The narrowly passed repeal of Arizona’s complete ban on abortion became effective on Sep. 14th in a moment that is being widely celebrated by pro-abortion Democrats. Although Democrat Gov. Katie Hobbs signed the bill, H.B. 2677, into law in May, the bill only became effective on Saturday.
Under the current legal framework enacted in 2022, the state of Arizona has an effective ban on abortion after 15 weeks. While the Arizona Court of Appeals had previously ruled that the 2022 15-week measure and the total ban enacted by the territorial legislature in 1864 could be “harmonized,” the Arizona Supreme Court rejected this notion.
The Court wrote in its majority opinion, “Our conclusion that the legislature did not intend to create a privilege secured by law to obtain or perform an abortion obviates the need to harmonize §§ 13-3603 and 36-2322. Harmonization between these laws may be accomplished only by repealing § 13-3603 in contravention of the legislature’s express intent and engaging in untenable statutory interpretation such as excising physicians from the plain meaning of ‘person’ in § 13-3603, defined as ‘a human being’ in A.R.S § 13-105(30). And indeed, despite purporting to harmonize the statutes, the dissent’s treatment of § 13-3603 all but nullifies it. We decline to do so.”
The court ruled that following Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the ruling that reversed Roe v. Wade, “Arizona has never independently created a statutory right to abortion. We will not ‘amend a statute judicially [nor] read implausible meaning into express statutory language’ given the absence of an abortion right in Arizona jurisprudence. Kyle v. Daniels, 198 Ariz. 304, 306 ¶ 7 (2000). Therefore, because the federal constitutional right to abortion that overrode § 13-3603 no longer exists, the statute is now enforceable, prospectively prohibiting abortion unless necessary to save a woman’s life.”
As reported by the Associated Press, Hobbs in no way intends to stop at repealing the 1864 ban and intends to install the a “right” to abortion in the state. She said in a statement cited by the AP, “I will continue doing everything in my power to protect reproductive freedoms, because I trust women to make the decisions that are best for them, and know politicians do not belong in the doctor’s office.”
In a May post to X, she outright stated, “Any bill attacking the right to safe and legal abortion access will be vetoed without hesitation.”
Any bill attacking the right to safe and legal abortion access will be vetoed without hesitation. pic.twitter.com/yuzvFCUsfL
— Governor Katie Hobbs (@GovernorHobbs) May 30, 2024
Indeed the initiative Proposition 139 created by “Arizona for Abortion Access” will appear on the ballot in November to repeal the 2022 15-week abortion ban and create an amendment for a “fundamental right” for abortion up to “fetal viability” allowing a baby’s life to be ended potentially up until birth.
As previously reported by AZ Free News, a legal battle unfolded between the legislature and the initiative organizers over the use of the phrase “unborn human being” in the description of the initiative. The State Supreme Court found in a 5-2 decision that the legislature’s choice to use the phrase “unborn human being” rather than “fetus” met legal standards.
The state legislative council explains in its analysis of the ballot proposal to make abortion a constitutional right:
“Current state law prohibits a physician from performing an abortion if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being is more than 15 weeks, except when a pregnant woman’s medical condition necessitates an immediate abortion to avert the pregnant woman’s death or for which a delay creates a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”
Just over four years past the initial outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and the government flexes of authority that went with it, Arizona voters, come November, will decide on whether the governor should have less powers in an emergency.
Proposition 135 would amend the Arizona Constitution to terminate the governor’s emergency powers automatically after 30 days — except in those emergencies related to war, fire, or flood — and thereafter require the legislature to approve any extensions of emergency powers. Those approvals could be granted indefinitely, and the legislature could issue certain limits to the governor’s powers.
The proposition would also require the governor to call a special legislative session to address whether to terminate or alter his or her emergency powers should one-third of the House and one-third of the Senate request it. Should the legislature reject an extension of emergency order, the governor may not call one.
Effectively, the legislature would have an even greater check and balance on the executive.
Current law allows the governor’s emergency powers to last up to 120 days before requiring legislative approval for extensions.
Arizona Horizon premiered a debate on the opposing and supportive arguments for Prop 135 earlier this month.
Will Humble, executive director of the Arizona Public Health Association (APHA) and former director of Arizona Department of Health Services, and Greg Blackie from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) represented the leading arguments on either side of the issue.
Blackie, in favor of Prop 135, stressed that emergencies should be limited in their time frame, and that the “police powers” of the state shouldn’t be indefinite, as they effectively became under COVID-19.
“Emergencies by definition, are temporary, and so the response should also be temporary, especially the powers delegated to the governor,” said Blackie. “This measure simply provides reasonable limits by providing termination after 30 days unless the legislature chooses to extend those powers further.”
Our very own Greg Blackie was on 🔥 during this debate on Prop 135! We must have a mechanism in place now that ensures proper checks and balances of the delegated authority no matter what current or future statutes on emergency powers look like. https://t.co/9BAkO49PdP
Humble responded that the current, 120-day limit with 30-day permissions of extension from the legislature was sufficient to address emergencies, as exercised under former Governor Doug Ducey during the initial outbreak. In fact, Humble said that he wished that the initial term limit of 120 days were longer.
“I don’t think 30 days is long enough,” said Humble. “All of these agencies have these emergency response plans and they can’t execute those plans if they lose that authority and that authority could be lost because of partisan reasons.”
Humble alluded to the prolonged government response to addressing COVID-19 as the need for the governor to have more than 30 days to sustain an emergency order.
“I could live with a quarter of the year to figure out the emergency,” said Humble. “Let’s say you had a biological agent that was released [then] you’d have a much longer period than 30 days that you would need to implement some of these measures to help control.”
Humble also opposed Prop 135 being a constitutional amendment, citing the difficulty of amending the constitution.
But Blackie responded, “But this is the issue of what should be in the Constitution. This is a question about how our government operates and separation of powers. And that belongs in the Constitution, the framework of government. When can the governor take large sums of legislative power, and then what is the legislative check on that. It belongs in the Constitution because it fundamentally answers questions about how our government is to operate.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Arizona Republican Party has filed a lawsuit in the state Supreme Court against Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs challenging the constitutionality of her Executive Orders 2023-23 and 2023-25. The orders designated state-owned facilities, including those managed by the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry (ADCRR) and the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC), as ballot drop-off locations and ordered state authorities to make voter registration forms available and process them respectively.
Republicans, under AZGOP Chair Gina Swoboda, stated that the new orders rip away authority held by county recorders and other local election authorities.
In the text of the lawsuit, the AZGOP argues, “Governor Hobbs unlawfully exercised her office by attempting to establish voting locations, drop-off locations for completed ballots, and make ADCRR and ADJC, as well as other state agencies, de facto public assistance agencies, which is outside her lawful authority.” They note, “The Arizona law is clear on who can distribute and accept voter registration forms and completed ballots: (1) public assistance or disabilities agencies as defined by statute; or (2) a location/agency as designated by a county recorder (or designee of a county recorder) or justice of the peace. The Governor is nowhere included in this clear line of authority. The same is true for determining voting locations.”
In a statement provided by the AZGOP to AZ Free News, Swoboda wrote,
“Governor Hobbs’ actions represent a blatant overreach of her authority and a direct violation of the separation of powers established by our Constitution. The responsibility for designating voting and ballot drop-off locations, as well as handling voter registration, lies squarely with the Legislature and county officials, not the Governor. These executive orders undermine the trust Arizonans place in their electoral process, and we will not stand by as our constitutional rights are trampled.”
Political commentator George Behizy observed Thursday, “Similar measures were taken in Michigan by Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who designated various state agencies to do the same.” He added, “Hobbs’s orders blatantly violate Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1 of the US constitution which clearly states, ‘The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof[.]’ The constitutional delegates ALL election oversight to the state legislatures. It doesn’t grant the executive any power to delegate random government departments as vote registration sites or ballot drop-off locations.”
BREAKING: Arizona Republicans have just filed a lawsuit against illegitimate Governor Katie Hobbs for issuing unconstitutional executive orders to facilitate the steal of the 2024 election
The US Constitution as referenced by Behizy states, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing(sic) Senators.”
A state Governor or Secretary of State’s ability to enact such measures remains unadjudicated and was the subject of the 2020 Election challenge Texas v. Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan & Pennsylvania which the U.S. Supreme Court, in one of its most controversial historic decisions, declined to hear. The case divided the states with twenty supporting Texas’ claim, twenty supporting Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and six states undecided.
The Texas complaint similarly revolved around three major points:
“Non-legislative actors’ purported amendments to States’ duly enacted election laws, in violation of the Electors Clause’s vesting State legislatures with plenary authority regarding the appointment of presidential electors.
Intrastate differences in the treatment of voters, with more favorable allotted to voters – whether lawful or unlawful – in areas administered by local government under Democrat control and with populations with higher ratios of Democrat voters than other areas of Defendant States.
The appearance of voting irregularities in the Defendant States that would be consistent with the unconstitutional relaxation of ballot-integrity protections in those States’ election laws.”
Should the case be taken up by the Arizona Supreme Court and adjudicated, it could serve as a basis for a federal ruling to settle the question nationally that was left ambiguous in 2020.
Arizona Legislative Republicans put the finishing touches on one of their signature legal victories over the state’s Democrat governor in court.
Earlier this week, Arizona Senate Republicans announced that “Governor Katie Hobbs admit[ted] she violated state law through her scheme to circumvent the Senate confirmation process for director nominations and has agreed to submit new candidates for consideration, as required by law.”
🚨FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Katie Hobbs Admits to Violating State Law by Circumventing Senate Confirmation Process, Agrees to Nominate New Directors After Court Ruling
“We continue to see a disturbing trend unfolding, where Democrats are weaponizing the government in an attempt to force unlawful and extreme agendas upon our citizens,” said Senate President Warren Petersen. “No elected official is above the law, and the Governor’s manipulative scheme to circumvent Senate confirmation demonstrates the crucial role the Legislature serves in holding the executive accountable against abuses of power. I’m grateful we can move forward from the insanity and chaos our state agencies and our citizens have been experiencing due to the Governor’s actions, and I look forward to reinstating the confirmation process so that we can properly vet director nominations in an effort to ensure only the most qualified candidates are serving in these critical roles.”
According to the press release issued by the Senate Republicans, “Senate President Warren Petersen spent the last several months working to hold the Governor accountable in Arizona State Senate v. Katie Hobbs. In September of 2023, after a Senate committee recommended a nominee accused of plagiarism not be confirmed, Hobbs sent a letter to President Petersen notifying him that she was going to evade the senate-confirmation process for agency directors, mandated by A.R.S. § 38-211. Under her ill-advised plan, blessed by Attorney General Mayes, Hobbs withdrew 13 director nominations still pending before the Senate. She then re-installed these same individuals with a fake title of ‘Executive Deputy Directors.’ Based on flimsy legal reasoning, which Hobbs’ own attorney later described as ‘strange,’ Hobbs claimed these fake directors had the same power and authority as Senate-confirmed directors. After months of discussions, she continued to insist she was above the law.”
Republican Senator Sine Kerr reacted to the news, posting, “A big win for the rule of law in AZ!! The people of AZ deserve legitimate, qualified, lawful agency Directors confirmed by the Senate!”
A big win for the rule of law in AZ!! The people of AZ deserve legitimate, qualified, lawful agency Directors confirmed by the Senate! https://t.co/4vcnxqwFl2
On the other side of the aisle, Democrat Senate Leader Mitzi Epstein said, “I applaud Governor Hobbs for consistently taking the high road and working diligently to protect the interests of hard-working Arizonans. Governor Hobbs was elected fair and square in 2022 and it is time Republicans get out of the way and let her govern for all Arizonans. It’s 2024, the games need to end and that starts now with ensuring we get every director across the finish line in the Senate.”
Epstein added, “Republicans have repeatedly rejected bipartisanship, and the burden falls squarely on Arizona taxpayers every time. Democrats will continue to act in good faith and do everything possible to ensure government runs smoothly in the upcoming legislature.”
In their press release, the Senate Republicans argued that it was their constitutional duty (and obligation by law) to stand in Hobbs’ way on certain matters, writing, “Consistent with the United States Constitution and the laws of states across this nation, Arizona law requires its agencies to be led by Senate-confirmed directors, under A.R.S. § 38-211. This requirement exists to preserve the liberties of Arizona’s citizens. Just as the Governor’s veto serves as a check on legislative power, Senate confirmation of agency directors serves as a necessary check on the Governor’s power.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A state senator instrumental to protecting vulnerable children is also key to Republican control of the Arizona Legislature.
State Senator Shawnna Bolick is hoping her constituents give her the green light to return for her first full term in the Arizona Legislature after returning from a brief hiatus. Bolick was appointed by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors in July 2023, when then-State Senator Steve Kaiser surprisingly resigned from his office. The Phoenix-area mother of two had previously served for two terms in the Arizona House of Representatives (2019-2023).
Earlier this year, Bolick authored SB 1372, which “proscribes a court from ordering family reunification treatment that requires certain conditions for participation unless both parents consent,” according to the overview from the Arizona House of Representatives. The bill overwhelmingly passed the state senate with a 19-9 vote (with two members not voting), and it cleared the House with a 32-27 result (with one member not voting).
Governor Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, signed the bill in April.
In a statement after the bill’s signing, Bolick said, “A number of families reached out to me with their horror stories surrounding reunification camps, and I was compelled to take action. Unqualified individuals have been profiting off of the disfunction being forced upon countless kids, and the judicial system seems to be none the wiser to this scheme. Many times, these kids are taken in the middle of the night, sent to seedy locations like motels, sometimes out of state, and are basically brainwashed into agreeing to spend time with a parent that is either mentally, emotionally, or physically harming the child, while having no contact with the parent that the child actually feels safe with.”
Bolick added, “I’m thrilled this bill was signed into law, but I’m utterly appalled nine out of 14 Senate Democrats and nearly all House Democrats voted ‘no’ on protecting our children from this heinous victimization. Their vote against this legislation shows their true colors. Democrats are more concerned with partisan games than following their conscience and doing what’s right for the safety and well-being of these vulnerable kids.”
Hobbs said, “I was glad to sign this bill to codify current best practices of the courts and prevent vulnerable children from being in potentially unwelcome and unhelpful situations.”
On the Arizona Legislature’s Request to Speak system, a representative from Arizona National Organization for Women, usually a champion for progressive candidates and causes, endorsed the bill, showing its broad appeal.
The effort on this family reunification legislation follows another from Bolick at the end of her first tenure in office. In 2022, Bolick sponsored HB 2134 to appropriate $150,000 for the award of school safety grants from the Arizona Department of Education, which was approved in that year’s budget. Bolick said, “As a mom of a teenager, I know how much our kids rely heavily on technology. This school safety grant is a small investment in addressing bullying and student safety in our schools. According to a November 2021 Arizona Child Fatality Review Annual Report, bullying is a top reason for children taking their own lives. Teens have told me they have tried to report an incident on their school campus with a trusted adult but were never taken seriously. It is my hope that the responsible use of this technology will lead to safer school campuses for our students.”
Bolick has also championed school choice proposals to protect children who are being bullied in their places of education. In 2019, Bolick wrote an opinion piece for the Arizona Republic about the unfortunate instances of her daughter being bullied and assaulted, leading to her parents looking to relocate schools “because we no longer felt the school would protect her.” She stated that her daughter “is just one of the thousands of children across our country who are victims of a crime on a K-12 public school campus.”
These episodes with her daughter, coupled with her vast experience in the New York City public school system, led Bolick to introduce the Lifeline for Student Crime Victims Act “to expand Empowerment Scholarship Account eligibility to include public school students who have been victims of battery, harassment, hazing, kidnapping, physical attack, robbery, sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape, threatening, intimidation, fighting, sex trafficking or human trafficking.”
The first-term lawmaker (at that time) closed her piece, writing, “As a freshman legislator, I had the choice to be a wallflower or jump into the fray solving problems facing our state. At the end of the day, I side with victims’ rights over the establishment.”
Judy Schwiebert signed in on the legislature’s Request to Speak system to oppose the bill – along with a representative from Save Our Schools Arizona.
If Bolick is given the chance to continue in the legislature for the next term, she is already looking at more opportunities to protect vulnerable children across the state. In an exclusive interview with AZ Free News earlier this summer, she said that she is looking at options to “deal with the bullying in our schools” and to “get to the root of the problem because bullying continues to get worse leading to kids missing weeks of school.”
Arizona Legislative District 2 is one of the most competitive in the state, with a 3.8% vote spread in the past nine statewide elections. It is very winnable for Republicans, however, as the party has emerged victorious in six out of those nine elections.
Senator Bolick will face off against Judy Schwiebert in the November General Election, who is running unopposed in the Democrat primary election.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
