Election results coming in today are giving us a clearer sense of what candidates might be on our November ballots. So, let’s take a few minutes now to talk about some of the other issues that will likely be there for voters to weigh in on. Namely: a long list of ballot measures — some referred by voters and others sent to the ballot by Republican state lawmakers bypassing the governor’s veto.
There will be a host of measures for us to consider in the fall, but, at this point, many of them are still mired in court challenges and legal fights over how they will be worded on the ballot.
Howie Fischer of Capitol Media Services joined The Show to give us an update on some of the biggest ones.
Full conversation
LAUREN GILGER: Good morning, Howie.
HOWIE FISCHER: Good morning. If we weren't fighting in court, what would we be doing?
GILGER: It's a very good question. All right, let's start with the abortion access measure that has gathered so many signatures and would expand abortion rights in our state. GOP state lawmakers use the term “unborn human being” in the language to describe what the measure would do. But a judge has rejected this term this week.
FISCHER: The judge said this is hardly impartial that there is no medical term, unborn human being. You know, doctors admitted they might use it if you're talking to a woman who is, in her pregnancy, you wanted to talk to her about stopping smoking, stopping drug use. You might say, you know, your unborn child or something like that.
But when you're talking about a ballot measure as far as what can be done and when a woman can terminate a pregnancy, the judge said, no, it's simple. It is an embryo or a fetus and he sent it back to the legislative council, a group of lawmakers controlled by Republicans to go back and do it right. He didn't tell them you have to use the word fetus. He said, you just can't use those words.
Now, remember this is one of only two challenges to this whole abortion measure. You also have something playing out in court this Friday, the charge by Arizona Right to Life that the measure is so inherently misleading and flawed that it is not in any so suitable way shape to go to the voters. And they want a judge to throw it off the ballot entirely. I'm not sure a judge is gonna buy it. She may say, look, there may be words in there that are controversial, but voters have a chance to read it and let them decide.
GILGER: So, so right, two legal challenges there. The first one you talked about is now heading to the state Supreme Court, yeah.
FISCHER: Yes, that, that'll be at the Supreme Court. We're waiting for the justices to rule on that. As I mentioned, the other one is up on Friday in the Superior Court. And of course, as with all these measures, whoever loses in Superior Court will take it to the Supreme Court. Nothing is simple here.
GILGER: It all ends up there. OK. Another ballot measure that's also under consideration, as we said, at the State Supreme Court, this one about the so-called Secure the Border Act. This was sent by lawmakers to the ballot after the governor vetoed it or something very similar. And it's being challenged for a different reason it sounds like.
FISCHER: This comes down to a single subject issue. The constitution says that all legislation including legislation either proposed by the legislature to go to the ballot or by initiative supporters themselves should stick to a single subject and matters properly connected there with. That's the wording of the law. Now, it's very clear that you've got a measure in there the prime purpose is to allow state and local police to go ahead and arrest people that they say have crossed the border other than at a port of entry.
There are some semi-related things in terms of denying public benefits to people who are here illegally, who can, who use fraudulent papers. The real sticking point is a new measure on what they call lethal fentanyl use. And that anybody who sells fentanyl that causes the death of another person would be subject to a mandatory presumptive 10 year term, which is double the standard term.
The argument is what does this have to do with the border? Particularly since any of the people who can be arrested in this do not have to be people who are here illegally. It applies to U.S. citizens. Now, a trial judge said, well, you know, fentanyl does come across the border even if all of it doesn't. And so, you know, the Legislature decided this is all part of a single border problem of people smuggling. Now this goes to the Supreme Court again, you know, back to our basic premise that everything ends up with the Supreme Court and they will decide is this too broad.
Now, here's the really interesting thing about the way the Arizona law works. If the court decides that one or more measures are not related, they don't have the power to excise out the stuff they say is unrelated. The whole measure fails, it does not go to the ballot.
GILGER: That's interesting. And we've seen, you know, ballot measures failed because of this single subject rule before, right.
FISCHER: Exactly. And, you know, the court has had various theories about what's a single subject at one time. It was what they call log rolling. And in other words, if you want Part A but to get Part A, you have to vote for Part B because of the fact that it's all a package. The court said, no, that's not proper. They've kind of loosened up on that again. It comes down to what is a single subject and things that are necessary as part of a whole?
GILGER: OK. OK. All right. So lastly here, Howie, let's quickly round up some challenges that the other two voter initiatives are facing on their way to the ballot. We've got one aimed at raising the state's minimum wage to $18 an hour. And it's being challenged by the Arizona Restaurant Association. Is that right?
FISCHER: Exactly. You know, their argument is that margins are already pretty tight. Plus the other thing that concerns them is right now, there is a tipped worker credit. In other words, right now, the minimum wage is 1435 an hour, but restaurants need only pay their workers $3 an hour or less. As long as with the tips, it gets up to $14.This measure also would eliminate that tip worker credit over the next three years. So the restaurants would be liable for the whole $18.
Now, note the Restaurant Association got the Legislature to put a competing measure on the ballot that says that if there's a Tip Worker Protection Act, it actually can increase it to 25%. So you've got you know, nothing that's clear there.
GILGER: Another challenge here. This is another voter initiative that would institute open primaries essentially in the state. Who's challenging this one in court.
FISCHER: Well, actually it's interesting because it seems to be being challenged by both sides. You've got Republican interests and Democratic interests, which suggests that the folks, you know, and the political parties like the system, the way it is, they get to choose who they want in the primaries. And that tends to be the folks who are more the red meat crowd for the Democrats or the Republicans. They are arguing that it violates a single subject rule.
And there are in fact multiple changes in there in terms of how the primary would be run, open primary. The possibility of a rank choice voting for the general election, no matter how many people advance various other issues there. But here again, the Legislature, the Republican-controlled Legislature put its own competing measure on the back that cements in the right into the constitution to go ahead and have every party name its own candidates. So it's gonna be really confusing in terms of which open primary measure do I like? And which one do I not like?
