What promised to be Republicans’ most impactful state election integrity bill of the legislative session did not get voted on Monday, despite being on the calendar for a final reading in the State Senate.
Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita’s SB1485 has the potential to drop more than 207,000 inactive voter names from the Permanent Early Voter List (PEVL). Removal would not happen if a voter responds to a written notice about the impending change, which in no way alters or impacts a voter’s registration status.
Arizona’s 15 county recorders would collectively save tens of thousands of dollars each election through reduced printing and postage costs. But the biggest selling point for SB1485 is its election integrity benefit of ensuring 207,000 early ballots are not put into the U.S. mail system if voters do not intend to use them.
Getting Ugenti-Rita’s bill to Gov. Doug Ducey had been considered a sure thing due to Senate Republicans holding a 16 to 14 majority. That certainty ended last month when Sen. Kelly Townsend announced she will not vote for any election-related legislation until the Senate’s audit of Maricopa County’s 2020 General Election is complete.
Townsend has expressed displeasure with Ugenti-Rita’s lack of support for getting many of Townsend’s 18 election bills out of committee this session. As a result, Ugenti-Rita was forced into the embarrassing position of voting against her own bill to preserve any chance of revoting on SB1485 during a future Senate floor session.
That revote was set for Monday, but Senate President Karen Fann held the bill without further comment. The Senate is tentatively scheduled for daily floor sessions through Thursday but as of press time the PEVL legislation has not been added to any of those calendars.
Justin Olson says news reports that he is against getting Arizona’s electric utilities to a carbon-free or net-zero carbon level are incorrect. He whole-heartedly supports that goal, Olson insists, but believes it is more important to ensure Arizonans who pay for that electricity do not end up paying higher rates to reach the goal.
Olson is one of five members of the Arizona Corporation Commission, and one of three Republicans. He was joined last Wednesday by the ACC’s two Democrats in voting down a rules package which urged all electric utilities to a net-zero carbon level by 2050, but not mandate the goal.
The vote came nearly six months after the ACC -with a slightly different contingent of commissioners- voted 4 to 1 on a draft set of rules that included the net-zero by 2050 mandate. It had taken ACC staff and industry representatives about three years to get those rules worked out.
Olson cast the lone nay in that November vote. And he then voted nay last week even after he introduced an amendment to make the whole thing more palatable by switching the mandates to guidelines.
In the end, Olson says he could not get language into the rules to prevent utilities from using the mandates -or guidelines- as a justification for a rate increase to pay for something the company intended to do anyway. And that left customers at risk of paying more.
Olson insists that complaints directed toward any commissioners for “wasting” the time of ACC and industry staff are misplaced.
“The utilities would have undertaken all of that review and study anyway,” as part of determining their own future business plans, Olson told AZ Free News.
In fact, Arizona Public Service (APS) released an Integrated Resource Plan update for shareholders in February which listed its clean energy commitment for 100 percent “clean, carbon-free electricity” by 2050. Olson noted that the company’s plan was made without any regulatory mandate in place.
Olson also pointed out the “overwhelming” voter rejection of Proposition 127 in 2018 which sought to amend the Arizona Constitution to require nongovernmental electric utilities to increase the portion of their retail energy sales from certain types of renewable energy resources to 50 percent by 2030.
Refusing to support any type of renewable energy mandate without protecting ratepayers was simply “respecting the will of the voters,” says Olson. And that, he believes, means the ACC should be working to ensure ratepayers are charged lower rates in the future if utility companies benefit from lower costs by their own business decisions to use more renewable sources.
Some opponents of Olson’s position worry the Biden Administration will push Congress to pass legislation which may set net-zero mandates that do not serve the interest of Arizona’s utilities or its electricity users.
Olson says he understand that concern, but to preemptively enact “a bad policy” would be irresponsible given “there is no harm or penalty to Arizona the utilities, or the ratepayers at this time.”
As the finger-pointing continues as to why April’s job growth fell far below expectation, business organizations in Arizona are drawing attention once again to what they see as a worrisome obstacle to pro-growth — whether the U.S. Senate will approve the H.R. 842, also known as the PRO Act.
The PRO Act, which stands for Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021, passed the U.S. House of Representatives in March but has not yet had a committee debate in the Senate. Arizona Senators Kyrsten Sinema and Mark Kelly are among only three Democrats who did not co-sponsor the bill, which would enact sweeping changes to the National Labor Relations Act and other labor laws, including an override to Arizona’s longstanding “right-to-work” laws.
Arizona is one of 27 states governed by labor laws which ensure workers can choose whether or not to join a union and pay for representation. Employees in states without right-to-work laws can be required to pay union dues and fees in order to secure employment.
Millions of workers in Arizona and 26 other states would lose their right to work legal protections if Congress passes the Protecting the Right to Organize Act of 2021.
“Senators Sinema and Kelly have not co-sponsored this bill,” Glenn Spencer of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said last week in an interview with Chamber Business News.. “That’s a good thing. People in Arizona should thank them for standing up for workers and right-to-work and employers.”
Major labor unions such as the AFL-CIO back the Pro Act, which President Joe Biden has already signaled he will sign. The possibility of severe changes to labor laws if the Pro Act is enacted is a cause of uncertainty for owners of all sizes of businesses at a time when the Biden Administration is desperate to follow through on promises of new jobs.
“The PRO Act would, for all practical purposes, eviscerate Arizona’s right-to-work law, which would mean that workers in the state who happen to be in a union work setting would have to pay dues or they would be at risk of losing their jobs,” Spencer said. “Their employers may well be forced to terminate them if they don’t wish to pay dues in that setting.”
And according to Spencer, research by the U.S. Chamber demonstrates that states with right-to-work laws usually have higher rates of economic growth, along with higher rates of job creation and lower rates of unemployment.
But concerns about Arizona’s right-to-work laws being tossed aside is not the only provision of the Pro Act many opponents, including workers, find objectionable.
As written, the PRO Act redefines the long-used criteria to determine who is an independent contractor. It will also restrict the ability of freelancers to have autonomy over their business activities. This could force many workers to be classified as employees, and in many instances those workers would be obligated to choose between paying for union representation or looking for another job.
In addition, the Pro Act’s language does not allow Arizona employees to opt out of having their personal information provided to unions. And the bill will prohibit employee / employer disputes from being addressed via cost-effective arbitration programs. Instead, time-consuming and lengthy litigation, often in the form of class action lawsuits, would be an employee’s only option.
“Employers have concerns about this move, because it is likely to increase the number of class action lawsuits, which are expensive and time consuming for employers and employees alike,” according to a review of the bill by the Snell & Wilmer Law Firm. “Employers with questions or concerns about the effects of the PRO Act should consult with legal counsel for a fuller understanding of its potential impact on their organization.”
On March 5, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and 19 local chambers issued a letter to Arizona’s Congressional delegation explaining why H.R. 842 would not be good for Arizona. The same concerns were shared by Reps. Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar, Debbie Lesko, and David Schweikert who voted no.
The bill is currently assigned to the Senate’s Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. There has been no activity reported by the committee since March 11.
On a 31 to 29 party line vote, the State House passed The Unbiased Teaching Act, also known as SB1532, following a derisive debate during Wednesday’s floor session.
An amendment introduced this week by Rep. Michelle Udall (R-LD25) to a school operations bill bars racist, sexist, and one-sided politicized instruction in Arizona schools, including concepts related to Critical Race Theory. It also allows for civil litigation against teachers, administrators, and other school employees who violate the Act.
Under SB1532, a school district, charter school, or state agency is prohibited from requiring a teacher, employee, or visitor to discuss controversial issues of public policy or social affairs unless the subject is essential to course learning objectives. If a teacher presents a controversial issue, it must be conducted with “diverse and contending perspectives” without deference to any one perspective.
“Political advocacy, propaganda, and biased, one-sided viewpoints taught as fact have no place in a classroom,” Udall said after the vote. “If dealing with a divisive controversial topic, educators should present the subjects in a responsible, balanced way that encourages students to think for themselves and draw their own conclusions.”
SB1532 as amended was transmitted Wednesday to the Senate for a vote. The Republican Senate Caucus only holds a 16 to 14 majority, so getting the bill to Gov. Doug Ducey’s desk will require full Republican support unless some Democrats unexpectedly cross the aisle.
Passage in the Senate, however, is not a sure bet due to statements by Sen. Kelly Townsend (R-LD16) that she will not vote for any further legislation this session until the Senate’s ongoing audit of the Maricopa County 2020 general election is finished.
The Unbiased Teaching Act allows the Arizona Attorney General or the appropriate county attorney to initiate legal action in superior court for an alleged violation of the controversial issues prohibition. If further prohibits requiring a teacher, administrator, or other school employee to engage in training, orientation, or therapy that presents any form of blame or judgement on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex.
Examples of prohibited “blame or judgement” concepts are those which teach one race, ethnicity, or sex is inherently morally or intellectually superior to another; that one person, by virtue of his or her race, ethnicity or sex, is consciously or unconsciously inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive; that an individual should be invidiously discriminated against or receive adverse treatment based solely or partly on his or her race, ethnicity, or sex; or that a person’s moral character is determined by his or her race, ethnicity, or sex.
A judge could impose a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 against a person who knowingly violates the Act or aids in a violation. The bill also permits the Attorney General or a county attorney to bring legal action against any school district or charter schoolteacher, administrator, or other employee, as well as state employee who uses public funds to violate the prohibitions.
Another provision ensures students cannot be required to affiliate with or engage in service learning that involves the student participating in lobbying for legislation at the local, state, or federal level or in social or public policy advocacy.
Also on Wednesday, a party line vote led to House passage of SB1074, which started out as a routine public entity auditing bill before being amended by Rep. Jake Hoffman (R-LD12) with language similar to Udall’s SB1532 amendment.
SB1074 as amended bans the state, state agencies, and political subdivisions such as counties, cities and towns, and community colleges from requiring employees to engage in the same type of training, orientation, or therapy prohibited in SB1532 if it involves presents any form of blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex.
Training related to sexual harassment is specifically excluded from the mandates in SB1074.
When Gov. Doug Ducey pledged $25 million last month to deploy the Arizona National Guard to the Mexico border he did so after the Biden Administration ignored pleas from state and local law enforcement officials to address the influx of immigrants and smugglers making it unhindered across the border.
The governor noted the National Guard troops would be on State Active Duty to assist with medical operations in detention centers, help with installation and maintenance of border cameras, monitor and collect data from the cameras, and analyze the situation at the border to identify trends in smuggling corridors.
The deployment was well received by two border sheriffs -Cochise County’s Mark Dannels and Yuma County’s Leon Wilmot- who spent the last three months trying to get federal authorities to come up with a plan for the escalating public safety threat and humanitarian crisis at and well beyond the international border.
However, Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos has insisted his agency does not need National Guard support even though the county shares nearly 130 hundred miles of border with Mexico. The same “no thanks” approach was expressed by Sheriff David Hathaway of Santa Cruz County.
The difference in the positions of the sheriffs falls across political lines – Dannels and Wilmot are registered Republicans, while Hathaway and Nanos are Democrats.
The same political division is reflected in an April 21 letter signed by one county supervisor from each of the border counties in which they chastised Ducey for not asking for their input about the border situation. The signers -all of whom as Democrats- serve as their counties’ representatives on the Arizona Border Counties Coalition.
“We are disappointed that you failed to consult with the various Boards of Supervisors of each border county on this matter,” the Coalition letter states. “If asked, we would have requested assistance for transportation services, specifically buses and drivers, to provide those transportation services that we are now left to arrange on our own.”
The letter was signed by Sharon Bronson, Pima County; Ann English, Cochise County; Bruce Bracker, Santa Cruz County; and Tony Reyes, Yuma County.
Chief of Staff Mark Napier of the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO) serves as his county’s point of contact with the Arizona National Guard. Last Thursday more than 30 troops arrived in Cochise County to perform a variety of non-law enforcement duties, including working with an extensive camera system utilized by the Southeastern Arizona Border Region Enforcement (SABRE) team to monitor cross-border traffic.
The troops are also providing support in CCSO’s jail and other clerical activities which allows sheriff’s personnel to deal with “other service demands and address the increase in challenges associated with the border crisis we currently face,” Napier explained.
On Friday, Napier told AZ Free News he and Sheriff Dannels had no advance notice that Supervisor English was signing the letter to Ducey, but they do not see the supervisor’s stance about deployment as being in conflict with CCSO’s position that the border crisis “presents a public safety, national security and human rights issue” which must be addressed in collaboration with federal, state, and local partners.
“The letter expresses some frustration over the lack of engagement between the Governor and Supervisors with respect to the deployment of AZNG personnel,” Napier said. “That is a matter between those Supervisors and the Governor.”
Napier added the Coalition’s letter also states border security is a responsibility of the federal government, “which in fact it is.” And the letter does not deny there is a public safety concern related to the current conditions along the border, he noted.
The Coalition’s letter makes no mention of the frequency or cost of transportation services any of the counties have had to provide or arrange for.
