GOP Initiative to Limit Emergency Powers Could Drastically Alter Future Crisis Responses

An emergency declaration at the state level serves a critical purpose, empowering the government to respond effectively and swiftly to crises that threaten public safety and health.

This declaration grants the governor and state agencies the authority to implement measures that are not usually permissible under normal circumstances. Many of these measures are designed to bypass red tape and provide temporary relief from standard regulations.

Key purposes of an emergency declaration include:

Mobilizing Resources: It enables the rapid allocation of state resources—funding, personnel, and equipment—to areas affected by the emergency.

Regulatory Flexibility: This allows for the temporary suspension or modification of regulations that could impede timely response efforts. Examples include waivers for health care facility requirements, licensing reciprocity for out-of-state medical professionals, and expedited procurement processes.

Information Gathering: It enhances the ability to collect and issue critical information, including enhanced surveillance data, to manage and monitor the emergency situation effectively.

Public Safety Measures: Authorizes necessary public safety actions such as evacuations, curfews, and quarantine orders to protect citizens from immediate threats.

Coordination and Support: Facilitates collaboration between various state agencies, local governments, federal entities, and non-governmental organizations for a unified and efficient response.

Overall, an emergency declaration is a vital tool for state leaders aiming to mitigate the impact of emergencies, protect public health, and restore normalcy as swiftly as possible.

Proposition 135 on November’s ballot seeks to amend the Arizona Constitution to significantly restrict the governor’s emergency response capabilities.

As a constitutional amendment, reversing or altering these limitations would be an arduous process, requiring another amendment and voter approval.

This proposition poses several risks to public health and safety:

Inability to Respond to Biological or Radiologic Emergencies: The proposed restrictions would severely limit the governor’s capability to handle public health crises such as pandemics or radiologic events. Essential measures like the rapid deployment of medical resources, quarantine enforcement, and coordination with federal agencies could be delayed or obstructed.

Loss of Regulatory Flexibility after 30 Days: Health care professionals from other states would not be able to offer services in Arizona beyond 30 days, potentially leading to severe staffing shortages during prolonged emergencies. Emergency responders would lose critical legal protections, discouraging volunteerism and participation in emergency operations. Hospitals and clinics would face difficulties adapting swiftly to surges in patient numbers, affecting their ability to provide prompt and adequate care. The swift establishment of temporary clinics for distributing antivirals or vaccines would be obstructed, delaying public access to life-saving treatments. Furthermore, essential data collection for monitoring and controlling disease spread would be hampered.

Prop. 135 would undermine the state and local governments’ ability to safeguard public health during emergencies by imposing stringent limits on necessary regulatory flexibility and emergency response measures. This inflexibility could lead to delayed responses, inadequate medical care, and increased mortality during crises.

Current checks and balances already exist to prevent abuse of emergency powers. A.R.S. § 36-787 limits public health emergency declarations to 120 days, requiring legislative approval for any extensions, ensuring a balance of power and oversight.

The Arizona Public Health Association urges voters to consider the practical implications of this constitutional amendment carefully before deciding on Prop 135. The stakes are high, and the potential consequences are severe.