ARIZONA
STATE LEGISLATURE
Forty-third
Legislature - Second Regular Session
ARIZONA
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
Minutes
of Meeting
Tuesday,
July 7, 1998 and Thursday, July 9, 1998
Senate
Hearing Room 1 - 9:00 a.m.
(Tape 1, Side A)
The meeting was called to order at 9:15 a.m.
by Cochairman Groscost and roll call was taken by the secretary.
Members
Present
Senator Brown Representative
Daniels
Senator Patterson Representative
Hamilton
Senator G. Richardson Representative
Horton
President B. Burns, Cochairman Speaker
Groscost, Cochairman
Members
Absent
Senator Rios Representative
Carruthers
Senator Solomon Representative
Horne
Senator Spitzer Representative
McLendon
Speakers
Present
Mike Braun, Executive Director, Arizona
Legislative Council
Jessica Funkhouser, State Election Director,
Secretary of State=s
Office
Greg Jernigan, Counsel to the President,
Arizona State Senate
Bart Turner, Executive Director, Valley Citizen=s League
Representative Mike Gardner
Marge Ray, Council Attorney, Arizona
Legislative Council
John Tuchi, representing Arizonans for Clean
Elections
Josh Silver, representing Arizonans for Clean
Elections
Stefanie Nichols-Young, Attorney,
representing Citizens Against Cockfighting
Jack LaSota, Attorney, representing People
Have Spoken
Jerry Landau, Special Assistant, Maricopa
County Attorney=s Office
Bill Dickinson, Deputy County Attorney, Pima
County
Mike Braun, Executive
Director, Arizona Legislative Council, explained that Council rules stipulate
that seven Members of the Council constitute a quorum as long as a Member from
each body is represented.
REVIEW OF OLD
CAPITOL RENOVATION
Mr. Braun related that
several years ago money was appropriated over a four-year period to begin
renovation of the old Capitol, hopefully, in time for a Centennial celebration
of the building in 2001. Since that time,
an agreement has been signed with an architect. Following the Joint Committee on Capital Review (JCCR) meeting
last week, D. L. Norton Company was chosen as general contractor for the
project. He added that the funds
appropriated and spread out over four years, if realized, will not be sufficient
for even the basic repairs first anticipated.
In addition, architects have generated ideas concerning renovation of
the common area between the House and Senate, which will require the approval
of JCCR and the Council. Mr. Braun said
he intends to ask Legislators to consider appropriating the remainder of the
money (whatever JCCR and the Council ultimately approve as the scope of the
project) in a lump sum during the next Regular Session. He related that copies of material presented
to JCCR regarding the scope of the first phase of the project will be
distributed to the Members= offices (Attachment 1), as well as a report containing conclusions of
a design charette held in November 1997 (Attachment 2), which will have to be
presented to the Council and JCCR before any action can be taken.
ADOPTION OF BALLOT
ANALYSES PURSUANT TO A.R.S. SECTION 19-124
Proposition 100,
S.C.R. 1009, public retirement systems
Cochairman Groscost noted
that no written comments have been received concerning this proposition.
Cochairman
Burns moved that the Council adopt the analysis prepared by Arizona Legislative
Council for Proposition 100 (Attachment 3).
The motion carried by a roll call vote of 7-0-0-7 (Attachment 4).
Proposition 101,
H.C.R. 2008, salaries for elective state officers
Cochairman Groscost noted
that no written comments have been received concerning this proposition.
Cochairman
Burns moved that the Council adopt the analysis prepared by Arizona Legislative
Council for Proposition 101 (Attachment 5).
The motion carried by a roll call vote of 7-0-0-7 (Attachment 6).
Proposition 102,
S.C.R. 1007, investment of state monies
Mr. Braun advised of a
memorandum from Representative Laura Knaperek suggesting that it may be helpful
to review how the issue is handled in other states (Attachment 7) and
electronic mail from Dave Thomas, Deputy Director, Arizona Legislative Council
(Attachment 8). He explained that
Legislative Council did not review other states because only one other state
has an Enabling Act provision similar to Arizona. He added that he had a brief telephone conversation with Mrs.
Knaperek, and he believes she accepted the explanation. He recommended that the Council adopt the
analysis (Attachment 9) as amended by Mr. Thomas (Attachment 8).
Ms. Daniels indicated
that she talked to Mrs. Knaperek twice this weekend but the issue was not
mentioned; therefore, she believes Mr. Braun=s explanation was satisfactory to Mrs. Knaperek.
Cochairman
Burns moved that the Committee adopt the analysis for Proposition 102 as
prepared by Arizona Legislative Council with the last paragraph changed to
reflect new language from a memo dated June 25, 1998 from Dave Thomas to Mr.
Braun (Attachments 8 and 9). The motion
carried by a roll call vote of 7-0-0-7 (Attachment 10).
Mr. Braun indicated that
in his zeal to prepare the proposition numbers for the Members, which was a
problem in prior years, a final list was not used; therefore, the proposition
numbers used today will be different in the publicity pamphlet and on the
ballot.
Jessica Funkhouser, State
Election Director, Secretary of State=s Office, clarified that the proposition numbers previously referred to
are final; however, some adjustments were made over the weekend on those yet to
be reviewed.
Proposition 103,
S.C.R. 1014, open primary elections
Cochairman Groscost noted
that Majority staff made some recommendations to the Legislative Council
analysis (Attachment 11). Mr. Braun
indicated that he is not aware of the recommendations.
Greg Jernigan, Counsel to
the President, Arizona State Senate, noted that Mr. Braun and Council staff
have not seen the recommendations, which were drafted late yesterday afternoon
and include:
! Changing
the first paragraph to read, AProposition 103 would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow any
registered voter in this state to vote in a partisan primary election.@
! Changing
the last sentence to read, AUnder current law, only voters who
are registered members of one of the three major political parties
(Democrat, Republican, Libertarian) are eligible to vote in the party=s primary election.@
Mr. Hamilton indicated
that he would like to see the changes in writing.
Cochairman Burns asked
what happens if another party gains ballot status. Mr. Braun replied that Ms. Funkhouser just mentioned that there
are four political parties with ballot status.
Ms. Funkhouser advised
that no other political parties can be recognized this year because those that
are qualified have qualified.
Senator Patterson
speculated that the analysis is silent on what happens to people who are
registered with majority parties if the proposition passes. For clarification purposes, he suggested
language to be included before the last sentence, AVoters who are registered in a major
political party would be required to vote in that party=s primary election.@ At
Senator Richardson=s
suggestion, Senator Patterson suggested that Arequired@ be changed to Aallowed only.@
Speaker Groscost
indicated that Proposition 103 will be readdressed later in the meeting.
Proposition 104,
H.C.R. 2015, relating to initiative and referendum
Cochairman Groscost noted
that no written comments have been received concerning this proposition.
Cochairman
Burns moved that the Council adopt the analysis prepared by Arizona Legislative
Council for Proposition 104 from H.C.R. 2015 (Attachment 12). The motion carried by a roll call vote of
7-0-0-7 (Attachment 13).
Proposition 105,
H.C.R. 2027, AGrowing Smarter Act@; $20 million appropriation
Mr. Braun indicated that
Proposition 105 is currently numbered Proposition 303; however, it could change
if one of the measures filed does not qualify for signatures. He related that when Council drafted the
initial analysis, there were two competing measures on the ballot relating to
this issue, one through the initiative process and one through the Legislature,
which specifically referred to the initiative provisions. Since that time, the proponents of the
initiative did not file an initiative.
He referred to a memo from Representative Robin Shaw with suggested
revisions (Attachment 14) and an attachment containing her suggestions in
combination with language prepared by Dave Thomas, Deputy Director, Arizona
Legislative Council, to comply with the Supreme Court directive for this
analysis (Attachment 15). A revised
version of the analysis containing changes recommended by the Members and Mr.
Thomas was distributed (Attachment 16).
Mrs.
Burns moved that the Council adopt the analysis of Proposition 303 (105)
(H.C.R. 2027) distributed to the Members (Attachment 16). The motion carried by a roll call vote of
7-0-0-7 (Attachment 17).
Proposition 103,
S.C.R. 1014, relating to primary election law (continued)
The Members referred to a
handout containing changes previously discussed (Attachment 18). Cochairman
Burns suggested that the analysis be changed to show that there are four major
political parties instead of three, identifying the parties in parentheses.
Greg Jernigan, Counsel to
the President, Arizona State Senate, explained that the political parties are
listed on the last line of the second paragraph versus the fourth line in order
to shorten the first sentence, and listed in order of registration percentages.
Cochairman Groscost
suggested that the major political parties be listed in alphabetical
order. Senator Patterson suggested
adding at the end of the last paragraph, AVoters registered in a major political party would be allowed to vote
only in their own party=s primary election.@
Mr. Braun advised that
the analysis, with the recommended changes, is accurate according to S.C.R.
1014.
Cochairman
Burns moved that the Council adopt the analysis for Proposition 103 prepared by
Legislative Council as
amended (Attachment 18). The
motion carried by a roll call vote of 7-0-0-7 (Attachment 19).
Proposition 106,
11-C-09, AVoter Protection Act@
Mr. Braun explained that
11-C-98 has been renumbered to Ballot Measure 105, and no comments were
received on the measure.
Bart Turner, Executive
Director, Valley Citizens League, referring to the analysis (Attachment 20),
suggested the following changes:
! Item
4, line 1, strike AAllows
the State Legislature, by a three-fourths vote,@ and insert ARequires
a three-fourths vote of the State Legislature.@
! Item
4, line 2, after Ameasure@ insert Aeven.@
He indicated to Ms.
Horton that he is comfortable with the language in Item 3.
Mr. Braun informed the
Members that the provisions in Items 3 and 4 are the same type and describing
them differently gives the appearance that there is a difference. The suggested language is appropriate but
was not used by Legislative Council
because it implies that the Legislature must amend items already passed.
Mr. Turner noted that he
arrived late and was not present when the Council adopted Proposition 104 for
which he intended to request the same change.
He speculated that a statement allowing for a two-thirds vote, to the
layperson, appears to be an expansion of power of the Legislature.
(Tape 1, Side B)
Representative Mike
Gardner commented that the language should be consistent in Propositions 104
and 106.
Senator G. Richardson
perceived that restrictions are being placed on the Legislature to carry out
the will of the people.
Mr. Braun explained that
a three-quarters vote by the State Legislature would be necessary when money is
already designated to a specific purpose by a measure or if funding is
appropriated or transferred from the existing amount to Afurther the purposes@ of the approved measure. A separate appropriation would not fall
under the text of this constitutional amendment.
Mr. Turner read Paragraph
6(D) from the initiative, which states that a three-fourths vote of the State
Legislature is required to appropriate or divert funds, even it is in keeping
with the intention of the people at the polls (Attachment 21). He added that the suggested language
accurately portrays the initiative, as long as the word Aeven@ is inserted in Item 4.
Mr. Braun advised that it
is an accurate portrayal without the word Aeven.@
Senator Patterson
submitted that Item 2 would be clarified by adding the word Aever@ after Afrom.@ A veto is time-limited but the
Legislature can never repeal or amend an approved measure except as provided in
Items 3 and 4.
Senator Brown indicated
that the Act does not say Aever@ so it should not be placed in the analysis.
Cochairman
Burns moved that the Council adopt the analysis prepared by Arizona Legislative
Council for Proposition 106 (105) as amended in Items 2, 3, and 4 (Attachment
20), and by striking Aat@
and inserting Aon@ in the first sentence of the last paragraph.
Senator
Patterson moved that the analysis be amended as follows: Item 2, at the end of
the sentence, add Aor from amending an approved measure except as provided below.@
Mr. Braun indicated that
the motions are appropriate.
Question
was called on Senator Patterson=s motion.
The motion carried.
Senator
Brown moved that Item 4 of the analysis be amended as follows: Line 2, strike Aeven@ and insert Aonly.@
Discussion followed.
Question
was called on Senator Brown=s motion. The motion failed.
Cochairman
Burns moved that the analysis as amended be adopted (Attachment 20). The motion carried by a roll call vote of
6-1-1-6 (Attachment 22).
Proposition 104,
H.C.R. 2015, relating to initiative and referendum (on reconsideration)
Ms.
Daniels moved that the Council revisit Proposition 104 to make the wording
consistent with Proposition 106 (105).
The motion carried.
Ms.
Daniels moved that the Council adopt the analysis for Proposition 104 prepared
by Arizona Legislative Council (Attachment 12) with the following changes:
Items 2 and 3, strike AAllows the State Legislature, by a two-thirds
vote,@ and insert ARequires a two-thirds vote of the State
Legislature@.
Item 4,
line 2, strike Aallows@ and insert Arequires a three-fourths vote of@
Mr. Turner distributed
and reviewed a handout containing recommended changes to the analysis for
Proposition 104 (Attachment 23).
Ms. Daniels, referring to
the Legislative Council analysis, suggested that it be amended as follows: Item
4, line 2, after Aand@ insert Arequires a three-fourths vote of@, strike Aallows@ and Aby a three-fourths vote@ (Attachment 12).
Mr. Turner said Ms.
Daniels made an excellent suggestion which he overlooked.
Cochairman Burns,
concerned about consistency, referred to Item 2 on Mr. Turner=s handout, and recommended that it be changed
as follows: ARequires a two-thirds vote of the State
Legislature from repealing any voter approved ballot measure less then five
years old@ (Attachment 23).
Cochairman Burns
suggested that staff work with Mr. Turner to develop language on Propositions
104 and 106.
Without
objection, Ms. Daniels withdrew her motion.
Cochairman Groscost
indicated that Propositions 104 and 106 will be readdressed later in the meeting.
CHAIRMAN GROSCOST
ANNOUNCED AT 9:55 A.M. THAT A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS WILL BE TAKEN. THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 10:50 A.M. IN
SENATE HEARING ROOM 1. THE SAME MEMBERS WERE PRESENT EXCEPT MR. HAMILTON.
Proposition 104,
H.C.R. 2015, relating to initiative and referendum (continued - on reconsideration)
Proposition 106,
11-C-98, AVoter Protection Act@ (continued - on reconsideration)
Marge Ray, Council
Attorney, Arizona Legislative Council, reviewed an amended analysis for
Proposition 104 (11:35) (Attachment 24).
She advised that the language applies proactively to actions of the
Legislature but refers to measures approved by the voters at any time. She reviewed an amended analysis for
Proposition 106 (11:30 a.m.) (Attachment 25).
Mr. Turner expressed his
appreciation for the Committee=s willingness to amend and staff=s willingness to work on language; however, lamented loss of the word Aever@ in Item 4.
Cochairman
Burns moved that the Council adopt the two-page revised analysis prepared by
Arizona Legislative Council for H.C.R. 2015 (Proposition 104) (Attachment
24). The motion carried by a roll call
vote of 7-0-0-7 (Attachment 26).
Cochairman
Burns moved that the Council reconsider action taken on 11-C-98 (Proposition
106). The motion carried.
Cochairman
Burns moved that the Council adopt the revised analysis by Arizona Legislative
Council for 11-C-98 (Proposition 106) (Attachment 25). The motion carried by a roll call vote of
6-1-0-7 (Attachment 27).
Proposition 107,
6-C-98, AOpen Primary Elections Now@
Mr. Braun noted that no
comments were submitted regarding this proposition but assumed that the Members
will wish to change the number of major political parties and include
identification in the last sentence of the second paragraph (Attachment 28).
Senator Patterson,
referring to the last line of the first paragraph, submitted that there will be
no ballots to request and suggested that the language be deleted.
Cochairman
Burns moved that the Council adopt the analysis prepared by Arizona Legislative
Council for 6-C-98 (Proposition 107), changing the number of major political
parties from three to four followed by identification of the parties in
parentheses and alphabetical order (Attachment 28).
Senator
Patterson moved that the analysis be further amended by striking the last line
of the first paragraph. The motion carried.
Cochairman
Burns moved that the Council adopt the analysis prepared by Arizona Legislative
Council for 6-C-98 (Proposition 107) as amended (Attachment 28). The motion carried by a roll call vote of
7-0-0-7 (Attachment 29).
Proposition 200,
10-I-98, AClean Elections Act@
Mr. Braun indicated that
public comment was received on this proposition from the Law Offices of Lewis
Hoffman with accurate clarifications (Attachments 30 and 31).
John Tuchi, representing
Arizonans for Clean Elections, indicated that he prefers the language as
drafted by Legislative Council because it very fairly and accurately represents
the intent of the Clean Elections Act (Attachment 32).
(Tape 2, Side A)
Mr. Braun advised Senator
Patterson that the amount of spending, contribution limits, etc., is not
necessary from a readable standpoint because those items are found in the text
of the measure, which appears just before the analysis in the publicity pamphlet.
Ms. Daniels noted that
the proposition refers to limiting public campaign spending and fund-raising
and implies that there is no current system which limits campaign financing
when there is. Discussion followed concerning
appropriate clarifying language and addressing contribution limits for
nonparticipants.
Following comments from
the Members, Cochairman Groscost read suggested language to replace the first
paragraph of the proposition: AProposition 200 would establish a taxpayer-funded campaign system as an
alternate to election campaigns for political candidates who voluntarily
participate and further limits the current contribution limitations for those
who opt out.@
Mr. Braun recommended
that the first full paragraph on the second page be moved forward to clarify
that the non-participating people have a ceiling on contributions.
Josh Silver, representing
Arizonans for Clean Elections, indicated that it is not a taxpayer-funded
system. The clean elections system is
funded with a fee on lobbyists, a ten percent surcharge on criminal and civil
fees and fines, and voluntary taxpayer allocations. Also, the primary intent of the clean elections law is to limit
spending and fund-raising in political campaigns. He indicated that everyone involved in drafting the law was
pleased with the original analysis but agreed with adding Afurther@ in regard to limiting current contribution limitations for those who
opt out.
Following discussion,
Cochairman Groscost indicated that the Council will meet again on Wednesday or
Thursday at which time Proposition 200 will be readdressed.
Proposition 201,
1-I-98, ACitizens Against Cockfighting@
Mr. Braun noted that
comments were received from Stephanie Nichols-Young representing the proponents
of this proposition with a suggested change (Attachment 33). Chairman Groscost indicated that he received
a commentary from Representative Roberta Voss which refers more to drafting of
the initiative than the analysis (Attachment 34).
Cochairman
Burns moved that the Council adopt the analysis prepared by Arizona Legislative
Council on 1-I-98 (Proposition 201) (Attachment 35).
Stephanie Nichols-Young,
Attorney, representing Citizens Against Cockfighting, expressed the opinion
that her proposed language is more succinct.
An alternative would be to strike Aamend state law to create the crime of cockfighting by prohibiting@ and insert Aprohibit@; however, creating the crime of cockfighting
is less partial because there are existing laws on cruelty and dog fighting,
and it really just Arounds
out@ that portion of the criminal code.
Question
was called on Cochairman Burns= motion.
The motion carried by a roll call vote of 5-1-1-7 (Attachment 36).
Proposition 202,
14-I-98, AArizonans for Fair Tax Reform@
Mr. Braun noted that the
Council became aware of this proposition late in the process; however, it was
distributed to those people required by law, and no response was received.
Cochairman
Burns moved that the Committee adopt the analysis prepared by Legislative
Council for Proposition 202 (Attachment 37).
The motion carried by a roll call vote of 7-0-0-7 (Attachment 38).
THE MEETING RECESSED AT
12:50 P.M. TO SOUND OF THE GAVEL.
THE MEETING RECONVENED AT
4:50 P.M. IN SENATE HEARING ROOM 1. ALL
MEMBERS WERE PRESENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SENATOR SOLOMON, MR. CARRUTHERS, AND
MR. MCLENDON.
Proposition 200,
10-I-98, AClean Elections Act@ (continued)
Ms. Daniels reviewed a
handout containing suggested language (Attachment 39) to replace the first
paragraph of the analysis prepared by Arizona Legislative Council for
Proposition 200 (Attachment 32). She
noted that the word Ataxpayer@ on lines 1 and 5 of the handout should be
replaced with Apublic.@
Ms.
Daniels moved that the Council adopt the analysis prepared by Arizona
Legislative Council for Proposition 200 (Attachment 32) replacing the language
in the first paragraph with the proposed language (Attachment 39) and striking
the second paragraph on the second page.
Bart Turner, representing
Arizonans for Clean Elections, presented substitute language for the first
paragraph of the analysis (Attachment 40). He said the basic purpose of the
proposition is to establish a system that limits campaign spending and
fund-raising in statewide and state legislative races by providing public
financing for candidates who choose to participate in the system. The language follows the wording of the
proposition, which is easier for the layperson to understand. Discussion followed. Referring to Ms. Daniels= handout, Mr. Turner submitted that
alleviating the second sentence from where it previously existed appears as if
it is a primary goal of the initiative when it is, in fact, the means by which
the initiative operates.
Ms.
Daniels moved that the proposed language for the first paragraph of the
analysis for Proposition 200 (Attachment 39) be amended as follows: Line 4,
after Acan@ insert Acurrently@.
Josh Silver, representing
Arizonans for Clean Elections, stated that the Clean Elections Act, if passed,
will constitute a limit on campaign spending because any time a Clean Elections
candidate is outspent by a nonparticipating
candidate further matching funds are provided from the clean elections
fund. That is an inherent spending
limit because it does not pay for the opponent to spend against the
opponent. Also, the only way that
spending limits can be implemented in election law is through a voluntary
system, and there is no other way than this clean elections model can
accomplish that. Therefore, a method to
limit spending in campaigns cannot be developed.
Mr.
Hamilton moved a substitute motion that the language proposed by Mr. Turner (Attachment 40) be adopted. Division was called and the motion failed by
a roll call vote of 4 ayes and 6 nays.
Question
was called on Ms. Daniels= amendment to the analysis (Attachment 39). The motion carried.
Ms.
Daniels moved that the Council adopt the analysis prepared by Arizona
Legislative Council for Proposition 200 (Attachment 32) as amended (Attachment
39). The motion carried by a roll call
vote of 8-2-0-4 (Attachment 41).
Proposition 303,
H.B. 2158, continuation of Arizona State Lottery Commission
Mr. Braun referred to a
revised draft submitted by Don Jansen, House Attorney, on behalf of Speaker
Groscost (Attachment 42). He commented
that the Council attempts to refer to AState Legislature@ versus ALegislature.@
Ms.
Daniels moved that the Council adopt the suggested language changes proposed by
Mr. Jansen in the analysis prepared by Arizona Legislative Council for
Proposition 303 (H.B. 2158), adding ASTATE@ after ATHE@ on lines 4 and 6 of the third paragraph
(Attachment 42).
Senator Patterson
surmised that the language may be confusing to voters and suggested that the
concluding paragraph state that if the voters approve the proposition, the
Arizona State Lottery will be extended to July 1, 2003.
(Tape 2, Side B)
Cochairman Groscost
submitted that it is clear in the bill that the lottery is scheduled to
terminate either way, in one or five years, which is the Senate version adopted
in the Conference Committee.
Mr. Patterson
moved that the analysis be amended as follows: Paragraph 4, line 2, strike Ascheduled@ and insert Aextended.@
Cochairman Groscost
remarked that he likes it as it is.
Mr.
Patterson withdrew his motion.
Cochairman Groscost
informed Mr. Hamilton that he proposed the language to give the voters a chance
to terminate the lottery now or in 2003 as opposed to enumerating what happens
with lottery money, which is fairly superfluous to what is being asked. Mr. Hamilton submitted that there is nothing
wrong with Arizona Legislative Council=s draft (Attachment 43).
Question
was called on Ms. Daniels= motion. The motion carried by
a roll call vote of 7-3-0-4 (Attachment 44).
THE MEETING RECESSED AT
5:25 P.M. UNTIL THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1998, AT 12:00 NOON.
THE MEETING RECONVENED ON
THURSDAY, JULY 9, 1998 AT 12:20 P.M. IN HOUSE HEARING ROOM 2. ALL MEMBERS WERE PRESENT EXCEPT SENATOR G.
RICHARDSON, SENATOR SPITZER, MR. HAMILTON, MR. HORNE, AND MS. HORTON.
4-R-97, medical use
of marijuana and other drugs
Mr. Braun noted that
comments on the analysis for this proposition were received from Senator John
Kaites (Attachment 45) and Jack LaSota (Attachment 46). He added that he received telephone calls
from about six Legislators concerned about the Council=s description of Acontrolled substances@
(Attachment 47).
Representative Mike
Gardner noted that he sent a memorandum to each of the Members yesterday with a
revised analysis. Since then, an error
was discovered so another version is provided today (Attachment 48). The
proposed language shows that H.B. 2518 covers controlled substances other than
marijuana, such as heroin, LSD, and PCP.
He contended that it is inherent upon the Council to provide a fair
analysis to make sure that message is disseminated to the public. He advised Cochairman Groscost that cocaine
is a Schedule II drug, which can be prescribed.
Senator Patterson
clarified that cocaine has some medical uses as a topical anesthetic but
methamphetamine would be his choice for inclusion.
(Tape 3, Side A)
Representative Gardner
acknowledged that he worked on this language with the County Attorney=s Office.
Jack LaSota, Attorney,
representing People Have Spoken, stated that the Revision 1 language which he
submitted for this proposition and Proposition 301 encompass what is required
by the Legislature under A.R.S. 19-124(B).
Revision 2s are more informative and in accord with the may or
permissive language in A.R.S. 19-124(B).
Referring to
Representative Gardner=s
suggestions, he said there is no reason for a deviation in the publicity
phamplet from the way the measures were described in Proposition 200 in 1996
because it may be confusing to the public.
He added that in 1977 the Legislature singled out marajuana as a drug which
is far more important than any of the others and did so with conditional
enactment of H.B. 2518. The bill
stipulates that if medical use of marajuana is authorized by the United States
Congress or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), without any reference to a
scientific analysis, the whole list of Schedule I drugs is appropriate to be
medically dispensed. He submitted that
singling out those drugs provides an impartial analysis on behalf of Arizona
Legislative Council.
Mr. LaSota added that there
should be no mention of drug courts due to enactment of S.B. 1373 during the
1997 Session which created four substantive provisions, three of which were
repealed this year. Those provisions
were added in a 1998 piece of legislation, which is not referendized, so
anything the public does will not have an impact. Finally, he said, the language in Representative Gardner=s proposed analysis which states that H.B.
2518 requires marijuana to go through the normal scientific testing process and
be proven safe and effective by the FDA or be authorized by Congress is
incorrect. He submitted that Congress,
like the State Legislature, is free to do what it wants along this line without
regard to what has been proven safe and effective.
Discussion followed among
the Members and Mr. LaSota.
(Tape 3, Side B)
Mr. Gardner acknowledged
that the terms Asafe and effective@ are not included in H.B. 2518; however,
determining that the drugs are safe and effective is standard operating
procedure by the FDA in conjunction with the National Institute of Health
(NIH); however, the Council has the prerogative to remove the words. He added that other items that could be
mentioned to give a full analysis include the Supremacy Clause, which states
that any time a state and federal law conflict, the federal law supersedes, and
doctors cannot prescribe marijuana or heroin under federal law. Another item is the fact that if a doctor is
able to prescribe marijuana, it could not be obtained at a local pharmacy but
from a local drug dealer. He clarified
that methamphetamine is a Schedule II drug, which doctors cannot currently
prescribe.
Mr. McLendon, referring
to the original version, suggested that the other drugs be listed in the first
paragraph only for brevity. He also
questioned the meaning of Atemporarily halt the medical use of marijuana and other controlled
substances@ in the first line of the second
paragraph. Mr. Carruthers suggested
listing those drugs with Abut not limited to@ and providing a reference where voters can
look up Schedule I drugs.
Mr. LaSota reiterated the
fact that the Legislature and Legislative Council chose the words Asuch as marijuana@ in 1996, and he is defending that
choice. He added that words not in H.B.
2518 cannot be used in relation to the FDA.
He disagreed with the word Atemporarily@ which
connotes that it will soon be changed.
Mr. Braun explained that Atemporarily halt@ and language in the final paragraph, which
states that Adoctors could begin prescribing marijuana and
other controlled substances@ are included in an attempt to describe to the average person that
something was enacted in 1996, changed for a time through legislation in 1998,
subject to referendum and subject to possible future federal government
action. He said he has no objection to
removing Atemporarily@ and suggested that the final sentence read, AIf this proposition does not pass, under
state law doctors could continue to prescribe@.
Jerry Landau, Special
Assistant, Maricopa County Attorney=s Office, referring to Mr. Gardner=s version, explained that the stricken language relating to Atemporarily halt@ in paragraph two was deleted because the
County Attorney=s Office was not pleased with it. He submitted that the language in upper case
states that before the controlled substances can be prescribed by a doctor
marijuana must be proven safe and effective by the FDA or authorized by
the United States Congress, who can do whatever it wants. Therefore, Asafe and effective@ does not apply to the U.S. Congress.
By including this language, the above three lines are not
necessary. He added that the stricken
language in the last paragraph is consistent with Mr. Braun=s suggestion.
He expressed the opinion
that it is important to let the public know that more than marijuana is
included in Schedule I drugs because it is very misleading to only cite
marijuana. He added that
methamphetamine should not be included because it is a hybrid, which is too
confusing, and would not be accurate.
He added that H.B. 2518, except in one location, does not refer to
controlled substances but to Schedule I drugs, which is the reason for the
reference in the analysis to Schedule I drugs, such as heroin, LSD, PCP and
marijuana, which are commonly known. He
acknowledged that there is no place to obtain these drugs. Finally, H.B. 2518 requires marijuana to go
through the normal scientific process and is the only drug mentioned in that
specific context. He submitted that Mr.
Gardner=s version flows, does not change the meaning
of the intent of the Arizona Legislative Council, and fits H.B. 2518.
Mr. Landau related to
Cochairman Burns that Asafe
and effective@ is a criteria used by the FDA to determine
if a substance should be removed from Schedule I. Cochairman Burns indicated that the bill says Aauthorized.@ At Cochairman Burns= suggestion, he acknowledged that the last
line of the second paragraph should include the word Astate@ after Ato@.
(Tape 4, Side A)
Senator Patterson
expressed a concern about the title but Mr. Braun assured him that it does not appear
on the ballot before the Arizona Legislative Council analysis.
Cochairman
Burns moved that the Council adopt Mr. Gardner=s version of the analysis for 4-R-97
(Attachment 48) with the following changes:
First paragraph, lines 2 and 3, alphabetize to read, AHEROIN, LSD, MARIJUANA, AND PCP@
Second paragraph, lines 4 and 5, strike A, SUCH AS HEROIN, LSD, PCP AND MARIJUANA@
Second paragraph, line 7, strike APROVEN SAFE AND EFFECTIVE@ and insert AAUTHORIZED@
Second paragraph, lines 9 and 10, strike A such as HEROIN, LSD, PCP AND marijuana@
Second paragraph, line 11, strike ASUCH AS HEROIN, LSD, PCP AND marijuana@
Second paragraph, line 15, after Ato@ insert ASTATE@
Third paragraph, line 2, alphabetize to read, AHEROIN, LSD, MARIJUANA, AND PCP@
Third paragraph, line 8, alphabetize to read, AHEROIN, LSD, MARIJUANA, AND PCP@
Senator
Patterson moved that Mr. Gardner=s version be amended in the second paragraph,
line 6, by striking AGO THROUGH THE NORMAL SCIENTIFIC TESTING PROCESS AND@ (Attachment 48). The motion carried.
Cochairman
Burns moved that the Council adopt Mr. Gardner=s version of the analysis for 4-R-97 as
amended (Attachment 49). The motion
carried by a roll call vote of 9-0-0-5 (Attachment 50).
Mr. Braun related that
the Arizona Legislative manual produced by the Council, with the blessing of
the Members earlier this year, has been recognized as the finest legislative
publication for 1998. He gave credit to
Council staff, particularly Dave Thomas, who envisioned the concept, worked
tirelessly, and edited the manual.
Proposition 301,
3-R-97, probation for drug offenders and drug courts
Mr. Braun distributed an
for Proposition 301 (Attachment 51).
The Members were provided with proposed language compiled by Representative
Mike Gardner in conjunction with the County Attorney=s Office (Attachment 52).
Jerry Landau, Special
Assistant, Maricopa County Attorney=s Office, expressed a wish to modify the first paragraph of the
analysis so that it is similar to the analysis for Proposition 300.
Chairman Groscost
suggested using the first two sentences from Mr. Gardner=s handout and the second paragraph from the
analysis.
Mr. Landau advised
Cochairman Groscost that marijuana is listed separate from a dangerous drug or
a narcotic drug in the second paragraph of the analysis because it is listed
separately in statute in criminal law.
Jack LaSota, Attorney,
representing People Have Spoken, suggested that the proposition, using the
Legislative Council version, be changed as follows: First paragraph, last sentence, after Aestablished@ insert ADIFFERENT@ since this bill also established probation procedures for drug
offenders. Discussion followed
regarding appropriate wording.
(Tape 4, Side B)
Mr. Landau stated that
neither the proposition nor the bill established probation procedures, which
are already in statute. Both enacted
sentencing provisions, which are somewhat different. He indicated that ASTRICTER@ would be preferable to ADIFFERENT@ or leave it as is.
Bill Dickinson, Deputy
County Attorney, Pima County, testified that he was one of the authors of the
original drug court legislation and has been involved in Prop 200 issues in
Pima County. He remarked that any
reference to drug legalization in Schedule I is inappropriate and proposed that
the second sentence in the first paragraph of Mr. Landau=s version be removed. He suggested that in the fourth line, after Alaws for@ the word Aall@ be inserted to indicate differentiation
between medicalization and drug offender issues. He expressed a hope that ACOMPREHENSIVE@ will
be included regarding the sentencing system for drug offenders because the
original Prop 200 did not align with the criminal code as it was enacted so a
number of issues are still being dealt with by the court according to the
provisions of S.B. 1373; therefore, it is comprehensive and provides a system
that makes sense.
Mr. LaSota, referring to
Mr. Landau=s draft, suggested that the second sentence
be eliminated, and in the third sentence, strike AESTABLISHED@ and
insert AMODIFIED.@ He endorsed AMORE COMPREHENSIVE@ or ACOMPREHENSIVE.@ He said the drug court portion of the next
sentence should be removed and suggested that the last sentence , which says
what will happen if the vote goes one way or the other, be included.
Senator Patterson
suggested that the third sentence in Mr. Landau=s version begin with, AAlong with other provisions, @ striking AALSO
ESTABLISHED@ and inserting AMODIFIED.@
Mr. Landau indicated that
not Aall@ drug offenders is necessary because there are drug offenders that do
not fall under the proposition or the other bill. He noted that Mr. Braun advised him that the Secretary of State=s Office includes the meaning of a yes or no
vote so he is not sure the last sentence should be included.
Mr. Braun acknowledged
that Council staff do not suggest the effect of a yes or no vote in the
analysis because it is provided by the Secretary of State=s Office with the blessing of the Attorney
General following the analysis.
Mr. LaSota urged the inclusion
of the last sentence from Mr. Landau=s version.
Mr. Braun advised that
the Legislature has no formal input in drafting of language by the Secretary of
State or approval of the Attorney General.
He added that he is not aware if there is an informal process whereby comments are accepted.
Cochairman
Burns moved that the Council adopt the analysis for Proposition 301 utilizing
the first paragraph from Mr. Gardner=s version as amended (Attachment 52) and the
second paragraph from the Legislative Council version as amended by adding the last
paragraph (Attachment 51). The motion
carried by a roll call vote of 8-0-0-6 (Attachment 53).
Without objection, the
meeting adjourned at 2:05 p.m.
____________________________________
Linda Taylor, Committee Secretary
(Original minutes,
attachments, and tapes on file in the Office of the Chief Clerk.)
----------
DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------
ARIZONA
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
July
7, 1998
----------
DOCUMENT FOOTER ---------