ARIZONA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Fiftieth Legislature – Second Regular Session
Minutes of Meeting
House Hearing Room 4 -- 8:00 a.m.
Chairman Farnsworth called the meeting to order at 8:08 a.m. and attendance was noted by the secretary.
|
Mr. Ash |
Mr. Hale |
Mr. Vogt |
|
Mr. Chabin |
Mr. Harper |
Mr. Smith D, Vice-Chairman |
|
Mrs. Goodale |
Mrs. Tovar |
Mr. Farnsworth, Chairman |
|
None |
|
|
|
HB2200 - DP (6-1-0-2) |
HB2722 - DP (6-3-0-0) |
|
HB2284 - DP (7-0-0-2) |
HB2753 - DP (9-0-0-0) |
|
HB2376 - DPA (6-0-0-3) |
HB2755 - HELD |
|
HB2432 - DPA S/E (5-3-0-1) |
HB2756 - HELD |
|
HB2434 - DPA S/E (8-0-0-1) |
HB2779 - DP (9-0-0-0) |
|
HB2545 - DISCUSSED AND HELD |
HB2807 - DP (6-3-0-0) |
|
HB2546 - DPA S/E (5-4-0-0) |
HB2826 - DP (5-4-0-0) |
|
HB2547 - DP (6-3-0-0) |
HB2841 - DPA (6-2-1-0) |
|
HB2625 - DPA S/E (6-3-0-0) |
HCR2039 - |
CONSIDERATION OF BILLS:
HB2755 - drug offenses; sales; definition - HELD
Chairman Farnsworth announced that HB2755 will be held.
HB2756 - DUI; marijuana; presumptive impairment - HELD
Chairman Farnsworth announced that HB2756 will be held.
HB2826 - consolidated election dates; political subdivisions - DO PASS
Yijee Jeong, Majority Intern, reviewed the provisions of HB2826 which establish consolidated election dates for political subdivisions to hold primary and general elections (Attachment 1):
· Establishes, beginning with elections held in 2014 and later, that an election held for or on behalf of any political subdivision of this state other than a special election may only be held on the following dates and only in even numbered years:
Ø If the political subdivision holds a primary or first election and a general or runoff election is either required or optional for that political subdivision, the first election shall be held on the tenth Tuesday before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, whether the political subdivision designates the election a primary, first, preliminary election or any other descriptive term.
Ø If the political subdivision holds a general election or a runoff election, the second election held must be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
Ø If the political subdivision holds only a single election and no preliminary or primary or other election is ever held for the purpose of reducing the number of candidates, or receiving a partisan nomination or designation or for any other purpose for that political subdivision, the single election must be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
Ø Any ballot measure, ballot question, bond election or any other issue to be voted on by the electorate of a political subdivision and that is not an election on a candidate must also be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
· Defines political subdivision as any governmental entity operating under the authority of this state and governed by an elected body, including a city, town, county, school district, community college district or any other district organized under state law, but not including a special tax district.
· Directs the Legislative Council staff to prepare proposed legislation conforming Arizona Revised Statutes to the provisions of this act for consideration in the Fifty-first Legislature, First Regular Session.
· Contains a severability clause.
· Makes technical and conforming changes.
Representative Michelle Ugenti, sponsor, advised that HB2826 will consolidate election dates throughout the state to a fall election cycle in even-numbered years. This bill is what is best for the voters irrespective of what city they live in. Lack of uniformity in elections leads to confusion which leads to decreased voter turnout and increased costs. She said it is incumbent on the Legislature to ensure that the vote is maximized at the city level and reflects the will of the people. Consolidating election dates is the best way to have a fair predictable election cycle. In answer to questions, she said this excludes special elections; each city has it own definition of special election. She advised this would be for a city council, ballot measure, bond election or any other issue.
Clint Bolick, representing self, in support of HB2826, stated that local governments often schedule special elections without anyone knowing about them, increasing the potential for special interest manipulation. This bill will make election days uniform throughout the State of Arizona. It will save money, and increase voter turn out. In response to Mr. Ash's query about catering to people who choose not to vote in a city election, Mr. Bolick answered that this proposal makes the process more transparent and simplified.
Karen Osborne, Elections Director, Maricopa County, testified against HB2826. She said she does not believe this legislation will change voter turnout; instead it will cost more money to provide less opportunity for people to vote. She discussed the following issues:
Nancy Zimmerman, representing self, expressed support of HB2826. She advised that she is a precinct committeeman and a state committeeman. She advised that in the most recent City of Phoenix election, voters were required to vote at one location for the City election and then travel to a different location to vote on a school bond issue. She believes this bill will go a long way to remedy that situation. She related her observations and feedback in talking to hundreds of voters in Phoenix:
Trey Williams, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Association of Counties, testified in opposition to HB2826. The Association understands the intent of the bill is save costs and to promote uniformity; however, there are a number of small issues with two elections every other year. If this is implemented, Maricopa and Pima Counties would likely have to go to two-page ballots, doubling the printing and mailing costs. Ballot fatigue is also a concern. He maintained that any cost savings that would occur will be offset by the increased printing and mailing costs.
Mr. Harper disagreed with Mr. Williams' testimony on increased mailing costs. Discussion ensued.
Lee Earle, Arizona 2012 Project Tea Party, representing self, in favor of HB2826, brought up Arizona's highly-mobile population and said it may take a few election cycles to get people used to elections being held in months other than November. He opined that special elections are manipulated by special interest groups and said that a standard election day will serve citizens.
Lisa Garcia, Town Clerk, Town of Florence and Arizona Municipal Clerks Association, expressed opposition to HB2826. She referred to the handout on Primary and General Election Dates for Arizona Cities and Towns and noted that 76 municipalities will be affected on the even cycles (Attachment 2). She advised that the Town of Florence votes by all-mail ballot elections. If this proposal goes into effect, local control will be removed from the Town and voters will be forced back into the polling place. She stated that the Association is concerned about voter turnout and voter fatigue, as well as concern with taking away choice. She answered questions about increased costs.
Mr. Vogt commented that having set elections every other year addresses the issue raised about voters not knowing about elections. He said he dislikes mail-in ballots because the voter does not get the most up-to-date information, and he maintained that unified election dates get better participation. Mr. Ash disagreed with Mr. Vogt's arguments.
Lucy Caldwell, Goldwater
Institute, in support of HB2826, stated that those who oppose the bill have
not had experience with consolidated elections. She said local control is good
but when cities and towns do things to deliberately subvert the best interests
of local constituents, it is important to address that issue. She shared
information about legislation which passed in Michigan last year that revealed
that consolidating elections for school districts saved about
$7-8 million, and said that lack of consolidated election dates hurt
taxpayers. She addressed other issues: raising the issue of voter fatigue is
insulting to voters and voters are not apathetic about local elections.
Mrs. Goodale queried whether the Goldwater Institute has looked at the 77 cities and projected the cost for a special election. Ms. Caldwell said she does not have that information. She said she discussed this with the Scottsdale City Clerk who advised that election costs are volatile, depending on what is on the ballot. She said she will look into costs to get more information. Mrs. Goodale expressed concern about increased cost to the taxpayers.
Chet Kite, representing self, testified that he supports HB2826 because of money. He maintained that the unions control the Phoenix City Council. He provided a handout "Budget Analyses Shows City Council Intentions" (Attachment 3).
William Smith, representing self, advised that he is testifying in support of HB2826 for the following reasons:
Wes Gullett, representing self, stated support of HB2826. He advised that he knocked on hundreds of doors across Phoenix while he was a candidate in the last Mayoral election and one of the main questions he was asked related to election dates. This bill will consolidate elections to even-numbered years, will increase turnout and will reduce costs by decreasing the number of elections. He contended there will not be less voter participation because of voter fatigue, because people understand that government closest to them is the most important to them, and they will continue to be involved.
Mrs. Tovar queried whether this bill
will trigger a Department of Justice review. Ms. Osborne replied that all
bills are required to go through the Department of Justice, and the crux of the
Department's review depends on how the minority community feels about the
issue.
Mrs. Tovar expressed concern that this will negatively affect minority voters.
Representative Ugenti mentioned that this is not about the municipalities, the County Recorder's Office, the Secretary of State's Office, but what is best for the voters.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2826 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2826 but did not speak:
Ron Ludders, representing self
Starlee Rhoades, Vice President, Goldwater Institute
Thomas Helding, representing self
Kevin Myers, United for A Sovereign America, representing self
Rebecca Mahan, representing self
Tom Jenney, Director, Americans for Prosperity-Arizona
Raquel Cook, representing self
Dave Kopp, Manager, Americans for Prosperity
Brad Lundahl, Government Relations, City of Scottsdale
Gretchen Conger, Director of Government Relations, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Holly Buss, representing self
John Baunoch, representing self
Mary Ann Baunoch, representing self
Luis Anderson, representing self
Onita Davis, representing self
Spencer Kamps, Deputy Director, Home Builders Association of Central Arizona
Richard Mihalik, representing self
Joy Staveley, Vice President-Owner, Canyoneers, Inc.
Pamela Pearson, representing self
Terrance Traylor, representing self
Linda Brickman, Act for America, representing self
Roger Boone, representing self
Fitzhugh Havens, representing self
Conny Culver, representing self
Jim Wise, representing self
Joyce Hill, representing self
Nick Dranias, Director, Center for Constitutional Government, representing self and Goldwater Institute
Marcus Huey, representing self
James Hallgren, Assistant Prayer Coordinator, 40 Days for Life, representing self
Beth Hallgren, Campaign Administrator, 40 Days for Life, representing self
Steve Voeller, President, Arizona Free Enterprise Club
Scot Mussi, Free Enterprise Club
Jerilyn Anderson, representing self
Trudy Wieber, representing self
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2826 but did not speak:
Chad Heinrich, Government Relations Coordinator, City of Tempe
Jacqueline Walker, City of Kingman
David Johnson, Intergovernmental Affairs Analyst, Town of Buckeye
Debra Galbraith, Town Manager, Town of Payson
Kelly Udall, Town Manager, Town of Pinetop-Lakeside
Glenn Nichols, City Manager, City of Benson
Ed Muder, City Manager, City of Show Low
Jack Hakim, Mayor, City of Bullhead City
Gayle Mabery, Town Manager, Town of Clarkdale
Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder, representing self
Lana Mook, Mayor, City of El Mirage
Connie Scoggins, Assistant City Attorney, City of Yuma
Scott Butler, City of Mesa
Gail Barney, Mayor, Town of Queen Creek
Ryan Judy, Deputy Town Manager, Town of Prescott Valley
Dale Wiebusch, Legislative Associate, League of Arizona Cities and Towns
Benjamin Bitter, Management Analyst, City Manager's Office, City of Casa Grande
Himanshu Patel, Town Manager, Town of Florence
Jennifer Pena, Deputy City Clerk, City of Litchfield Park
Kim Holaway, Mayor, Town of Eagar
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed as neutral on HB2826 but did not speak:
Jim Drake, Assistant Secretary of State, Secretary of State's Office
Amy Chan, State Election Director, Secretary of State's Office
Question was called on the motion that HB2826 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 5-4-0-0 (Attachment 4).
HB2547 - collateral source evidence; admissibility. - DO PASS
Magdalena Jorquez, Majority Research Analyst, stated that HB2547 allows a defendant in any personal injury, wrongful death or destruction of property claim to introduce collateral source evidence of any money or benefit that is or will be payable to the plaintiff or on the plaintiff's behalf, for which damages are recoverable (Attachment 5). She reviewed the provisions of the bill:
· Allows a defendant, in any personal injury, wrongful death or destruction of property claim, to take the following action:
Ø Introduce evidence of any money or benefit that is or will be payable to the plaintiff or on the plaintiff’s behalf, as a result of the injury, death, damage, destruction, or pecuniary harm for which damages are recoverable.
· Permits the plaintiff to introduce the following evidence, if the defendant introduces collateral source evidence:
Ø Amounts the plaintiff has paid or contributed to secure the plaintiff’s right to any benefits.
Ø That recovery from the defendant is subject to a lien.
Ø That the provider of the collateral benefits has a statutory right of recovery against the plaintiff as reimbursement for the benefits.
Ø That the benefit provider has a right of subrogation to the rights of the plaintiff.
· Specifies that the purpose of the admissible evidence is to consider the plaintiff’s damages.
· Prohibits a collateral source benefits provider from the following, unless expressly permitted by statute:
Ø Recovering any amount against the plaintiff as reimbursement.
Ø Subrogated to the rights of the plaintiff.
· Contains a delayed effective date.
Mr. Vogt, sponsor, stated that the intent of the bill is transparency. The current situation in law is that the plaintiff gets to include evidence of all the charges, whether incurred or not, but the defense cannot put into evidence whether a collateral source has paid part of the bills. This legislation allows the plaintiff to present their costs and charges, lets the defense present evidence that some of the costs have been paid for by insurers, and then lets the jury decide what the proper compensation is for the plaintiff. He related that 19 states have similar collateral source laws. This legislation spreads transparency towards actions where there are medical bills.
Fred Zeder, Arizona Department of Transportation Unit Chief, Liability Management Section, Attorney General 's Office, in support for HB2547, advised that he does tort litigation, i.e., high damage injury cases and that this legislation is long overdue. The collateral source rule inflates damages in personal injury cases because the jury is not informed that medical bills have already been paid. He noted that many insurance providers are not reimbursed when the damages have been awarded. In answer to Mr. Chabin, he related that providers can place a lien against the judgment in order to recover costs; however, the lien cannot exceed the amount paid. He provided an example.
Richard Langerman, Attorney, Arizona Trial Lawyers, opposed to HB2547, stated that this legislation is bad public policy. He said the bill raises three issues:
· If the injured victim has health insurance, he should receive the benefit of that insurance. This bill will transfer that benefit to the person who caused the accident.
· Increases the complexity and cost of litigation by creating a collateral issue: amount of awards, liens, whether there is insurance, etc.
· Provides more information but does not provide transparency nor does it provide all the information. It does not allow juries to hear about the defendant's insurance coverage to help pay for the damages caused by his negligence.
Mr. Langerman said this bill provides a benefit to wrongdoers at the expense of victims, increases costs of litigation, and provides partial transparency and, for those reasons, the Trial Lawyers urge Members to vote against HB2547.
Barry Markson, Board of Directors, Arizona Association of Defense Counsel, in favor of HB2547, recommended that the language mirror the medical malpractice language currently in statute to provide consistency in rules between medical malpractice and general negligence cases. He noted that the medical malpractice provisions have been in place since 1976 and concerns and issues have been resolved. He urged Members to support HB2547. In response to Mr. Vogt, Mr. Markson stated that the bill does not add more cost, it streamlines cases and gets them resolved faster.
Mr. Vogt mentioned that this is about compensatory damages; the intent is to put the person back to his original economic position.
In response to Mr. Ash, Mr. Markson estimated that less than five percent of civil cases go before a jury.
Scott Loewe, Member, National Association of Subrogation Counsel, representing self, stated that he is opposed to the bill unless an amendment is added. He advised that subsection C of the bill removes a carrier's right to pursue subrogation for the damages they paid.
Mr. Vogt advised that he has
expressed a willingness to work on the subrogation issue.
Mr. Loewe stated that it is critical to understand that wiping out a
subrogation action will increase premiums because insurance companies are going
to have to make up for that deficiency. He also discussed deductibles and
insurance affordability. He maintained that the language of the bill is overly
broad.
Michael Low, Allstate Insurance, American Family Insurance, expressed support of HB2547, and said it is one of the most significant tort reforms the state has considered in the last 20 years. It will have real benefits for small business, schools and nonprofit organizations. This puts information before juries and makes it easier for them to reach a settlement decision sooner, saving costs. Additionally, it contains protections for the plaintiff. He urged support of the bill. In answer to questions, he stated that this proposal helps bring about some meaningful reform; it will speed up litigation, enable juries to make informed decisions and make it easier to settle cases.
Stuart Goodman, Dignity Health, opposed to HB2547, deferred his time to Richard Burnham.
Richard Burnham, Attorney, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, expressed strong opposition to HB2547. He advised that St. Joseph's and other trauma centers are in contracts with health insurers whereby they discount their rates. They do that because they get volume and guaranteed payment. When patients are admitted, hospitals are entitled to collect the discount granted to the health insurance company from the tortfeasor who caused the injury, and this bill jeopardizes that; it awards the tortfeasor for the fact that the patient had insurance. He pointed out that Arizona hospitals receive about 70 percent of their costs from treating Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) patients.
Don Isaacson, Pfizer Pharmaceutical Company, State Farm Insurance, LeadingAge Arizona, stated support for HB2547. He said that tort reform usually leads to less payment to some individuals for the benefit of a broader group of society. He said the trial lawyers and the hospitals are taking a stance against this bill because there might be less payment for them. He stated that this proposal fits into the definition of transparency; it lets the jury hear all the information in order to make its decision. In answer to Mr. Chabin's question, he stated that this legislation tries to eliminate double payments. Mr. Ash commented that this will lower the amount that the property and casualty insurance companies will pay and lessen the amount that hospitals receive. Mr. Isaacson agreed that is probably a predictable result.
Christina Geremia, representing self, in favor of HB2547, testified that she is a lawyer who practices personal injury litigation. This legislation will not hinder any health care provider from pursuing a lien. It could result in a lesser reimbursement to a hospital or health care provider, but their lien rights would be preserved. The intent of this proposal is to expand what a jury would hear, not to limit lien rights. In response to Mr. Vogt, she explained the concept of balanced billing.
Dennis Dahlen, Chief Financial Officer, Banner Health, expressed strong opposition to HB2547. He advised that there is a limited pool of funds that go to hospitals. The liens that Banner files relate mostly to accident victims. When patients are admitted, they are treated and no proof of ability to pay is asked for. This bill does not permit lien recovery.
Barry Aarons, Lobbyist, Arizona Association of Chiropractic, against HB2547, advised that this legislation has the effect of preventing chiropractic physicians from collecting the full market value for their services.
Names of those who signed up in support of HB2547 but did not speak:
Norman Moore, Attorney, State Farm Insurance and LeadingAge Arizona
David Childers, Lobbyist, Property Casualty Insurers Association of America
Farrell Quinlan, State Director, National Federation of Independent Business
David Landrith, Vice President of Policy & Political Affairs, Arizona Medical Association
Ellen Poole, Executive Director, South West Region Government Relations, USAA
Art Harding, Legislative Affairs Director, Office of the Attorney General
Gaspar Laca, Government Affairs Manager, GlaxoSmithKline
John Mangum, Arizona Food Marketing Alliance, Eli Lilly & Company
Steve Twist, Vice President and General Counsel, Services Group of America
Kerry Hayden, Government Affairs Representative, Farmers Insurance Group of Companies Wendy Briggs, Lobbyist, American Insurance Association
Gretchen Kitchel, Senior Public Affairs Representative, Salt River Project
Dean Butler, representing self
Names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2547 but did not speak:
Ryan Harper, Triadvocates LLC, Vanguard Health Systems
Jason Bezozo, Senior Program Director, Government Relations, Banner Health
Timothy La Sota, Attorney, Rose Law Group, Arizona Chiropractic Society
Laura Magnus, Arizona Association of Chiropractic
Seth Apfel, representing self
Debbie Johnston, Vice President, Advocacy, Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association Helena Whitney, Director, Government Relations & Legislative Affairs, UA Health Network Gibson McKay, Sherpa Public Affairs, UA Health Network
Michael Preston Green, Lobbyist, Catalyst Paper (Snowflake) Inc.
Chris Herstam, Lobbyist, TMC Healthcare
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2547 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-3-0-0 (Attachment 6).
HB2546 - medical expenses; recovery; paid only - DO PASS AMENDED S/E
S/E: medical expenses; recovery; paid only
Magdalena Jorquez, Majority Research Analyst, advised that the proposed Vogt two-page strike-everything amendment dated 2/14/12 (Attachment 7) to HB2546 limits the expenses that a claimant may recover if no payments were made by the claimant, or on the claimant's behalf, to the usual and ordinary value of the reasonable and necessary medical expenses for which the claimant is obligated (Attachment 8). She reviewed the provisions of the bill:
· Entitles the claimant, in any claim to recover medical expenses incurred as a result of bodily injury or wrongful death, to recover reasonable medical expenses, with the following proviso:
Ø Limits the expenses that a claimant may recover, if no payments were made by the claimant or on the claimant’s behalf, to the usual and ordinary value of the reasonable and necessary medical expenses for which the claimant is obligated.
· Defines claim as any legal proceeding, underinsured and uninsured motorist proceeding, arbitration or other similar proceeding in which the recovery of medical expenses for bodily injury or wrongful death is permitted.
· Defines reasonable medical expenses as the expenses for which monies were actually paid by the claimant, the claimant’s health insurance company or any other collateral source in full satisfaction of the services rendered, including any amount owed by the claimant for coinsurance or a copayment or deductible.
· Contains a delayed effective date.
Mr. Vogt, sponsor, said this bill states that the evidence a plaintiff can admit to trial for damages is what has been paid by their insurance and any money paid to secure those benefits. He related that 19 states have adopted similar legislation. He maintained that the effect of adopting this proposal will result in significant savings to the health care industry. This bill addresses compensatory damages and how much the plaintiff is actually out. In response to Mrs. Goodale's question about how ongoing expenses will be addressed, he stated that the jury will determine damages on the severity of the injuries and long-term care. He maintained that this bill does not eliminate long-term expenses.
Richard Burnham, Attorney, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, testified against HB2546. He said that this proposal will eliminate hospital lien rights for any insured patient that is treated, which is a critical funding source for trauma centers. He opined that prohibiting the jury from hearing about a hospital's claim to compensation from the tortfeasor goes too far.
Barry Markson, Board of Directors, Arizona Association of Defense Counsel, spoke in favor of HB2546. He stated that the tort system is designed to make a person whole. By law, plaintiffs are entitled to reimbursement for reasonable and necessary medical bills for the cost of their treatment. Currently, an inflated bill is often presented. The medical system is set up to accept payment in full from multiple parties but bill at a much higher amount, and this inflates the value of personal injury cases beyond what is reasonable and necessary. This bill allows the actual cost of treatment to be presented to a jury so the person can be made whole but not more than whole.
Richard Langerman, Attorney, Arizona Trial Lawyers, opposed HB2546. He opined that the bill is poorly written and is bad public policy. He addressed the following issues: "usual and customary charges," and all doctors and all hospitals are committing fraud because they charge more than they are entitled to. He maintained that this legislation is bad public policy because it creates an enormous wealth transfer from accident victims, providers of medical services and State Fund for those victims on public assistance, and that wealth transfer goes to casualty insurers, transferring the wealth from the Arizona economy to other states where the insurers are domiciled.
Christina Geremia, Attorney, representing self, expressed support of HB2546. She clarified that this legislation does not impair a plaintiff's ability to get future medical expenses. This legislation affects only one lien right: a hospital's or health care provider's ability to pursue a lien when another source has paid. It permits the jury to hear what the actual expenses are and compensates the plaintiff accordingly.
Names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2546 but did not speak:
Norman Moore, Attorney, State Farm Insurance and LeadingAge Arizona
David Childers, Lobbyist, Property Casualty Insurance Association of America
Don Isaacson, LeadingAge Arizona and State Farm Insurance
Farrell Quinlan, State Director, National Federation of Independent Business
J. Michael Low, Attorney, Allstate Insurance, American Family Insurance, American International Group
Gaspar Laca, Government Affairs Manager, GlaxoSmithKline
John Mangum, Arizona Food Marketing Alliance, Eli Lilly & Company
Steve Twist, Vice President and General Counsel, Services Group of America
Kerry Hayden, Government Affairs Representative, Farmers Insurance Group of Companies
Jim Ogsbury, Legislative Director, League of Arizona Cities and Towns
Wendy Briggs, Lobbyist, American Insurance Association
Dean Butler, representing self
Names of those who signed up in opposition to the strike-everything amendment to HB2546 but did not speak:
Pat VanMaanen, representing self
Ryan Harper, Triadvocates LLC, Vanguard Health Systems
Barry Aarons, Lobbyist, Arizona Association of Chiropractors
Jason Bezozo, Senior Program Director, Government Relations, Banner Health
Laura Magnus, Arizona Association of Chiropractic
Seth Apfel, representing self
Debbie Johnston, Vice President, Advocacy, Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association Dennis Dahlen, Chief Financial Officer, Banner Health
Stuart Goodman, Lobbyist, Dignity Health
Helena Whitney, Director, Government Relations & Legislative Affairs, UA Health Network
Gibson McKay, Sherpa Public Affairs, UA Health Network
Michael Preston Green, Lobbyist, Catalyst Paper (Snowflake) Inc.
Chris Herstam, Lobbyist, TMC Healthcare
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2546 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that the Vogt two-page strike-everything amendment dated 2/14/12 to HB2546 be adopted (Attachment 7). The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2546 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 5-4-0-0 (Attachment 9).
HB2545 - civil actions; comparative negligence - DISCUSSED AND HELD
Vice-Chairman Smith asked the Chairman to hold HB2545. He opined that this bill is not needed because currently in Arizona if a person is 99 percent at fault and one percent not at fault, the one percent can be recovered. This bill changes that; it hurts victims of torts and has not been shown it is needed.
Mr. Vogt related that the bill states that if a person is 51 percent or more at fault, the jury may use that as a bar to recovery. He said that 33 other states have adopted this rule or the 50 percent rule which says one cannot recover if equally at fault.
Mr. Ash encouraged the Chairman to hold the bill because he believes it conflicts with article II, § 31 of the Arizona Constitution which says no law shall be enacted in this state limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person. He said he sees this as potentially limiting recovery.
To that point, Mr. Vogt said the language is permissive and is left up to the jury.
Chairman Farnsworth announced that HB2545 will be held.
Names of those who signed up in support of HB2545 but did not speak:
Norman Moore, Attorney, State Farm Insurance and LeadingAge Arizona
Don Isaacson, LeadingAge Arizona and State Farm Insurance
Farrell Quinlan, State Director, National Federation of Independent Business
J. Michael Low, Attorney, Allstate Insurance, American Family Insurance, American International Group
Heather Bernacki, Government Relations Associate, East Valley Chambers of Commerce Alliance
Gaspar Laca, Government Affairs Manager, GlaxoSmithKline
John Mangum, Arizona Food Marketing Alliance, Eli Lilly & Company
Steve Twist, Vice President and General Counsel, Services Group of America
Kerry Hayden, Government Affairs Representative, Farmers Insurance Group of Companies
Jim Ogsbury, Legislative Director, League of Arizona Cities and Towns
Marcus Osborn, Manager of Government and Public Affairs, Arizona Manufacturers Council
Wendy Briggs, Lobbyist, American Insurance Association
Gretchen Kitchel, Senior Public Affairs Representative, Salt River Project
Dean Butler, representing self
Names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2545 but did not speak:
Richard Langerman, Attorney, Arizona Trial Lawyers
Seth Apfel, representing self
Michael Preston Green, Lobbyist, Catalyst Paper (Snowflake) Inc.
HB2432 - secured appearance bond exoneration; remission - DO PASS AMENDED S/E
S/E: secured appearance bond; exoneration
MJ Bildner, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, advised that the proposed Farnsworth 22-line strike-everything amendment dated 2/14/12 (Attachment 10) to HB2432 makes changes to the exoneration of appearance bonds (Attachment 11). He reviewed the provisions of the bill:
· Requires that a surety be relieved from liability on an appearance bond upon which the defendant is released at the time the defendant is surrendered if the surety surrenders the defendant on or before the day and time the defendant is ordered to appear in court.
· Stipulates that upon approval by the court, a surety may be relieved from liability on the appearance bond upon which the defendant is released at the time the defendant is surrendered if:
Ø The surety surrenders the defendant into the custody of the sheriff of the county in which the prosecution is pending within 21 days after the defendant’s failure to appear.
· States that if the surety surrenders the defendant to the sheriff, the court may order forfeiture of up to 10 percent of the appearance bond or $1,000, whichever is greater.
Representative David Gowan, sponsor, advised that HB2432 will help the bail bond industry. The legislation changes "may" to "shall" so that a bondsman will not forfeit the bond. He related that he has worked with stakeholders for about six months to come up with the language. Currently, if the defendant misses his court date, the bondsman loses the bond, so there is no incentive to bring the criminal back. This bill gives a bondsman 41 days to bring the defendant back and not lose the bond, which, he said, results in public safety.
Sheila Polk, County Attorney, Yavapai County, voiced opposition to the strike-everything amendment to HB2432. She does not believe it promotes public safety. It rewards the defendant who does not show up in court as ordered by the judge and disrespects the courts and the criminal justice system. The primary purpose of bonds is to ensure that a defendant appears in court as ordered. The loss of the bond is the incentive to the bondsman to make sure the defendant appears for the court hearing. This proposal removes the incentive to get a defendant to timely appear in court but instead allows the defendant one "free pass" and will be costly to the system.
Jerry Landau, Legislative Liaison, Administrative Office of the Courts, Arizona Supreme Court, neutral on the strike-everything amendment to HB2432, stated that this legislation returns the discretion to the court in this area.
John Burns, President, Arizona Bail Bondsmen Association, testified in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2432. He advised that the 10 percent penalty the courts assess if the fugitive is not back in custody within 21 days, takes away the bondsmens' profit. He pointed out that when a defendant does not show up for the court hearing, the "victim" is the citizen who puts up the collateral for the release of a defendant. He said this is not about bondsmen losing money; it is about protecting citizens' property. He advised that he has not paid a single forfeiture to the court that he did not collect back from a citizen.
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2432 but did not speak:
Beth Hallgren, Campaign Administrator, 40 Days for Life, representing self
James Hallgren, Assistant Prayer Coordinator, 40 Days for Life, representing self
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to the strike-everything amendment to HB2432 but did not speak:
Kathleen Mayer, Deputy Pima County Attorney, Pima County Attorney's Office
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on the strike-everything amendment to HB2432 but did not speak:
Lester Pearce, Presiding Justice of the Peace, Maricopa County Justice Courts
Kimberly MacEachern, Staff Attorney, Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council, against the strike-everything amendment to HB2432, maintained that this bill does not do anything. She advised that the contract between the bondsman and the individual who pays the bail is a private contract and is not addressed by this legislation. If any part of the bond is forfeited, the bondsman has the right to recover the money from the individual who puts up the collateral.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2432 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that the Farnsworth 22-line strike-everything amendment dated 2/14/12 to HB2432 be adopted (Attachment 10). The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2432 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 5-3-0-1 (Attachment 12).
HB2434 - bail bond requirements; cash; secured - DO PASS AMENDED S/E
S/E: bail bond prohibitions; felons
MJ Bildner, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, advised that the Farnsworth three-page strike-everything amendment dated 2/14/12 (Attachment 13) to HB2434 allows a bail bond agent to employ a person whose felony conviction has been set aside or whose civil rights have been restored for a conviction of theft or of any crime involving carrying or possessing a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument (Attachment 14).
Representative David Gowan, sponsor, related that this proposal gives the Director of the Department of Insurance the discretion to give a bail bond license to an individual whose felony conviction has been set aside.
John Burns, President, Arizona Bail Bondsmen Association, testified in favor of the strike-everything amendment to HB2434. He said that current statutes provide that once a judgment of guilt is vacated and all charges dismissed, no penalties should be held against the individual; however, other statutes provide that the individual has to disclose that information on certain applications. He said he does not think that is fair.
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up as neutral on the strike-everything amendment to HB2434 but did not speak:
Jerry Landau, Legislative Liaison, Administrative Office of the Courts, Arizona Supreme Court
Andrew Carlson, Executive Assistant for Policy Affairs, Arizona Department of Insurance
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2434 but did not speak:
Seth Apfel, representing self
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2434 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that the Farnsworth three-page strike-everything amendment dated 2/14/12 to HB2434 be adopted (Attachment 13). The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2434 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 8-0-0-1 (Attachment 15).
HB2200 - forcible entry; detainer; judgment; bond - DO PASS
Magdalena Jorquez, Majority Research Analyst, explained that HB2200 allows a party seeking to stay the execution of a judgment in a forcible entry and detainer action to post a supersedeas bond in the amount ordered to the prevailing party in the judgment (Attachment 16).
Representative Steve Urie, sponsor, advised that this proposal asks that the tenant put up the greater amount of the periodic rent or the amount of the judgment in a forcible entry and detainer action, to assure the owner that the funds are available should he become the prevailing party.
Ellen Katz, Litigation Director, William E Morris Institute for Justice, expressed opposition to HB2200. Currently, if a tenant wants to stay in the unit pending appeal, he must start paying rent to the court from the date of judgment; if he stops paying rent, he must move out. This bill provides that in addition to paying the accruing rent, the person also has to pay the monetary judgment to stay in the unit. She said getting the rent is the landlord's protection pending the appeal. She opined that this legislation will have a chilling effect on appeals.
Mr. Ash mentioned that usually tenants do not pay rent because they do not have the money. The landlord may have a judgment but the judgment is generally unenforceable because the tenant does not have the money. Ms. Katz said her point is that if a tenant wants to stay in the unit pending appeal, the tenant must pay the accruing rent, so the landlord is protected during the appeal process.
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2200 but did not speak:
Denise Holliday, Attorney, representing self
Courtney Gilstrap LeVinus, Arizona Multihousing Association
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2200 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-1-0-2 (Attachment 17).
HB2284 - DUI; jury trial - DO PASS
MJ Bildner, Majority Assistant Research Analyst, said that HB2284 allows a defendant to unilaterally waive a jury trial in a non-aggravated driving while under the influence (DUI) trial (Attachment 18). The bill stipulates that at the arraignment, the court must inform the defendant that he may unilaterally request a jury trial. The bill applies retroactively from and after December 11, 2011.
Vice-Chairman Smith, sponsor,
advised that this bill restores a defendant's right to have a jury trial in a
DUI case. He said that current law is confusing; this proposal clarifies the
law and eliminates a real problem for the courts. In response to Mr. Ash's
question,
Vice-Chairman Smith answered this relates to first-time misdemeanor DUIs.
Kathleen Mayer, Deputy Pima County Attorney, Pima County Attorney's Office, expressed opposition to HB2284. She said she is in favor of the restoration of jury trials for misdemeanor DUIs but does not support the unilateral provisions. Mr. Chabin asked whether the Pima County Attorney's Office will support the bill if amended. Ms. Mayer replied in the affirmative.
Vice-Chairman Smith advised that he will offer an amendment on the Floor. He said there is a constitutional right to have a jury trial, so he will ensure that the "unilateral" language is removed.
Chairman Farnsworth announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2284 but did not speak:
Kimberly MacEachern, Staff Attorney, Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2284 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 7-0-0-2 (Attachment 19).
HB2376 - court fees; payment method - DO PASS AMENDED
Yijee Jeong, Majority Intern, explained that HB2376 allows the court to accept alternative methods of payment for court fees, including credit cards, charge cards, debit cards and electronic funds transfer (Attachment 20). The Farnsworth two-line amendment dated 2/14/12 makes a technical change (Attachment 21).
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2376 but did not speak:
Gretchen Conger, Director of Government Relations, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Leah Hubbard, Intergovernmental Relations Coordinator, Town of Gilbert
Trey Williams, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Association of Counties
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2376 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that the Farnsworth two-line amendment dated 2/14/12 be adopted (Attachment 21). The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2376 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-0-0-3 (Attachment 22).
HB2625 - domestic relations; disposition of property - DO PASS AMENDED S/E
S/E: insurers; healthcare coverage; religious beliefs
Magdalena Jorquez, Majority Research Analyst, explained that the Farnsworth 41-page strike-everything amendment dated 2/14/12 (Attachment 23) to HB2625 asserts the validity of various types of health care contracts as it relates to the ability of a religious employer to deny coverage of contraceptive devices (Attachment 24). She reviewed the provisions of the strike-everything amendment:
· Makes the following changes to the statutes governing a heath care services organization (A.R.S. §20-1057.08), a group disability policy (A.R.S. §20-1402), a blanket disability policy (A.R.S. §20-1404), or an accountable health benefits plan:
Ø Removes the provision of law that allows a religious employer whose religious tenets prohibit the use of prescribed contractive methods to require the corporation to provide a contract without coverage for all FDA-approved contraceptive methods.
Ø Asserts that a contract shall not be considered to have failed if the contract’s failure to provide coverage of specific items or services related to contraception is because providing or paying for coverage is contrary to the religious beliefs of the employer, sponsor, issuer, corporation or other entity offering the plan; or because the coverage is contrary to the religious beliefs of the purchaser or beneficiary of the coverage.
Ø Requires that a written affidavit be filed with the corporation stating the objection, if an objection triggers the subsection.
Ø Directs the corporation to retain the affidavit for the duration of contract and any renewals of the contract.
Ø Specifies that coverage for prescriptive contraceptive methods ordered by a health care provider for uses other than for contraceptive, abortifacient, abortion or sterilization purposes are not excluded.
Ø Allows a corporation, employer, sponsor, issuer or other entity offering the plan to state religious beliefs or moral convictions in its affidavit that require the subscriber to first pay for the prescription and then submit a claim to the corporation.
Ø Permits a corporation to charge an administrative fee for handling these claims.
Ø Removes the requirement that every religious employer provide prospective insureds written notice that the religious employer refuses to cover all U.S. FDA-approved contraceptive methods for religious purposes.
Ø Deletes the definition of religious employer.
Ø Removes the provision that prohibits religious employers from discriminating against an employee who independently chooses to obtain insurance coverage or prescriptions for contraceptives from another source.
Ms. Jorquez advised that the Farnsworth 13-line amendment dated 2/15/12 to the strike-everything amendment is a technical amendment to correct drafting errors recommended by Legislative Council (Attachment 25).
Representative Debbie Lesko, sponsor, stated that the strike-everything amendment restores religious freedom in the State of Arizona. It allows employers and insurance companies to opt out of the current mandate to provide contraceptives to their employees. She said she believes the current mandate and recent rule imposed by the Department of Health and Human Services at the federal level under the Obama administration requiring insurance companies to provide contraceptives violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of religion. She asked Members for their support of HB2625. She answered questions about discrimination and statutory protections.
Mr. Chabin related that this issue is being discussed at the federal level. He suggested keeping the Arizona Legislature out of the controversy. Representative Lesko said she does not plan to do that.
Ron Johnson, Executive Director, Arizona Catholic Conference, expressed strong support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2625. He said this bill pertains to religious liberty. Arizona currently has some mandated contraceptive statutes, with an extremely narrow religious exemption which only applies to churches but not to other religious institutions or private employers. This legislation broadens the religious exemption in the state to cover any employers and insurers that do not want to be compelled to provide contraceptives in their health care plans because of religious beliefs. He maintained that this proposal is a commonsense effort to preserve basic freedoms. He distributed a letter from the Alliance Defense Fund on legal implications of the strike-everything amendment to HB2625 (Attachment 26).
Theresa Ulmer, Consultant, Planned Parenthood Arizona, spoke in opposition to the strike-everything amendment to HB2625. She said this bill will protect religious entities but it will not protect women. She believes it is important that women are not discriminated against, particularly with respect to birth control. She advised that 99 percent of women use birth control; 58 percent of those women use it for other health reasons. This proposal will mean that a woman who needs birth control for a health reason will have to disclose her personal health information to her employer. She believes this legislation will open up the potential for women to be discriminated against and puts women's health at risk. She said that religious organizations already have the right to not offer certain coverage but they must notify people they are employing about limiting coverage. In response to Mrs. Tovar's questions, she related that the strike-everything amendment will allow employers not to notify the employee and, if an employee wants to be reimbursed for medication, the employee has to disclose information to the employer. She explained that notification is not a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act because it is voluntary disclosure.
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in support of the strike-everything amendment to HB2625 but did not speak:
Beth Hallgren, Campaign Administrator, 40 Days For Life, representing self
Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy
James Hallgren, Assistant Prayer Coordinator, 40 Days for Life, representing self
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to the strike-everything amendment to HB2625 but did not speak:
Seth Apfel, representing self
Anjali Abraham, Public Policy Director, American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2625 do pass.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that the Farnsworth 41-page strike-everything amendment dated 2/14/12 to HB2625 be adopted (Attachment 23).
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that the Farnsworth 13-line amendment dated 2/15/12 to the strike-everything amendment be adopted (Attachment 25). The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that the Farnsworth 41-page strike-everything amendment as amended be adopted (Attachment 23). The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2625 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-3-0-0 (Attachment 27).
HB2722 - elections; polling places; electioneering - DO PASS
Yijee Jeong, Majority Intern, stated that HB2722 permits the display of electioneering materials within the 75-foot limit at polling places (Attachment 28). The bill redefines the term electioneering and strikes the definition of electioneering materials.
Karen Osborne, Elections Director, Maricopa County, expressed opposition to HB2722. She advised that last year, extensive changes were made in the electioneering statute. She said her biggest concern with this legislation is that she does not see a provision that restricts polling place workers from wearing clothes that reflect their political position. Additionally, there is nothing in the bill to keep signs out of the polling place.
Diane Cohen, Attorney, Goldwater Institute, in favor of HB2722, related that this bill does not permit electioneering; it narrows the definition to prevent the arbitrary enforcement of the election laws. This proposal maximizes freedom for Arizona citizens and will protect counties and their employees from further federal liability instituted in 2010.
Names of those who signed up in support of HB2722 but did not speak:
Seth Apfel, representing self
Clint Bolick, Litigation Director, Goldwater Institute
Lucy Caldwell, Goldwater Institute
Names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2722 but did not speak:
Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder, representing self
Trey Williams, Legislative Liaison, Arizona Association of Counties
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2722 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-3-0-0 (Attachment 29).
HB2753 - notice; claim; public entity; employee - DO PASS
Yijee Jeong, Majority Intern, explained that HB2753 requires that if there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether someone complied with the pre-suit requirements for claims against public agencies, it must be resolved before a trial on the merits (Attachment 30).
Representative Kate Brophy McGee, sponsor, introduced Matthew Wright, Chief Trial Counsel of the Arizona Schools Risk Retention Trust who has successfully argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and won.
Matthew Wright, Chief Counsel, Arizona School Risk Retention Trust, testified in favor of HB2753. He advised that this legislation fine-tunes the statute by codifying the process for expeditiously resolving factual disputes about notices of claims that must be decided by a jury. This proposal asks that the process occur at the beginning of the litigation and not at the end. He listed benefits: saves the expense of attorney fees for the public agencies, relieves the holding of reserves, and relieves the court of cases that should be dismissed at the beginning.
Names of those who signed up in support of HB2753 but did not speak:
Gretchen Jacobs, Attorney, Arizona School Risk Retention Trust
Jim Ogsbury, Legislative Director, League of Arizona Cities and Towns
Kristin Cipolla, Legislative Liaison, County Supervisors Association
Names of those who signed up as neutral on HB2753 but did not speak:
Janice Goldstein, Arizona Trial Lawyers Association
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2753 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 9-0-0-0 (Attachment 31).
HB2779 - clean elections; trigger reports; repeal. - DO PASS
Magdalena Jorquez, Majority Research Analyst, explained that HB2779 removes the provision of law that requires non-participating candidates to file financial reports whenever their spending or contribution amounts are triggered by specified dollar amounts (Attachment 32).
Chairman Farnsworth related that the sponsor, Representative Nancy McLain, advised that since matching funds are no longer required in Clean Elections, some of the supplemental filing requirements are unnecessary.
Names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2779 but did not speak:
Seth Apfel, representing self
Sam Wercinski, Arizona Advocacy Network
Names of those who signed up as neutral on HB2779 but did not speak:
Todd Lang, Executive Director, Citizens Clean Elections Commission
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2779 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 9-0-0-0 (Attachment 33).
HB2807 - redistricting commission; open meeting law - DO PASS
MJ Bildner, Majority Assistant
Research Analyst, stated that HB2807 expands the definition of public
body as it relates to open meeting laws, to include all commissions,
including the independent redistricting commission (IRC) and other public
entities established by the Arizona Constitution or by ballot initiative (Attachment
34). The bill describes the Legislature's intent to clarify that the IRC was
and is subject to the open meeting statutes contained in A.R.S. title 38,
chapter 3, article 3.1, except for the limited instances in which the more
specific provisions of the Arizona Constitution apply.
Chairman Farnsworth said the intent of this proposal is that everyone is subject to the open meeting law, including the IRC.
Persons in support of HB2807 but did not speak:
Seth Apfel, representing self
Beth Hallgren, Campaign Administrator, 40 Days For Life, representing self
James Hallgren, Assistant Prayer Coordinator, 40 Days for Life, representing self
Persons in opposition to HB2807 but did not speak:
Dr. Bonnie Saunders, President, League of Women Voters of Arizona
Gini McGirr, League of Women Voters of Arizona
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2807 do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-3-0-0 (Attachment 35).
HCR2039 - recall; primary election; general election -
DO PASS FAILED
Yijee Jeong, Majority Intern,
stated that HCR2039 proposes to amend article VIII, part 1,
section 3 of the Arizona Constitution to require a special recall primary
election and a special recall general election (Attachment 36). She reviewed
the provisions of the proposal:
· Requires a special primary election and a special recall general election to be held if an officer does not resign within five days after a recall petition is filed to determine whether the officer shall be recalled.
· Directs that the officer must continue to perform the duties of their office until the special recall general election results have been officially declared.
· States that, unless otherwise requested in writing, the incumbent’s name must be placed as a candidate on the official ballot for nomination by the candidate’s political party at a special recall primary election.
· Allows other candidates to be nominated for the office to be voted for at the special recall primary election, and the winner of each political party’s special recall primary election shall advance to the special recall general election.
· Stipulates that the candidate who receives the highest number of votes at the special recall general election shall be declared elected for the remainder of the term.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HCR2039 do pass. The motion failed by a roll call vote of 3-6-0-0 (Attachment 37).
HB2841 - clean elections; contributions; traditional financing - DO PASS AMENDED
Magdalena Jorquez, Majority Research Analyst, reviewed the provisions of HB2841 which make multiple changes to the laws governing contributions for participating and traditional candidates (Attachment 38). She pointed out that the bill contains a drafting error on page 19, line 15: strike "nonparticipating" insert "PARTICIPATING."
Representative Terri Proud, sponsor, told Members that last year she opposed Clean Elections because of the $5 that allocated taxpayer money to Clean Elections as well as the fact that there was not much of an incentive to run traditionally. She stated that this proposal addresses a lot of concerns and asked Members to support the bill.
Marcus Osborn, Manager of Government and Public Affairs, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, testified against HB2841. He advised that the Chamber has long been an opponent of Clean Elections. He raised the issue of matching funds. The question is whether the funds are public or taxpayer funds; he opined it is all taxpayer money, and the issue is whether that money should be matched. He opined this legislation is a public-funding subsidy bill for candidates. The Chamber believes the best approach is to let the voters have an opportunity to vote to repeal the entire Clean Elections Act.
Chairman Farnsworth advised that SCR1021 is winding its way through the system; he believes the bills are not contradictory. Mr. Osborn stated that if that bill passes, this proposal will become unconstitutional. Chairman Farnsworth queried whether this bill makes the system better, if the other bill does not pass. Mr. Osborn replied that the Chamber likes the system as it is now; it does not believe the current system should be fixed or improved.
Mike Williams, Arizona Clean Elections Commission, in support of HB2841, said the other bill going through the system only repeals the public financing of political candidates, not the entire Act. This bill was brought forward for the following reasons and makes the system better:
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in support of HB2841 but did not speak:
Todd Lang, Executive Director, Citizens Clean Elections Commission
Virginia Ginter, representing self
Dr. Bonnie Saunders, President, League of Women Voters of Arizona, representing self
Karen Peters, representing self
Rivko Knox, representing self
Doris N. Flax, representing self
Eric Ehst, representing self
Sam Wercinski, Arizona Advocacy Network
Michael Valder, Retired Attorney, representing self
Linda Brown, Arizona Advocacy Network
Vice-Chairman Smith announced the names of those who signed up in opposition to HB2841 but did not speak:
Steve Voeller, President, Arizona Free Enterprise Club
Seth Apfel, representing self
Gretchen Conger, Director of Government Relations, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Starlee Rhoades, Vice President, Goldwater Institute
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2841 do pass.
Mr. Vogt moved that HB2841 be amended as follows:
Page 19, line 15, strike "nonparticipating" insert "PARTICIPATING"
The motion carried.
Vice-Chairman Smith moved that HB2841 as amended do pass. The motion carried by a roll call vote of 6-2-1-0 (Attachment 39).
Without objection, the meeting adjourned at 12:29 p.m.
______________________________
Joanne Bell, Committee Secretary
March 12, 2012
(Original minutes, attachments and audio on file in the Chief Clerk’s Office; video archives available at http://www.azleg.gov)
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
23
February 16, 2012
---------- DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------