A bill that was widely supported by Arizona law enforcement and passed out of committee with broad bipartisan approval met a partisan crowd when it arrived for a vote in the full State House of Representatives.
HB 2485, sponsored by Representative Kevin Payne, would enhance sentencing for convicted criminals who ambush police officers in the line of duty. According to the overview of the legislation provided by the Arizona House, this bill “increases the penalties for aggravated assault on a peace officer if the defendant is found to have lain in wait for or ambushed the peace officer while committing the assault.” The bill requires that “a person who is convicted of aggravated assault on a peace officer, and found to have lain in wait for or ambushed the peace officer in committing the assault, be sentenced to two years more than what would otherwise be imposed for the assault.”
This piece of legislation seemed like a slam dunk for passage out of the Arizona Legislature, but the final clearance from the House of Representatives was anything but. All but one Democrat voted against HB 2485, with Representative Amish Shah not voting. All Republicans voted to send the bill to the Senate.
Freshman lawmaker Cory McGarr noted the shocking vote against a bill designed to protect members of Arizona’s law enforcement community, writing, “All of the Dems voted against protecting police from AMBUSH. Might want to call your Democrat representative and ask why only Republicans voted to protect police.”
All of the Dems voted against protecting police from AMBUSH.
Might want to call your Democrat representative and ask why only Republicans voted to protect police. pic.twitter.com/uhlNWnin87
The result of the vote on the House floor was unlike the actions out of House committees earlier in the legislative process. When the bill was heard before the Committee on Military Affairs and Public Safety (MAPS) – chaired by the sponsor, Representative Kevin Payne, it passed with an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote; 13 members voted yes, one Democrat voted no, and another Democrat was recorded as present. Representative Sun, who voted no on the bill in committee explained that she had pause on supporting the bill because the “definition of ambush is very vague,” and she was concerned about “further criminalizing our constituents and adding to our privatized prison system.” HB 2485 cleared the House Rules Committee with a unanimous 8-0 vote.
Several representatives of the Arizona law enforcement community testified in support of the bill before the MAPS Committee. Don Isaacson, on behalf of the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police (Arizona State Lodge), relayed the endorsement of HB 2485 from the 10,000 police officers who comprise his organization. The key for Mr. Isaacson and his police officers was the change from “optional” enhancement for convictions of ambushing a police officer to “mandatory.” Rebecca Baker, the Legislative Liaison for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office also testified in favor of the bill; as did Joe Clure, the Director of the Arizona Police Association, who made clear that it’s important to send a clear message to those who ambush police officers will be dealt with “harshly and firmly.”
But the most convincing testimony in front of the House MAPS Committee came from the President of the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police, Paul Sheldon, who has served for more than 23 years as a police officer. He expressed regret that this legislation was even necessary – especially since there was a time in his career, where these types of crimes against police officers were extremely rare. However, he noted that last year was the deadliest year for law enforcement in more than twenty years. He told the committee that 21 Arizona police officers were shot in the line of duty in 2022, and 16 of those were ambush attacks. Two of those ambushed officers died in the line of duty.
HB 2485 now heads to the Arizona Senate for its consideration.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
The number of Arizona children poisoned by cannabis ingestion has more than quadrupled since the state legalized recreational marijuana.
Last year, there were 394 pediatric cases of cannabis poisoning; 60 percent of those required a hospital visit. This year-over-year spike in poisonings prompted the Arizona Dispensaries Association (ADA) and the Arizona Poison Centers to create a partnership to raise awareness. One of the campaigns will work to place signs in dispensary windows containing a QR code guiding consumers to the ADA website with information and education about safe cannabis usage.
Steve Dudley, Director of the Arizona Poison and Drug Information Center, claimed that increasing public education and encouraging safer storage of cannabis products would lead to a reduction in these types of poisonings.
“Thankfully we know that with proper education and safe storage we can dramatically reduce these exposures and hospitalizations,” said Dudley. “We must do a better job at distinguishing toxicity from regulated products purchased at dispensaries and unregulated products from the black-market including spice and delta-8 THC.”
Yet, other states to legalize marijuana in recent decades haven’t seen increased public awareness make a dent in the ever-rising number of child cannabis consumption.
Colorado has similar regulations to prevent children from consuming cannabis products: barring the manufacture of edibles in the shape of a human, animal, or fruit; requiring sales in child-resistant packaging; prohibiting the words “candy” or “candies” on cannabis product packaging; prohibiting cartoon characters in cannabis product advertising; and requiring the inclusion of the universal THC symbol on all packaging and stamped on all edible products.
Colorado’s Marijuana Enforcement Division indirectly admitted in an interview with KHN that these regulations do little to curb the increasing number of children ingesting cannabis products.
“When asked whether the mandates are effective, [Colorado Marijuana Enforcement Division spokesperson Shannon] Gray said the Marijuana Enforcement Division has ‘observed material compliance with these regulations’ among marijuana businesses,” stated KHN.
For children, marijuana results in problems walking, sitting up, and breathing; some develop seizures. The CDC declared that child marijuana poisonings have increased wherever marijuana has been legalized. Colorado’s marijuana exposures nearly doubled the year after they legalized it, 2015; these numbers reflected a five-fold increase from 2009. In 2021, the Maricopa County Poison Control Centers reported 163 pediatric cannabis poisonings, 108 of which warranted hospital admission or emergency treatment, compared with 86 reported poisonings in 2020.
The CDC warned that children are more susceptible to the brain-damaging results of marijuana: memory, learning, attention, decision-making, coordination, emotion, and reaction time.
The CDC also notes that long-term or frequent marijuana use has been linked to psychosis or schizophrenia.
According to America’s Poison Centers (APC) National Poison Data System (NPDS), the nation’s warehouse for the nation’s 55 poison centers, there were over 7,000 children under 5 exposed to cannabinoid in 2021, over 2,300 from ages 6-12, and nearly 4,700 from ages 13-19.
Arizona legalized recreational marijuana in November 2020 through Proposition 207, which included guardrails that were supposed to prevent these pediatric poisonings: requiring manufacturers and dispensaries to use child-resistant packaging and banning the sale of cannabis products in the form of gummy worms and gummy bears. Yet, the number of pediatric poisonings has steadily increased.
Ninth Circuit Court Judge Roopali Desai authored the ballot initiative summary for Prop 207 while she was a lawyer in Phoenix. The Biden administration nominated her to the court last year.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Home sellers and landlords may no longer refuse potential homebuyers or tenants based on their source of income. Those who dare to do so may face up to $2,500 in daily fines. If the city attorney takes action on the violations, the court may issue a $50,000 fine for a first violation and $100,000 for subsequent violations.
The ordinance mainly offers assurance of guaranteed housing for those who rely on government assistance to acquire housing, such as Section 8 participants. Those eligible for Section 8 housing vouchers include those who are homeless or low income.
The ban even received support from Councilman Sal DiCiccio, often the odd vote out on controversial council issues. DiCiccio was the first to put the proposed ban on the agenda, according to Mayor Kate Gallego.
However, DiCiccio noted that he was voting in favor of the ban only in spirit, not physically, since he gave his word to realtors that he wouldn’t support banning income discrimination for homebuyers.
DiCiccio said income discrimination was a form of institutionalized racism.
“People know I don’t use the race card, I just do not, unless I believe it’s true,” said DiCiccio. “I looked at it more when it came to dealing with the Homeowners Associations who create deed restrictions. Deed restrictions are made to keep people out, not keep people in.”
DiCiccio said that he sees these kinds of gatekeeping even within his own community, which is a majority white, liberal community.
“I was shocked by it. I live in a mixed household myself, and I feel very strongly about it. Diversity does improve your community, it just does. It’s an important factor in our lives. You want as many people around you that have differing viewpoints, differing ideas, different looks,” said DiCiccio. “[Source of income discrimination] is a type of institutionalized racism that I have strong concerns over.”
According to DiCiccio, the Arizona Multihousing Association (AMA) said they would sue the city over this ban. DiCiccio said that the AMA should be ashamed for considering that response. The AMA represents the apartment industry in the state, with over 2,000 members.
“I would be embarrassed if I were them, to threaten to sue the city of Phoenix after what we’ve done for them over the years and taken the lead on,” said DiCiccio. “My plea to you: don’t embarrass yourself.”
Courtney Gilstrap LeVinus, AMA president and CEO, said in a statement to reporters that these kinds of policies would only make the housing crisis worse. LeVinus was critiquing a proposed bills from State Rep. Analisa Ortiz (D-LD24) that would ban income discrimination (HB2085), prohibit landlords from evicting for partial rent payments (HB2083), and allow rent caps (HB2086).
“[These policies are] curtailing the rights of property owners, making it more difficult for companies and mom-and-pop owners to stay in business and to provide homes for individuals and families,” said LeVinus.
Instead, LeVinus proposed reducing bureaucratic rules to improve homebuilding speeds.
“We need to slash away layers of bureaucracy and fight the rampant NIMBYism that makes building new homes such a slow, torturous process,” said LeVinus. “Doing so would address the housing crisis, not make it worse, and help ensure the Arizona economy continues on a steady upward trajectory.”
DiCiccio further claimed that institutions exist which actively discriminate against people attempting to get housing based on the color of their skin.
“A lot of individuals that are poor or people of color in particular are locked out of certain areas. They just are. Either it’s an affordability issue, or you’ve got this institutionalized type of programming in place that does not allow them in there,” said DiCiccio. “I think that’s just sick, personally. I think people should have the ability, freedom to be able to go into those communities that they want to move into. That’s how God made us, they gave us the free ability to move.”
Vice Mayor Yassamin Ansari said that over 15,000 residents were on a waitlist for affordable housing assistance.
“We need to do everything in our power to ensure that our residents have access to adequate housing and that are actually able to utilize the programs that are intended to help them, like Section 8, disability, and others,” said Ansari.
Ansari criticized the state legislature for supporting income source discrimination, mainly referring to the Republican legislators leading an effort to prevent hotels and motels from being required to accept housing vouchers from the homeless. The vice mayor said that the legislators should be spending their time increasing funds for affordable housing projects.
“It’s time for the legislature to do its job so Phoenix can do its job to ensure housing affordability,” said Ansari.
Councilwoman Betty Guadardo said she empathized with the activists present at Wednesday’s council meeting. The councilwoman equated modern income discrimination with the discrimination that people faced during the Civil Rights Era, when homebuyers were discriminated against based on the color of their skin. A large group of activists showed up to speak in favor of the income discrimination ban.
“Discrimination has no place in the city of Phoenix,” said Guadardo.
Guadardo confirmed that the city of Phoenix was following the example of the city of Tucson, which banned landlords from discriminating against potential tenants’ source of income last September.
Ordinances have a 30-day wait period; however, the council is awaiting an opinion letter on the subject from Attorney General Kris Mayes. Should the opinion letter be unclear or unfavorable, then the city would have to reconcile any legal issues before enacting the ordinance. Councilwoman Laura Pastor expressed concern that the legal obstacles would leave the city without the capacity to enforce the ordinance.
“I have been briefed that there is a possibility that we don’t have the capacity to enforce it,” said Pastor.
City Manager Jeff Barton speculated that there may not be enough city staff to enforce the ordinance. However, Barton couldn’t say for sure.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
For over a decade, Arizona Legislative Republicans have not had to worry about a governor who may be inclined to use executive actions to unnecessarily regulate businesses around the state. They’re now advancing a bill to protect businesses in their districts from any new regulatory overreach that could be coming from the new Democrat Chief Executive on the Ninth Floor of Arizona’s Executive Tower.
This week, the Arizona House passed HB 2254, sponsored by Representative Justin Wilmeth. The bill “requires a proposed rule that will increase regulatory costs in excess of $500,000 within two years after implementation to be ratified by the Legislature,” according to the overview provided by the State House. 31 Republicans voted for the legislation, opposed by 27 Democrats. Two Democrats did not vote (Representatives Stacey Travers and Amish Shah).
Representative Wilmeth issued the following statement after his bill’s party-line passage in the House: “Burdensome regulations can lead to higher prices, fewer small businesses, and fewer jobs. HB 2254 says legislative approval would be required before high-cost rules could be implemented by the state. Executive agencies would have to get buy-in from the Legislature before they could move forward with major regulations. It will increase government accountability by strengthening oversight on unelected bureaucrats and help keep government regulations in check.”
✅House Approves Legislation by State Representative @JustinWilmethAZ to Restrict Regulatory Government Overreach.
Earlier last month, HB 2254 passed the House Government Committee with a partisan 5-4 vote and the House Rules Committee with a unanimous 8-0 vote.
Republican Legislators did not have to take precautions when it came to protecting Arizona businesses from the heavy and onerous hand of state government during the previous administration. Former Governor Doug Ducey led the way for the Grand Canyon State and the nation by “eliminat(ing) or improv(ing) over 3,365 regulations since 2015 – the equivalent of a $183 million tax cut.”
Representatives from the Sierra Club – Grand Canyon Chapter, AZ Solar Energy Industries, and WM E Morris Institute for Justice opposed the bill’s passage through the House process. Stephen Shadegg from Americans for Prosperity Arizona supported this legislation.
HB 2254 now heads to the Arizona Senate. If it clears that chamber, it will await its fate at the hands of a governor who will have to decide whether to voluntarily allow a Republican-led legislature to hold her regulatory actions accountable to their oversight.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A powerful Senate Committee Chairman is encouraging Arizona’s Democrat Governor to show some urgency when it comes to re-nominating an individual to lead the Department of Child Safety (DCS), and he may have a solution as her office considers its next move in the matter.
On Thursday, Senator Jake Hoffman, Chairman of the Committee on Director Nominations, sent a letter to Governor Katie Hobbs, transmitting a letter his panel had received “from a coalition of frontline child welfare advocates and providers ‘respectfully requesting consideration for the reinstatement of former DCS Director Mike Faust.’” Senator Hoffman echoed “the pleadings of these dedicated child welfare professionals” in his own letter to the governor.
"The Department of Child Safety and our state's most vulnerable children deserve nothing less than proven experience to be expeditiously returned to that agency." pic.twitter.com/6pyeRx2il0
The letter that the Committee on Director Nominations had received was from a group of 21 individuals, representing licensed Group Home providers, bringing “well over 200 years of child welfare experience in Arizona.” The coalition wrote that “we share a mutual and tremendous respect for the past performance of former Director Faust and appreciate his rigor in holding all our agencies accountable when needed.” They praised Faust’s character, stating, “He is a man of his word and his transparency allowed for effective planning. Although his decisions were not always universally embraced, he could be trusted and he is a man of high moral character and integrity.”
It appears the Governor’s Office received the letter as well.
The coalition requested that the governor consider reinstating Faust to his past position of DCS Director.
Hoffman wrote in his accompanying letter to the governor that he believed “the coalition’s request to be a wise and prudent course of action” for Arizona. He also revealed that he had recently touched base with Faust “about his willingness to serve in this important role once again,” and that the former DCS Director “would be willing to discuss with (Hobbs) the possibility of his returning to lead the agency.”
The Director Nominations Chairman promised a “swift confirmation process should Mr. Faust be nominated to return in his role as the agency’s Director.”
All sides have admitted the importance of this agency and installing a competent individual who will do the work required on behalf of Arizona’s most vulnerable children. After Hobbs’ initial appointee, Matthew Stewart, was forced out of the nomination process by her office, she stated that DCS “has a critical mission protecting Arizona’s most vulnerable population, our children.” Chairman Hoffman wrote in his letter that “there are few executive agencies in Arizona as important as the Department of Child Safety.” And the coalition writing to Governor Hobbs asserted that “leading an agency of nearly 3,000 employees charged to protect and serve over 10,000 children is a daunting task that requires a unique and dedicated leader.”
The ball is now in the Governor’s Office when it comes to taking action on a vacant nomination for DCS Director as vulnerable Arizona children await direction and leadership from the state agency tasked with protecting their interests.
Hoffman’s committee, which was commissioned by Senate President Warren Petersen, has so far held two meetings to consider four of Governor Hobbs’ nominees for key positions in state agencies. The Committee on Director Nominations voted to recommend two of the individuals it has vetted, voted against recommending another, and held the fourth for future considerations. Governor Hobbs has been slow to transmit her nominations to the Arizona Senate for consent as is her constitutional obligation. The failed nomination last month of Matthew Stewart for DCS Director occurred independently of the committee process.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Republicans at the Arizona Legislature are looking out for taxpayers’ interests, and one beleaguered group is in their sights.
On Wednesday, House Speaker Ben Toma and Senate President Warren Petersen sent a surprising and blunt letter to the Executive Director of the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), warning that litigation is “reasonably likely” over concerns that NAAG may not be “complying with Arizona public money laws.”
Toma and Petersen outlined some of the justifications for their concerns, including the recent reporting “that NAAG lost at least $37 million last year on a panoply of investments in things like private equity and foreign stocks. The legislative leaders also highlighted the reports “that NAAG utilized assets from public settlements to secretly support ESG-linked investments and to fly Attorneys General and their families on European holidays.”
— Arizona House Republicans (@AZHouseGOP) March 2, 2023
According to the letter (which pulled from several press reports), “NAAG has amassed over $250 million in assets from public enforcement settlements, which include Arizona public monies.” Toma and Petersen assert that “NAAG is subject to the duties and liabilities set forth under Arizona law for custodians of public moneys, that public monies cannot be appropriated without legislative authorization, and that investments must comply with Arizona law.” Their letter states “it appears that NAAG has been operating outside the lines, and the result is millions in public money lost on ESG investments, foreign stocks, and trips to Europe, while millions still sit in the hands of an unaccountable bureaucracy in Washington, D.C.”
Toma and Petersen write, “The situation is unacceptable and not consistent with Arizona law. It is time that Arizona’s laws and regulations start applying to NAAG and that this unaccountable slush fund activity stop now.”
The letter from Toma and Petersen follows a series of actions taken against NAAG in the past two years – mostly by Republican Attorneys General. A handful of Attorneys General took steps to sever their state’s relationships with NAAG, while several other states highlighted their significant concerns with NAAG in attempts to force necessary change. Former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich was one of the top cops running for the exit doors with NAAG, following Alabama, Texas, Missouri, and Missouri. Three former attorneys in the Arizona Attorneys General Office under Brnovich just recently became employed by the State Senate and House in the past few months.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall was the first officeholder to break away from NAAG back in 2021. He said at the time, “I can’t justify spending taxpayer dollars to fund an organization that seems to be going further and further left. With the money we will save, I can add a young lawyer to my consumer protection division and yield a far better return on the taxpayer’s investment.”
The Alliance for Consumers organization cheered Arizona’s latest move this week, tweeting, “Kudos to Arizona! The @NatlAssnAttysGn should be held accountable for recklessly spending taxpayer dollars on their woke agenda.”
— Alliance For Consumers (@for_consumers) March 2, 2023
After receiving the letter, NAAG had a short comment in response: “NAAG has received the letter from the Arizona Legislature. We are working with our Executive Committee of attorneys general on the matter and will present it to our membership.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
