be served consecutively to the sentence that the inmate was serving at the time of their escape.
“I commend the tremendous efforts by state and local law enforcement to protect the public and quickly apprehend the two escapees. HB 2790 respects their efforts and those of all who uphold public safety in our state. Moreover, it respects those who have been crime victim and their families who are likely to endure additional traumatic stress if their perpetrator escapes,” concluded Cook.
