On Thursday, the Arizona State Senate approved HB 2770, dubbed the mask “Freedom Bill,” sponsored by Rep. Joseph Chaplik. The bill asserts a business is not required to enforce a state, city, town, county or other jurisdiction’s mask mandate on the businesses’ premises.
BREAKING NEWS! HB 2770, the mask freedom bill just passed the Senate. Not one Democrat voted for it. They hate freedom. Now it goes to Ducey. Thanks Rep @JosephChaplik. pic.twitter.com/cPVxpR0EXc
“The need for this bill now is more evident than ever,” said Chaplik. “Recent developments show that without a protection in law, businesses and their customers are subject to the decisions of local rogue politicians who want to control you indefinitely. This bill did not receive any Democrat votes throughout the entire process. I would hope the Governor signs this bill as it does exactly what his temporary executive orders do, but now permanently.”
The bill will now be transmitted to Governor Ducey.
On June 17, 2020, the governor issued Executive Order 2020-40 authorizing a county, city or town, based on conditions in the jurisdiction, to adopt policies regarding the wearing of face coverings in public for the purpose of mitigating the spread of COVID-19.
We appreciate what the governor did today in making mask enforcement optional for businesses.
That is exactly what my bill, #HB2770 was written to do, but long term.
The local mandates were a divisive policy without any data to back them up.
A bill proposing to strengthen election integrity was withdrawn from a Senate committee this week, after passage in the House. It was introduced by State Representative Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek).
The bill would have prohibited any government officials from changing election-related dates, on the threat of a class 6 felony. Specifically, no state officers or agents, political subdivisions, or agencies could modify deadlines, filing dates, submission dates, or any other statutory election dates.
Class 6 felonies are the least harsh of all felonies, and may entail a year’s prison time.
The bill passed the House in a close, party-line vote 31-29.
An amendment to the bill would provide an exception to the proposed bill if a court ruling were to come into play. However, it would prohibit election officials from agreeing to modify deadlines and other election-related dates as part of a settlement agreement.
Last year, the state saw a spike of over 52,000 voters added to the rolls after an 18-day extension for voter registration. The initiative was cut short after a federal appeals court ordered the extension to end over a week early. Even with the order, the court allowed citizens a two day grace period to continue registering.
The challenge to the extension largely arose from the additional burdens that such an extension caused to local election officials. The extension would have allowed voters to register up to a little more than one week out from Election Day. In the past, election officials had nearly a month before the election to process registrants.
Currently, the state is pending an audit for the 2020 election. The audit would focus on Maricopa County, where The Senate hired four companies to review around 2.1 million Maricopa County ballots. Last November, the Senate issued subpoenas for all county ballots and voting machines for another audit. A federal judge ruled that the county didn’t have to comply with that request, since the Senate had improperly filed it.
Once the Senate refiled, legislators and county officials engaged in a heated battle over transparency. The judge quickly ruled on the side of the Senate.
It is unclear the reason for the bill’s withdrawal. Following the 2020 election, Hoffman was banned from Twitter and Facebook.
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.
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
PHOENIX – House Bill 2111, dubbed the Second Amendment Firearm Freedom Act, is headed to Governor Doug Ducey’s desk. The Arizona Senate passed the bill in 17-13 bipartisan vote on Tuesday.
The Act, sponsored by Representative Leo Biasiucci (R-5), prohibits state, county, and local governments from using resources to implement or enforce federal actions that are inconsistent with Arizona law regarding the regulation of firearms.
The Arizona Constitution prohibits the impairment of the right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of the person’s self or the state. This does not authorize individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of people (Ariz. Const. art. 2 § 26).
“Arizona stands with law-abiding gun owners,” said Biasiucci in a press release. “The Second Amendment guarantees vital liberties, just like the First Amendment protects the freedom of speech and the Fourth Amendment prevents unreasonable searches and seizures. If the zealous gun-grabbers in Washington try to disarm citizens in the name of political posturing, we’re not going to allow it in Arizona.”
HB 2111 was passed by the House in a party line vote in February.
On Tuesday, the Arizona Senate is expected to vote one more time in favor of SB1377, a bill introduced by Sen. Vince Leach (R-LD11) to protect a wide range of businesses, government entities, and other organizations against liability for claims of negligence related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
SB1377 initially passed the Senate last month with a minor amendment. It cleared the House on Monday on a 31 to 29 vote after another amendment. But because the House added yet another amendment to the bill, it must go back to the Senate for the caucus to concur or refuse the change, which is expected to be accepted Tuesday.
The bill would then be sent to Gov. Doug Ducey, who appears ready to sign it, thus establishing a new standard for COVID-19 related liability claims retroactive to March 10, 2020.
After Monday’s House vote, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce tweeted a thank you to the 31 representatives who voted for the bill. “This bill ensures frontline healthcare providers, businesses, schools, and other entities are extended commonsense liability protections that will help us get back to work,” the tweet said.
The legislation addresses liability claims involving a public health pandemic under a state of emergency declared by a governor. It protects any person or provider “who acts in good faith to protect a customer, student, tenant, volunteer, patient, guest or neighbor, or the public” from liability during a pandemic for an injury, death or loss to person or property based on a claim that the person or provider failed to protect against the public health emergency.
SB1377 establishes a presumption that a person or provider acted in good faith if the person or provider adopted and implemented “reasonable policies related to the public health pandemic.” No definition, however, is provided for what constitutes reasonable policies.
Those covered by the legislation as a provider include a person who furnishes consumer or business goods or services or entertainment; an educational institution, district, or charter school; a property owner, property manager or property lessor or lessee; a nonprofit organization; a religious institution;
the state, a state agency, or instrumentality; any local government or political subdivision, including all departments or commissions; a service provider; a health professional; or a health care institution.
A key feature of Leach’s bill is a change in the type of alleged acts or omissions which someone can pursue damages for related to the pandemic. It removes simple negligence as being actionable and would require a plaintiff to meet the criteria for gross negligence or willful misconduct.
Opponents argue the legislation creates unnecessary hurdles for Arizonans seeking legal redress and that business owners, government officials, and healthcare professionals will escape responsibility for death, injuries, and other harms by blaming faulty or careless decisions on the pandemic.
Even those lawsuits which clear the gross negligence or willful misconduct threshold may not be able to meet the second significant change SB1377 makes to civil liability standards.
Currently a jury is asked to determine if a plaintiff has proven a claim by the “preponderance” of the evidence, a standard based on whether something was more likely or not to have occurred. But SB1377 raises that to a higher standard of “clear and convincing” evidence.
Among those who oppose SB1377 are the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, Arizona Trial Lawyers Association, and Arizona Center for Disability Law. A constitutional challenge is expected if the bill becomes law based on provisions which make it harder for Arizonans to initiate legal action.
The most controversial provision of SB1377 relates to nursing care or residential care institutions.
An amendment added Monday puts the burden of proof on such institutions which wish to argue that a claim for an act or omission involving care not directly related to the public health pandemic should be mitigated because the institution had to treat other patients for the pandemic or that the institution experienced limitations of staff or equipment as a result of the pandemic.
Supporters of SB1377 include several insurance companies, as well as the Alliance of Arizona Nonprofits, Arizona Auto Dealers Association, Arizona Bankers Association, Arizona Board of Regents, Arizona Healthcare Association, Arizona Medical Association, Arizona Restaurant Association, and the County Supervisors Association of Arizona.
