A last minute bill which could give voters the chance to significantly increase the pay for Arizona’s 90 lawmakers and double the length of terms for state senators is set to be heard Monday.
The Arizona Legislature is in session at least 100 days each year starting in early January. Under current law, voters have the final say in setting the annual salary for the state’s 30 senators and 60 representatives.
That rate is $24,000 a year which has not changed for nearly 25 years.
However, Sen. David Gowan and Rep. Regina Cobb are supporting legislation under Senate Bill 1180 which would ask voters in November to set legislators’ pay at 60 percent of the governor’s salary. The governor’s annual pay is currently $95,000, meaning lawmakers would be paid $57,000 a year starting in January 2023.
But it is not only pay that would double for a state senator like Gowan, who represents all of Cochise and Greenlee counties, as well as southern Graham County and a portion of Pima County.
SB1180 includes language asking voters to change the length of Senate terms from two years to four years. And although state representatives would still serve two-year terms, all lawmakers would be allowed to serve up to 12 years in each chamber, for a total of 24 years if a lawmakers runs between the two chambers.
The current limit is eight years in each chamber, or 16 years total as a lawmaker.
To get the bill heard at this point in the session, Cobb has introduced an amendment to strike all the language of Gowan’s current SB1180, which was a COVID-19 expenditure reporting bill already passed by the Senate. The “strike everything amendment” is 25 pages that if cleared by the Legislature would put the provisions in front of voters in November as Senate Concurrent Resolution 1018.
Among the provisions is an overhaul the reporting system for lobbyists who make campaign contributions or expenditure on behalf of a state lawmaker.
According to SB1180, the current quarterly reporting of such expenditures would be replaced with a new mandate that those expenditures be reported within five business days. It also significantly increases the type of gifts to a state officer or employee or a member of the officer’s or employee’s householdwhich would have to be publicly reported.
Currently there is a long list of exemptions to the gift rule, allowing some public officials and employees or their families to accept travel, lodging, and speaking engagement fees without the “gift” ever being reported to the public.
The new transparency rules related to lobbyist activity would also require a new web-based digital platform application to allow for real-time entry of information and public accessibility. SB1180 would allocate $10 million to the Arizona Secretary of State to cover that cost.
On Monday, Cobb’s House Appropriations Committee will hear SB1180’s strike everything amendment. If it passes, the new version of the bill would go back to the Senate for approval because the language varies from what the Senate passed last month.
Gowan has been a strong advocate for ensuring more Arizonans can afford to run for the Legislature, particularly those who live hours away from Phoenix.
In the 2021 legislative session, he spearheaded a bill to change the per diem rates for lawmakers from outside Maricopa County. Those rates -which had equaled $60 a day for housing and food since 1984- were raised to $207 a day for the first 120 days of session.
Future rates will be adjusted based on the federal winter per diem rates set annually by the U.S. General Services Administration. Per diems are separate from pay or travel reimbursement.
The per diem bill became law when Ducey utilized a rare procedural maneuver to allow the legislation to take effect without a governor’s signature.
The city of Tucson will require proof of vaccination for individuals wishing to serve as election workers for the upcoming special election in May. According to emails obtained by AZ Free News, individuals are required to bring their COVID-19 vaccination cards along with their social security cards and contact information if they would like to be a paid election worker.
Multiple studies on the demographics of the vaccinated show that the majority of vaccinated individuals self-identify as Democrats. As of press time, the FDA has authorized three booster shot brands for the COVID-19 vaccine: Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Janssen-Johnson & Johnson. According to Johns Hopkins Medicine, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines’ protection wanes after five months, while the Johnson & Johnson version wanes after two months.
In less than a year after the FDA initially approved the first emergency use authorization (EUA) for the COVID-19 vaccine, some have received as many as three additional boosters on top of their initial shot. On Tuesday, Pfizer-BioNTech petitioned the FDA to approve a fourth booster. Full FDA approval of one of the vaccine brands, Pfizer-BioNTech, came at the end of August — about seven months ago.
The May 22 special election will have voters determine whether to approve Proposition 411, introduced by Mayor Regina Romero and the city council, to authorize a 10-year extension of a half-cent sales tax for travel infrastructure.
AZ Free News reached out to the city of Tucson for comment, and to ask whether they would grant exemptions to individuals who can’t get the COVID-19 vaccine. They didn’t respond by press time.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
As the government continues to struggle retaining a totalitarian grasp on all things related to the pandemic, including Americans’ health care options, Arizonans should be aware that their skin color will determine their ability to access life-saving treatment. One Phoenix man shared with AZ Free News how his decision to identify himself as “white” because of his skin tone, rather than Hispanic, nearly cost him his life, in the hopes that his experience will spread awareness and serve as a cautionary tale to fellow Arizonans.
Michael Myers explained that he made the mistake of marking his race as “white” on medical intake paperwork rather than “Hispanic” — in part due to his complexion, mixed with the fact that he was raised to not think of himself as Hispanic.
“Had I put that I was Hispanic they probably would’ve gave [the monoclonal antibodies] to me,” said Myers. “I lost four days [of treatment] getting sicker and sicker. I put down ‘white’ even though I was sicker than a dog.”
Even though race doesn’t weigh heavily on Myers’ mind, it does for the government. AZ Free News inquired with the health system that treated Myers, HonorHealth, about their adherence to any federal or state guidelines that limit or prohibit COVID-19 treatments based on high-risk categories that factor race or ethnicity. They explained that they “follow CDC guidelines when it comes to COVID-19 treatments.” The CDC cites the FDA as the reference for guidelines on treatments for individuals with “high risk of disease progression.”
In supplemental information on their emergency use authorization (EUA) of monoclonal antibodies, the FDA acknowledged that race and ethnicity “may also place individual patients at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19,” therefore rendering them valid determinations of eligibility for monoclonal antibody treatments. That’s a conclusion that the state of Minnesota drew explicitly in their “Ethical Framework for Allocation of Monoclonal Antibodies during the COVID-19 Pandemic” published last month.
Last summer, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) lauded Michigan and Maryland for incorporating equity in their decisions to administer monoclonal antibody treatments.
Also last month, the CDC published a report suggesting that “equitable” use of treatments factoring race was critical in combating the disproportionate numbers of certain races being adversely affected by COVID-19. The CDC also has a page which argues for equitable approaches to health care because COVID-19 impacts minorities disproportionately.
Equity looked like health care providers ignoring the entirety of Myers’ condition and focusing on one characteristic: his reported race.
Myers was diagnosed with COVID-19 exactly two weeks before Christmas Day. Based on Myers’ condition, his health care providers at HonorHealth gave him the option to either receive monoclonal antibodies at their FastPace emergency room nearby or wait for their Scottsdale infusion center’s next available appointment. Myers told AZ Free News that he was so sick that he opted for the emergency room.
After waiting over two and a half hours, Myers was admitted to a room. Just as the IV was placed in Myers’ arm, a pharmacist intervened. The pharmacist informed Myers that he “didn’t qualify” for the monoclonal antibody treatment because he wasn’t “high-risk” enough. Confused and upset, Myers left.
He said he was shocked when, on Monday morning, HonorHealth called him for his appointment to receive monoclonal antibodies. When Myers informed the nurse that he’d been disqualified by their FastPace center, the nurse was dismayed and insisted that he receive the treatment based on his deteriorating condition. By that point, Myers had begun to cough up blood. The infusion center’s earliest available appointment was on Wednesday; Myers said he barely made the drive from Glendale to Scottsdale safely because his coughing had worsened and he nearly didn’t have the strength to steer the wheel.
“Within 24 hours I felt I was getting better. It took me a week and a half to get back to some normal,” said Myers.
Weeks later, Myers told AZ Free News that he received a $1,500 bill from FastPace — even though they refused to treat him. Myers said his entire ordeal was entirely unnecessary, relaying frustrations at how he believed politics got in the way of his health care.
“It’s political b******t really. I got sicker when I could’ve recovered faster, and it cost me thousands of dollars in medical bills and me being off of work,” said Myers.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The House Government and Elections Committee passed two bills prohibiting government entities from requiring masks or COVID-19 vaccines. The first bill, HB2498, prohibits governments from mandating COVID-19 vaccinations for any Arizonan; The second bill, HB2453, would eliminate all governmental authority to require masks or face coverings on their premises, with an exception carved out for areas with workplace safety and infection control measures unrelated to COVID-19. For both bills, “government entities” are defined as those who receive and use tax revenues.
Both bills were introduced by Queen Creek Republicans: State Representatives Jake Hoffman and Neal Carter, respectively. HB2498 passed 7-5 along party lines, with State Representative Alma Hernandez (D-Tucson) abstaining her vote. HB2453 passed more narrowly, 7-6 along party lines.
State Representative Sarah Liguori (D-Phoenix) argued during Wednesday’s committee that the vaccine prevents individuals from spreading COVID-19; Hoffman, the vice chairman, rebutted that simply wasn’t the case. Liguori argued, based on a definition from ushistory.org, that governments provide everyday behavior parameters, well-being, and happiness for citizens. Hoffman responded that the definition wasn’t at all aligned with the U.S. Constitution.
“I honestly don’t give a rat’s ass what ushistory.org says,” said Hoffman. “We exist to protect the rights of our citizens. One of their own rights is to choose their own bodily decisions. It’s their right to choose whether or not a vaccine is injected into them.”
A male legislator chimed in to say Hoffman’s argument aligned with pro-abortion arguments; Hoffman rebutted that wasn’t true because a baby’s life was at stake.
Minority Leader Reginald Bolding (D-Laveen) insisted that the fact that vaccines don’t prevent individuals from catching or spreading COVID-19 was “unfounded.” He then characterized the bill as an overreach preventing individuals from obtaining the protections of a vaccine, though he didn’t clarify how this bill had any bearing on individuals choosing to get vaccinated voluntarily.
“If we have the ability to have a vaccine that would prevent individuals from becoming severely ill or losing their life, we should not be standing in the way of that. I believe this bill is an additional overreach,” said Bolding.
Hoffman reiterated that the American system of government doesn’t have a right to force its citizens to take a vaccine they don’t want to have.
“Our overture to the world on what sets this people apart from everywhere else: ‘We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” said Hoffman. “The choice of the governed. It is not in the American system that a government can tell them what to do, can force them to take a vaccine.”
As AZ Free News reported, Carter asserted that his bill, HB2453, would curb further exacerbations of the current hiring and employee shortages in addition to respecting the right of individuals to make their own health decisions.
During the committee meeting, Bolding called the bill “misplaced policy” by not allowing local governments to protect their citizens by requiring masks. State Representative John Fillmore (R-Apache Junction) responded that he feels bad that any individual would die from an infectious disease, but it saddened him greatly too that a whole society allowed the government to assume complete control over their lives.
“I was appalled that the churches did not rise in opposition when [the government] said that people could not go and pray to the gods of their choice and live out their lives, like they did during the Revolutionary War which sparked freedom in America the way that it did,” said Fillmore.
Liguori insisted that “the science” proved mask wearing prevented spread of COVID-19, and that masks weren’t a partisan issue.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Democrats love to talk about the need of establishing a “universal” health care system that provides everyone with the same quality of care. That was the major theme pushed by the left and the media when Obamacare was signed into law in 2010.
We always knew that it was propaganda and that a government-run healthcare system would result in worse care for everyone. What we didn’t know is that the left doesn’t even support this claim. They do like the idea of providing different care to different people, so long as it promotes their radical, race-based social justice agenda.
Rationing COVID treatments based on race
To kick off the new year, health officials in Democrat-run New York made the call to prioritize non-whites as part of their criteria to decide who is eligible to receive monoclonal antibodies. And while white people can still receive the treatments, they’ll have to show that they have medical conditions that increase their risk for severe illness. Non-white patients, however, are automatically eligible.
