Arizona Voters Face Crucial Decision on Governor’s Emergency Powers Limits

PHOENIX – Arizona voters will have the opportunity to decide on Proposition 135, which proposes significant limitations on the emergency powers of the governor.

Under this proposition, while governors will still be able to declare emergencies, any powers they assume will expire after 30 days unless both chambers of the Legislature approve an extension.

Additionally, lawmakers can vote to terminate the emergency even before the 30-day period elapses. If the Legislature is not in session, the governor must convene a special session if one-third of members from each chamber petition for it.

If the House and Senate do not approve an extension, the emergency will cease, and the governor would be barred from declaring a new state of emergency under the same conditions.

Arizona’s current law grants extensive powers to the governor. These include the ability to suspend laws related to state business and commandeer necessary property or personnel. The governor can also revoke business licenses, with few exceptions.

Past experience highlights the implications of these powers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, former Governor Doug Ducey declared an emergency that included various restrictions, such as a stay-at-home order and limits on business operations.

Though some orders were allowed to expire, others persisted. Notable restrictions included closing gyms, bars, and theaters, as well as limiting restaurant capacity.

These actions led to lawmakers introducing measures to curb the governor’s authority in late 2020, although initial attempts did not gain traction.

A bill passed in 2022 restricted public health emergencies to 30 days, with a possibility for up to three automatic extensions. If lawmakers do not approve an extension by 120 days, the emergency automatically ends.

This new law, which took effect after Ducey left office, governs current Governor Katie Hobbs’s actions.

Rep. Joseph Chaplik argues that these measures are insufficient. He emphasizes that existing limitations only apply to public health emergencies, whereas Proposition 135 would broaden the scope to various emergency types, excluding only war and environmental crises.

Chaplik believes the shorter 30-day limit proposed in Proposition 135 is more appropriate than the existing law, which allows for emergencies to last up to 150 days without legislative intervention.

Significantly, the proposition permits the Legislature to convene a special session if a third of lawmakers demand it, a change from the current requirement of two-thirds, which poses challenges in a divided legislature.

This change would empower lawmakers to intervene immediately if they suspect misuse of emergency powers.

However, not all stakeholders back Proposition 135. Will Humble, former state health director, warns that the 30-day limit could hinder rapid responses to disasters.

He argues that effective emergency management requires prompt action from state agencies, not legislative deliberation.

Opposition also comes from Pinny Sheoran, president of the League of Women Voters of Arizona, who contends that reduced emergency powers would weaken the governor’s capacity to manage crises effectively.

Conversely, supporters like Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, praise Proposition 135 as a necessary balance between swift action and legislative oversight. Mussi asserts that it prevents the concentration of power and allows for necessary adjustments in response to evolving emergencies.