Gallardo's statement:

While other states have been moving forward to make equal rights for every American, Arizona has moved backward. In 21 states it is illegal to fire someone because they are lesbian, gay or bisexual. Nine states and the District of Columbia recognize same sex marriage. But in Arizona, adoption agencies are actually required to discriminate against single, gay and lesbian adults.

Here's Gallardo's press release:

This legislative session, LD 8 Representative Michelle Ugenti of Scottsdale has introduced H.B. 2004, which would introduce laws that would make it a Class 5 Felony for people to make online profiles impersonating other people—though the bill's text, as it stands, doesn't explicitly make it clear whether or not parody accounts are in the clear.

From the text of the bill:

A. A PERSON COMMITS ONLINE IMPERSONATION IF THE PERSON, WITHOUT OBTAINING THE OTHER PERSON'S CONSENT AND WITH THE INTENT TO HARM, DEFRAUD, INTIMIDATE OR THREATEN ANY PERSON, USES THE NAME OR PERSONA OF ANOTHER PERSON TO DO EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. CREATE A WEB PAGE ON A COMMERCIAL SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE OR OTHER INTERNET WEBSITE.
2. POST OR SEND ONE OR MORE MESSAGES ON OR THROUGH A COMMERCIAL SOCIAL NETWORKING SITE OR OTHER INTERNET WEBSITE, OTHER THAN ON OR THROUGH AN ELECTRONIC MAIL PROGRAM OR MESSAGE BOARD PROGRAM.

Arizona isn't the first to introduce laws such as this one — 8 other states are either considering or have already enacted one — but it's interesting to note that this one was introduced by a legislator who has a parody account mocking them.

There are few things more amazing than some of the bills that get thrown around at the beginning of the Legislative session.

Take, for instance, HB 2467, a proposed measure sponsored by seven legislators (six representatives and a senator) from around the metro Phoenix area; northern and northwestern Arizona; and more.

With such wide-ranging membership of representatives from around the state, this must be a bill of massive importance, right?

Well...take a look at the bill's text:

BEGINNING IN THE 2013‑2014 SCHOOL YEAR, IN ADDITION TO FULFILLING THE COURSE OF STUDY AND ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED IN THIS CHAPTER, BEFORE A PUPIL IS ALLOWED TO GRADUATE FROM A PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL IN THIS STATE, THE PRINCIPAL OR HEAD TEACHER OF THE SCHOOL SHALL VERIFY IN WRITING THAT THE PUPIL HAS RECITED THE FOLLOWING OATH:

I, _________, DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, THAT I WILL BEAR TRUE FAITH AND ALLEGIANCE TO THE SAME; THAT I TAKE THIS OBLIGATION FREELY, WITHOUT ANY MENTAL RESERVATION OR PURPOSE OF EVASION; AND THAT I WILL WELL AND FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THESE DUTIES; SO HELP ME GOD.

Yeah. An oath of loyalty to graduate high school. As if reciting the Pledge of Allegiance weekly—at least—isn't enough for these people.

I have nothing against "solemnly swearing to uphold the Constitution," but making this a requirement for to receive what amounts to proof that you can read and write your name (which is incredible, given our current educational rankings) cheapens the sentiment, doesn't it?

Plus, you're swearing that you're taking an oath freely when you're being coerced into taking the damn thing, again, in order to graduate. I'm pretty sure that makes the rest of the oath invalid, doesn't it?

Brilliant work from those folks up north. For more on the bill, including the legislators who proposed it, check out the Legislature's info page here.

Steve Smith, a state representative serving District 11 in Maricopa, has reintroduced a bill that died last legislative session that would reimburse ousted Senate President Russell Pearce, the architect of many of Arizona's anti-immigration laws, including SB 1070.

From the Arizona Republic:

Rep. Steve Smith, R-Maricopa, filed House Bill 2290, which proposes to pay the “reasonable special election campaign expenses” of any elected official who faces a recall out of the relevant state, county or local government’s general fund. It requires the individual to submit an itemized account of campaign expenses to the appropriate governing body. The Legislature or appropriate governing body then must approve the amount.

The bill is retroactive to expenses “incurred for a recall election held in November 2011.” Pearce’s was the only recall election that month.

Pearce did not spend any of his own money in the campaign, but raised and spent about $261,000 in donations from individuals and political committees. If the bill were to pass, he could charge the state for that amount.

Let's focus on that last part: the money Pearce spent in his failed bid to win the 2011 recall all came from donations by outside individuals. None of it was his money. Yet Steve Smith thinks it's just and proper for Pearce to be reimbursed with taxpayer funds to presumably repay his donors. What part of that makes any damn sense?

Pearce lost the recall, fair and square, because his constituents felt he was no longer representing their interests. There's no reason that Pearce should be reimbursed for failing to do the job he was put into office to do by the people who chose to hire (then fire) him.

As of this writing, it appears that HB 2290 hasn't secured enough favor among legislators to earn any co-signers, and hopefully it'll stay that way—there's no way that giving money to soothe the bruised ego of a failed legislator and his backers is a quality use of taxpayer money.

If you want to reach Rep. Smith about this bill (like Weekly commenter H., below,) then you'll want to direct your letters to his office at 1700 W. Washington, Room 311, Phoenix, AZ 85007; give him a call at (602) 926-5685; or send him a fax at (602) 417-3167.

Democracy is alive and well, folks.

"Without question, the legislature faces substantial challenges in preparing the state budget, particularly during difficult economic circumstances," Judge Michael J. Brown wrote in the ruling, which you can find here. "But our constitution does not permit the legislature to chance the meaning of voter-approved statutes by shifting funds to meet other budgeting priorities."

The decision overturns a Maricopa County Superior Court decision that concluded the Legislature did not have to increase funding to keep pace with inflation.

The inflation funding was included as part of a proposition that created a .6-cent per dollar sales tax to support education. Voters passed Prop 301 in 2000.

Attorney Tim Hogan, who lead the lawsuit against the state, called the ruling a "terrific decision."

"The court upheld the will of the voters, who approved this required inflationary funding," said Hogan, executive director of the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest. "Giving some vitality to the Voter Protection Act is important. And this is a significant amount of money, too."

Hogan said the decision to not increase funding to keep up with inflation cost the schools an estimated $87 million this year. But he added that, from his reading of the appeal, the state would not be obligated to provide that funding in this fiscal year; instead, if the decision is upheld by the Arizona Supreme Court, the Legislature will have to provide the inflation-related funding in future years.

Hogan expects Attorney General Tom Horne to appeal the decision.

You might consider this somewhat redundant, given that Gov. Jan Brewer has already said that the state isn't going to run an exchange, which is an online marketplace where Arizonans could purchase insurance plans. Since the state isn't going to run the exchange, the federal government will instead set up the exchange.

As you can see in the story below, Seel wants to pass a law that forbids the state from running an exchange.

This strikes The Range as fairly futile. Given that setting up a state-run exchange in the future would require legislation, Seel's law (should it get passed this session) could simply be over-written as part of any Arizona health-care exchange.

This is a point made at the bottom of Tylor's story:

Pete Wertheim, vice president of strategic communications at the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association, said he considers HB 2001 more symbolic and doesn’t expect it to get far. The AzHHA worked closely with Brewer’s office during the decision-making process last fall.

“First, it’s not necessary,” Wertheim said. “Second, if it were signed into law and policymakers wanted to do a statewide exchange (later on), it would simply be a matter of passing another bill.”

You can read Tylor's entire piece after the jump.

While I personally like the idea of sending in the authorities anytime one of you pesky profanity-using denizens of the comment section "annoy" me, I suppose the argument could be made that I might be accused of the same (potentially) illegal behavior under HB 2549, which looks to make the use of "any obscene, lewd or profane language" with the "intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend" unlawful. Thankfully, I don't swear all that often, so I might be in the clear.

Now, what possible unintended consequences could a bill with that sort of language create? Let's see what UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh (and person who actually understands the internet) has to say:

So, under the statute, posting a comment to a newspaper article — or a blog — saying that the article or post author is “fucking out of line” would be a crime: It’s said with intent to offend, it uses an electronic or digital device, and it uses what likely will be seen as profane language (see, e.g., City of Columbia Falls v. Bennett (Mont. 1991)). Likewise if a blog poster were to post the same in response to a commenter’s comment. Likewise if someone posts something in response to an e-mail on an e-mail-based discussion list, or in a chatroom, or wherever else. (Note that if “profane” is read to mean not vulgarly insulting, but instead religiously offensive, see City of Bellevue v. Lorang (Wash. 2000), then the statute would be unconstitutional as well.)

The same would be true if someone posts something lewd in one of these places in order to annoy or offend someone, for instance if he posts a comment on a police-run public discussion page that says something like “the chief of police can suck my dick,” to borrow subject matter from a prior Arizona telephone harassment case. And note that, given that case, the speech need not even be about one of the recipients, so long as it’s intended to annoy or offend one of the recipients.

Yes, this bill seems to be an attempt to modernize laws defining "disturbing the peace" for the online age, but the language is so incredibly vague, I don't think I personally would trust the best intentions of law enforcement in this state to enforce this sort of law sanely. Just think of the field day Joe Arpaio could have with the blogs at the Phoenix New Times or what Tom Horne might think of the comment section over at Three Sonorans.

Thanks, Arizona Legislature, for giving our state another set of expensive court battles to look forward to.

SB 1474, the "guns on campus" legislation that stalled earlier this month, has been pulled off of life support by state Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City.

From the Arizona Daily Star:

"In reality, I think it's an election year question,'' [Gould] said. "There were some legislators that were feeling weak-kneed about it,'' [he] continued. "The universities were putting a full-court press on them because they knew if I could get the bill up to the governor, the governor would probably sign it.''

Later on in the story, he disputes the costs of gun lockers purchase and installation that gun lobbyist Todd Rathner claims made state legislators skittish about the bill.

Again, from the Daily Star:

"You don't have to remodel the front of a building to put a gun locker up,'' [Gould] said . . . The reason they oppose it is that liberals run the university system,'' he continued. "Liberals don't like guns. They don't want guns on their playground.''

As with last year's bill that was vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer, expect someone (since Gould isn't running for re-election) to come back with a similar bill next year — though perhaps without the gun locker provision.

[Earlier: Off Target]

I guess we can be thankful that Rep. Jack Harper of Surprise isn't running for re-election this year (although he told supporters in an email that he wanted to be Arizona Secretary of State or an ambassador appointment), but he's focused on disgracing whatever dignity might be left in the office on his way out, sending emails out calling a person who cared enough to email legislators a "baby-killer" and suggesting they move to China. Rep. Harper has since apologized for his "abrasiveness".

Deborah,

The only “laughing stock” in Arizona is the Democratic Party that has lost seats in the state legislature for five consecutive election cycles. Maybe you should change your baby-killer message. Why don’t you move back to China where your “party” controls the message by force.

Jack

State Representative Jack Harper
602-926-4178
[email protected]

More from the email exchange below the cut, but does it really take that much restraint to just send a banal dismissal back to people you disagree with, even with an issue as contentious as this one? Jack Harper isn't exactly known for his decorum, but I guess we get what we pay for with our representatives these days.

The House Ethics Committee voted unanimously today to recommend the chamber hire an independent investigator to sort out the domestic violence allegations against Rep. Daniel Patterson and determine if he violated any laws or House rules.

In the first Ethics Committee hearing on the domestic violence allegations launched by Patterson’s former live-in girlfriend and campaign manager, Georgette Escobar, the committee recommended the Speaker of the House of Representatives appropriate money to hire an independent private council to sort out the messy he-said, she-said between the two.

“There are some serious allegations and the complaint that was received was also signed by a significant number of members of the House,” said Rep. Ted Vogt, R-Tucson, the Ethics Committee chair. “So it warrants investigation.”

Vogt said he has spoken to the Speaker of the House, who is receptive to paying for the investigation.

The investigator will have to submit a report on March 28, and Patterson’s formal response to the ethics complaint launched against him by fellow Democrats will be due the same day.

Vogt said Patterson had requested another month to respond to the ethics complaint, but the committee decided two weeks was ample time to get a response and the process rolling.

Vogt said he wanted to proceed as quickly as possible with the investigation and hearing, though he didn’t know if the matter would be decided before the session ends. House rules don’t set a timeframe for how quickly ethics investigations must be completed.

Patterson did not attend the hearing, though he voted on bills before the full House just before the committee started.

A criminal hearing is pending in the Tucson City Court. Patterson has pleaded not guilty to four counts of misdemeanor domestic violence.