The Arizona State Fair Board voted this week to temporarily relocate the State Fair to a new location for 2021. The Board’s decision will allow the fair to proceed later this year.
The Arizona State Fair is an annual event that draws more than one million guests.
Since last year, the State Fair has been a key location for mass testing and vaccine distribution. This temporary relocation allows the fair grounds to continue to be available for public health needs in an underserved area of our community.
Last fall, the State Fair was canceled due to COVID-19, prompting an offer from the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) to host the 2021 fair on the Wild Horse Pass Development Authority (WHPDA).
The Governor’s Office in its announcement, said the “area is larger than the size of the State Fairgrounds in Phoenix, allowing for appropriate social distancing and other public health mitigation measures.”
“The Arizona State Fair is a beloved annual tradition for countless Arizona families,” said Governor Ducey in the announcement. “This gracious offer by the Gila River Indian Community and today’s decision by the Arizona State Fair Board ensures that another year won’t pass without a State Fair.”
Earlier this month, the Arizona Board of Psychologist Examiners failed in their attempt to punish a psychologist seeking her license under the universal licensing law.
Dr. Carol Gandolfo applied to practice after the landmark legislation passed in April 2019. The board denied Gandolfo’s application, as well as four others. They claimed that Gandolfo didn’t qualify under the law because she’d moved to Arizona before the law was enacted. Since she didn’t qualify for the protections of the universal licensing law, the board used old licensing standards to claim that her degree was insufficient because it wasn’t from a regionally-accredited school.
The Goldwater Institute stepped in on Gandolfo’s behalf to fight the board. This caused the board to reverse its decision on how they’d interpreted the law in her case and the four others. However, the board decided it wasn’t done with Gandolfo.
The board opened up an investigation in a furthered attempt to deny her a license. They characterized Gandolfo’s volunteer activities with groups like law enforcement and first responders as unlawful. In doing so, they accused her of practicing without a license.
However, those accusations didn’t stick. After some months of investigating into Gandolfo, the board submitted a nonpunitive letter acknowledging that Gandolfo didn’t engage in any wrongdoing.
Now, nearly two years after initial passage of the law, Gandolfo has been cleared to receive her license to practice.
The Goldwater Institute issued a statement on the board’s decision to close their complaint.
“At a time when more Arizonans are in need of mental health services, the Board should focus on allowing respected professionals to provide those services,” stated the Institute. “The Board’s decision today allows Dr. Gandolfo to get back to providing the care she is trained and experienced to provide, and it assures other Arizonans that they can practice their professions free from arbitrary restraints of occupational licensing boards.”
Licensing boards have proved to be a double-edged sword for businesses. Proponents for expanded boards focus on the potential protections it can offer the consumer by preventing inadequate, harmful, improper, or dangerous practices, they argue.
Proponents for limited boards – or, no boards at all in some cases – argue that they stymie healthy competition, which also impacts the cost to both consumers and businesses. They also argue that they establish barriers between an individual and their profession.
Just before the onset of the COVID-19 nationwide health emergency last February, the Goldwater Institute noted that over 750 businesses benefited from the new universal licensing law. In June – several months into the pandemic – nearly 1,200 individuals gained their Arizona license under the law.
At the time of that report, several hundred other individuals had filed their applications. Only 16 were rejected out of all those who filed. 12 of those rejected applications had nothing to do with credentials, however. The individuals merely failed on the technicalities of residency requirements. A board official clarified that those applicants weren’t ultimately considered rejections because they reapplied for a standard license.
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
On Thursday, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey announced his decision to lift the state’s restrictive COVID-19 measures. The governor cited the declining case rates and number of vaccinated Arizonans as reasons the measures are no longer necessary.
Ducey’s order still allows businesses to enforce mask mandates if they want, but cities, towns and counties must lift theirs.
According to the Governor’s Office, “3,041,773 doses of COVID-19 vaccine had been administered to 1,927,278 individuals in Arizona, including 1,185,986 who have been fully vaccinated.”
There has also been 10 weeks of declining cases, and hospitalizations at the lowest level since the end of September.
Under the changes announced on Thursday:
Events of more than 50 people will no longer need the approval of local governments. These events should continue to follow safe practices and CDC recommendations, including physical distancing. This includes youth sports.
The business guidance will transition from requirements to recommendations. Governor Ducey is providing businesses with the ability to continue requiring masks and social distancing.
Bars will now be allowed to resume regular operations, with the ability to require social distancing and masks.
“As we’ve said all along, distribution of the vaccine is our best path to getting back to normal, and I want to thank the millions of Arizonans who have rolled up their sleeves to make the distribution and uptake so successful,” said Ducey in a press release. “In Arizona, we never did a shutdown, so it’s impossible to have a grand reopening. Instead, we are continuing to take reasonable, safe and sensible steps. The measures put in place last summer allowed Arizona to fight back COVID-19. I want to thank the local leaders who supported these efforts with their own measures, and the businesses who implemented them. Today, we are in a different spot, and we are also a lot smarter. I’m confident Arizona’s businesses and citizens will continue to practice the fundamentals and act responsibly as we gradually get back to normal.”
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.”
A bill further regulating K-12 sex education courses moved closer to full passage on Wednesday. In a 6-4 party-line vote, the House Judiciary Committee determined that parents should have a greater say in what their kids learn when it comes to sex education.
The bill would require school boards to give parents advance notice of the education, acquire signed and written parental consent, as well as inform parents about their rights to opt into the course and review the materials and activities.
Currently, parents must opt their child out of the instruction. And, gender identity and gender expression weren’t included as topics requiring parental consent – just sexuality.
The bill would also limit schools from offering sex education, AIDS, and HIV instruction until students are in the fifth grade.
If passed, schools would have until December 15 of this year to change their courses to comply with the new law.
In the event that schools are modifying or drafting sex education courses thereafter, all corresponding committee meetings and proposed curriculum must be made public. The community would have 60 days and at least two public hearings to weigh in on the proposed curriculum.
The bill specified that schools aren’t required to offer sex education instruction.
For charter schools that do wish to teach about AIDS or HIV, they must ensure that the curriculum will be grade-level appropriate, medically accurate, promoting abstinence, discouraging drug use, adn dispelling myths about transmission. These schools would also be granted the ability to have the Arizona Department of Health Services or Arizona Department of Education (ADE) to review the materials.
Only four committee members voted against the bill: César Chávez (D-Phoenix), Melody Hernandez (D-Tempe), Diego Rodriguez (D-Phoenix), and Domingo Degrazia (D-Tucson).
Committee members Walter Blackman (R-Snowflake), Mark Finchem (R-Oro Valley), Beverly Pingerelli (R-Peoria), Russell Bowers (R-Mesa), and Quang Nguyen (R-Prescott Valley) voted in favor of it.
Senate Education testimonies from those urging passage of the bill asserted that parental rights are being violated daily, and that parents know what’s best for their children. They cited examples of schools telling parents and children that sex education classes are mandatory, refusing to share curriculum materials with parents, and circumventing parental notification on the implementation of new curriculum like “Genderbread.”
The ACLU argued that the bill violates the Equal Protection Clause, saying that LGBTQ students’ rights would be threatened. Other teachers testifying concurred.
During the final vote in the Senate, Democratic opposed empowering parents to choose whether their children received exposure to certain sex education courses.
Juan Mendez (D-) likened the negative commentary around parents’ lack of knowledge on the materials within school sex education courses as “scare tactics.”
“[S]tudents are going to hear and learn all about this stuff whether or not parents want them to. So, do you want it to happen alone on the internet? Or, in the safe embrace of a school setting with comprehensive, medically-accurate sex education?” asserted Mendez. “We should be providing youth with opportunities to increase their knowledge, explore values, and develop positive skills. Any of that would do so much to mitigate interpersonal violence and dating violence.”
State Senator Sally Ann Gonzalez (D-) accused the bill of targeting LGBTQ students, and limiting teachers and administrators from creating safe, inclusive environments. She went so far as to claim it could violate Title X and the Constitution, therefore opening up the state to legal battles.
“This bill is a sweeping bill that impacts the ability of teachers to speak about a wide range of issues impacting all students,” stated Gonzalez. “Everyone has a gender identity and a sexual orientation, so this bill would – could inhibit the profession of everyone’s experience of gender and romantic relationships in the world.”
State Senator Jamescita Peshlakai (D-) dismissed the examples provided by XX as an exception to the rule – a few, one-off incidents of the very worst types of education presented to students, not the norm.
The Senate passed the bill in a close, party-line vote on March 3.
Corinne Murdock is a contributing reporter for AZ Free News. In her free time, she works on her books and podcasts. Follow her on Twitter, @CorinneMurdock or email tips to corinnejournalist@gmail.com.
On Tuesday, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed legislation that will allow victims of human and sex trafficking to take civil action against their perpetrators and anyone else who contributes to their abuse.
Representative Shawnna Bolick introduced HB2116 which received unanimous legislative support. HB2116 stipulates that:
A person who engages in the trafficking of another person or a person who benefits from participating in a venture that traffics another person is liable to the person trafficked for damages that arise during the trafficking period.
Acquittal, no prosecution or criminal conviction, or conviction of a different offense or of a different type or class of offense do not qualify as a defense to liability.
Subjects corporations, associations, and partnerships to liability.
A claimant who prevails will be awarded actual damages and may recover additional exemplary damages.
Any person found responsible for any amount is jointly liable with any other person found to be liable for the entire amount of damages.
If a legal entity is found responsible for trafficking, a shareholder, partner, or member of that entity is jointly and severally liable if the shareholder, member, or partner was found to have personally benefited from the trafficking.
There is no statute of limitations for a victim to bring forward a private action.
Previously in Arizona, human and sex trafficking were only addressed in criminal statutes. Victims could not take civil action against their perpetrators in state court.
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in the United States, both U.S. residents and foreign nationals are being bought and sold like modern-day slaves. The Bureau says traffickers use violence, manipulation, or false promises of well-paying jobs or romantic relationships to exploit victims. Victims are forced to work as prostitutes or to take jobs as migrant, domestic, restaurant, or factory workers with little or no pay.
“What we are seeing is that there is a ton of activity, there are a ton of people being bought and sold for sex in our community,” Dominique Roe-Sepowitz, Director of Sex Trafficking Intervention Research at Arizona State University, said last April, adding that the traffickers “are being more violent” and are “more likely to be carrying a weapon.”
