Why does the Arizona Legislature seem to have an affinity for being sued? What is it about the way our state government is run that promotes a proclivity toward its laws being challenged in court over and over? The answer can be summed up in one word, arrogance. Arrogance in the way bills are proposed. Arrogance in the way bills are vetted. And arrogance in the way bills are strong-armed and muscled through the legislative process. By arrogance I mean the self-important practice of disregarding concerns and points of view that differ from your own.
Our system of government is based on the principle of checks and balances. These checks and balances are designed to identify potential problems in bills as they pass though the legislative process. These checks and balances are also designed to allow for and encourage input from persons representing different points of view. And most importantly, the system was designed with mechanisms allowing tweaks, additions and deletions to pieces of legislation as they move through the process once these problems are identified by experts, or when a particular group feels that their point of view or primary concern is not addressed.
When one attempts to completely control the process and not allow the system to work, expecting a bill to remain principally unchanged while going through the legislative process, then no one should be surprised when a lawsuit is filed. Anticipating broad-based support for a piece of legislation that represents a single narrow point of view reflects this same arrogance.
Our system works best when ideas and proposed solutions are vetted by experts, shared with those of differing points of view and modified to take into account any concerns raised. Of course, this takes time and patience.
Consider as an example the recent special session called by Gov. Doug Ducey addressing inflation funding for K-12 education. The proposed deal seemed to develop quickly, there was no bill language until the day a special session was called. The proposal was certainly developed without including any member of the legislative minority. We did not know the specifics of the deal until it was already accepted by the plaintiffs. And, according to the testimony of Dean Martin, prior Arizona state treasurer, there was not substantive input from experts in the details of the state land trust fund that held different points of view from the Ducey administration and legislative leadership.
Martin testified to the fact that he was initially consulted by the Ducey administration but his input was ignored. He did not see any language on the proposal until the day before he came to the Capitol to testify in opposition to the bill. Additionally, current Arizona treasurer Jeff DeWit had frequently publicly voiced his opposition to the bill. In an email to the entire legislative membership, he proposed several changes that would have gotten him on board with the proposal. None of his suggested solutions were proposed as amendments during the legislative debate.
The proposal moved through the legislative process with haste, leaving minimal time for public involvement. During floor debate, several amendments were offered that would have given consideration to the primary concerns of the minority, which constitutes slightly more than 40 percent of the Legislature. None of these amendments had any chance of surviving. They had not received the blessing of the legislative leadership and therefore majority members were not allowed to support them regardless of their merit.
We cannot continue to govern believing that only one point of view is important. We cannot continue to pass legislation that does not consider and address more than one point of view. Unless, of course, we want more lawsuits.
