Environmental group sues Hobbs for violating water act

Posted on by Yellow Sheet Report Staff

The Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against Hobbs and the Arizona Department of Water Resources, saying they “failed to perform their mandatory duty” to conduct reviews of the Upper San Pedro Basin to determine if the area would require active management practices. Robin Silver, the center’s co-founder, said in a statement that Hobbs and her administration are violating the state’s groundwater management laws. “Her inaction is causing an existential crisis that will lead to the demise of the river and the plants and animals whose existence depends on its flows,” Silver’s statement said. In 2023, the San Pedro Alliance sent a petition to Hobbs and the Director of ADWR asking for an active management area to be created in the upper basin area of the San Pedro River, but neither responded. The lawsuit, filed with the Maricopa County Superior Court, asks the court to compel Hobbs and ADWR to review the Upper San Pedro Basin and designate it an active management area. It cites a letter sent by Mayes to ADWR in 2023 that pointed out only two reviews have been conducted of the river in a 40-year period, which fails to satisfy requirements laid out by the state’s Groundwater Management Act. A spokesperson for ADWR said the department would not comment on pending litigation. Hobbs’ spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Fight continues over Hobbs’ director nominations

Posted on by Yellow Sheet Report Staff

Petersen opposed Hobbs’ motion to stay proceedings in the superior court as she appeals her loss in the lawsuit over director nominations to the state supreme court in a special action. Thomas Basile, attorney for the state Senate and Petersen, claimed the court’s ruling “inflicts no irreparable harm to anyone that a stay could ever mitigate” and Hobbs “is not confronted with any danger of an imminent judicial sanction or penalty.” Basile addressed Hobbs’ claims of other  litigants leveraging the ruling in legal actions against state agencies but notes the rulings in superior court and otherwise carry “no binding force outside the case in which they are issued,” leaving the governor and state agencies with no undoable or permanent harm. “By embarking on a legally untested scheme to circumvent the Senate’s advice and consent prerogatives, the Governor assumed the risks of a judicial defeat and any ensuring repercussions for the acts of agencies under the auspices of her ‘Executive Deputy Directors,” Basile wrote.

AG backs ruling on prosecuting doctors who perform abortions

Posted on by Yellow Sheet Report Staff

Mayes found the “medical emergency” exception to the state’s 15-week abortion ban does not require a physician’s assessment to be “objectively correct” but rather be based on a physician’s clinical assessment and “good faith” decision. “I can’t change the 15-week law, but I can provide clarity on what the 15-week exception is,” Mayes said at a press conference today. The opinion, which comes in response to a June 11 inquiry from Burch, Marsh Schwiebert, and Stahl Hamilton, found that “Arizona law does not allow for prosecution of a treating physician who exercises their clinical judgment in good faith under the medical emergency exception full stop.” Mayes found a “good faith clinical judgment” in a medical emergency only requires a physician assess whether “a condition … so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death,” or “a delay [in providing an abortion] will create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function,” and do so in good faith. The opinion further defines good faith in this context as “the treating physician’s assessment must be based on an actual and honest belief, without malice or an intent to deceive, that a medical emergency exists. It does not mean that the treating physician’s assessment must be objectively correct if later evaluated by others with the benefit of hindsight.” Mayes noted the legislature has never defined clinical judgment but cited case law which finds clinical judgment to be a matter of “relative subjectivity,” involving a “timely assessment” and an “ambiguous set of circumstances,” often revolving around highly fact specific circumstances. And in assessing the definition of “medical emergency” set forth by the legislature, Mayes found it “hinges on language that unquestionably calls for an analysis of the treating physician’s honest clinical judgment alone. The statute does not mention ‘reasonableness’ or otherwise call for an objective comparison of the treating physician’s determination to what other physicians would have done.” She further pointed out the legislature did not write the exception to apply in only circumstances of “imminent death” or “certain death.” Mayes writes, “Nothing in the statutory language requires the treating physician to delay providing an abortion as necessary medical care until, for instance, the patient is in sepsis, hemorrhaging, or otherwise at death’s door.”

Attorneys for Lake, Finchem face final day of ethics hearing

Posted on by Yellow Sheet Report Staff

In closing arguments today over alleged violations in a 2022 suit seeking to ban electronic voting systems, attorneys for the State Bar are asking Lake and Finchem’s attorneys Andrew Parker and Kurt Olsen be suspended only if the Presiding Disciplinary judge finds a violation of an ethics rule barring conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Otherwise, they recommended the presiding disciplinary judge only issue a reprimand. Counsel for the State Bar, Parker and Olsen, representing himself, lodged closing arguments today, bringing a three-day hearing to an end. Kelly Goldstein, attorney for the bar, reiterated the bar’s allegations that the suit was brought too close to an election, lacked standing and falsely claimed to pose little harm to the defendants, all compounding in a general allegation that the case had no true chance to begin with. “

Lake v Hobbs

was not a long shot,” Goldstein said. “Respondents had no chance to invalidate decades of Arizona procedures and scores of Arizona statutes just a couple months before the general election.” Goldstein noted much of the complaint revolved around “potential vulnerabilities” or “potentially insecure” voting systems and pointed out the requested relief, hand counting of all ballots, would impose “obvious financial harm” to the county and lacked any facts to support a conclusion that hand counting is more reliable than electronic tabulation. Goldstein finally said it was “irrelevant whether

Lake v Hobbs

was brought to advantage a political candidate or to advantage political motives.” She asked the disciplinary panel to consider suspension only if there was found to be a violation of an ethical rule pertaining to conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice and recommended a reprimand if not. Brian Holohan, attorney for Parker, claimed the bar lacked evidence of a bad faith basis to bring the claim. “Only argument you heard from the bar is that their claims did not prevail,” Holohan said. Olsen said the case and evidence presented in the case was “solid.” “This is no small matter. The attorneys involved in this case care about their reputation.” Presiding Disciplinary Judge Margaret Downie asked the parties to file final findings of fact and conclusions of law by July 30. Parker and Olsen, and attorneys for the bar Kelly Goldstein and Hunter Perlmeter, declined to comment following the hearing.

Winners and losers

Posted on by Arizona Legislative Report Staff

Legislative Democrats have often expressed how they have felt limited as the minority party, but the passage of Ch. 181, Laws 2024 (HB2677- abortion ban; repeal) is one of the biggest wins for the party at the legislative level in years. L. Contreras said the new law is the most significant legislation Democrats have helped advance since Medicaid expansion in 2013. “That did so much for the state when we did that. It was such a huge one,” Contreras said. “But then this happened this year – it wasn’t just our state – it was countrywide.” Stahl Hamilton said the abortion ban repeal was “a pretty big win.” “This completely changes history,” she told our reporter. She also said many Democrats weren’t confident that they would be able to repeal the 1864 ban when Hobbs mentioned it as one of her priorities in her January State of the State address, but the tide shifted when she and Gress both tried to introduce the measure for a third reading on April 10. “I don’t think anyone thought that was realistic (at the beginning of session),” Stahl Hamilton said. “I do remember one person saying ‘well, that’ll never happen.’” Democratic consultant Gaelle Esposito said the legislation is a “seismic” shift in reproductive rights policy. “That’s decades of anti-abortion backsliding starting to reverse and it’s such a huge political win for Democrats solely because Republicans remained insanely entrenched on a position only about 8% of Arizonans share,” Esposito said. “They are so lost in their own little bubble they handed Democrats the biggest long-term policy and political win they’ve had legislatively in I don’t even know when.” Toma told our reporter Tuesday he wasn’t sure where Republicans go with the abortion issue other than focusing efforts to defeat the Arizona for Abortion Access initiative in November. “It's too much. It’s unconscionable regardless of how you feel about abortion,” Toma said. “So now looking at what's actually the law of the land and it is the 15-week now. To me, that's very reasonable and I think all of us should be focused on making sure that we defeat that awful opportunity at the ballot.”

Looks like security is lax at the Senate

Posted on by Arizona Legislative Report Staff

The man who was caught on video allegedly stealing a Senate employee’s personal items was identified as Walter Ringfield by DPS on Thursday, the same man charged in the theft of security fob from Maricopa County Elections, and he is now facing three additional charges: trespassing, theft, and burglary. The stolen items include “challenge coins and other desk accessories,” which were taken from a security staff member’s desk. Ringfield said that he was Mendez’s intern when confronted by security, Senate Republicans said in a post on X Thursday, but Senate Democrats called the statement “misleading” and said his statement was untrue. “To be clear – this individual was not Senator Mendez’s intern,” Senate Democrats said in the post. “He did not work for Senator Mendez in any capacity. Senator Mendez has no knowledge of the individual and has no recollection of ever meeting him.” Surveillance video footage that was released by Senate Republicans on Wednesday showed Ringfield walking in the hallway of the first floor of the Senate before being confronted by a security guard. After he said something to the guard who confronted him, he entered a stairwell that is only for “legislators and staff,” as indicated by red signs that are posted on the walls and can be seen multiple times in the footage. Despite the public not being allowed in the area, staff keycards are not required to enter the stairwell. Ringfield “was never employed by the Senate,” Senate Republican spokeswoman Kim Quintero said on Thursday. “Our security team takes the safety of our members, staff, and the public who visits our building incredibly seriously, as well as the protection of our property, so I would expect they are debriefing to determine how to prevent any similar situations from occurring in the future,” Quintero said in a text message to our reporter. The Senate has fewer security measures in place in comparison to the House, which requires guests to walk through a metal detector and have their bags searched before entering the building. The court held a status conference for Ringfield’s case Thursday, and the evidentiary hearing is scheduled for Friday afternoon.

Petersen, Epstein weigh in on ballot measures

Posted on by Arizona Legislative Report Staff

While Petersen and Epstein disagree on what the big-ticket issues will be on the ballot this year, they agree that lawmakers should be careful when referring legislation to the voters. Petersen said the increase in referendums passing out of the Legislature this year came “naturally with a divided government and with a lot of vetoes.” But Epstein said the referral strategy allowed Republican lawmakers to circumvent the legislative process entirely. “Any bill that gets passed here gets better when it gets some amendments, people work on it,” Epstein said. “It can serve more people because you're listening across the aisle. None of that has been the case for these referrals.” Epstein cited the Secure the Border Act as an example of an “extreme” proposal to exit the Legislature without reflecting bipartisanship. “Of course, you need to be careful with ballot initiatives,” Petersen said. “They're very hard to change. So you want to make sure you get them right and you don't want to be arbitrary, but you want to be very deliberate about it.” Petersen said he thinks Republicans “put a lot of the top issues” on the ballot, with the border security measure ranking as the top issue to voters in November. On the other hand, Epstein said the Arizona Abortion Access Act will be the most important proposal for voters to weigh. “It's about saving lives, it's about the freedom to choose your own life outcome,” Epstein said. “It's about, you know, recognizing that abortion health care is health care.”

Calling this a debate is false advertising

Posted on by Arizona Legislative Report Staff

Both Toma and Kern participated in a CD8 Clean Elections debate on Monday, which featured Republican candidates, except for former Arizona Congressman Trent Franks, who declined to participate. Pat Briody also attended the debate. Candidates refrained from taking shots at one another like in previous debates and generally agreed on several topics, including the border, elections and abortion. The candidates were asked about HCR2060 (border; benefits; fentanyl; illegal entry) and whether they think voters should pass the ballot measure in November. Toma noted he was the sponsor of the measure and Kern said it was an honor for him to help pass the measure out of the Legislature. Toma also pointed to his legislative record. “I’m the only one here that’s actually gotten these tough things done with one-vote majorities. I can do the same in Congress,” Toma said. Abe Hamadeh and Blake Masters pivoted a little more on the question and took the opportunity to criticize the federal government and ask voters to elect Donald Trump to address the issue. All the candidates said they supported Trump and criticized the criminal cases filed against the former president. Kern said he’s facing a similar situation being a “target” of the FBI and Department of Justice, and it doesn’t feel good for him. “I know that Jesus Christ has my back and I know that I did nothing wrong, and I know that our government is weaponized against the American citizens,” Kern said. “I am honored to be that person that is a target.” Regarding elections, Masters and Toma didn’t go as far as Hamadeh and Kern to say elections were stolen, but all the candidates said they supported measures to make elections more secure. Toma agreed with Masters in a position that “big tech” influenced the 2020 election. All the candidates except Hamadeh also said they supported some kind of federal abortion law, although Kern didn’t provide a specific policy he would support. He did say he believes life begins at conception. Masters said he supported a federal abortion ban after 15 weeks. Toma also didn’t provide a specific week-number during the debate, but he did tell our reporter this week he thought the 15-week law on the books in Arizona is reasonable. Hamadeh said he didn’t support a federal law but wanted to ensure Congress isn't giving money to any organizations that provide abortion care such as Planned Parenthood. Briody also didn’t provide a specific abortion policy the federal government could take. Candidates also discussed social security and said they wanted to end taxes on the program.

Two-week dog fosters needed at Pima Animal Care during July 4 holiday

Posted on by Arizona Legislative Report Staff

PIMA COUNTY, June 27, 2024 – 

Pima Animal Care Center

 pets are hoping to declare their independence from kennels ahead of what is traditionally the shelter’s busiest week of the year. Specifically, PACC is looking for two-week fosters for dogs during the July 4 holiday as part of a “400 by the 4th” campaign. The goal: reduce the shelter census from today’s 516 dogs to 400 dogs by the holiday to ensure that there will be enough empty kennels for the hundreds of stray dogs expected to come in the week following July 4. “PACC sees a massive influx of dogs come into the shelter every year after being spooked by fireworks,” said PACC’s Director, Monica Dangler. “Helping us clear a kennel space for these incoming dogs will help us accommodate them without putting our current shelter residents at risk.” PACC will be offering free crates and food to all fosters who take dogs that are 40 pounds or larger starting today through July 3. In addition, fosters taking in dogs for a full two weeks will be eligible for a $5 a day stipend, thanks to the 

Click Family Foundation

 and 

Friends of Pima Animal Care Center

. PACC’s foster coordinators can work with families to find the best fit for their home environment and to host introductions between owned and potential foster dogs. For those who cannot foster or adopt, PACC is asking for donations of durable toys like Kongs and Nylabones to keep shelter dogs occupied during the firework festivities. These items can be ordered and shipped directly to PACC via the shelter’s 

Amazon wish list

. In addition, PACC urges the community to prepare their pets for the holiday. Any pet can be lost, and more pets go missing during the July 4 holiday than any other day of the year. Pets should be kept safely indoors during fireworks. In the event they are lost, all pets should be microchipped and wearing a collar with up-to-date tag information. For those who may need either of these services, PACC is offering a free microchip and tag clinic at the shelter from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, July 3. Custom pet tags are also available at PACC for free for anyone who needs them any time the shelter is open. Those interested in providing a foster or adoptive home for a dog should come to PACC during open hours. All dogs and puppies are currently free to adopt and come spayed/neutered, microchipped, and up-to-date on vaccinations. A $20 licensing fee may apply to adult dogs. PACC is located at 4000 N. Silverbell Road and is open on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday from noon to 7 p.m., on Wednesday from 1:30 – 7 p.m., and on weekends from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. To see all available pets and services, please visit 

pima.gov/animalcare

.

Attorney General Mayes Issues Opinion Clarifying Arizona Abortion Law as it Relates to Medical Emergencies

Posted on by Yellow Sheet Report Staff

PHOENIX – In a press conference this morning, Attorney General Kris Mayes, alongside medical providers, today issued an opinion clarifying Arizona abortion law as it relates to medical emergencies. "As the top legal officer in this state, let me be perfectly clear: Arizona law does not allow for the prosecution of a treating physician who exercises their clinical judgment in good faith to provide an abortion under the medical emergency exception. Full stop," said Attorney General Mayes. "I have said it before and I will say it again today: I will not prosecute any physician, nurse, doctor, or pharmacist under our state’s abortion laws. I am making it clear to all county attorneys that the law does not allow you to prosecute medical providers acting in good faith, according to their clinical judgment, when providing abortion care in medical emergencies." When does a “medical emergency” exist under the definition in A.R.S. § 36-2321(7), allowing doctors to provide an abortion? The text and relevant legal authorities are straightforward and clear about what this means.  To comply with the medical emergency exception in state statute, the treating physician must do two things:

  • Exercise clinical judgment: This involves applying personal knowledge, training, experience, and discernment to the facts in light of the patient’s unique circumstances and other medically relevant considerations.
  • And secondly, they must determine in good faith that, based on clinical judgment, either “a condition … so complicates the medical condition of a pregnant woman as to necessitate the immediate abortion of her pregnancy to avert her death,” or “a delay [in providing an abortion] will create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”

Good faith means an actual and honest belief, without malice or intent to deceive. Once a treating physician forms a good faith clinical judgment that one of these circumstances is satisfied, the statute allows her to perform an abortion immediately, and he or she need not wait for the patient to deteriorate or inch closer to death. This clinical judgment that a “medical emergency” exists cannot be second-guessed after the fact and cannot be prosecuted under A.R.S. § 36-2322(A)-(B)—or any other abortion law with the same “medical emergency” exception—unless there is proof that he or she acted without good faith. The full opinion is available 

here.

Your search query contained invalid characters or was empty. Please try again with a valid query.