Calling the measure unconstitutional, Arizona officials including a major union, state lawmakers and members of city councils are asking a judge to void a new state law designed to block local governments from telling private employers they have to provide paid time off for their workers.
The lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court against HB 2579 seeks to block the measure from taking effect as scheduled in August.
That move, if successful, would mark the second time in two years that the state has had to back down over local regulation of employment. Last year, Attorney General Mark Brnovich agreed not to enforce a 2013 attempt by the Republican-controlled legislature to limit the power of local governments to set their own minimum wages.
At the center of contention is Proposition 202— a 2006 voter-approved law that established a state minimum wage of $6.75 an hour. With inflation, that number has grown to $8.05.
The initiative also allowed cities, towns and counties to enact even higher minimum wages. Then in 2013, lawmakers attempted to block some cities from passing their own "living wage'' proposals.
But Brnovich ruled the lawmakers' actions were in conflict with the 2006 initiative, and thus unenforceable. He pointed to the Arizona Constitution which specifically prohibits lawmakers from altering or repealing voter-approved laws unless they have a super-majority vote and unless the new measure "furthers the purpose'' of the original.
So, unable to cap wages, business interests came back with a new plan this year: preempt city employment laws on issues like sick leave and other fringe benefits. They crafted the measure in a way designed to get around the 2006 law.
HB 2579 specifically redefines "wages''— which Brnovich said cannot be preempted— as only monetary compensation. Everything else would be redefined as "nonwage compensation.''
The change declares such "nonwage'' compensation to be of "statewide concern'' and "not subject to further regulation by a city, town or other political subdivision of the state.'' Put simply, the law would effectively preempt proposals in several Arizona communities, including Tempe and Tucson, to require things like paid sick time.
In his legal briefs, attorney Jim Barton said HB 2579 is no more legal than the proposal Brnovich found wanting last year. He represents the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 99, which is leading the lawsuit.
He points out the 2006 law specifically says that a local government "may regulate minimum wages and benefits within its geographic boundaries.'' That, he contends, makes HB 2579 illegal.
Barton said this new law also fails to meet the exceptions for overriding what voters have enacted, and does not "further the purpose'' of the 2006 law.
"Rather, HB 2579 directly conflicts with Prop 202 by removing local authority over benefits, including but not limited to employee paid sick leave benefits, even though the state's voters authorized that local control when they approved Prop 202,'' the lawsuit states.
Barton also said the measure fails the second test for overriding voter measures: getting approval of three-fourths of both the House and Senate. The actual House vote was 34-26; the Senate tally was 18-11.
Republican lawmakers who backed the measure defended their votes.
"This is a bill that is entirely consisted [of] the Republican philosophy of limited government,'' argued Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills. And Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, said it "is not the role of government to tell businesses what they should be paying their employees."
But Rep. Stefanie Mach, D-Tucson, said she sees no reason to override what cities decide is in the best interests of their residents.
No date has been set for a hearing.