The Arizona Senate this week is poised to try to do something that hasn’t been done in Arizona in more than four decades: override a gubernatorial veto.
The bill in question would have prevented the Chinese government from buying land in Arizona. Similar kinds of laws have been approved in other states, but Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed the measure here last week.
Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services joined The Show to talk about what to expect this week at the state Capitol.
Full conversation
MARK BRODIE: Good morning, Howie.
HOWARD FISCHER: Good morning. You ask me that every week, and then every week you’re disappointed that we haven’t done much.
BRODIE: Well, this week though, there could, I mean, in theory be some history. I mean, it’s been a very, very long time since the Legislature has overridden a veto.
FISCHER: It’s been since like 1981, when some Democrats joined with Republicans to override a veto by Bruce Babbitt. That was eight governors ago. So that gives you some idea.
This issue deals with a bill that started out originally as prohibiting people from certain enemy nations from owning land anywhere in Arizona. And the concern has to do with whether they would be spying or listening in, or maybe even just in a position to go ahead and do some sort of damage.
By the time the bill got out of the House, it had been cut to something really simple. It says the People’s Republic of China may not own land in Arizona. Seems simple enough. And that’s what went to the governor. I think what surprised a lot of people is the governor vetoed it.
She gave — I don’t call it a poor explanation — but she said the legislation is ineffective at counter espionage, it does not directly protect our military assets, it lacks clear implementation criteria and opens the door to arbitrary and arbitrary enforcement.
I don’t know how much arbitrary you can do. If it’s the People’s Republic of China on the deed, you can’t own the land. Otherwise you can.
So now the governor is coming under a lot of scrutiny and a lot of calls, particularly Senate President Warren Peterson (R-Gilbert), who said we’re going to try and override. The House did have sufficient votes with enough Democrats to override the governor. The Senate did not, even with this bill not really doing much of anything.
So I’d say this is more of a political stunt, if you want to call it that. See if you can embarrass the governor. I’m counting on the governor between now and when the Senate comes in later this week to do some sort of massive defense and saying, “Well, here’s the problem with it, and you really shouldn’t override it. And here’s why it isn’t effective even if the bill doesn’t do much of anything.”
So it’s going to be more political theater, I think, than actual legislation.
BRODIE: Interesting. So, Howie, the governor also has another fairly controversial bill on her desk dealing with teachers and antisemitism. And it seems as though there’s a pretty substantial lobbying effort for her on both sides, both those who want her to sign it and those who want her to veto it.
FISCHER: Well, there’s a lot of concerns, given what’s been happening since Oct. 7. Attack by Hamas against Israel. Israel’s actions in Gaza. There have been a lot of antisemitic acts. You had a couple that was gunned down in Washington. You’ve had this crazy person in Boulder who was using Molotov cocktails to attack Jewish residents who were looking to help free the hostages. And so it’s obviously very sensitive.
The question becomes whether what is being proposed here is constitutional and well thought out. It would cement it into Arizona law a definition of antisemitism that some folks have concern with. I mean, on one hand, you’ve got the low-hanging fruit. You shouldn’t call for the eradication of Jews as a species.
But then you get into some areas that could be considered First Amendment rights, like criticism of Israel and whether what Israel is doing in Gaza is similar to what the Nazis did to the Jews. Now you can have a lot of theories about that.
But the other part of the problem with the bill that a lot of folks are concerned about is it says that if you are a teacher, whether it’s a university or a public school, and someone comes home and says, “You know, Dad, I think the teacher said something antisemitic.” After going through a process of complaint, you actually can take the teacher to court civilly on a personal level, which means a teacher has to hire an attorney and could be personally liable.
BRODIE: Which is something that I think the Democrats who oppose this or members who oppose this, that was something that they were really concerned about, right?
FISCHER: Oh, they’re definitely concerned about it because of the fact that this isn’t a question where normally, let’s say you’ve got a problem with the sheriff’s deputy and you sue the sheriff’s department that defends the person as the employer. So you’ve got some real issues with the issue of personal liability there.
But again, you come down to a question of where’s the line? Now, as you point out, there are people on both sides of this. State schools chief Tom Horne, who happens to be Jewish, said we really need some protections. There are things going on in classrooms. He cited an incident in Scottsdale where he said that there were a lot of pro-Palestinian things being said in an unbalanced fashion.
But then you’ve got not just the Arizona Education Association concerned about teacher liability, but even the National Council of Jewish Women, who say this definition of anti-Semitism was never meant to be a campus speech guide and you really should not put it into Arizona law.
BRODIE: So Howie, just a little less than a minute left. I want to ask you about the future of the lawsuit that is challenging a few Arizona abortion related laws after Attorney General Kris Mayes said she would not defend them. Will these laws get a defense as they move through the process?
FISCHER: Oh, they probably will. I think that House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-Goodyear) says he wants to. I mean, Prop. 139 is, we all know, put a constitutional right to abortion in the Arizona Constitution.
These three laws — which have been on the books for a while, having to do with a 24-hour waiting period and a ban on telemedicine for abortion — probably do not survive that, given the breadth of the constitutional amendment. But Mayes said, “I don’t consider them to be constitutionally defensible.”
Steve Montenegro says they need to be defended.
