State House to reconvene with new limits on reporters

PHOENIX — Calling it little more than a pretext, the First Amendment Coalition of Arizona is demanding House Speaker David Gowan rescind his policy of requiring extensive background checks of reporters before restoring their access to the floor.

In a letter late Friday, Daniel Barr, attorney for the association of reporters, media organizations and others, said the screening was proposed following a protest March 28 in the House gallery and an incident two days later when three women associated with the Puente Human Rights Movement chained themselves to the front door of the Executive Tower.

Barr pointed out that neither incident involved news reporters, nor did they occur on the House floor.

“Simply put, Mr. Speaker, no one is fooled by what is going on here,” Barr wrote.

He said if there were safety concerns at the Capitol, similar measures would have been taken at the Senate and separate Executive Tower.

“There would also be real law enforcement agencies involved, including those that regularly conduct background checks,” Barr wrote. “The House Security Office is not such an agency.”

There was no immediate response from Stephanie Grisham, the publicist for Gowan and the House Republican majority.

The House reconvenes at 1:30 p.m. Monday, with no sign that Gowan intends to rescind or alter the policy.

No reporter has agreed to the checks, which cover not just criminal matters but also allow House staff to check civil issues, driving records and even prior addresses. That has left reporters to cover the House from the gallery where they no longer have access to lawmakers before or after the floor session to question them about their legislation or statements.

David Bodney, representing several media outlets, said he is hoping to confer with the House attorney early Monday to see if a resolution is possible.

Barr told Capitol Media Services that the House, by virtue of its position as a separate branch of government, may have some leeway in setting its own rules.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

But what it cannot do, he said, is craft a policy designed to punish one reporter. And he said the evidence shows Gowan’s actions are due to his “displeasure” with Hank Stephenson, the Arizona Capitol Times reporter who found a record of Gowan’s extensive travel outside his Southeast Arizona legislative district. Grisham has defended that, saying Gowan is the speaker of the entire state.

But the records show the in-state travel was largely in the 1st Congressional District where Gowan is a candidate. He also tweeted out pictures of some campaign meetings on days where he had sought reimbursement for out-of-town travel.

Gowan subsequently reimbursed the state more than $12,000, calling the billings “errors and nothing more.”

The new policy does more than demand reporters submit to the background checks.

It also sets out offenses that would automatically disqualify a reporter from floor access, a list that includes a conviction for trespass. And Stephenson has such a 2014 conviction for the Class 2 misdemeanor, the result of a bar fight in Wickenburg.

More telling, said Barr, is that this is the third attempt to deny floor privileges to Stephenson.

Capitol Times editor Jim Small said the first incident came four hours after the story was first published, when Grisham revoked access to the media gallery for all of the paper’s reporters.

A month later, a House attorney claimed “rude and inappropriate conduct” by Stephenson, including a “consistent lack of decorum,” that he types on his computer during the daily prayer and that he was overly aggressive in questioning elected officials.

Small said the House backed down both times after the paper’s attorneys interceded.

“The selective denial of access to a governmental forum based on content is unconstitutional regardless of whether a public forum is involved,” Barr wrote to Gowan. He said such actions are permitted only to “show a compelling state interest” and when the measure “is the least restrictive means available to achieve the asserted governmental purpose.”