Hobbs vetoes bills on school suits, fentanyl penalties, 'silencers'

PHOENIX — Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed legislation that would let parents sue schools but escape having to pay legal fees if they lose. It would only promote more litigation, “no matter how frivolous,” she said.

The move Tuesday came with four other vetoes, bringing the new governor’s total so far this year to 43. That is just 10 shy of the record set in 2005 by her fellow Democratic governor, Janet Napolitano, for a legislative session.

Hobbs also rejected:

Increasing the penalty for the possession and manufacture of the highly addictive narcotic fentanyl. Hobbs said its provisions could undermine Arizona’s “Good Samaritan Law,’’ which protects those who report overdoses by others from being arrested, charged or prosecuted.

Repealing a provision of Arizona law that prohibits the use of “silencers’’ on guns. It would “make Arizonans less safe,’’ Hobbs said. But the bill and her action are largely legally meaningless as Arizonans can, in fact, purchase such devices if they get a $200 federal tax stamp and obtain the device from a dealer who has a special federal license.

Expanding state laws to allow $10,000 fines against anyone who interferes with normal operations of utilities. “This bill will do little to deter threats to our critical facilities,’’ Hobbs said in her veto message, adding that the conduct already is covered by existing state and federal laws.

Allowing creation of “temporary non-expansion areas’’ for groundwater use. Hobbs said these would not really address the long-term issues of rural pumping; that such a district would provide less protection for aquifers than an already available “irrigation non-expansion area’’; that the legislation would last for only five years; and that it would provide greater protection for “grandfathered’’ water rights of those already pumping.

The issue of legal fees in lawsuits against schools was brought by Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills. He pointed out that, in general, when there is a lawsuit, the loser pays the costs incurred by the winner.

His legislation sought to create a carve-out when the lawsuit is brought by a parent against a school district for violating any provision in the Parents’ Bill of Rights.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

Parents’ rights include a host of issues including directing the moral or religious training of a child, making all health-care decisions, reviewing all records, consenting to DNA testing, approving a child being videotaped or audiotaped, and knowing about any suspected criminal offenses against the child.

“This is actually a David and Goliath bill,’’ Kavanagh said. “The school has unlimited resources and a parent may have no resources. So, there’s quite a chilling effect knowing that when you go up against a barrage of well-funded lawyers and you can’t prevail, you might also take a very big monetary hit.’’

Kavanagh’s legislation was not an absolute protection for parents. It still would have allowed a court to award legal fees against a parent if the lawsuit was brought without substantial justification, if it was filed solely or primarily for delay or harassment, or if any filing unreasonably expanded or delayed the proceedings.

Hobbs found the measure unacceptable. “This bill does not protect parents’ rights but merely encourages litigation — no matter how frivolous — without consequences,’’ she wrote.

She saw a larger context.

“Across the county and here in Arizona, schools and teachers have been maligned by bad actors who spread baseless theories, seeking to create conflict with teachers, school boards, and administrators,’’ Hobbs said. “Parents, acting in good-faith concern for their children, are often caught in the middle of these conflicts.’’

“As leaders, we should seek to turn down the temperature and rhetoric to find real solutions,’’ she wrote.