Two ballot referrals from the Arizona Legislature may be on thin ice as voters prepare their decisions for November’s General Election.
A poll released this week from Noble Predictive Insights (NPI) showed that both Proposition 135 and Proposition 137 were underwater with respondents, though many voters remain undecided.
According to the Arizona Secretary of State, Prop 135 would “terminate governor’s emergency powers, except for powers relating to war, fire, or flood, 30 days after the governor’s proclamation, unless extended by the legislature; [and] requires the governor to call a special session upon presentment of a petition signed by at least one-third of the members of the legislature.”
The NPI survey shows that 29% of respondents support the measure, compared to 32% who are opposed. Thirty percent of respondents are undecided on how they would vote.
“Many conservatives haven’t forgotten COVID,” said NPI Chief of Research David Byler. “Memories of lockdowns – combined with a Democrat in the governor’s mansion – make sense of the partisan divide we see on this issue.”
The Arizona Legislature referred this proposal to the Secretary of State on June 13, 2023 (HCR 2039).
According to the Arizona Secretary of State, Prop 137 would “eliminate judicial terms and regular retention elections and nullif[y] the results of the 2024 judicial retention elections, for Arizona Supreme Court Justices, Court of Appeals Judges, and Superior Court Judges in counties with over 250,000 persons.”
For this proposition, the NPI poll shows that 31% of respondents would support the measure, compared to 38% who are opposed to it. Twenty-four percent of voters appear to be undecided.
“While about 1 in 10 voters say they wouldn’t vote on Prop 135 or 137, the large shares of voters who are still unsure how they will vote on each measure will determine whether or not these measures pass come November,” said Mike Noble, NPI Founder & CEO.
The Arizona Legislature referred this proposal to the Secretary of State on June 13, 2024 (SCR 1044).
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
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.
