Just hours after a judge slammed the door on their legal challenge to two State Senate subpoenas, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors announced they will not appeal a court order requiring them to comply with the election-related subpoenas.
“Judge [Timothy] Thomason’s ruling brings clarity to whether Senate subpoenas apply to ballots that, per state law, must be kept private following an election; as well as the many other documents and equipment demanded,” Board Chairman Jack Sellers said in a statement. “We respect his legal opinion and will immediately start working to provide the Arizona Senate with the ballots and other materials.
The ruling by Thomason that the subpoenas issued in January “are legal and enforceable” made it clear that the Senate and its soon-to-be-announced auditor must not only be given access to Maricopa County’s electronic voting system -computers, software, tabulators- but also the more than 2 million ballots cast in the 2020 General Election.
“The Subpoenas comply with the statutory requirements for legislative subpoenas,” Thomason wrote in his detailed, 16-page finding. “The Senate also has broad constitutional power to oversee elections. The Arizona legislature clearly has the power to investigate and examine election reform matters. Accordingly, the Senators have the power to subpoena material as part of an inquiry into election reform measures.”
In his statement, Sellers also noted that Maricopa County elections officials have already turned over more than 11GB of election-related data demanded in the two subpoenas issued by Senate President Karen Fann and Senate Judiciary Chair Warren Petersen. And it didn’t take long for legislators to react to the county’s no-appeal decision.
“County said they needed a court order to comply with the subpoena. They got it,” Petersen tweeted after Thomason’s clerk released the detailed ruling to the parties. “Election integrity wins today.”
News of Thomason’s ruling that the Senate’s subpoenas served a legitimate legislative purpose and did not violate separation of powers principles was also well received by former Sen. Eddie Farnsworth. It was Farnsworth who along with Fann issued two subpoenas back in December that Maricopa County’s five-member board also ignored.
Instead of complying with the Fann / Farnsworth subpoenas, the county board sued the Senate and later decided to do its own post-election audit of the electronic voting system without participation by any of the legally-authorized political party observers.
“It is unfortunate that the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors’ incessant delaying tactics and smoke and mirrors audit in contempt of the legislature’s legal authority has cost Arizona citizens so much time, money, and trust,” Farnsworth said Friday. “Hopefully, the Senate, through a true forensic audit, can restore some confidence in the election system.”
YUMA – On Friday, Rep. Tim Dunn called out the Biden administration for their policy of releasing detained immigrants into southern Arizona communities, which include Yuma.
According to data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), in January, more than 5,700 unaccompanied minors crossed the border, up from 4,850 in December and 4,500 in November.
On Thursday, a CBP staffer reportedly told top Biden administration officials to expect a peak of 13,000 unaccompanied minors to cross the border in May — the highest level ever, according to the New York Post.
Then Biden admitted on Friday that thousands of unaccompanied children were coming and are expected to come across the border as part of migration surge.
Those migrants are being released into many of the communities Dunn represents. In fact, the Yuma Sector of the U.S. Board Patrol has apprehended over 8,600 illegal immigrants this fiscal year, up from 4,400 the previous year.
Dunn says the Biden policy has led to “burdensome challenges of adhering to COVID-19 guidelines at facilities, as well as to house a growing number of individuals here illegally.”
Latest reports show over 240 releases in the past few weeks.
“President Biden’s irresponsible policy to release immigration detainees freely into the community is already having predictable negative results,” said Dunn in a press release. “This is particularly the case in Yuma and other southern border counties who are left to manage the consequences. With Yuma County having one of the highest rates of COVID-19 in the state, our hospitals and city services are overwhelmed and could put care for Arizonans in jeopardy.”
“The Biden Administration needs to take responsibility for the consequences of its damaging policies,” continued Dunn. “I call on U.S. Senators Mark Kelly and Kyrsten Sinema in Washington to work on our behalf to ensure the federal government is testing the immigrants it releases and provides us the appropriate financial resources to cover other costs being incurred.”
PHOENIX – Some find it hard to believe that a law was necessary, but the Covid epidemic has limited the access clergy members have had to the sick and dying. As a result, the Arizona House of Representatives stepped up and approved HB 2575, legislation requiring that hospital visitation policies facilitate the ability of clergy to visit patients for religious purposes, including during a pandemic.
In an end-of-life situation, hospitals would have to facilitate in-person clergy visitation regardless of the time of day, thanks to the bill sponsored by State Representative Quang Nguyen.
The bill was supported by Dignity Health, Center For Arizona Policy, Arizona Catholic Conference, and Health System Alliance Of Arizona.
“I’ve heard many troubling stories over the past year of people left to die alone in a hospital, unable to receive in-person spiritual care,” said Representative Nguyen. “Pandemic or not, it’s simply wrong to deny patients and their families the spiritual comfort and support they need during such a difficult time. This legislation makes sure that won’t continue to happen.”
Under HB 2575, clergy members are required to comply with all reasonable health and safety precautions imposed by hospitals when interacting with patients. The bill also contains an emergency clause, which means it would take effect immediately, if passed and signed into law.
The bill now moves to the State Senate for consideration.
On Wednesday, the Arizona Senate passed SB 1377 in a bipartisan vote, a bill that offers protection from litigation for businesses and others who act in “good faith” to implement reasonable policies to protect their customers, clients, and patients.
The bill, sponsored by Sen. Vince Leach, is considered “a critical piece of legislation” by large and small business organizations, who hope to open fully now that important COVID-19 metrics have dropped dramatically in the state.
DATA UPDATE:
Arizona’s number of ICU beds in use by #COVID19 patients decreased to 430. The number of ventilators in use by COVID-19 patients decreased to 253. 1/ pic.twitter.com/ILX4Uid14d
Specifically, SB 1377 establishes “civil liability standards for specified acts or omissions during a state of emergency for a public health pandemic.” The standards would be established retroactively to March 11, 2020. March 11, 2020 is the date Gov. Doug Ducey declared a state of emergency due to COVID-19.
“Small business owners were crushed by the pandemic lockdown, and now face the prospect of enduring years of frivolous litigation by trial lawyers looking to cash in by blaming the spread of Covid on employers,” said Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. “SB 1377 would provide much needed legal protection to small business owners so that they are not sued for simply trying to stay open during the current crisis.”
The sponsor introduced the bill to ensure a presumption that any person or “provider” acted in good faith to protect a customer, student, tenant, volunteer, patient, guest or neighbor, or the public from injury or loss through reasonable attempts to comply with rely on published guidance issued by a federal or state agency in connection to a public health pandemic.
1. Precludes from liability for damages, during a public health pandemic state of emergency declared by the Governor, a person or provider who acts in good faith to protect a customer, student, tenant, volunteer, patient, guest or neighbor, or the public (litigant), from injury from the public health pandemic for injury, death or loss to person or property that is based on a claim that the person or provider failed to protect the litigant from the effects of the public health pandemic, unless it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the person or provider failed to act or acted and the failure to act or action was due to that person’s or provider’s willful misconduct or gross negligence.
2. 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.
3. Applies the standard for liability to all claims that are filed before or after the general effective date for an act or omission by a person or provider that occurred after March 11, 2020, and that relates to a public health pandemic that is the subject of the state of emergency declared by the Governor.
4. Exempts claims for workers compensation from the outlined liability standard.
5. Defines provider as:
a) a person who furnishes consumer or business goods or services or entertainment;
b) an educational institution or district;
c) a school district or charter school;
d) a property owner, property manager or property lessor or lessee;
e) a nonprofit organization;
f) a religious institution;
g) the state or a state agency or instrumentality;
h) a local government or political subdivision, including a department, agency or commission of a local government or political subdivision;
i) a service provider;
j) a health professional; or
k) a health care institution.
Health Professionals and Health Care Institutions
6. Precludes from liability for damages, during a public health pandemic state of emergency declared by the Governor, a health professional (professional) or health care institution (institution) that acts in good faith in any civil action for an injury or death that is alleged to be directly or indirectly the professional’s or institution’s action or omission while providing health care services in support of the state’s response to the state of emergency, unless it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the professional or institution failed to act or acted and the failure to act or action was due to that professional’s or institution’s willful misconduct or gross negligence.
7. Applies the outlined limited liability to any action or omission that occurs:
a) during a person’s screening, assessment, diagnosis or treatment and that is related to the public health pandemic that is the subject of the state of emergency; or
b) in the course of providing a person with health care services and that is unrelated to the public health pandemic that is the subject of the state of emergency if the professional’s or institution’s action or omission was in good faith support of the state’s response to the state of emergency, including:
i. delaying or canceling a procedure that the professional determined in good faith was a nonurgent or elective dental, medical or surgical procedure;
ii. providing nursing care or procedures;
iii. altering a person’s diagnosis or treatment in response to an order, directive or guideline that is issued by the federal government, the state or a local government; or
iv. an act or omission undertaken by a professional or institution because of a lack of staffing, facilities, equipment, supplies or other resources that are attributable to the state of emergency and that render the professional or institution unable to provide the level or manner of care to a person that otherwise would have been required in the absence of the state of emergency.
8. Establishes a presumption that a professional or institution acted in good faith if the professional or institution relied on and reasonably attempted to comply with applicable published guidance relating to the public health pandemic that was issued by a federal or state agency.
9. Allows a party to introduce any other evidence that proves the professional or institution acted in good faith.
10. Applies the standard for liability to all claims that are filed before or after the general effective date for an act or omission by a person or provider that occurred after March 11, 2020, and that relates to a public health pandemic that is the subject of the state of emergency declared by the Governor.
11. Exempts claims for workers compensation from the outlined liability standard.
Under the legislation, a provider is defined as a person who furnishes consumer or business goods or services or entertainment, as well as an educational institution or district, school district or charter school, property owner, property manager or property lessor or lessee, a nonprofit organization, a religious institution, a state or a state agency or instrumentality, a local government or political subdivision (including a department, agency or commission), a service provider, a health professional, or a health care institution.
Anyone wishing to claim an “injury, death or loss to person or property” based on a failure to protect the litigant from the effects of the public health pandemic must be able to show the person or provider acted with “willful misconduct or gross negligence.” The liability protection also includes inactions which are alleged to have caused harm.
A bill that would allow many municipalities and counties to “assess” hotels and other transient lodging businesses up to $5 per room per night to fund a tourism promotion agency was defeated Tuesday on the House Floor but it can be reconsidered within 14 days after a last minute motion for reconsideration passed by voice vote.
Currently the Arizona Office of Tourism (AOT) is responsible for promoting and developing tourism in Arizona under the supervision of a director who is appointed by the governor. The duties of the AOT include conducting a marketing campaign on the attractions of the state, as well as promoting Arizona via state, national and international media.
However, HB2161 would allow cities, towns, and counties to adopt a resolution to form a Tourism Marketing Authority (TMA) to be funded by a new “assessment” against rooms used for transient lodging (less than 30 day stays). A local TMA would be run by a “recognized” 501c6 nonprofit tourism promotion agency
The TMA could only be formed upon signed approval of the owners of at least 67 percent of the transient lodging rooms within the boundary of the proposed TMA, meaning a transient lodging property could be forced into the TMA even if they don’t wish to participate. The bill calls for all of the per room, per night assessments to be distributed to whatever entity is contracted to run the TMA.
If no recognized non-profit is available in an area, then the tourism promotion office of one of the member municipalities or county could be contracted to manage the TMA. HB2161 does not provide for the already established, taxpayer-funded Arizona Office of Tourism to have any oversight of the TMA operations.
While many tourism promotion groups support the bill, questions were raised during committee and floor discussions about the need to create a business-funded entity that would be responsible for promoting tourism in a certain area without substantial public control or oversight.
HB2161 calls for each TMA to be governed by the board of directors of the tourism promotion agency and at least one person from one or more of the municipalities or county. The only concession in the bill to concern about public oversite is that TMA board meetings would have to comply with public meeting and public records laws.
Groups such as the Arizona Tax Research Association and Republican Liberty Caucus of Arizona oppose the bill, while cities such as Mesa, Scottsdale, and Surprise have taken a neutral position.
The Tourism Marketing Authority created by the bill would terminate after 10 years unless the legislature approves a onetime 10-year renewal.
Sheriff’s deputies across Arizona will be able to practice law or form a partnership with an attorney-at-law if House Bill 2763 becomes law, but first the bill has to make it out of the House Rules Committee on Tuesday.
The state’s 15 sheriffs and their deputies, along with all constables and their deputies, are currently prohibited from practicing law. They are also prohibited by statute from forming any type of partnership with an attorney.
HB2763 as initially introduced by Rep. Kevin Payne (R-LD21) would have removed all those prohibitions. However, the House Committee on Military Affairs & Public Safety chaired by Payne amended the bill last week to put the prohibition back in place only for sheriffs, constables, and constable deputies.
That would leave deputies working for the 15 county sheriff’s offices with a new career path or investment opportunities, especially now that the Arizona Supreme Court allows nonlawyers to have ownership of or an investment interest in a for-profit law firm.
The supreme court also approved a new category of licensee -a Legal Paraprofessional (LP)- who can represent clients in court in matters of administrative law, family law, debt collection, and landlord-tenant disputes. LPs may also be granted limited jurisdiction for some other civil matters as well as criminal matters.
It’s unclear what position the Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training (AZPOST) board takes on Payne’s legislation, which could lead to questions of conflict of interest and financial motivation.
If HB2768 clears the Rules Committee it still has to clear the full House and then the Senate before getting to Gov. Doug Ducey.
