The Arizona Supreme Court’s Ruling Against Budget Bills Creates Uncertainty and Frustration

The Arizona Supreme Court’s Ruling Against Budget Bills Creates Uncertainty and Frustration

By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |

Devastating. That’s how it felt earlier this week when the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s ruling in Arizona School Boards Association v. State of Arizona. This decision strikes down critical reforms contained in a series of Budget Reconciliation Bills passed by lawmakers and signed by Governor Ducey earlier this year.

And it’s a big blow to the people of Arizona.

This past July, Arizona lawmakers took important steps to protect our state from more COVID mandates and government overreach. Among the laws passed were bans on:

  • A county, city, or town from issuing COVID ordinances that impact private businesses, schools, churches, or other private entities, including mask mandates.
  • K-12 schools from requiring vaccines with an emergency use authorization for in-person attendance.
  • The state and any city, town, or county from establishing COVID vaccine passports or requiring COVID vaccines.
  • Public universities and community colleges from mandating COVID vaccines and vaccine passports.
  • A city, town, county, school board, or charter school from mandating students and teachers to be vaccinated or wear masks.

But COVID wasn’t the only thing these Budget Reconciliation Bills addressed.

>>> CONTINUE READING >>>

Business Group Calls For State Lawmakers’ Immediate Attention To Supreme Court Ruling

Business Group Calls For State Lawmakers’ Immediate Attention To Supreme Court Ruling

By Terri Jo Neff |

Earlier this month the Arizona Supreme Court agreed with a lower court’s ruling that parts of 4 of the 11 budget bills signed into law by Gov. Doug Ducey this summer are unconstitutional on procedural grounds. The reaction from business owners and community leaders was swift, with many left wondering when and how lawmakers will address the dozens of provisions dropped from those budget bills.

Among those provisions was a prohibition on a county, city, or town from issuing COVID-19 ordinances that impact private businesses, schools, churches, or other private entities, including mask mandates. Other prohibitions would have kept K-12 schools from requiring vaccines with an emergency use authorization for in-person attendance and ensured public universities and community colleges could not mandate COVID vaccines and vaccine passports.

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) describes the Justices’ recent opinion as “devastating” and “a big blow to the people of Arizona.” The organization has drawn attention to the uncertainty and frustration across Arizona at a time when the pandemic impacts are still being felt in the state’s economy, and as individual freedoms are under attack.

As a result, the AFEC is leading the call for the Arizona Legislature and the Governor to immediately address the critical reforms that the Supreme Court struck down.

“They must exhaust every option possible, including special session, to protect Arizonans from more COVID mandates and the bigoted teachings of Critical Race Theory,” according to AFEC. “But make no mistake, while this ruling is devastating, it will not stop the battle over these critical issues. There’s just too much at stake. Because if the uncertainty and frustration caused by these issues are allowed to continue, it would be the most devastating news of all.”

The Arizona Supreme Court Should Uphold New Laws Banning Mask Mandates, Vaccine Mandates, and Critical Race Theory

The Arizona Supreme Court Should Uphold New Laws Banning Mask Mandates, Vaccine Mandates, and Critical Race Theory

By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |

This past July, Arizona lawmakers and Governor Ducey did the right thing. Through a series of Budget Reconciliation Bills, they took important steps to protect the people of Arizona from more COVID mandates and to prevent children from being indoctrinated in public schools by Critical Race Theory.

While COVID was certainly an issue that warranted some action, it never should have included trampling on the rights of the people. And we definitely should not be wasting tax dollars on lessons that teach public school students that one race, ethnic group, or sex is in any way superior to another.

Not surprisingly, these laws sent teachers’ unions into a tailspin. As students headed back to campus, some Arizona schools decided to teach students that it’s ok to violate the law. And the Arizona Board of Regents recently announced that all three state universities will require their employees to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by December 8.

Then, there’s the lawsuit

>>> READ MORE >>>

Business Group Calls For State Lawmakers’ Immediate Attention To Supreme Court Ruling

Court Strikes Down Bans on Masks, Testing, Vaccine Mandates; Critical Race Theory; and Vaccine Passports

By Corinne Murdock |

On Monday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper ruled that many laws passed within the recent budget were unconstitutional. Cooper stated that the legislation violated the single subject rule of the Arizona Constitution. The case, Arizona School Boards Association Inc., et al., v. State of Arizona, et al. (CV2021-012741) had a total of 15 plaintiffs. In all, Cooper’s ruling impacted a variety of budget-related bills, or BRBs: HB2898, SB1824, SB1825, and struck down SB1819 in its entirety.

“Subject and title of bills[:] Section 13. Every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title; but if any subject shall be embraced in an act which shall not be expressed in the title, such an act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be embraced in the title.” (emphasis added)

In a copy of the opinion obtained by 12 News, Cooper asserted that Section 13 was made with the intent to prevent “logrolling”: inserting a multiplicity of subjects into one bill in order to push a vote through. The judge supported her claim with Arizona Supreme Court precedent. In explaining her decision to strike down all of SB1819, a sweeping bill that expanded voter registration, modified ballot security requirements, removed the secretary of state’s legal authority over election laws, established an election integrity fund, limited the length of public health emergencies, and created a special committee to audit the voter rolls, among other things.

“No matter how liberally one construes the concept of ‘subject’ for the single subject rule, the array of provisions are in no way related to nor connected with each other or to an identifiable ‘budget procedure.’ The bill is classic logrolling – a medley of special interests cobbled together to force a vote for all or none,” wrote Cooper. “In this case, the State’s view would allow the Legislature to re-define ‘budget reconciliation’ to mean anything it chooses. Going forward, the Legislature could add any policy or regulatory provision to a BRB, regardless of whether the measure was necessary to implement the budget, without notice to the public. The State’s idea of ‘subject’ is not and cannot be the law.” (emphasis added)

Cooper also asserted that the bills in question weren’t in compliance with the state constitution’s requirement that bill titles clearly reflect the content of the legislation.

In striking down the entirety of SB1819, Cooper explained that prior court decisions don’t allow for severability to salvage portions of the bill.

“When an act violates the single subject rule, the whole act fails,” stated Cooper.

Whereas for the other bills, Cooper explained that the certain provisions banning mask, vaccine, and testing mandates; critical race theory education; and vaccine passports weren’t reflected in the bill titles. Therefore, they were invalid.

As AZ Free News reported last week, the main plaintiff in the case, Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA), recently hosted a law conference where photos showed attendees maskless and not social distancing, though spokespersons informed us that masks were required. ASBA also told us they encouraged some attendees to take off masks momentarily and group together for pictures.

The mask mandate ban would’ve gone into effect on Wednesday.

Governor Doug Ducey’s spokesperson characterized the ruling as “judicial overreach.” The governor’s office promised that they would challenge the ruling.

“We are still reviewing the ruling, but this decision is clearly an example of judicial overreach. Arizona’s state government operates with three branches, and it’s the duty and authority of only the legislative branch to organize itself and to make laws,” stated Ducey’s spokesman. “Unfortunately, today’s decision is the result of a rogue judge interfering with the authority and processes of another branch of government. Further action will be taken to challenge this ruling and ensure separation of powers is maintained.”

Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.

CRT, 1619 Project Grant Applications Will No Longer Receive Priority Consideration From Dept. Of Education

CRT, 1619 Project Grant Applications Will No Longer Receive Priority Consideration From Dept. Of Education

By Terri Jo Neff |

In a partial victory for 20 state attorneys general, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) backtracked on Monday on plans that would have prioritized $5 million in grant funds for American history and civics lessons that focus on the issue of racial marginalization.

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich was among those who signed a letter sent in May to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona expressing “deep concerns” with proposed changes to how American history and civics instruction programs would be taught in K-12 schools across the country.

DOE had announced in April that some of the agency’s grant funding for history and civics instruction would be prioritized for programs which reflect “the diversity, identities, histories, contributions, and experiences of all students into teaching and learning.” That plan, however, received a large backlash.

A notice on July 19 in the Federal Register states DOE will consider grant proposals which “promote new and existing evidence-based strategies to encourage innovative American history, civics and government, and geography instruction” including those which address “systemic marginalization, biases, inequities, and discriminatory policy and practice in American history.”

But DOE has promised to not give such proposals an automatic advantage or competitive edge over other history and civics instruction grant requests. The application period opened Monday.

“The Department recognizes the value of supporting teaching and learning that reflects the rich diversity, identities, histories, contributions, and experiences of all students,” Cardona wrote on the DOE website. “As every parent knows, when students can make personal connections to their learning experiences, there are greater opportunities for them to stay engaged in their education and see pathways for their own futures.”

The Federal Register notice marks a major change by DOE exactly two months after Brnovich and several colleagues complained to Cardona that the grant priorities announced in April were a “thinly veiled attempt” to promote the controversial teachings of the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory (CRT).

The 1619 Project’s focus on America’s history is changed from 1776 to 1619 when the first Africans arrived at what was Colonial Virginia one year before the arrival of Pilgrims near Plymouth Rock. CRT views or interprets American history and civics primarily through the narrow prism of race.

The attorneys general argued to Cardona that DOE’s promotion of CRT and the 1619 Project and ideologies would be endorsing the teaching of a warped, factually deficient view of American history. Their letter asked that the proposed priorities not be adopted or that DOE make clear that grants may not be used to fund projects which characterize the United States as irredeemably racist or founded on principles of racism instead of principles of equality.

DOE’s notice in the National Register did not go as far as the attorneys general wanted, but it is seen as a partial victory which guarantees grant applications for for history and civics lessons which veer substantially from traditional lessons will not have an advantage.