News
Unify Sedona Legislative Update
Week of March 27, 2023
From Prof. Anne Schneider, ASU: “Arizona has a curious legislative procedure in which a legislator can use a ‘strike everything’ amendment to strike everything in a bill and insert a new bill with the same number, even if it has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of the original bill. So far this year, there have been 84 ‘striker’ bills.” As she notes, this practice makes it very difficult to track original bills to see if they have passed or “died.” So in today’s update, you may see familiar content with new numbers, and familiar numbers with new content.
All of the following bills have been passed through committees, full floor votes in their chamber of origin, and Rules committees. From here, the path to the governor’s desk is much shorter: only a single floor vote remains – possibly this week.
SB1040 sponsored by John Kavanagh (R-3) would ban transgender kids from using the school bathrooms, changing facilities and “sleeping quarters” that align with their gender identities. Anyone who “encounters” a transgender person in a bathroom could file suit against public schools. Scheduled for House Education Committee, Tuesday.
SB2312 sponsored by Rachel Jones (R-17) would allow shelters to refuse to hire “biological male” employees to serve women or minors who live there, and would attempt to exempt shelters from existing gender discrimination statutes. (State and federal law both explicitly ban discrimination on the basis of sex.) Scheduled for Senate Health & Human Services Committee, Tuesday.
SB1028 sponsored by Anthony Kern (R-27) would classify drag performances as “adult cabaret” (a category historically limited to strip shows) and ban them from public property or anywhere else a minor may be able to see them. (Arizona law contains no definition for drag performances.) A first violation would carry to up to 6 months in jail; a subsequent violation would be a felony. Scheduled for House Government Committee, Wednesday.
SB1030 sponsored by Anthony Kern (R-27) would mandate that counties change their zoning laws to define businesses that hold “drag shows” as adult-oriented, and would also ban the Sunday drag brunch. Scheduled for House Government Committee, Wednesday
SB1323 sponsored by Jake Hoffman (R-15) would put Arizona public school teachers (but not teachers at ESA-funded private schools) behind bars for up to two years if they so much as recommend a book to students that lawmakers consider too “sexually explicit.” State law already makes it a felony to show pornography to children. Scheduled for House Judiciary Committee, Wednesday.
SB1694 sponsored by Jake Hoffman (R-15) would ban the state, including public schools, from requiring "diversity, equity, and inclusion programs" for its employees, spending public funds on such programs, or setting policies to influence the composition of its workforce on the basis of race, sex, or color. Any employee required to participate could sue. Scheduled for House Government Committee, Wednesday. SEE MUCH MORE ON THIS BILL BELOW – PLEASE READ!!!
HB2533 sponsored by John Gillette (R-30) is a rehash of a bill from last year that would require public schools to post a list of every single item that teachers use or discuss with students. Private schools and micro-schools are exempt. Scheduled for Senate Education Committee, Wednesday.
The following bills are in Rules Committee, which only considers whether they are constitutional and in the proper form for passage. They will likely proceed to separate partisan meetings of all Democrats and all Republicans (caucus) and from there to a full floor vote, which could happen any time.
SB1026 sponsored by John Kavanagh (R-3), threatens school funding by prohibiting organizations that receive state tax dollars from hosting “drag shows” to entertain people under 18. Violators would lose state funds for 3 years. The definition of “drag show” in the bill is broad enough to include school plays (such as Shakespeare) or football players who dress up as cheerleaders for pep rallies. (NOTE: The Legislature’s nonpartisan rules attorneys have told them the bill is unconstitutional.) Scheduled for House Rules Committee, Monday.
SB1698 sponsored by Justine Wadsack (R-17), adds drag shows to a state law about "dangerous crimes against children." The bill equates a drag show with an “adult-oriented performance” and makes it a crime on par with bestiality, child sex trafficking, second-degree murder, and sexual assault. Violation would be a class 4 felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a requirement that the adult register as a sex offender. (Note: The Legislature’s nonpartisan rules attorneys said the bill is unconstitutional.) Scheduled for House Rules Committee, Monday
HB2786 sponsored by Justin Heap (R-10), would require school boards to notify parents of recommended or funded "training opportunities" for teachers or school administrators. (Note: As Civic Engagement Beyond Voting has reported, “the new Horne administration believes that social-emotional learning, diversity and equity are Trojan horses for ‘critical race theory,’ and has canceled planned teacher presentations on these and other ‘non-academic’ subjects.) Scheduled for Senate Rules Committee, Monday.
The following is a special report by Professor Anne Schneider, ASU, in response to the late arrival of Senate Bill 1694. I’m including it verbatim as written in this week’s AZ Legislative Alert:
Special Report – The Culture Wars. SB1694.
SB1694 prohibits spending public money on DEI programs (diversity, equity, inclusion) and prohibits contracting with a company that participates in one. This is a blatant attempt to nullify authentic efforts to reduce racism. There are legitimate issues with some of the content in some of the DEI programs – not all are alike! But for the Legislature to launch this kind of broadside attack is astounding. Here’s the wording:
Prohibits a public entity from requiring and spending public monies on a diversity, equity and inclusion program and allows an employee who is required to participate in the program to bring action against the public entity. Prohibits a public entity from entering into a contract with a company that participates in a diversity, equity and inclusion program.
A ordinary reading of the bill is that no school or university or business that receives public funds can have a diversity office or officer or an affirmative action program.
Any school, college or university that receives any public funds cannot have a diversity office or any office promoting or planning how to diversify its workforce.
No school, college or university that receives any public funds can offer any course that teaches basically anything about racism including: “any theory of unconscious or implicit bias, cultural appropriation, allyship, transgenderism, microaggressions, microinvalidation, group marginalization, anti-racism, systemic oppression, ethnocentrism, structural racism or inequity, social justice, intersectionality, neopronouns, inclusive language, heteronormativity, disparate impact, gender identity or theory, racial or sexual privilege or any related theory as the official position of the public entity.” Now, the closing phrase “as the official position of the public entity” might let educational institutions off the hook as they could say it is simply the opinion of the teacher, but nevertheless, this provision surely would have a chilling effect on any employee.
It defines DEI as any program that exposes racism, sexism or any program that teaches methods of uncovering and revealing racism.
And more. Here is the actual language.
Provisions
1. Prohibits a public entity – this includes schools, cities, agencies, counties, etc. from:
a) requiring an employee to engage in a diversity, equity and inclusion program;
b) spending public monies on a diversity, equity and inclusion program;
c) entering into or renewing a contract with a company that participates in a diversity, equity and inclusion program; (This provision had to be modified before final voting, when Legislators realized that almost EVERY company has an Office of DEI – who would they do business with????)
d) establishing, supporting, sustaining or employing an office or individual whose duties include coordinating, creating, developing, designing, implementing, organizing, planning or promoting diversity, equity and inclusion programs;
e) advancing or adopting any policy or procedure designed to influence the composition of its workforce on the basis of race, sex or color, except as required by federal law;
f) advancing or adopting any policy of procedure designed or implemented on the basis of race, sex or color, except as required by federal law; or
g) promoting or adopting any theory of unconscious or implicit bias, cultural appropriation, allyship, transgenderism, micro-aggressions, micro-invalidation, group marginalization, anti-racism, systemic oppression, ethnocentrism, structural racism or inequity, social justice, intersectionality, neo-pronouns, inclusive language, heteronormativity, disparate impact, gender identity or theory, racial or sexual privilege or any related theory as the official position of the public entity.
2. Allows an employee of a public entity who is required to participate in a diversity, equity and inclusion program to bring action against the public entity.
3. Stipulates that an employee who demonstrates that a public entity violated the prohibition relating to a diversity, equity and inclusion program is entitled to injunctive relief.
4. Precludes a public entity from offering training on sexual harassment or operating an office staffed by or employing licensed attorneys and legal support staff whose purpose is to ensure compliance with federal law or an applicable court order.
5. Defines diversity, equity and inclusion program as a program that requires an employee of public entity to participate in or attend a training, orientation, workshop, therapy or similar activity that focuses on:
a) describing or exposing structured systems, relations of power, privilege or subordination on the basis of race, sex, color, gender, ethnicity, gender identity or sexual orientation;
b) describing methods to identify, dismantle or oppose structures, systems, relations of power, privilege or subordination on the basis of race, sex, color, gender, ethnicity, gender, ethnicity, gender identity or sexual orientation;
c) justifying differential treatment or benefit on the basis of sex, color, gender, ethnicity, gender identity or sexual orientation; or
d) advancing theories of unconscious or implicit bias, cultural appropriation, allyship, transgenderism, micro-aggressions, micro-invalidation, group marginalization, anti-racism, systemic oppression, ethnocentrism, structural racism or inequity, social justice, intersectionality, neo-pronouns, inclusive language, heteronormativity, disparate impact, gender identity or theory, racial or sexual privilege or any concept substantially related to any of the outlined theories.
6. Defines public entity as:
a) the state;
b) a political subdivision, agency board, commission, department or political subdivision in Arizona; and
c) includes the universities under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Board of Regents and community college districts as outlined.
[It is] Astounding that any Legislature would even introduce such a bill, much less actually give it a committee hearing. SB1694 has passed the Senate Committee of the Whole and probably will be voted on this coming week.
Thanks to Prof. Anne Schneider, ASU, and Civic Engagement Beyond Voting for Source Material – M. Helt
All of the following bills have been passed through committees, full floor votes in their chamber of origin, and Rules committees. From here, the path to the governor’s desk is much shorter: only a single floor vote remains – possibly this week.
SB1040 sponsored by John Kavanagh (R-3) would ban transgender kids from using the school bathrooms, changing facilities and “sleeping quarters” that align with their gender identities. Anyone who “encounters” a transgender person in a bathroom could file suit against public schools. Scheduled for House Education Committee, Tuesday.
SB2312 sponsored by Rachel Jones (R-17) would allow shelters to refuse to hire “biological male” employees to serve women or minors who live there, and would attempt to exempt shelters from existing gender discrimination statutes. (State and federal law both explicitly ban discrimination on the basis of sex.) Scheduled for Senate Health & Human Services Committee, Tuesday.
SB1028 sponsored by Anthony Kern (R-27) would classify drag performances as “adult cabaret” (a category historically limited to strip shows) and ban them from public property or anywhere else a minor may be able to see them. (Arizona law contains no definition for drag performances.) A first violation would carry to up to 6 months in jail; a subsequent violation would be a felony. Scheduled for House Government Committee, Wednesday.
SB1030 sponsored by Anthony Kern (R-27) would mandate that counties change their zoning laws to define businesses that hold “drag shows” as adult-oriented, and would also ban the Sunday drag brunch. Scheduled for House Government Committee, Wednesday
SB1323 sponsored by Jake Hoffman (R-15) would put Arizona public school teachers (but not teachers at ESA-funded private schools) behind bars for up to two years if they so much as recommend a book to students that lawmakers consider too “sexually explicit.” State law already makes it a felony to show pornography to children. Scheduled for House Judiciary Committee, Wednesday.
SB1694 sponsored by Jake Hoffman (R-15) would ban the state, including public schools, from requiring "diversity, equity, and inclusion programs" for its employees, spending public funds on such programs, or setting policies to influence the composition of its workforce on the basis of race, sex, or color. Any employee required to participate could sue. Scheduled for House Government Committee, Wednesday. SEE MUCH MORE ON THIS BILL BELOW – PLEASE READ!!!
HB2533 sponsored by John Gillette (R-30) is a rehash of a bill from last year that would require public schools to post a list of every single item that teachers use or discuss with students. Private schools and micro-schools are exempt. Scheduled for Senate Education Committee, Wednesday.
The following bills are in Rules Committee, which only considers whether they are constitutional and in the proper form for passage. They will likely proceed to separate partisan meetings of all Democrats and all Republicans (caucus) and from there to a full floor vote, which could happen any time.
SB1026 sponsored by John Kavanagh (R-3), threatens school funding by prohibiting organizations that receive state tax dollars from hosting “drag shows” to entertain people under 18. Violators would lose state funds for 3 years. The definition of “drag show” in the bill is broad enough to include school plays (such as Shakespeare) or football players who dress up as cheerleaders for pep rallies. (NOTE: The Legislature’s nonpartisan rules attorneys have told them the bill is unconstitutional.) Scheduled for House Rules Committee, Monday.
SB1698 sponsored by Justine Wadsack (R-17), adds drag shows to a state law about "dangerous crimes against children." The bill equates a drag show with an “adult-oriented performance” and makes it a crime on par with bestiality, child sex trafficking, second-degree murder, and sexual assault. Violation would be a class 4 felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison and a requirement that the adult register as a sex offender. (Note: The Legislature’s nonpartisan rules attorneys said the bill is unconstitutional.) Scheduled for House Rules Committee, Monday
HB2786 sponsored by Justin Heap (R-10), would require school boards to notify parents of recommended or funded "training opportunities" for teachers or school administrators. (Note: As Civic Engagement Beyond Voting has reported, “the new Horne administration believes that social-emotional learning, diversity and equity are Trojan horses for ‘critical race theory,’ and has canceled planned teacher presentations on these and other ‘non-academic’ subjects.) Scheduled for Senate Rules Committee, Monday.
The following is a special report by Professor Anne Schneider, ASU, in response to the late arrival of Senate Bill 1694. I’m including it verbatim as written in this week’s AZ Legislative Alert:
Special Report – The Culture Wars. SB1694.
SB1694 prohibits spending public money on DEI programs (diversity, equity, inclusion) and prohibits contracting with a company that participates in one. This is a blatant attempt to nullify authentic efforts to reduce racism. There are legitimate issues with some of the content in some of the DEI programs – not all are alike! But for the Legislature to launch this kind of broadside attack is astounding. Here’s the wording:
Prohibits a public entity from requiring and spending public monies on a diversity, equity and inclusion program and allows an employee who is required to participate in the program to bring action against the public entity. Prohibits a public entity from entering into a contract with a company that participates in a diversity, equity and inclusion program.
A ordinary reading of the bill is that no school or university or business that receives public funds can have a diversity office or officer or an affirmative action program.
Any school, college or university that receives any public funds cannot have a diversity office or any office promoting or planning how to diversify its workforce.
No school, college or university that receives any public funds can offer any course that teaches basically anything about racism including: “any theory of unconscious or implicit bias, cultural appropriation, allyship, transgenderism, microaggressions, microinvalidation, group marginalization, anti-racism, systemic oppression, ethnocentrism, structural racism or inequity, social justice, intersectionality, neopronouns, inclusive language, heteronormativity, disparate impact, gender identity or theory, racial or sexual privilege or any related theory as the official position of the public entity.” Now, the closing phrase “as the official position of the public entity” might let educational institutions off the hook as they could say it is simply the opinion of the teacher, but nevertheless, this provision surely would have a chilling effect on any employee.
It defines DEI as any program that exposes racism, sexism or any program that teaches methods of uncovering and revealing racism.
And more. Here is the actual language.
Provisions
1. Prohibits a public entity – this includes schools, cities, agencies, counties, etc. from:
a) requiring an employee to engage in a diversity, equity and inclusion program;
b) spending public monies on a diversity, equity and inclusion program;
c) entering into or renewing a contract with a company that participates in a diversity, equity and inclusion program; (This provision had to be modified before final voting, when Legislators realized that almost EVERY company has an Office of DEI – who would they do business with????)
d) establishing, supporting, sustaining or employing an office or individual whose duties include coordinating, creating, developing, designing, implementing, organizing, planning or promoting diversity, equity and inclusion programs;
e) advancing or adopting any policy or procedure designed to influence the composition of its workforce on the basis of race, sex or color, except as required by federal law;
f) advancing or adopting any policy of procedure designed or implemented on the basis of race, sex or color, except as required by federal law; or
g) promoting or adopting any theory of unconscious or implicit bias, cultural appropriation, allyship, transgenderism, micro-aggressions, micro-invalidation, group marginalization, anti-racism, systemic oppression, ethnocentrism, structural racism or inequity, social justice, intersectionality, neo-pronouns, inclusive language, heteronormativity, disparate impact, gender identity or theory, racial or sexual privilege or any related theory as the official position of the public entity.
2. Allows an employee of a public entity who is required to participate in a diversity, equity and inclusion program to bring action against the public entity.
3. Stipulates that an employee who demonstrates that a public entity violated the prohibition relating to a diversity, equity and inclusion program is entitled to injunctive relief.
4. Precludes a public entity from offering training on sexual harassment or operating an office staffed by or employing licensed attorneys and legal support staff whose purpose is to ensure compliance with federal law or an applicable court order.
5. Defines diversity, equity and inclusion program as a program that requires an employee of public entity to participate in or attend a training, orientation, workshop, therapy or similar activity that focuses on:
a) describing or exposing structured systems, relations of power, privilege or subordination on the basis of race, sex, color, gender, ethnicity, gender identity or sexual orientation;
b) describing methods to identify, dismantle or oppose structures, systems, relations of power, privilege or subordination on the basis of race, sex, color, gender, ethnicity, gender, ethnicity, gender identity or sexual orientation;
c) justifying differential treatment or benefit on the basis of sex, color, gender, ethnicity, gender identity or sexual orientation; or
d) advancing theories of unconscious or implicit bias, cultural appropriation, allyship, transgenderism, micro-aggressions, micro-invalidation, group marginalization, anti-racism, systemic oppression, ethnocentrism, structural racism or inequity, social justice, intersectionality, neo-pronouns, inclusive language, heteronormativity, disparate impact, gender identity or theory, racial or sexual privilege or any concept substantially related to any of the outlined theories.
6. Defines public entity as:
a) the state;
b) a political subdivision, agency board, commission, department or political subdivision in Arizona; and
c) includes the universities under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Board of Regents and community college districts as outlined.
[It is] Astounding that any Legislature would even introduce such a bill, much less actually give it a committee hearing. SB1694 has passed the Senate Committee of the Whole and probably will be voted on this coming week.
Thanks to Prof. Anne Schneider, ASU, and Civic Engagement Beyond Voting for Source Material – M. Helt
Legislative Update - Week of March 13, 2023
Friday, March 24, 2023 is the last day for a bill to get out of committee in its crossover (= opposite) house. If it doesn’t make it, it’s dead. The following bills were scheduled for votes on Monday. This week, bills will frantically be getting their last hearings,
SB1694, Hoffman (R-15), would ban the state, including public schools, from requiring "diversity, equity, and inclusion programs" for its employees, spending public funds on such programs, or setting policies to influence the composition of its workforce on the basis of race, sex, or color. Any employee required to participate would be authorized to sue.
SB1700 Wadsack (R-17), would double down on last year's measures to ban many books from schools and institute public review of them. Any parent would be allowed to ask a school to remove a book, the Department of Education would be required to maintain a list of banned books, and public schools would have to publish a list for 4 months before giving books to students.
SB1696, sponsored by Jake Hoffman (R-15), extends a law passed last year by banning district and charter schools from exposing minors to "sexually explicit materials." According to Civic Engagement Beyond Voting, “the incredibly broad description [of ‘sexually explicit materials’] includes text, audio and video that references sexual contact, sexual excitement, and even physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed buttocks. This would ban many classic works of literature, from Shakespeare to Maya Angelou.” Violations would be a class 5 felony, punishable by up to 2 years in jail.
The following bills are in Rules Committees; once passed out of Rules, they are very close to going to the floor for full votes, then, if passed, heading to Gov. Hobbs.
SB1028 Kern (R-27), would classify drag performances as “adult cabaret” (a category historically limited to strip shows) and ban them from public property or anywhere else a minor may be able to see them. A first violation would carry to up to 6 months in jail; a subsequent violation would be a felony. Scheduled for Senate Rules Committee, Monday.
SB1030 Kern (R-27), would mandate that counties change their zoning laws to define business that hold “drag shows” as adult-oriented, and would also ban the beloved Sunday drag brunch. The goal seems to be to mislead the public, intimidate LGBTQ people by perpetuating false, offensive narratives, and marginalize or force out of business dozens of restaurants and bookstores statewide. Scheduled for Senate Rules Committee, Monday.
SB1694, Hoffman (R-15), would ban the state, including public schools, from requiring "diversity, equity, and inclusion programs" for its employees, spending public funds on such programs, or setting policies to influence the composition of its workforce on the basis of race, sex, or color. Any employee required to participate would be authorized to sue.
SB1700 Wadsack (R-17), would double down on last year's measures to ban many books from schools and institute public review of them. Any parent would be allowed to ask a school to remove a book, the Department of Education would be required to maintain a list of banned books, and public schools would have to publish a list for 4 months before giving books to students.
SB1696, sponsored by Jake Hoffman (R-15), extends a law passed last year by banning district and charter schools from exposing minors to "sexually explicit materials." According to Civic Engagement Beyond Voting, “the incredibly broad description [of ‘sexually explicit materials’] includes text, audio and video that references sexual contact, sexual excitement, and even physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed buttocks. This would ban many classic works of literature, from Shakespeare to Maya Angelou.” Violations would be a class 5 felony, punishable by up to 2 years in jail.
The following bills are in Rules Committees; once passed out of Rules, they are very close to going to the floor for full votes, then, if passed, heading to Gov. Hobbs.
SB1028 Kern (R-27), would classify drag performances as “adult cabaret” (a category historically limited to strip shows) and ban them from public property or anywhere else a minor may be able to see them. A first violation would carry to up to 6 months in jail; a subsequent violation would be a felony. Scheduled for Senate Rules Committee, Monday.
SB1030 Kern (R-27), would mandate that counties change their zoning laws to define business that hold “drag shows” as adult-oriented, and would also ban the beloved Sunday drag brunch. The goal seems to be to mislead the public, intimidate LGBTQ people by perpetuating false, offensive narratives, and marginalize or force out of business dozens of restaurants and bookstores statewide. Scheduled for Senate Rules Committee, Monday.
From the Governor
On her first day in office, Katie Hobbs announced workplace discrimination protections for ALL state employees.
|
Free SafeTALK Suicide Prevention Training
This Friday, January 27th from 8:30 am to 12:00 pm Location: Granite Peak Unitarian Universalist Fellowship 882 Sunset Ave, Prescott AZ 86305 Openings available! Contact Molly Freibott azprismnetwork@gmail.com To reserve a spot contact Molly at azprismnetwork@gmail.com Learn more about SafeTALK HERE! To reserve a spot contact Molly at azprismnetwork@gmail.com |