Hobbs vetoes another four bills passed by GOP-led Legislature

PHOENIX — Gov. Katie Hobbs notched another four vetoes Monday.

The Democratic governor rejected HB2427, a proposal by Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, that would have increased the maximum possible penalty for aggravated assault in a domestic violence situation if the assailant knew or had reason to know the victim was pregnant.

Hobbs, in her veto message, cited the Arizona Coalition to End Domestic Violence group’s stance that the bill “will do nothing to deter domestic violence offenses or support pregnant victims.’’

“As a social worker who spent years serving in Arizona’s largest domestic violence shelter, I’ve seen first-hand the needs of victims seeking safety and stability,’’ Hobbs wrote. “I encourage the Legislature to focus on those needs, including increased funding for services and economic support for victims.’’

Gress said domestic violence, ranging from stalking to physical violence, affects one out of every four women and one in nine men in the country. “With pregnancy comes risk,’’ Gress said. “And many women report it’s actually when they become pregnant that abuse starts or becomes intensified.’’

HB2427 would have allowed five years to be added to any penalty, he said, to ensure “we will not allow two lives to be further threatened by unstable aggression of a partner.’’

Gress acknowledged he had not spoken with domestic violence advocacy organizations — other than the anti-abortion Center for Arizona Policy. Marilyn Rodriguez, representing the Arizona Coalition to End Domestic Violence, testified against the bill.

The legislation also drew opposition from Planned Parenthood. There was concern the bill could be seen as a way to try to grant separate legal status to an unborn child, which could undermine abortion rights. Heightening the group’s concern is that this isn’t Gress’ only such effort. He is sponsoring several measures that could have the same impact.

Electric service

Hobbs separately vetoed HB2440.

It would have required utilities to give top priority to providing “reliable and affordable electric service’’ when planning new generation facilities.

Sandy Bahr, who lobbies for the Sierra Club, said the measure looked at things too narrowly. She said there are other factors ranging from air pollution to the amount of water a particular type of power plant would use. “It’s unwise to exclude those,’’ Bahr said.

Hobbs called HB2440 unnecessary and said it “creates regulatory uncertainty in instances where affordability and reliability may be at odds.’’

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

She also said she wants to focus on “solutions that deliver direct assistance to Arizona families struggling with energy costs.’’

‘Social credit scores’

Also gaining a veto stamp was HB2472. It would have barred the state from requiring a bank or financial institution to use a “social credit score’’ when evaluating whether to lend money to a customer.

Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Goodyear, said it’s about protecting the “free market’’ and protecting Arizona banks from having to use factors they do not want. His legislation, however, did not define a “social credit score’’ but suggested it is a practice used in communist countries like China to determine if people are “liked in society’’ and links their ability to get certain benefits to that score.

Hobbs said the uncertainty about what would be barred affected her decision to veto the bill.

“It does not define ‘social credit scores,’ nor do these systems exist anywhere in the United States,’’ the governor wrote. She said if the goal is to protect against unfair lending practices, they already are covered by federal law and, specifically, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974.

Arroyos and pollutants

Hobbs also vetoed HB2056, which would have exempted dry washes and similar arroyos that don’t flow steadily from certain requirements dealing with the discharge of pollutants.

She said it would create “regulatory confusion and uncertainty’’ because it would conflict with provisions of what the federal government determines are “Waters of the United States’’ subject to protections.

She said if the federal government disagreed with a state action, Arizona would lose the ability to enforce its own regulatory programs and decisions would go back to the federal government.

The vetoes bring to 24 her tally so far this session of the Republican-controlled Legislature.