by Daniel Stefanski | Feb 25, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
After vetoing a collection of budget bills last week, Democrat Katie Hobbs was ready to jettison another Republican-led policy as a divided state government remains far apart on solutions to help Arizonans weather the storms of a harsh economy.
Earlier this month, Republicans in the Arizona House and Senate passed legislation that would prohibit “municipalities from levying municipal tax on the business of renting or leasing real property for residential purposes,” sending SB 1184 to Governor Hobbs’ office on the Ninth Floor of the Executive Tower for consideration.
Governor Hobbs vetoed SB 1184, but her veto explanation struck a different tone than the one delivered to legislators after her rejection of their budget. The governor gave the following explanation for her veto: “I appreciate the legislature’s interest in addressing rising housing costs, particularly for renters. Lowering costs for Arizona families is a priority of my administration. Unfortunately, this bill suffers from two important defects at this time. First, this bill lacks any enforceable mechanism to ensure relief will be provided to renters. As noted by the legislature’s own attorney, provisions in the bill that purport to require that tax savings be passed on to renters face challenges under both the state and federal constitutions. If we are going to promise relief to renters, it’s important that we are able to ensure they actually receive it.
Hobbs then addressed the opposition to the legislative proposal from multiple cities and towns, including quotes from John Lewis (the President and CEO of PHX East Valley Partnership Board) and Yuma Mayor Douglas Nicholls (the League of Cities and Towns President), who had both urged the governor to veto SB 1184.
Republicans in the Legislature were not happy with Hobbs’ action to stop their bill from becoming law. Senate bill sponsor, Steve Kaiser, responded to the governor’s veto, saying, “Rent is the costliest expense for hundreds of Arizonans, but Governor Hobbs is clearly not among their ranks. If she was, she would know that in 70 cities across our state, renters see and pay for a rental tax line item on each monthly bill. Senate Republicans offered a substantive plan to fight spiking inflation that Hobbs vetoed. Governor Hobbs inflation plan? A limited tax exemption for diapers and feminine hygiene products. By her own logic used to veto SB 1184, her proposal would be a tax break for grocery stores, not consumers. Grocery stores, just like landlords, collect and remit tax paid for by consumers. Unlike Hobbs, our citizens don’t have the luxury of falling back on the semantics of tax collection, they feel the hurt of onerous taxation in their wallets.”
House Majority Leader Leo Biasiucci tweeted, “Removing the Home/Apartment rental tax would save Arizona renters $100-$200 per year. Yet, Governor Hobbs vetoed the rental tax repeal bill today. This idea that she’s a Governor for the people is now officially a lie! Watch, she’ll veto the grocery food tax repeal bill next!”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Feb 24, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs has had a rocky start to her tenure as Arizona’s newest chief executive, and her personnel decisions and lack of transparency with legislators continue to backfire and frustrate her policy objectives.
Late Wednesday night, news broke that Governor Hobbs’ nomination for the Director of the Arizona Department of Child Safety, Matthew Stewart, was asked to resign. Stewart’s selection to this position was announced by then-Governor-elect Hobbs on December 27, in a press release. Hobbs issued a quote with Stewart’s (and others) introductions, saying, “These are some of the best minds Arizona has to offer, and I am proud that they have chosen to serve the people of Arizona by my side.”
As of this week, though, Stewart will no longer be serving by Hobbs’ side. In a press release, Senator Jake Hoffman, the Chairman of the Committee on Director Nominations, unveiled his understanding of the reasons behind Stewart’s dismissal, including that Stewart “received a letter of reprimand for ‘insubordination and unauthorized absence’ while serving as a DCS Training Operations Supervisor in 2020.”
Hoffman also revealed that Stewart “has also made some questionable moves on consulting contracts,” and had recently “fired non-appointed, openly-gay employees of DCS, who have now filed complaints against him.” This last assertion, Hoffman wrote, “prompted the forced resignation.”
The Director Nominations Chairman did not mince words about the sudden turn of events with Hobbs’ failed DCS nominee, writing, “It is disgraceful that Katie Hobbs either did not conduct a thorough review of Mr. Stewart prior to offering him the position as DCS Director, or she thought she could sweep his history under the rug.” He also touted the value of his committee, saying, “This unfortunate series of events proves precisely why the Senate Confirmation process is so vitally important for the people of Arizona….it seems clear that Hobbs is not conducting her own vetting process, so my colleagues and I will continue to serve as the necessary and constitutional check and balance on the Executive Branch that the citizens of our great state need and deserve.”
Several of Senator Hoffman’s colleagues agreed with his thoughts on this embarrassing episode for the Hobbs’ administration. Senator Anthony Kern tweeted, “Mirroring the disaster of the Biden Administration; Katie Hobbs isn’t nominating appointees because they are qualified to lead our state.”
Senator Justine Wadsack responded, “It’s a good thing the AZ Senate is vetting Hobbs’ Director nominees. Her choice for DCS Director was so bad, she forced him to resign! But she should never have appointed him in the first place! The AZ Senate is taking these Directors seriously, protecting the people of Arizona.”
Governor Hobbs addressed the Stewart news on Thursday, stating, “The Department of Child Safety has a critical mission protecting Arizona’s most vulnerable population, our children. As a social worker, I take the leadership of this agency very seriously, and while I thank Matthew Stewart for his work with the agency over the last month and a half, he will not be moving forward in the cabinet appointment process. Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the Governor, and this is a decision that was made for the best interests of all parties involved.”
Legislative Democrats didn’t have much to say on this latest debacle for Governor Hobbs. The Arizona Senate Democrats Caucus quote-tweeted Senator Hoffman’s press release, saying, “REMINDER: It’s never too late to take us up on our suggestion of a longwinded email sent to the 9th floor…”
Since President Petersen commissioned the Committee on Director Nominations, it has held two meetings, considering four of Governor Hobbs’ nominees to lead state agencies. The panel has voted to recommend two of those individuals, opposed one (who was later rejected by the Senate), and held another one for future vetting. According to Senate sources, Hobbs’ office has only transmitted eleven of her nominees to the state legislature as is her constitutional obligation.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Feb 24, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Both Republicans and Democrats came together this week at the state legislature to enhance protections for Arizona’s children.
The Arizona House overwhelmingly passed HB 2516, which deals with investigations into child abuse cases. 56 legislators voted to send the bill to the Senate against zero detractors. Four House members did not vote.
The full House vote follows two unanimous votes to free the legislation from committees. On February 1, the House Judiciary Committee voted 8-0 to approve the bill, and likewise with the House Rules Committee on February 13.
According to the overview of the bill provided by the Arizona House of Representatives, HB 2516 “adds a forensic interview as an alternative examination method for a child taken into temporary custody due to exigent circumstances involving sexual abuse or serious physical injury.” (“Exigent circumstances exist if there is probable cause to believe that the child is likely to suffer serious harm in the time it would take to obtain a court order for removal and either of the following is true: 1) There is no less intrusive alternative to taking temporary custody of the child that would reasonably and sufficiently protect the child’s health or safety; or 2) Probable cause exists to believe that the child is a victim of sexual abuse or abuse involving serious physical injury that can be diagnosed only by an appropriately licensed physician or health care provider.”)
Representative Parker’s bill “authorizes a person who takes temporary custody of a child due to exigent circumstances involving sexual abuse or serious physical injury to immediately have the child forensically interviewed by a person who is appropriately trained pursuant to statutory protocols, as an alternative to a medical examination.” Currently, “unless the examination (by an appropriately licensed physician or health care provider) reveals abuse, the person must release the child into the custody of the parent of guardian.”
The bill also “changes the definition of a reportable offense by replacing an Arizona statute, which criminalizes providing harmful items to minors by electronic means with another statute, which criminalizes providing harmful items to minors by non-electronic means.”
In an exclusive interview with AZ Free News, Representative Parker explained why she introduced this bill:
“HB 2516 is an example of how important language and wording are in the law. ARS 8-821 was an example of the ‘cart before the horse’ regarding children whom agencies received after a report of child abuse. Well-intentioned laws, not carefully updated, can lead to ambiguity in interpretation. Therefore, bringing the statute into compliance with current professional procedure manuals was paramount. Experienced and trained professionals must first talk to the child in an important forensic interview to determine the appropriate next step.”
Rebecca Baker, Legislative Liaison for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (MCAO), represented the Office in supporting this legislation before the full House vote.
HB 2516 now makes its way to the Arizona Senate chamber – one step closer to a potential signature into law from Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Feb 23, 2023 | Education, News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Republicans and Democrats have generally been divided on ideas to improve Arizona’s public and charter school systems for the benefit of children and their families, but one bill advancing through the state legislature might have a chance at becoming law.
On Tuesday, the Arizona House passed HB 2291, sponsored by Representative David Cook, with a bipartisan 35-25 vote. According to the overview provided by the House, this legislation “authorizes a school district governing board to terminate the superintendent’s employment contract if prescribed criteria are met.” The prescribed criteria in the legislation, that would give the governing board the green light to remove a district superintendent, are if it was “determined by the governing board that the superintendent violated governing board policy; or one or more schools have been assigned a D or F letter grade for at least three years.”
In a release sent out by the House, Representative Cook praised the passage of this bill, saying, “HB 2291 is written to empower local school board members to make decisions that are best for their school districts while being able to protect their limited funding for education that they control. I’m glad to have bipartisan support for this legislation, because making sure that our schools are serving their students and parents is not a partisan matter – it’s something we all believe needs to happen.”
There were four co-sponsors for this legislation – two Democrats and two Republicans. Democrat Representatives Alma Hernandez and Lydia Hernandez co-sponsored HB 2291, along with Republican Representatives Laurin Hendrix and Michele Peña.
Earlier this session, Representative Cook’s bill passed out of the House Education Committee with an 8-2 bipartisan vote, and out of the House Rules Committee with a unanimous 8-0 vote.
The Arizona School Administrators Association, the Arizona Education Association, and the Arizona School Boards Association came out in opposition to this legislation as it was progressing through the Arizona House.
HB 2291 will now be considered by the Arizona Senate.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Feb 23, 2023 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
On Wednesday, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes sidelined Governor Katie Hobbs from the headlines with the release of investigative documents related to the 2020 election – a process started by former Attorney General Mark Brnovich.
Mayes unveiled three sets of documents: the March 8, 2022 Previously Unreleased Interim Findings Summary, the April 1, 2022 Draft of Interim Report with edits and suggestions made by AAGO agents, and the September 19, 2022 Previously Unreleased Investigative Summary. The Washington Post claimed the exclusive story just after 11am EST.
In a statement that accompanied the release of the documents, Attorney General Mayes said, “The results of this exhaustive and extensive investigation show what we have suspect for over two years – the 2020 election in Arizona was conducted fairly and accurately by elections officials. The ten thousand plus hours spent diligently investigating every conspiracy theory under the sun distracted this office from its core mission of protecting the people of Arizona from real crime and fraud.”
When asked by AZ Free News about the information revealed by his successor, Brnovich provided the following response: “I am proud of the work our office did with the election integrity unit that was created by the Arizona Legislature. While subjected to severe criticism from all sides of the political spectrum during the course of our investigations, we did our due diligence to run all complaints to ground. Where we were able to debunk rumors and conspiracies, we did so. Nevertheless, we also identified areas we believe the legislature and county officials should address to ensure confidence in future elections.”
The document dump from Mayes could close the book on a long chapter in Arizona political history – though questions and varying perspectives remain from thousands of citizens about the state of elections in the Grand Canyon State. The saga began with the Arizona Senate’s audit of the 2020 Maricopa County General Election, which lasted several months. On September 24, 2021, Attorney General Brnovich acknowledged that he was in receipt of the Arizona Senate’s draft report regarding the 2020 Election Audit in Maricopa County, stating, “I will take all necessary actions that are supported by the evidence and where I have legal authority.”
From the end of the November 2020 General Election to the transmission of the draft report to the Attorney General’s Office and through the end of his term in office – Brnovich could not please most Republicans or Democrats on the inflamed issue of election integrity – despite his 2021 victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark case Brnovich v. DNC. Former President Donald Trump took repeated aims at Brnovich in attempts to find issues, fraud, or wrongdoing with the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County. Even with immense pressure from countless concerned citizens, elected officials, and candidates for office, though, Brnovich did not take any legal action in response to the Cyber Ninja’s findings contained in the audit report.
Brnovich did, however, deliver an interim report to former-Senate President Karen Fann on April 6, 2022, focusing on what his “office can presently share and the current status” of the
review. In the letter to President Fann, Attorney General Brnovich wrote that the office had “reached the conclusion that the 2020 election in Maricopa County revealed serious vulnerabilities that must be addressed.” Those issues (or vulnerabilities) included “document preservation and production,” “early voting signature verification,” “early ballot drop boxes,” and the “use of private grant monies.”
The interim report also contained several recommendations for the state legislature and an accounting of previous or ongoing actions from Brnovich’s team to “defend election integrity” in Arizona.
The investigation into the Senate’s audit findings was separate from the higher-than-usual number of investigations that the Attorney General’s Election Integrity Unit (EIU) undertook into the 2020 election cycle. According to a document on “prosecutions related to voting or elections since 2010,” approximately half of the listed cases appear to be from 2020.
The Attorney General’s Office, under Brnovich’s direction, had already started to publish findings of its investigation in the months leading up to the transfer of power to Mayes. On August 1, 2022, Brnovich sent another letter to President Fann, alerting legislators that his office had “concluded our criminal investigation related to deceased voter allegations,” finding that “only one of the 282 individuals on the list was deceased at the time of the (2020) election.”
Legislative Democrats took the disclosure of investigative documents to counter their Republican colleagues’ attempts to enhance election integrity protections for future elections. The Arizona Senate Democrats Caucus tweeted, “Maybe we should stop hearing all those #BIGLIE bills in the #AZSenateElections committee now?”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Terri Jo Neff | Feb 22, 2023 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
The City of Flagstaff can be forced to pay the State of Arizona more than $1.1 million for enacting a minimum wage that is significantly higher than the state wage, according to an Arizona Court of Appeals opinion released Tuesday.
But whether the State gets to keep the money will be determined once a Maricopa County judge conducts a trial on the matter.
Back in 2006, Arizona voters approved Proposition 202 which allows cities and towns to set their local minimum wage, as long as it is not below the state level. Flagstaff did just that in 2016 with the passage of a local voter initiative.
The Arizona Legislature passed a new law in 2019 which allows the State to collect yearly assessments from any municipality with a minimum wage that exceeds the State’s. The assessment entails a detailed process involving state agencies estimating their costs “attributable” to the higher minimum wage.
Each assessment must be approved annually by another act of the legislature, after which the Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA) is required to issue an assessment to the municipality by July 31.
Any impacted municipality then has until the end of the calendar year to remit payment or the Arizona Treasurer must withhold the amount with applicable interest from the municipality’s share of tax revenues.
In the Flagstaff case, the state agencies were asked by the Legislature in 2019 to calculate their “projected costs attributable to Flagstaff’s higher minimum wage” in their 2021 budget estimates. That amount was calculated at $1,110,992, based on Flagstaff’s $15 per hour minimum wage effective Jan.1, 2021.
The Arizona hourly minimum at the time was only $12.15.
The $1.1 million Flagstaff assessment was approved by the Legislature via Senate Bill 1827 on June 30, 2021 and signed the same day by then-Gov. Doug Ducey. ADOA then advised city officials the assessment would be formally issued 90 days later, well after the July 31 deadline.
In the meantime, city officials filed a lawsuit, challenging the 2019 statute as well as the 2021 Senate Bill, arguing both were unconstitutional under the Voter Protection Act (VPA). The effective date of the assessment also plays a big role in the lawsuit.
Without opining on Flagstaff’s constitutional arguments, a Maricopa County trial judge quickly issued a preliminary injunction to prevent the State from enforcing the assessment while the lawsuit is being litigated.
The judge primarily relied on the belief at the time that the June 2021 assessment did not take effect the day it was signed into law, thus making ADOA’s plan to collect the money 90 days later untimely.
The trial judge also briefly noted he was granting the preliminary injunction “out of an abundance of caution” as Flagstaff officials had argued about the “possibility of irreparable harm” with funding critical services if forced to pay the $1.1 million.
The Arizona Attorney General’s Office appealed the preliminary injunction order, arguing on behalf of ADOA and Treasurer Kimberly Yee that the Maricopa County judge made multiple errors to support issuing it. And in a Feb. 21 opinion, the Court of Appeals agreed.
The opinion authored by Acting Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe noted the trial court erred in considering Flagstaff’s irreparable harm argument under the set of facts as they are in the case. Howe added that the city had sufficient funds to cover the assessment, and could have gotten the fund back if the State lost the lawsuit.
As a result, Howe was joined by Judge D. Steven Williams and Vice Chief Judge David B. Gass in overturning the preliminary injunction and sending the case back to the Maricopa County Superior Court “for a trial on the merits.”
The opinion also strongly suggests the trial judge consider a 2022 ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court (Ariz. Free Enter. Club v. Hobbs) in which the justices clarified that revenue laws proving “for the support and maintenance” of “existing state departments or state institutions” are valid upon enactment instead of taking effect at a later date.
If applied to SB1827, that would have allowed ADOA to issue the assessment to Flagstaff in plenty of time to meet the July 31 deadline.
The Court of Appeals also unanimously declined a request from the parties for the judges to weigh in on some other key legal issues with the case, including whether the 2019 statute allowing for assessments of costs to cities like Flagstaff “impliedly amend the VPA, violating Arizona’s constitution.”
Howe wrote that the court of appeals “sits as a court of review, not of first view,” and would not decide the merits of the case without the benefit of having a fully developed record from the trial court.
“While the parties are understandably eager to resolve this case as quickly as possible, quickness must not eclipse thoroughness,” Howe wrote. “We respect the role of the trial court and trust in its competence to resolve all legal and factual matters before it in the first instance.”
The opinion does not take effect for at least 30 days, giving both sides time to petition for review by the Arizona Supreme Court.
As of Jan. 1, 2023, Flagstaff’s minimum is to $16.80 per hour ($14.80 tipped) while the state minimum rose to $13.85.
Terri Jo Neff is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or send her news tips here.
