Updated: June 2008

House members filed a total of 944 bills, memorials and resolutions (second highest total ever according to the Clerk of the House). Senate members filed a total of 560. While only a fraction of those received hearings or actually became law, the ACLU of Arizona’s lobbying efforts included reading and tracking all bills filed to determine whether they raise substantive civil liberties issues.

The following is a list of bills the ACLU tracked during the 2008 Arizona State Legislative Session:

CRIMINAL JUSTICE
VIDEOTAPING JUVENILE INTERROGATIONS (HB 2313) – SUPPORT – This bill would provide that any custodial interrogation of a juvenile be electronically recorded. The ACLU supports this legislation because it would help reduce the likelihood of wrongful convictions as a result of false confessions.

VIDEOTAPING OF INTERROGATIONS AND CONFESSIONS (HB 2315) – SUPPORT – This bill would ensure that interrogations and confessions are videotaped. The ACLU believes all police departments should start videotaping interrogations as a means of eliminating coercion as well as false allegations of coercion in police interrogations. On the one hand, if defendants in fact are coerced, documentation of this would be available so as to provide a basis for barring
improper reliance upon such confessions. It also would provide important information to law enforcement to take appropriate steps to eliminate improper interrogation practices. On the other hand, the videotaping of custodial interrogations would provide the officers and prosecutors with persuasive evidence to rebut unfounded charges of coercion by defendants, which also would substantially benefit the criminal justice system.

ELIMINATING LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE SENTENCES FOR JUVENILES (HB 2293)
– SUPPORT – This bill prohibits judges from sentencing juveniles convicted of homicide offenses to life without parole. If passed, the bill would allow judges to sentence juveniles to 25 years to life in prison (with the possibility of parole after 25 years). It’s a significant improvement over the current statute allowing life without parole sentences for juveniles who commit crimes before they turn 18. The imposition of life without parole on minor children is explicitly prohibited by the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, and is widely considered a violation of international law and fundamental human rights. Life-without-parole sentences ignore the very real differences between children and adults, abandoning the concepts of redemption and second chances upon which this country was built. Recent research casts doubts on the cognitive capacity of adolescents and teens and raises serious questions about juveniles' ability to understand the criminal consequences for their actions, and their ability to understand the judicial system or cooperate in their own defense. In too many cases, the financial and societal cost of keeping children in prison cannot be justified by the benefit in terms of public safety.

EDUCATION
SINGLE-SEX EDUCATION (HB2086) - OPPOSE - This bill would allow schools to enroll pupils in single sex classes. If adopted in its current form, this bill invites school districts to violate federal law and thus expose themselves to liability. Arizona's children are not well served by such a measure and the diversion of resources from methods that we know work. The ACLU opposes this bill for the following reasons: 1) The bill permits school districts to segregate students by sex without an exceedingly persuasive justification for doing so, in violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has made clear that, regardless of whether it is voluntary, to be constitutional, a single-sex school or class must be based on exceedingly persuasive evidence that the single-sex nature of the program directly and substantially forwards educational goals. This bill does not require public schools to put forward any justification for segregating students by sex, much less an exceedingly persuasive one. 2) If the current language is adopted, the bill permits schooldistricts to institute single-sex programs as long as a "comparable" program is provided to the other sex, in violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has explicitly held that the Constitution requires substantially equal public educational opportunities for male and female students, not "comparable" opportunities. If single-sex public education is ever constitutional, at minimum the excluded sex must have access to substantially equal educational methods, instructional materials, curricula, student body, faculty, course offerings, facilities, prestige, alumni opportunities, and financial support.

SCHOOL VOUCHERS/ PUBLIC $$ FOR SECTARIAN SCHOOLS (HB2096) – OPPOSE – This bill would expand the voucher program to include all students enrolled in public schools across the state. The ACLU of Arizona opposes taxpayer-funded subsidies that siphon much-needed funds from our public schools to private, sectarian schools. The Arizona Constitution prohibits the state from using money from the “public treasury” to “directly or indirectly” aid any sectarian institution. This proposed voucher bill is being presented to the public as a way to help children trapped in "failing" schools, however, it is another scheme to circumvent the Arizona Constitution's clear language barring aid to religious institutions. Parents, teachers and students across the state are opposed to vouchers, arguing they force taxpayers to fund church-run schools, without addressing the real problems facing Arizona’s public school system.

CORPORATE TAX CREDITS (HB 2098) – OPPOSE – This bill would eliminate the sunset date (June 30, 2011) for the program allowing businesses to “offset their taxes” by making cash donations to private “school tuition organizations.” The ACLU opposes the state-run corporate tax credit program because it funnels millions of dollars to private, sectarian schools – money that would have otherwise gone to beef up the state’s general fund, which goes to support neighborhood public schools. The total amount of credits approved by the Department of Revenue is capped at $10 million with a 20% annual increase in the cap beginning in 2007. Currently the cap is $12M in FY 08. Most of the corporate contributions are used to directly support private, sectarian schools.

Free Speech
FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF SIGN WALKERS (HB 2066) – SUPPORT – This bill would prohibit cities from outlawing sign walkers, including commercial vendors, political candidates, even students raising funds at a local car wash, for example. It allows cities to “adopt reasonable time, place and manner regulations relating to sign walkers for public safety purposes.” Numerous cities in the Valley, including Scottsdale, ban individuals from carrying signs in public right-of-ways, citing the need to “avoid a roadside nuisance” as the primary reasons for the ban. This is an issue that cuts to the heart of the fundamental right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Because the principle of free speech is – and should always be – more important than aesthetics, the ACLU is supporting this legislation.

Immigration
ANTI-SOLICITATION LEGISLATION (HB 2412) – OPPOSE – This bill expands the crime of criminal trespass in the first degree to include a person knowingly standing on any public street who is obstructing traffic for the purpose of soliciting employment. This bill increases the trespassing penalties from a class three misdemeanor to a class 1 misdemeanor, which can carry a sentence of up to 6 months in jail. It specifically targets day laborers, potentially
violating their free speech and associational rights. It is also unnecessary because there are already laws prohibiting individuals from obstructing car or pedestrian traffic. Governor Napolitano vetoed a similar bill in 2007.

HUMAN SMUGGLING (HB 2304) – SUPPORT – This bill would prohibit state and local authorities from charging victims of human smuggling with “conspiring” to smuggle themselves. In Arizona, more than 500 victims of human smuggling have been prosecuted by Maricopa County for allegedly smuggling themselves. This bill would put an end to that practice. The ACLU of Arizona believes that charging immigrants with conspiracy in “coyote” cases violates the
intent of the state’s originally anti-smuggling statute. Immigrants, regardless of their status in the country, should not be charged for the crimes of the smugglers. This is especially true considering they are the victim of smugglers, being promised well paying jobs then held in poor living conditions or even forced labor and prostitution. We support laws that protect victims from prosecution and forbid any assertion of the victim’s alleged consent to be used as a defense.

PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP FOR BIRTH CERTIFICATES (SCR1016) – OPPOSE – This is a proposal for a legislative referendum to bring to Arizona voters that would prohibit the state from issuing birth certificates if neither parent is able to document U.S. citizenship, essentially denying citizenship status to the children of undocumented immigrants who are born in the Unites States. Citizens and non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, are entitled to the protection of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees the equal protection of the laws to all individuals. In addition,
the 14th Amendment expressly forbids states from passing laws that violate the rights of any individuals born in the United States and this referendum does exactly that by denying U.S. citizenship to children whose parents are undocumented – in clear violation of the 14th Amendment. The ACLU also is opposed to SCM1003 – a symbolic measure in the form of a
memorial from the Arizona House of Representatives – that urges Congress to enact legislation denying citizenship status to the children of undocumented immigrants who are born in the Unites States.

PUBLIC BENEFITS AND IMMIGRATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS (SB 1072 AND SB 1109) – OPPOSE – Although individuals applying for public benefits in Arizona must already provide proof of US citizenship, this bill goes beyond that requirement by mandating that employees notify federal immigration authorities if they discover any “violations of federal immigration law” by applicants. The bill also subjects employees to criminal penalties (class 2 misdemeanor) if they fail to notify federal authorities. If passed, this bill will place an undue burden on state employees who are not trained in the complexities of immigration law and procedure, and are not well suited to make judgments about the enforcement of such laws. It is unwise and unfair to expect state employees to implement this complex area of federal immigration law. Do we really want state employees spending precious time and resources tackling the daunting task of determining who is in this country legally? The answer is no.

BAN ON USE OF OUT-OF-STATE DRIVER LICENSES (HB 2012) – OPPOSE – This bill would ban the state and municipalities from accepting as a “primary source of identification” a driver license issued by another state if the other state does not require that a person be lawfully present in the United States. First of all, this bill is not necessary because the state already prohibits driver’s from presenting licenses from Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas and Washington in order to obtain an Arizona driver’s license. The ACLU generally opposes state efforts to enforce federal immigration laws. Laws requiring legal presence in order to drive ultimately make entire communities less safe by resulting in more unlicensed drivers, and ultimately driving up the cost of insurance since most unlicensed driver’s leave the scene of accidents even if they’re not at fault. Ensuring that all drivers are tested, licensed and able to obtain car insurance better protects public safety and security. Many law enforcement agencies, religious rganizations, labor and business groups have recognized the benefits of increasing access to driver’s licenses, including improved highway safety, reduction of insurance costs, and fraud prevention.

PROHIBITING LOCAL POLICE FROM ENFORCE IMMIGRATION (SB 1052) – SUPPORT – This bill would prohibit the City of Phoenix (and other large cities in Arizona) from giving its police officers the power to enforce federal immigration laws by essentially withholding state funds if officers inquire about the immigration status of individuals suspected of committing civil or misdemeanor violations. A policy that permits local law enforcement officers to stop and question people for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration law is loaded with constitutional problems because it would provide a green light for racial profiling by encouraging unjustified stops, not only of undocumented workers, but also of legal residents and United States citizens who “look foreign.” Any stops made on the basis of racial appearance clearly violate the Fourth Amendment, and the bare fact that a person “looks foreign” cannot supply the requisite suspicion or probable cause for detention or arrest. In addition, local police officials aren’t sufficiently trained in the complexities of immigration law and procedure, and are not well-suited to make judgments about who is in this country legally.

EMPLOYMENT VERIFICATION (HB 2063, HB 2341, HB 2342, HB 2343, HB 2344, HB 2345, HB 2346) – OPPOSE – These bills are intended to clarify numerous ambiguities found in the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which became effective on January 1, 2008. The ACLU believes the state employer sanctions law interferes with federal immigration laws that already prohibit the hiring of unauthorized workers by requiring businesses to participate in a flawed work authorization database called E-Verify. Participation in the federal employment verification system was intentionally left voluntary by Congress. In addition, the state employer sanctions law lacks basic due process protections, including allowing individuals to file anonymous complaints and providing no meaningful access to the courts for employers. Since it became effective, the law has encouraged employers to fire workers based on erroneous database discrepancies, and to avoid hiring workers who are perceived to be foreign born. Implementation of this law will predictably reduce the size of the Arizona economy and tax base to the detriment of all residents. We support an outright repeal of this legislation, rather than insufficient legislative fixes to the serious practical and constitutional problems. For that reason we are opposing all of the following bills: HB 2063 corrects a legal reference in the law; HB 2346 would change it so that it only applies to new hires; HB 2341 would make use of the E-Verify system optional, instead of
mandatory; HB 2342 would clarify that independent contractors are not employees and therefore not subject to the terms of the sanctions law; HB 2343 would bar anonymous complaints, require that complaints be made in writing and contain the full name of the complainant, as well as an address; HB 2344 would change the definition of "knowingly" hiring an illegal worker to mean the employer must have "actual or constructive knowledge that the person is an unauthorized
alien." It also establishes "beyond a reasonable doubt" as the standard of proof that prosecutors must demonstrate to successfully prosecute an employer; and HB 2345 would take the state attorney general out of the complaint investigation process.

LOCAL POLICE ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAW (HB 2359) – OPPOSE – This bill allows local police chiefs to enter into agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to enforcement immigration laws. This bill is unnecessary because Sec. 133 of IIRIRA (Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996) already authorizes the Attorney General to enter into agreements with local police agencies to enforce immigration laws. The ACLU believes that laws authorizing local police to enforce federal immigration laws would
essentially: 1) violate civil liberties and result in costly litigation; 2) jeopardize public safety in Arizona’s border communities; 3) undermine the federal government’s ability to carry out national immigration policies; and 4) ultimately strip local police departments of their much-needed resources.

LOCAL POLICE ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION LAW (HB 2807) – OPPOSE – It is difficult to imagine a more problematic and unnecessary piece of legislation. The leading example of local law enforcement of federal immigration laws, with the imprimatur of the federal government as contemplated by this bill, has been the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. As recognized by police chiefs throughout the state, by community and religious leaders, and the Mayor of Phoenix and Latino legislators, this effort has been characterized by abusive and illegal stops and arrests and a waste of scarce resources. Basic fundamental rights protected by the United States Constitution, including equal protection of the laws and freedom from unreasonable seizures, have been regularly sacrificed at the altar of poll numbers and future votes. The legislative directive to require all localities to engage in such activities continues this pattern without any showing of necessity. All local agencies already have the authority to seek identification from persons stopped for state crimes, including misdemeanors. ICE detention centers are regularly used throughout Arizona. The push for federal funding and control of immigration related measures must remain the priority. The last thing needed is to use federal failures as a catalyst to diminish the effectiveness of local law enforcement. Local communities are best in position to determine the policy of their police and sheriffs’ departments and are able to act if their concerns are not being met. Click here to read the ACLU of Arizona’s letter urging Gov. Napolitano to veto this bill.

BAN ON MARRIAGE LICENSES FOR NON-CITIZENS (HB 2631) – OPPOSE – This bill requires all individuals seeking to obtain a marriage license to prove they are U.S. citizens before their marriage licenses will be accepted by the state. This bill violates the rights of both U.S. citizens and their chosen noncitizen partners. As the Supreme Court has long held, "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival." Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967). Preventing someone from getting married because of citizenship status is unconstitutional, and violates the fundamental right of all persons to marry under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. This bill is unlawful for the separate reason that it is wholly inconsistent with federal immigration law, which specifically envisions that American citizens will marry immigrants and provides a mechanism for the immigrant spouses of U.S. citizens to become lawful permanent residents of the U.S. and eventually, U.S. citizens.

BAN ON RENTALS TO UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS (HB 2625) – OPPOSE – This bill prohibits landlords from renting to undocumented immigrants. Landlords accused of renting to undocumented immigrants would be required to provide the state with documentation verifying federal immigration status or face fines of up to $250 per day. The attorney general, county attorney or city attorney would be responsible for enforcing this law. The bill punishes landlords
by forcing them to act as federal law enforcement agents. In addition, it raises numerous due process concerns for tenants who are denied housing or evicted without due process. It also violates the property and contract rights of both landlords and tenants, as well as federal fair housing and privacy laws, and disproportionately discriminates against Latino families.
Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination based upon national origin or other 'protected' class status. This bill opens a wide door for discrimination against a host of Latino individuals and families, and exacerbates the already tedious and difficult path to discrimination-free housing choices in Arizona. Similar laws in Escondido, California and Hazleton, Pennsylvania have been successfully challenged by the ACLU and struck down as unconstitutional. Click here to read the
ACLU of Arizona’s fact sheet on this bill.

LGBT Equality
WORKPLACE EQUALITY (HB 2002) – SUPPORT – This bill ensures that every Arizonan would be free from discrimination at work based on race, color, religion, sex gender, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, disability or national origin. In particular, this bill would make it illegal to discriminate in the workplace based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Employment discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers is pervasive and harmful. It violates core American values of fairness and equality by discriminating against qualified individuals based on characteristics unrelated to the job. The ACLU believes that everyone should have the right to come to work knowing the only factor in employment decisions is their ability to do their job – no exceptions. The ACLU issued a national report in late 2007 documenting the stories of workers from across the country who have experienced workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. To read that report, visit:
http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/discrim/31848prs20070917.html

DENIAL OF MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES (HCR 2065) – OPPOSE – Oppose this proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution because it’s discriminatory and unfair. This proposed constitutional amendment would limit marriage recognition to “only a union of one man and one woman.” Two adults who make this personal choice to form a life-long commitment should not be denied the right to marry just because they are gay or lesbian. Denying gay couples the right to legally marry takes away legal rights in pensions, health insurance, hospital visitations,
and inheritance that other long-term committed couples enjoy. We should end this discrimination.

PRIVACY
STOPPING REAL ID IN ARIZONA (HB 2677 and SCM 1008) – SUPPORT – There are two pieces of legislation in Arizona that address REAL ID. SCM 1008 urges Congress to repeal the REAL ID ACT, which federalizes state driver’s licenses by imposing a broad array of regulations on how they are issued and verified—turning them into what are, for all practical purposes, America’s first-ever national identity cards. While HB 2677, introduced by a bi-partisan group of
legislators, prohibits the state from implementing REAL ID in Arizona. If implemented, the Real ID Act could establish an enormous electronic infrastructure that government and law enforcement officials – or whoever else hacks in – could use to track Americans’ activities and movements. This vast network of interlinking databases would contain enormous amounts of Americans’ personal information – such as Social Security numbers, photos and copies of birth certificates –
and would be accessible to federal and DMV employees across the 50 states and U.S. territories. The law also mandates that all driver’s licenses and ID cards have a “machine-readable zone” that would facilitate tracking by the government and private sector. Real IDs would leave a digital fingerprint whenever swiped, scanned or read. Inevitably, Americans will likely have to produce a Real ID card to perform any number of government and commercial transactions. Information captured from each transaction could be used by the government and corporations to develop detailed profiles of people’s daily activities. Click here to read the ACLU of Arizona’s letter urging Gov. Napolitano to sign this piece of legislation.

ELIMINATES WRITTEN, INFORMED CONSENT REQUIREMENT FOR HIV TESTING (SB 1113) – OPPOSE – This bill essentially makes HIV testing “opt-out,” with specific signed consent for HIV testing not required. In addition, the bill eliminates the current “prevention counseling” requirement that the Department of Health Services inform patients in writing of the importance of early diagnosis and medical intervention, the nature of AIDS and HIVrelated illness, and information about risky behaviors. While the ACLU supports increasing the number of people living with undiagnosed HIV who get tested so that they will learn their status and get into care earlier, we believe that expanded testing should be done with specific, written consent and after some counseling. The risk of testing patients without their knowledge is avoided by requiring specific, written consent. In addition, communication between the patient and health care provider is more likely when specific written consent and counseling are required. Greater communication leads to greater trust, which in turn increases the likelihood that the patient will seek and continue needed treatment. A person who is tested without realizing it or without understanding the possible significance of the test is more likely to be alienated
from care.

DRUG TESTING OF WELFARE RECIPIENTS (HB 2678) – OPPOSE – The ACLU believes that suspicionless mandatory drug testing is discriminatory, an invasion of privacy and a waste of state funds. Welfare recipients' constitutional rights are no less sacred than the rights of any recipients of state assistance including those of corporate subsidies. This proposed welfare policy bill denies benefits to the neediest children. This policy sends the message to
welfare recipients that they are criminals solely because of their socioeconomic level. As a defender of civil liberties, the ACLU believes that all people, rich and poor, are entitled to the same privacy rights.

BAN ON BIOMETRIC SCANNING OF STUDENTS (SB1216) – SUPPORT – This bill would prohibit schools from collecting sensitive biometric information from students in public schools. Independent security experts and parent groups have voiced strong opposition to the use of biometrics in schools for the provision of “front-end services” such as registration and cashless catering. They argue that these systems can be hacked and that fingerprints are, in fact, stored,
despite the manufacturers’ claims otherwise. The issue of storage is also important because it’s virtually impossible to completely erase data on a computer’s hard drive. Many security experts strongly discourage holding large amounts of biometric information at any school site because “fundamentally, such information may be used one day to legally validate the individual, e.g. on a passport. Consequently, the value of this information … is high.” The Arizona Legislature should to take the lead from other states, including Michigan and Iowa, which passed similar versions of the “Child Identification and Protection Act,” prohibiting school districts from using electronic fingerprinting technology to identify a child for school-related purposes. The ACLU is opposing HB 2168, which also was introduced this session. HB 2168 would allow schools to collect information as long as they receive parental permission first. Although this bil mandates that school districts notify parents in writing of their intent to implement biometric scanning of students, the ACLU opposes the measure because it will inevitably lead to the expansion of this invasive technology and create a type of “registered traveler system” where the parents of children who are willing to compromise on their privacy will be able to speed through lunch lines, while other students whose parents want to teach them the importance of preserving personal
information will have to wait in longer lunch lines. Click here to read an ACLU-AZ letter to school officials outlining concerns with biometric scanning of students.

RELATING TO DEATH WITH DIGNITY (HB 2387) – SUPPORT – This bill authorizes an adult who meets certain qualifications, and who has been determined by his or her physician to be suffering from a terminal disease, to make a request for medication for the purpose of ending his or her life in a humane and dignified manner. It requires informed consent and the use of a form that is signed and dated by the patient and witnessed by at least two other people who can
attest that the patient is competent and acting voluntarily. The bill also includes a 15-day waiting period between the time the request is made and the prescription is written. Furthermore, the bill allows a doctor who declines to prescribe the medication to transfer responsibility to a different physician.

Proposal for Enhanced Driver’s Licenses (HB 2083) – OPPOSE – An area of confusion has been the connection between so call enhanced drivers’ licenses (EDLs) and Real ID. EDLs are state issued drivers’ licenses which pursuant to another federal law, the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, can be used to cross the northern and southern border. EDLs do raise civil liberties concerns – specifically they utilize an unencrypted RFID chip. RFID chips emit a
radio signal that transmits data up to 30 feet away. As such, they allow remote tracking of the license holder, by government officials or anyone else who buys an RFID reader over the internet. The data transmitted by RFID is also highly vulnerable to hacking and cloning. Shortly after the U.K. introduced RFID chips into their passport, a hacker cloned the chip, encoding an innocent person’s data into a fraudulent passport. The measures DHS is proposing to secure
the RFID chip in the EDL would be laughable if they weren’t so alarming: a tin foil envelope to hold your license and an "awareness” campaign. DHS claims additional protections are not needed since all the EDL will broadcast is a unique identifying number, but that’s exactly what a Social Security number is – a unique identifying number that does not in itself contain private information about you, but can be used to access your most sensitive data. Click here to read an
ACLU fact sheet on REAL ID and EDLs.

REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM
MINORS FACING PREGNANCY CHOICES (HB 2263 AND SB1102) – OPPOSE – The ACLU of Arizona opposes laws that force teens to involve their parents in their reproductive health care decision. We believe laws that prevent teens from obtaining health care unless they can talk to a parent put their health and safety at risk and do not increase family communication. We oppose this bill because it amends the judicial bypass requirement for a waiver in a way that seems quite problematic for teens.

PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION BAN (HB2769 & SB 1099) – OPPOSE – This bill changes the definition of so-called partial-birth abortion, a single abortion procedure known to the medical community as "dilation and extraction" or "D&X" (also called "intact D&E"). If passed, it increases, from a class 6 felony to a class 5 felony, the penalty for a physician who knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion. The ACLU believes that this bill is a dangerous threat to women's health because it interferes with the doctor-patient relationship by banning a safe procedure that may well be the safest option for some women in certain circumstances. A threat to women's health always results when a safe medical procedure is removed from the physician's array of options. Moreover, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the leading professional association of physicians who specialize in the health care of women, has concluded that D&X is a safe procedure that may be the safest option for some women.

COMPULSORY METH ADDICTION TREATMENT FOR EXPECTANT MOTHERS (SB1500) – OPPOSE – This bill allows state child protective services workers who suspect methamphetamine use by an “expectant mother” to petition a court for an order requiring the woman to cooperate with all intervention efforts, including being taken into “emergency custody” and to undergo compulsory examination, monitoring and treatment. If the woman does not comply, the bill gives “a sheriff or law enforcement officer” the power to take her into custody and transport her to “an institution.” The bill also would amend Arizona’s child abuse statute to change the definition of “child” to include “an unborn child.” The ACLU opposes this bill because it discriminates against pregnant women by forcing them to undergo treatment against their will and then subjects women to investigation and possible child abuse prosecution for prenatal conduct that could harm a fetus. Click here to read an ACLU fact sheet on this bill.

VOTING RIGHTS
INCREASE ELECTION TRANSPARENCY (SB1053) – SUPPORT – This bill would expand the list of individuals who are required to observe election proceedings to include a representative of a candidate for nonpartisan office and a representative of a political committee in support of or in opposition to a ballot measure, proposition or question. If passed, this bill ensures that all elections would be subject to public observation, not just partisan elections. (Non-partisan and bond elections are currently not required to allow observers). The ACLU strongly believes in transparency during the election process. Public scrutiny is one way to ensure that voters have confidence in any election outcome. For that reason, the ACLU supports SB 1053 which ensures that the Arizona election process remains in the “sunshine.”