Posted on 09/27/2021 3:21:20 PM PDT by zaxtres
PHOENIX - A judge has struck down provisions Republican lawmakers tucked into the Arizona budget that block schools from requiring masks and restrict the power of local governments to impose COVID-19 requirements.
The ruling was made on Sept. 27, just days before the ban was officially set to take effect on Sept. 29. Despite the new laws banning mask mandates, at least 29 public school districts in Arizona have enacted their own mask requirements. The districts account for more more than a third of the approximately 930,000 students attending more than 2,000 schools run by public districts.
The ruling Monday could clear the way for cities and counties to enact mask requirements. The judge also said an entire budget measure that served as a catch-all for a wish list of conservative policy items was unconstitutional. The judge ruled in favor of a coalition of educators and allies who sued over Arizona laws prohibiting public school districts from imposing mask requirements, colleges from requiring vaccinations for students, and communities from establishing vaccine passports.
Declaratory judgment "Having considered the pleadings and counsels' oral argument and for the reasons stated, the court finds:
Sections 12, 21, and 50 of HB2898; Sections 12 and 13 of SB1824; Section 2 of SB 1825; and SB1819 violate the title and/or subject matter requirements of the Arizona Constitution, Art. IV, pt. 2, §13 (hereinafter ‘Section 13’), and are therefore void and unenforceable. Given the declaration that these provisions are unconstitutional under Section 13, the request for injunctive relief is moot. If non-compliance occurs, further relief is available under AR.S. §12-1838. Similarly, since HB2898, Section 12 (banning masks in public and charter schools) is unconstitutional under Section 13, the Court need not reach the issue of whether it violates the equal protection clause, Arizona Constitution, Article II, §13."
LIST: Arizona school districts with mask requirements
Phoenix Union School District statement Phoenix Union is pleased with the outcome of today’s ruling from the Maricopa County Superior Court. From day one, we have been committed to safely reopening our schools and doing everything in our power to provide uninterrupted in-person learning. The CDC’s recent finding that schools without a masking requirement are 3.5 times more likely to have a COVID-19 outbreak reinforces our masking protocol that has been in place since August 2. The two most effective ways to minimize spread of the virus are the vaccine and universal masking while indoors. For information about PXU’s mitigation efforts, including vaccination clinics, please visit www.PXU.org/BeHealthy. As of today, over 300,000 of Arizona’s children attend a school that requires masks. This ruling can now impact all 1.1 million students who call Arizona’s public schools home. Phoenix Union will trust the guidance of national, state, and local healthcare experts and continue our current masking protocol as a protection to our students, staff, and families.
Arguments were heard Sept. 13
Arizona judge has until late September to decide to challenge mask mandate ban in schools A judge heard arguments Sept. 13 in the case, which sought to overturn several new Arizona laws that restrict the power of local governments and school districts to impose COVID-19 restrictions such as mask mandates.
The laws in question prohibit public school districts from imposing mask requirements, bar universities from requiring vaccinations for students and forbid communities from establishing vaccine passports for people to show they are inoculated.
A coalition of educators, parents and children’s advocacy groups argue in their lawsuit that the provisions were unconstitutionally tucked into unrelated budget bills. They argued the provisions in several budget bills violate constitutional rules requiring laws to focus on only one subject, and have their contents reflected in the title of the bills. In the case of the school mask ban, they allege it violates equal protection provisions because it does not apply to private school
LIST: Mask or no mask? Which retailers and restaurants are requiring face coverings
LIST: More than a dozen Arizona venues requiring COVID-19 vaccines, negative tests
Based on this legal contention, the coalition is asking the judge to undo two other laws unrelated to COVID-19 prevention efforts.
One law prohibits the use of state money for teachings at schools that infer that one race is inherently racist, should be discriminated against or feel guilty because of their race. Another law establishes a legislative committee to review the findings of the state Senate review of the November 2020 election results in Maricopa County. The Legislature has routinely tucked all sorts of unrelated items into the budget bills but this year crammed many more than usual. The challengers allege they violate the constitution in each instance.
"Does a bill titled ‘Relating to State Budget Procedures’ give notice that it includes new, substantive legislation covering everything from the definition of ‘newspaper’ to condominium termination requirements, and from investigation of social media platforms to dog racing permitting?" attorney Roopali Desai wrote. "Of course not."
Meanwhile, the attorney representing Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich claims they were legally enacted because how the Legislature writes measures and chooses the content are questions for lawmakers, not for the courts. They also argue the groups don’t have a right to sue, because they have not been harmed by the laws.
Attorney Patrick Irvine, representing Brnovich, said a court ruling agreeing that the Legislature violated either the title or single-subject rules could upend years of enacted "budget reconciliation bills" or "omnibus reconciliation bills" that also added unrelated policy items. Irvine said if the court is concerned about the Legislature’s practice, it should ban it going forward, not block the current laws.
MORE: Arizona's AG rebuffs Biden DOE's mask probe: Won't 'tolerate' efforts to undermine state sovereignty
"Potentially upsetting scores of BRBs and ORBs, with no warning, would be highly inequitable to the democratic process in Arizona over the last several decades," Irvine wrote.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Those lawyers learn to be gods in law school.
Ignore the judge.
The dems would.
Judge Katherine Cooper is the former Governor Jan Brewer appointee. The only derogatory thing I could find about her was about a sex offender, and her boyfriend at the time, being arrested in her home. She disavowed all knowledge of knowing he was a sex offender as the warrant was from NY and not from AZ. Most lawyers on both sides have praised her rulings. She received praise and anger from Brwer within a 6-month time span. Cooper has adjudicated over a lot of the hottest political cases in AZ since 2015..
What is unconstitutional is forcing someone to wear them. Evil communist Judge was put in place for a reason.
The courts will not save us.
Period.
Perhaps I’m mistaken.
Check Judge Katherine Cooper’s bank accounts for any new, large sum deposits.
Masks do not do xshit. No masks better for you.
Whenever there are so many negatives in a headline I get confused but ‘mask mandate’ ‘ban’ followed by ‘unconstitutional’ and I had no idea which way it went till I read the article. Is that just me?
Isn’t that legislating from the bench?
State Legislatures set up the laws, and the court makes sure
people abide by them.
It can enter into the discussion if civil rights are being
abridged, but this is not that sort of matter.
What they passed or were seeking to pass, was in their
wheel-house. It’s really not his call.
Masks are worthless. Not only that but childhood is a good time to catch the China Virus. In their case it rarely is an issue and getting over it would give them life long immunity better than any jab.
Totally agree- protest and protest loudly outside their homes...fight fire with fire by using left wing tactics.
Satan is waging all out war on America. His minions are firmly embedded in positions of influence, authority, and power. What better way to rule the country than through the husk of a demented, career liar, pliagiarist, crook, pedophile, and rapist. Biden’s hollow, black, beady eyes are no accident.
THE FOLLOWING IS THE REASON THE JUDGE SAYS THE MEASURES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
Section 13
Text of Section 13:
Subject and Title of Bills
“ Every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title; but if any subject shall be embraced in an act which shall not be expressed in the title, such act shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be embraced in the title.[1][2] ”
Exactly.
The same judge that thinks banning mask mandates is unconstitutional probably believes mandating the jab is okay.
Nope, I’m on the same page. Bit confusing.
As an actual lawyer for 30 years, this is gobbledygook. The “Article this, statute that, subsection this” legal language is intentionally done to obscure what is really going on.
Law is logical [for the most part] and this isn’t complicated. The judge here is saying the legislature, which governs the school system, is ‘powerless’ to stop schools from compelling masks. Same legislature that has full and unquestioned authority to require vaccines, require attendance, sets grad reqm’ts, student eligibility, etc. Judge is saying a Legislature that has authority to REQUIRE vaccines can’t prohibit the same. Complete garbage opinion written with an outcome in mind and searching for a ‘hook’ to make it sound legal. Sad to say I see this often in court.
This law did not “ban masks”. Judge is saying schooling can be denied UNLESS you wear a mask. This law prevents compelled masking / vax to attend school - a constitutionally protected activity. Anyone can wear a mask if they want. Language matters and this ruling is garbage.
Masks are also fomites.
And there other bugs in addition to CoupFlu put there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.