The Arizona House and Senate approved a stay-the-course budget that will allow for the reversal of some previous belt tightening measures as well as a rainy day fund. Read more at azcentral.com.
azcentral.com: The legislature struck a compromise and electronic billboards are now approved in Phoenix and southwestern Arizona, but nowhere else in Arizona. The governor previously vetoed the original bill and the new bill is revised.
Arizona voters will decide in November whether to allow businesses a break on property taxes for newly acquired equipment.
The Arizona House of Representatives passed a measure seeking the return of approximately 48,000 square miles of federally owned land.
AZ Central: “Gov. Jan Brewer rebuffed gun-rights advocates by vetoing for a second time a bill to allow guns on public property, and sent a strong message that such a proposal would need wider support from police, cities and the public before she would sign it.
Brewer’s veto of the bill, which could have let guns into city halls, police stations, county courts, senior centers, swimming pools, libraries and the state Capitol, was the latest setback for a push to expand the right to carry guns in public places in Arizona.”
Yuma Sun: “If you think the kind of incident that resulted in the death of a Florida teen cannot happen here, you’re wrong.
Arizona adopted its own “stand your ground” law two years ago. And not a single legislator spoke out against it at that time.
In fact, the change in the law was tacked on at nearly the last minute to another unrelated measure dealing with guns. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee approved it after just a 20-second promotion from a gun-rights lobbyist.
Dave Kopp of the Arizona Citizens Defense League, who provided that explanation, said nothing more was needed.
He noted that existing law already spelled out that people have no duty to retreat when confronted in their homes or their own vehicles. That concept is known as the “castle doctrine.”
“We believe that anyplace you have a legal right to be, you should be able to defend yourself without having to run away first,” Kopp told lawmakers.”
Yuma Sun: “Arizona is entitled to demand that people present identification before being allowed to cast a ballot, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday. In a split decision, the judges rejected arguments that mandating would-be voters show a driver’s license or other identification unfairly discriminates against Latino voters. Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for the majority, said while challengers made that claim, they failed to present any credible evidence. The court also brushed aside arguments that the requirement to provide identification, approved by voters in 2004, amounts to a poll tax. But the judges said the state cannot strictly enforce another provision in that 2004 initiative that requires anyone who wants to register to vote to first provide acceptable proof of citizenship.”
http://directorsblog.health.azdhs.gov: From the Arizona Department of Health blog, the Arizona Governor has signed HB 2036. The full text is here. Notable provisions include but are not limited to the requirement that for any facility where abortions are performed, the facility must conspicuously post signs outside and inside, where visible to patients, that it is unlawful for a woman to be forced to have an abortion. Another notable is that no contract may require a woman to have an abortion.
On a 37-22 margin Tuesday, the House approved the legislation to scrap existing law which says pregnancies can be terminated until the point of viability, generally considered to be in the 22-23 week range. Proponents of HB 2036 have cited medical evidence that pain sensors are fully developed by the 20th week of life, while opponents argue that some medical anomalies cannot be detected and fully diagnosed until the 20th week of pregnancy. Read more…
ktar.com: “The judge presiding over lawsuits challenging Arizona’s immigration enforcement law has set a hearing to consider a request by the law’s opponents to grant class-action status in their lawsuit that seeks to declare the law unconstitutional.”
For more information on the June 4 hearing, click here.