Time for a rerun, but with additions.
Originally published on June 24, 2021 as "Time to rein in the AZ legislature."
"
Time to rein in the AZ legislature
It seem to be time for a Constitutional Convention.
No, I don't mean a federal one that the conservatives love and are always talking about.
Nope, it's time for a state one, and the people of AZ can call one (I think).
Every constitution, federal or state or whatever, is predicated on the assumption that the people elected under it are honorable people and that those who aren't will be brought to heel by the others. As we have seen, that's not the reality of the matter.
Article 21, Section 2 of the state constitution allows the legislature to call one, and Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority in the decision for Arizona Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission observed that the people can act as the legislature (in the interests of "Truth in Advertising", the case really should have been named "Arizona's Legislative Republicans v The People of Arizona", but that's just my opinion :) ).
IMO, if the question is phrased carefully and limits a convention to the legislature, it can be effective (the Rs will be sure to hijack any call for such to further their anti-ethnic minority, anti-woman, anti-LBGTQ+, and anti-society, agenda).
In light of the fraudit and some of the stinky nuggets that come out of the ideological catbox that is the Capitol, I have a few suggestions for ways to change the way members of the lege are treated under the AZ Constitution.
Note: I'm not a lawyer, so if some inarticulate language has been used, I apologize.
Also, this list of suggestions is not meant to be a complete list.
1. Legislative corruption will be treated with the harshest penalty allowed under AZ law. Currently, AZ has capital punishment; if something is good enough for the public, it's good enough for people who use their positions to betray the public trust. If elected legislators want to accept money or something of real value in exchange for their vote on something, they should also be willing to be strapped to a gurney.
I'm not a fan of capital punishment, but I'm also not a fan of hypocrisy and corruption.
Oh, and we should put in language specifying the minimum penalty for legislative corruption, say, life in prison with eligibility for parole after 25 years (with "harshest penalty" language in the state constitution, the first thing the lege will do is to reduce the harshest penalty under AZ law).
2. There would be a limit on the number of measures (10?) that an individual legislator can sponsor or cosponsor.
3. There would be a limit on the number of measures (5?) that the legislature can refer to the ballot during a given 2 year cycle, and *everything* regarding elections or affecting state revenue would have to be referred to the ballot. Certain members of the lege *love* tax credits and tax deductions for corporations and the wealthy; if the people of Arizona agree with one, it can be enacted.
Any law passed by the lege, but subject to voter approval, would be held in abeyance until the vote.
4, The lege exists for one reason - to enact a state budget. The budget would be heard for at least 24 committee hours in each chamber (you know, committees, where they take public testimony.) If there's no public testimony, the members can sit there twiddling their thumbs. If no quorum is present, the time doesn't count toward the 24-hour requirement. Also, the budget must be passed in regular session.
No special sessions for the budget.
Lastly, the budget must be passed and signed by 5 p.m. on March 31, otherwise no other measures can be considered in committee or on the floor. If one isn't passed and signed by the end of business on April 15, the Arizona Department of Corrections would be directed to construct a temporary prison for 91 (think: Arpaio's Tent City, but without the creature comforts). If one isn't passed and signed by the end of business on May 1, the members of the lege would be directed to enter it, staying there from Monday at 8 a.m. thru Thursday at 5 p.m. If one isn't passed and signed by the end of business on May 15, the governor would join them.
Any member failing to appear or leaving during the assigned hours would be considered to have voluntarily resigned their position and would be considered to be ineligible to be appointed to fill a vacancy in the lege.
5. For a vote to be considered legally valid (committee or floor), it must happen between the hours of 9 a.m. and 7 p.m. Laws with votes outside of those hours shall be overturned by a court of law when such a law is challenged. No more all nighters at the Capitol.
6. Once a decade, the voters would decide what legislative margin would be needed to alter state revenue (currently reductions take a majority vote but increases take a 2/3 vote). The same arguments for/against the lege doing one also work for the other. That vote would *not* be counted toward the legislative total.
7. Legislative pay would be raised to $50K/year (I'm a firm believer in "you get what you pay for", and we pay our legislators garbage). It would be raised decennially, by an amount tied to inflation. Once per decade, that raise could be blocked by the voters. Such a vote would *not* count against the lege's total.
8. That's the carrot; the stick would be if the lege challenged a voter-approved measure in court and the voters were upheld even in part, or a measure passed by the lege was challenged in court and was overturned, even in part, the members of the lege who voted for the challenge/law would be personally financially liable for a portion of the entire legal bill.
9. Oaths of office would include the words of the Miranda Warning and the oath to tell the truth administered in all AZ courts. Don't take the oath? Don't take the office. And once in the office, don't lie to the folks you work for (the people of Arizona).
Nothing in this list would overturn something specifically approved by the voters; #6 comes closest, but since that would also require a vote of the people of AZ, it would be OK
Just some of my opinions. :) "
Additions:
1. The one that most directly affects the justice system (and not the legislature) -
If someone receives a harsher punishment for doing something when someone else receives a lighter punishment for the same act due to their financial situation, connectedness, race, gender, and/or sexual preference, the harsher punishment would be reduced to the lighter punishment. If a punishment greater than the lesser punishment was already served, the remainder would be vacated.
Also, if someone died in custody or during enforcement of a law when someone else accused of violating the same law isn't killed, that fact would considered to presumptive evidence of murder committed by each law enforcement official (LEO) involved in the case. That LEO designation includes all judges, prosecutors, POs, COs, sheriff's deputies, county sheriffs, etc.
I call this the "Charles Ryan Clause." The well-connected former director of the Department of Corrections received a term of probation for doing something (armed standoff with the police) that would get any member of civil society a term of incarceration.
2. Sitting legislators are immune from arrest or civil process during the legislative session with certain exceptions. One of those exceptions is felonies.
From Article 4, Part 2, Section 4 of the Arizona Constitution -
6. Privilege from arrest; civil process
Section 6. Members of the legislature shall be privileged from arrest in all cases except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, and they shall not be subject to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor for fifteen days next before the commencement of each session.
That would be retained.
However, *all* infractions by any member of the legislature, even ones that would be civil or misdemeanor violations if committed by a member of civil society, would be class 6 felonies at a minimum. An arrest would be mandatory. Violations that would be higher level felonies when committed by a normal person would still be that higher level felony.
Failure to arrest a sitting legislator for such an infraction would mean that any law enforcement official involved would be subjected to the maximum punishment for that level of felony.
Caveat: Making up such a infraction would mean that any LEO involved would be guilty of class 2 felony. In addition to any punishment meted out for that, that person would also be permanently ineligible for any sort of public employment or elected office.
Caveat2: Failure of any sitting legislator to ID themselves as such during such an encounter with a LEO would in itself be a class 6 felony.
3. One week after the budget is enacted, other than base legislative pay, all compensation for legislators would end (per diem, mileage reimbursement, etc.) unless the legislature was called into special session by the governor, and even those would limited to being one week in length and to two special sessions per year.
