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.
That’s what they did in Colonial times… they knew how to get leverage and not be a sucker
Doesn’t anyone have to prove that masks are in any measure effective for the purposes intended?
IANAL but my guess is no. School districts do not have to prove that students wearing spaghetti strap tops or saggy pants disrupt the learning environment, so they can just treat masks as part of their dress code.
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?
Not just you. I also had to reread the headline to make sense of it.
What is unconstitutional is forcing someone to wear them.
This raises an interesting question. Are school uniforms also unconstitutional? What about "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" policies adopted by many private businesses? School dress codes in general? IANAL but it seems to me schools and businesses have been mandating the attire of their students, staff, and customers for quite some time without anyone claiming it was unconstitutional.
I’m actually glad to know that, lol!
As I read that ruling, the judge did not address the mask issue itself, but rather that the law which passed the ban on mandates was too much of a hodge-podge of unrelated issues, and stopped there.
Not to the Maricopa County courts.
That’s what I read as well.
States cannot make rules that cities and school districts
have to abide by now? It’s unconstitutional if they do?
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] ”
We are not talking about appearance here. We are talking about health. And the fact is that the masks provide no protection from a virus and yet they damage the body and health by depriving it of oxygen and forcing you to breath CO2. You better hope that you have right to not comply with that. Pursuit of life and liberty.
Thank you Lepton.
That’s a reasoned response.
One thing that really peeves me, is when our side goes to all
this trouble knowing what the rules are, violates them, and
defeats the intended purpose. Makes you wonder if it’s
intentional or not. Do they even give a darn?
So the basis of her decision is akin to misspelling a word?
What Tripe.
Without religion, the people in robes become the high priests and priestesses in our Society.
And thus become a RELIGION of Government.
How quickly do we forget that the Holy Roman Catholic Church (Catholic Religion) was deeply embedded within the government. In fact, the government answered to the Church before the People. And now you know the rest of the story...
Without religion, the world might have been better off.
All falls back to the Roman Empire when the Catholic Priests determined they had to have the same ornaments and dress of the Roman Government.....they wanted to be recognized as elite as the Roman Senate.
It still goes on today.
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.