by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Apr 16, 2021 | Opinion
By The Free Enterprise Club |
It’s been an interesting couple of weeks to say the least. In the wake of severe distrust of the U.S. election system, multiple states throughout the country have been seeking to pass reasonable laws that protect our election process. You would think that’s something everyone could get behind.
But not the liberal media and the left. They would rather tell one lie after another, all to push their “big lie” that these bills are somehow voter suppression. The pressure from the woke left resulted in Major League Baseball moving its All-Star Game from Atlanta after Georgia passed its new voting laws. And even here in Arizona, multiple business leaders have taken a public stand against several election integrity bills.
Perhaps they should’ve checked in with voters first.
A poll conducted late last week by the Free Enterprise Club and Heritage Action shows that bipartisan majorities support sensible reforms that strengthen Arizona’s election laws.
The poll found that more than 80% of Arizona voters support requiring all voters to provide identification in order to vote, with 70% strongly supporting this requirement. Even a large majority of Democrats, 69%, support the idea of requiring all voters to provide ID prior to voting.
But there’s more.
Since there is a difference between asking about general support for election integrity laws and support for specific legislation, we decided to poll two specific bills being considered by the legislature. Both of these bills have been labeled “extreme” by the media and left.
The first was SB 1713, legislation that would require voters that vote by mail to include additional identification when voting. When asked if they would support this new requirement, 63.7% of Arizona voters said they would, including large majorities of Republican and Independent voters.
The other bill we asked voters about was SB 1485, legislation that would remove a person from the early voter list who does not vote by mail in 2 consecutive primary and 2 consecutive general elections from the early vote-by-mail list unless they return a notice within 30 days from the county indicating they would like to remain. Not surprisingly, a majority of voters support this reform as well.
So, shouldn’t lawmakers listen to the people by passing reasonable election reforms? After all, that’s why they were voted into office. Unfortunately, these widely popular bills may be stopped if the corporate media and Democrats get their way.
For example, Sen. Quezada (D-LD29) has already threatened the people of Arizona with losing the 2023 Super Bowl if SB1713 and SB1485 are signed into law. And inflammatory rhetoric such as “voter suppression” and “Jim Crow” is being regurgitated by liberal politicians and activists on a regular basis.
Enough is enough. It’s time for Arizona lawmakers to stand up to the woke bullying and threats and do what’s right. The vast majority of Americans support voter ID laws and election integrity reforms. They want an election system that makes voting both accessible fraud proof. And they understand that voter ID laws and clean voter rolls help make that happen. That means passing SB 1713 and SB 1485.
by AZ Free News | Apr 16, 2021 | News
PHOENIX — This week, Governor Doug Ducey signed Senate Bill (SB) 1451, legislation which expands workers’ compensation for diseases presumed to be a result of Arizona’s firefighters and fire investigators’ job demands and requirements.
The bill strengthens the presumption that a firefighter’s cancer diagnosis is work related thereby ensuring that more firefighters are eligible for worker’s compensation and can spend more time focusing on their health and family and less time fighting with cities and insurance companies for their benefits.
This bill also protects female firefighters and fire investigators by adding breast cancer and ovarian cancer to the list of qualifying cancers to ensure that they have access to the same benefits and protections as their male co-workers.
Previously, to qualify for the presumption, a firefighter or peace officer must have passed a physical examination before employment that did not indicate evidence of cancer, been assigned to hazardous duty for at least five years, and documented with the department an exposure to a known carcinogen that is reasonably related to cancer. Firefighters were burdened with identifying exactly when and where they were exposed to a carcinogen that caused their cancer, which is why SB 1451 removes that specific requirement.
by AZ Free News | Apr 14, 2021 | News
Arizona has filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration the garbage left behind by individuals crossing the U.S. Mexico border illegally. The Attorney General’s Office says it is suing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for violating the National Environmental Policy Act.
The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) alleges that the immigration policies of the Biden administration are “destructive.” immigration policies. The AGO is asking the U.S. District Court in Arizona to void the decisions to stop border wall construction and the “Remain in Mexico” policy until the federal government complies with its obligations under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
In its complaint, the AGO argues that DHS and other federal officials did not provide environmental impact statements or environmental assessments when DHS abruptly halted ongoing border wall construction and also began permitting entry of additional migrants by ending the “Remain in Mexico” policy.
Biden, in one of his first official actions on January 20, 2021, ordered the halting of ongoing construction of miles of border wall, leaving what the AGO an area residents claim are “haphazard and unplanned gaps between physical barriers,” which they say encourage “widespread illegal migration.”
Ranchers are concerned as well about the abandoned machinery and fencing that has been standing idle and eventually metals will leach into the water table and cause health issues for grazing cattle.
by Terri Jo Neff | Apr 13, 2021 | News
By Terri Jo Neff |
What to do with Arizona’s $350 million or so surplus has a lot of legislators pulling out their calculators and trying to figure out how best to spend the money, and whether to implement Gov. Doug Ducey’s proposed permanent tax cuts.
Among the leading contenders for allocating the surplus funds to increase some public health and healthcare spending, increasing funds for higher education, and addressing the state’s unemployment situation. One issue likely to be front and center is what consideration should be given to COVID-19 relief funds received from the federal government in deciding how to divvy up the surplus.
The Finance Advisory Committee will meet Thursday at Noon to discuss this year’s budget process. But two ideas for using the state’s surplus to change Arizona’s tax system are already gaining momentum.
One option is to convert the state to a flat income tax, something that would likely need to be transitioned to over a two to three year period. A sales tax is an example of a flat tax, where everyone pays the same percentage.
It is an idea popular this year among Republican legislators, with heavy support from House Majority Leader Ben Toma, Sen. J.D. Mesnard, and Rep. John Kavanagh. However, coming up with a plan that can receive enough votes will be a challenge, given that legislators have differing ideas of how a flat tax system should work.
Another option for utilizing the surplus is to implement permanent tax cuts, such as the $600 million of income tax cuts proposed by Ducey in his 2021-2022 budget. The governor’s proposal would phase in the cuts over three years starting in 2022.
Other tax cuts could involve reductions in residential and commercial property taxes, although many cities and towns are opposing that idea.
More will be known after Thursday’s meeting as to what consensus House leaders can come up with.
by B. Hamilton | Apr 6, 2021 | News
By B. Hamilton |
PHOENIX — Arizona businesses can breathe a sigh of relief now that Governor Doug Ducey has signed legislation providing COVID liability protections to Arizona businesses and healthcare workers. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Vince Leach, “establishes a presumption that a person or provider acted in good faith if they adopted and implemented reasonable policies related to the public health pandemic.”
Leach says the bill was needed to protect businesses and healthcare providers from “frivolous lawsuits.”
Leach said that people are the frontlines of the pandemic “will be targets of meritless lawsuits,” without protection.
“With this bill coming along this summer,” said Leach, “the plaintiff will have the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a person or provider failed to act, or acted with willful misconduct and a gross negligence in order to win a civil lawsuit.”
Leach says the bill provides “common sense protections for the frontline workers in healthcare, schools, and businesses, who have been invaluable during the pandemic response in Arizona.”
Nationwide, according to Leach, more than 2000 coronavirus related cases of them brought forward despite businesses following approved guidelines.
The legislation applies during the current public health pandemic and protects health care institutions and other service providers for any act or omission that is alleged to have occurred during a person’s screening, assessment or treatment that is related to the health emergency. Providers include educational institutions, school districts or charter schools, property owners, lessees and lessors, nonprofit organizations, religious institutions, the State and local governments, health care providers and institutions, and nursing and residential care facilities.
The legislation also provides a presumption for health professionals or health care institutions that they have acted in good faith if they relied on and reasonably attempted to comply with applicable published guidance, while also ensuring that such a presumption can be overcome if there is evidence of gross negligence or willful misconduct.
“Small businesses need certainty under the law that if they act in good faith, they’ll be protected from frivolous lawsuits,” said Leach. “I’m grateful to the organizations and fellow legislators who supported Senate Bill 1377, and to Governor Ducey for signing this important legislation.”
SB1377 Provisions
Public Health Pandemic Civil Liability
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 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.
12. Specifies, for claims against a nursing care institution or residential care institution, where the care in question did not directly relate to the public health pandemic, the nursing care institution or residential care institution has the burden to prove the act or omission was the direct result of having to provide care to patients needing treatment for the pandemic or due to limitations caused by the pandemic.
