Arizona Senate: Lawsuits OK to stop spread of "Marxist ideology"

PHOENIX — State senators voted Tuesday to let any Arizona resident sue any community they believe is “furthering Marxist ideology.”

But not so if fascism is being promoted.

The party-line vote for SB 1195 is on a plan by Sen. Anthony Kern to limit how public money can be spent to promote, advocate or plan. Among the forbidden items on the Glendale Republican’s list are reducing meat consumption, collecting information on greenhouse gas emissions and reducing motor vehicle travel with walking, biking or public transit.

Just the idea worried Sen. Priya Sundareshan.

The Tucson Democrat noted that the measure goes beyond how taxpayer dollars can be spent. It actually would allow any registered voter, anywhere in the state, to file a lawsuit — and even request a jury trial — to determine whether any specific policy runs afoul of the law.

But Sen. Juan Mendez, D-Tempe, said something is missing.

“If we are going to be prohibiting a public entity from entering into a contract just because someone might be overly emotional, easily offended or unable to deal with opposing opinions, then this eclectic list of grievances is missing the worse ideology of all: fascism,” he told colleagues during floor debate. So he proposed adding “furthering fascist ideologies” to the list of items where public money could not be spent.

Kern refused to agree to having it added after he could not secure a commitment from Mendez to support the bill if the language was added. So it went down to defeat along party lines, and SB 1195 gained preliminary approval.

The measure, even if it survives the full legislative process, is unlikely to survive gubernatorial scrutiny.

But Kern got his Republican colleagues to approve virtually the same language in SCR 1015 — also without the fascism amendment. And that is structured to avoid the governor and go directly to voters in November.

At the heart of both measures are claims by Kern that communities are spending money on things that are not the proper role of government.

He acknowledged that his laundry list of proposed forbidden expenditures includes things that are not happening or even proposed, like limiting the number of articles of clothing an individual may purchase or own. Another has the broad general category of “replacing private ownership with shared or rented goods and services to promote a circular economy.”

Mendez said it is important to focus on what is — and what is not — included in Kern’s proposal.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

“This bill shows that we’re worried about a city talking about pollution from air travel, you’re worried about a circular economy, you’re worried about a city advocating for people reduce, reuse and recycle their used clothing,” he said.

“You even think Marxism is still a thing,” Mendez continued. “But you don’t see a concern with fascism.”

He defined that as “an ultra-nationalist, anti-democratic, far-right movement that seeks to take over all aspects of public and private life, and to eliminate people and communities that don’t conform with their world view.”

“You’d think if we’re going to put this on the ballot, maybe we should let the people decide how they feel about their government flirting with fascism,” Mendez said. And he said that if it’s about hostility to him and his philosophies, “maybe put aside that it’s coming from me.”

Sundareshan, for her part, said both the bill and the ballot proposal would have major impacts on what might be considered routine acts by cities. Consider, she said, the prohibition on spending money to try to get people out of their cars to walk, bike or use public transit.

“Do you think that this might include prohibiting a city from putting in or even repainting bike lanes?” she asked.

Kern refused to answer any questions from her about his bill.

But Mendez said it may go farther than that.

“I’m even afraid this would allow people to stop the cities or counties from even discussing this, putting this on their agenda, let alone anything actually happening,” he said. “They won’t be able to consider certain things because of fear of falling afoul of this overly broad proscription for people to just sue like crazy.”

And Mendez agreed with Sundraeshan that other city activities, ranging from investing in low-income housing to stands for electric bikes, also would run the risk of litigation.

Senate Minority Leader Mitzi Epstein had her own objections to the whole concept of who could sue, regardless of whether they actually are affected.

“Anybody who is a voter in the state, you can bring a lawsuit against a city for taking actions that the people of the city actually want very much, the people of the world actually want very much,” she said.

Both measures require a final roll-call vote in the Senate before going to the House.