Republicans Revive Controversial Ballot Measure with Fresh Legislative Push

In a surprising move, Arizona Republicans are reviving a failed ballot measure amid ongoing legislative sessions. Despite voters rejecting Proposition 315 by a significant margin during the November elections, House Bill 2276 has been introduced by Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, echoing the same stipulations as the previous initiative.

The proposed bill mandates legislative approval for regulatory rulemakings that would elevate regulatory costs by $500,000 over a five-year period. This move follows the voter defeat of Prop. 315, which garnered only 47% support among Arizonans.

Gress defended the reintroduction of the bill, arguing that “government overreach and government overregulation is a problem” perceived by many constituents. He attributed the failure of the ballot measure to its length rather than the policy itself.

“I believe the length of the ballot discouraged voters,” Gress remarked. “It’s not the proposed policy that was the issue here.” In the same election, Arizonans rejected seven out of eleven ballot referrals from legislative Republicans.

Gress believes that just because a measure fails does not mean it should remain buried. He referenced the Abortion Access Act as an example of legislation that can continue to be pursued despite public rejection.

This latest bill mirrors a resolution previously introduced by former Republican Sen. Anthony Kern that had also reached the ballot before being vetoed by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs. Hobbs cited concerns in her veto letter that such a measure would impose unnecessary burdens on state agencies, hindering their operations.

Melinda Iyer, co-founder of Civic Engagement Beyond Voting, expressed dismay at the proposal’s resurgence, labeling it as “arrogant.” She argued that blaming voter confusion undermines the electorate’s decision-making process and disregards their clear stance on the matter.

Under Arizona’s Voter Protection Act, voter-approved measures cannot be vetoed or repealed. However, this protection does not extend to propositions that have been rejected by voters, a distinction that Gress supports, citing the evolving nature of public opinion.

Despite Gress’ optimism, criticisms continue to mount against HB2276. Will Humble, former director of the Department of Health Services, deemed the bill a “statement bill” indicative of distrust towards the executive branch, particularly under a Democratic governor.

Humble pointed out that economic evaluations are already mandated for proposed rules, deeming the need for legislative review redundant, especially given the inactivity of the Administrative Rules Oversight Committee established in 2009.

While Hobbs’ office refrains from commenting on pending legislation, the fate of Gress’s bill remains uncertain, with speculation of a similar veto looming. “We’ll see how the legislative process plays out,” Gress stated optimistically. “But I think it’s a great bill and should be enacted into law.”