A bill which would prohibit companies, as well as a state, county, or local government entity from requiring anyone except public school students to prove vaccination status in order to shop, obtain medical services, or receive government aid is on hold while Senate Republicans decide whether to move the bill forward.
Under HB2190, a company conducting business in Arizona would be prohibited from refusing to provide everyday services, transportation, or admission because a person does not divulge whether they have received a particular vaccine. The bill also prohibits a state, county, or local government entity or official from offering anyone a special privilege or incentive to receive a vaccine.
Sponsored by Rep. Bret Roberts (R-LD11) and Sen. Kelly Townsend (R-LD16), HB2190 cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee, the Rules Committee, and the Democrat Caucus last week. However, it has been held up in the Republican Caucus since April 1 due to two issues, AZ Free News has learned.
First, some legislators would like to see the bill amended to ensure certain types of employers can question employees about their vaccination status. Second, a provision of the bill would limit Gov. Doug Ducey’s power to order vaccination of persons diagnosed with, exposed to, or expected to be exposed to certain diseases.
According to Arizona Revised Statues 36-787, a governor can mandate the treatment, vaccination, isolation, and quarantine of persons when there is an occurrence or the imminent threat of smallpox, plague, viral hemorrhagic fevers or “a highly contagious and highly fatal disease” with transmission characteristics similar to smallpox.
HB2190 would revoke the governor’s authority to impose any vaccination requirement during such a public health emergency, but Ducey has been resistant to any attempts by the legislature to diminish his state of emergency powers.
The Senate is expected to reconsider HB2190 later this week. If it passes the Senate it must make it out of the House one more time before being sent to Ducey.
Arizona is not the only state where the question of a vaccination passport is receiving attention. The state of New York is currently sponsoring a smartphone app which can store the user’s COVID-19 vaccination or testing status, although it’s unclear how many companies -and which industries- may wish to utilize such a feature.
In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis has already addressed the “vaccination passport” option by issuing an executive order banning businesses in the state from demanding proof of any vaccination in order to receive service. He has also banned local and state agencies from requiring or even issuing such a document.
Similar opposition is growing in Arkansas and Texas.
In addition, the World Health Organization recently took a position against the use of vaccination passports for international travel, citing “critical unknowns” about the effectiveness of the vaccines and the ability to verify the authenticity of the information. The possibility of vaccination passports is also of concern for the ACLU.
“Any immunity passport system endangers privacy rights by creating a new surveillance infrastructure to collect health data,” the ACLU has said. “It is one thing for an employee to voluntarily disclose their COVID-19 status to an employer on a one-off basis. But it is another for that information to be collected and retained, either by the government or by private companies offering immunity certifications.”
To secure enough votes to ensure about half of Arizona’s legislators receive what they say is a much needed increase in their travel and meal per diems, the other half needed to get something too.
That appears to be the tradeoff agreed to for securing enough votes for a striker bill, HB2053, introduced by Sen. David Gowan (R-LD14). The bill passed the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, and if signed by Gov. Doug Ducey would provide a long sought after adjustment to the daily subsistence payment rates (aka per diems) for legislators who live outside Maricopa County.
Gowan’s bill brings the current $60 per diem for non-metropolitan area legislators in line with what federal employees receive in the same type of travel and lodging situation: $207 per day, $151 for lodging and $56 for meals. And every time federal employees see their travel per diems adjusted, the same would happen for Arizona’s legislators.
Wednesday’s vote came during a meeting chair by Gowan who lives in Sierra Vista on the southwest side of Cochise County. He has a one-way commute of nearly three hours to cover about 190 miles to Phoenix, about the same distance Sen. Lisa Ontondo (D-LD4) has to drive from her home in Yuma.
But to get enough votes from Maricopa County area legislators, Gowan and other rural lawmakers had to promise significantly higher per diems for legislators who currently receive $35 a day for meals and drive home each night. That promise came in the form of the same $56 a day meal allowance.
Those per diems will be paid out every day the legislature is in regular session or special session, even for weekends and holidays when nothing is happening at the Capitol. And the bill contains a provision which declares HB2053 to be an emergency measure “necessary to preserve the public peace, health or safety and is operative immediately as provided by law.”
That emergency designation allows the new per diem rates to kick in upon Ducey’s signature, assuming the governor does not veto the legislation like he did in 2019 when presented with a different rate plan.
Arizona’s 100-day legislative session runs from January to April, with most committees not meeting on Fridays nor the weekends. The statutory base salary for a legislator is $24,000, an amount which can only be increased by voters, who have approved only two legislative salary hikes in the last four decades.
The Gilbert Public School District’s recent notice that 152 teachers, school counselors and nurses, and administrators will be without jobs for the 2021-2022 school year may have upset the staff, but issues with the district’s falling enrollment and worsening financial situation is nothing new.
In a letter sent last week to all staff, Superintendent Dr. Shane McCord noted “it is imperative that student needs remain at the center of our decision-making, and that we remain fiscally responsible to ensure the long-term success of our students, our employees, our schools, and our district as a whole.”
Earlier this month the Arizona Auditor General issued a District Spending Report which noted Gilbert Schools had a projected student enrollment of 33,360 at the beginning of the 2020-2021 school year across 39 schools in Chandler, Gilbert, and Mesa. That enrollment represented a six percent decrease from five years before, even though population within the district’s boundaries has grown.
But in December, the district’s governing board was informed that the 2020-2021 budget -based on 33,360 students- had to be revised for an actual enrollment of less than 29,000. In fact, the nearly 3,900 fewer students resulted in a revenue reduction of $26 million, Assistant Superintendent Bonnie Betz said at the time.
“Statewide, there’s been a 40,000-student loss across the state,” Betz said. “The pandemic has had a significant impact on enrollment statewide.”
Some former Gilbert Schools students went to other districts or charter schools between July 2020 and December 2020, but even the larger Mesa Public Schools announced 3,500 fewer enrolled students during that same period. And the Arizona Department of Education recently announced that statewide enrollment for preschoolers and kindergarteners dropped off more than 40 percent over the last year.
Such decreases are expected to continue, contrary to hopeful claims by some within Gilbert Schools who believe enrollment will recover in the upcoming school year through an increase in primary grade students.
“While some parents of kindergarten and first grade students delayed the enrollment of their children this year in order to spare them the uncertainty created by the pandemic, the Gilbert district’s last minute decision-making has created an atmosphere of distrust that sent parents looking elsewhere,” one parent told AZ Free News.
It appears a majority of those students went into homeschool programs, which became popular -and in many instances necessary- for parents in response to districts kept changing their educational offerings during the pandemic.
Reaction from some teachers and legislators to McCord’s decision has pointed to the fact that the Gilbert Schools could have decreased class sizes instead of laying off teachers, even though the Arizona Auditor General report shows the district’s student to teacher ratio currently stands at 17.5 to 1, below the state average.
Voters in the Gilbert District approved a $100 million bond in 2019 to help build two new schools. There was also a 15 percent property tax override approved to help reduce class size and attract / retain teachers.
That doesn’t count the $2.3 million in federal funds passed along by the state to Gilbert Schools under the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund covered by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Or the $9.7 million of ESSER II funds awarded to the district under the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations (CRRSA) Act in late 2020.
But with fewer enrolled students the district is not getting as much of that money as expected, which has been further exasperated by state education officials who decided to fund distance learners at a lower rate than in-person students.
If enrollment numbers rebound for the next school year then those who were not offered positions will be able to reapply.
“Gilbert Public Schools, along with many other school districts, faces a reduced number of students going into the next school year following the global pandemic. Decisions like this are not easily made, and as a school district, we greatly value all of our employees and their contributions. We continue to make every effort to increase enrollment for next year and it is our hope that many students lost during this pandemic will return to our schools over the next year.” – Gilbert Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Shane McCord
The attorney for more than 100 bars and saloons across Arizona is declaring victory in a decision issued Wednesday by the Arizona Supreme Court that a recent executive order by Gov. Doug Ducey resolved a dispute about restrictions placed on some liquor license holders which shuttered many businesses for months.
The March 24 order dismissed an appeal filed by attorney Ilan Wurman on behalf of his clients who own Series 6 and Series 7 liquor licenses who alleged Ducey’s executive orders, specifically EO 2020-43 were unlawful. The lawsuit had also challenged operational guidelines issued Aug. 10 by the Arizona Department of Health Service (ADHS).
Most Series 6 & 7 licenses are used to operate smaller, family owned bars which were disproportionally impacted by Ducey’s executive orders last year. EO 2020-43 kept many closed while other liquor-serving establishments were allowed to remain open.
The supreme court’s order notes Ducey issued a EO 2021-05 on March 5, rescinding capacity or occupancy limits in place under a previous executive order. However, EO 2021-05 did not come right out and say all other executive orders related to operation of liquor-related businesses, such as EO 2020-43, were obsolete.
The supreme court took care of that, Wurman says, in its order finding that the bar owners’ appeal of a legal challenge against Ducey is now moot because EO 2021-05 will govern in the event of conflict with other executive orders and removes any distinctions between how Series 6 & 7 licensees and other businesses can operate.
According to Wurman, the supreme court’s order is “a huge win” for his clients.
“A case is moot if the Plaintiffs have obtained all the relief they seek,” he said. “The Court’s ruling is that the new EO (2021-05) rescinds any contrary guidelines that limit capacity. Further, they interpret it to prohibit discrimination against series 6s. Therefore, bars can now open and operate on the same terms as anyone else.”
As a result, Wurman is advising his clients that they can “open up 100 percent.”
“That is the only interpretation of the Supreme Court’s order that would actually render this case moot,” he said, adding that if Ducey, ADHS, or the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses & Control disagrees with how the Supreme Court evaluated EO 2021-05, “it is incumbent upon them promptly to issue new guidance clarifying what restrictions still apply specifically to bars.”
Citing the imperative to disrupt criminal organizations, the law enforcement officials who benefit most from Arizona’s civil forfeiture statute are pushing back on a bill introduced by Rep. Travis Grantham (R-LD12) which seeks to make it harder for the government to seize assets from people never charged with a crime.
Currently an owner of a seized property has the burden to prove the asset was not used in connection to an illegal activity, instead of that burden being on the entity seeking forfeiture. Any misstep in complying with a complicated challenge process can permanently void someone’s right to the property without ever having a hearing.
HB2810 would shift some of that burden onto the government entity seeking forfeiture and give owners more time to fight a forfeiture action. The Arizona Criminal Justice Commission has taken a neutral position on Grantham’s bill, as has Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich.
However, supporters -which include American Friends Service Committee, Arizona Chapter of the Institute for Justice, Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Barry Goldwater Institute for Public Policy, and Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice- have put forth data showing that a large number of people named in civil forfeiture efforts were never arrested.
In some instances, the owner of the property was never even suspected of a committing a crime, such as a parent whose adult child bought or sold drugs while driving the parent’s vehicle.
Grantham’s bill cleared the House on a 57 to 2 vote and unanimously passed the Senate Committee on Judiciary on March 11. It is slated to be considered by the Senate Rules Committee on Monday, but it is opposed by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, several municipalities, and the presidents of the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police and the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police.
Many arguments against HB2810 cite concerns that making it harder for law enforcement agencies to pursue civil forfeiture will stymie efforts to disrupt criminal operations such as the cartel. Others argue it would be more difficult to seize assets from someone believed to be profiting from criminal activity, even if the person is not directly engaged in that activity.
But Grantham argues that a “conviction first” process needs to be added to the civil forfeiture law to protect all Arizonans’ property and due process rights.
“In our country, if we’re going to do something that hurts one innocent person just because it gets ten bad ones, we’re doing it wrong, because we’re innocent until proven guilty in this country,” he said.
Other statistics in support of HB2810 show half of all cash forfeitures in Arizona had value of $1,000 or less, making it impractical to hire an attorney to get the asset returned. That leaves law enforcement agencies and prosecutors as the primary benefactor of civil forfeiture, and many of those routinely include a budget line item for expected revenues.
One person who would likely find Grantham’s bill of interest is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who has spoken out against the growing use of civil forfeiture in America.
“This system—where police can seize property with limited judicial oversight and retain it for their own use—has led to egregious and well-chronicled abuses,” Thomas wrote in 2017. “These forfeiture operations frequently target the poor and other groups least able to defend their interests in forfeiture proceedings.”
This is not the first time Arizona legislators have tackled the issue of civil forfeitures. In 2017, Gov. Doug Ducey signed bi-partisan legislation which was seen as long overdue reforms including a requirement that agencies keep better records of what is seized, when it is seized, and disposition of the seized property.
The law also raised the standard of proof for civil forfeiture proceedings from a preponderance of the evidence -which was simply showing something was more likely to be than not- to the higher standard level of clear and convincing proof.
“And because the law-enforcement entity responsible for seizing the property often keeps it, these entities have strong incentives to pursue forfeiture.” – U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, 2017.
