Arizona’s Proposition 315: An Unnecessary Overreach Jeopardizing Public Health, Safety, & the Environment

Proposition 315, set for the 2024 ballot in Arizona, seeks to mandate that all state agency rulemakings be ratified by the legislature before taking effect. Proponents argue that this measure would ensure greater legislative oversight and accountability, preventing state agencies from enacting rules without sufficient scrutiny.

However, this proposition is a solution in search of a problem. Arizona already has robust mechanisms in place to oversee agency rulemaking, making this new requirement both redundant and potentially harmful to effective governance.

Existing Legislative Oversight of Agency Rules

Arizona’s current legislative framework already provides ample oversight of state agency rulemaking through the legislature’s existing Administrative Rules Oversight Committee [ARS 41-1046 to 41-1048]. This committee is tasked with reviewing and recommending actions on any proposed rules or existing rules that it thinks problematic.

AROC ensures that the legislature has a direct hand in monitoring agency rulemakings, giving legislators the ability to scrutinize and challenge any rule that raises concerns.

This existing system strikes a balance between allowing agencies the flexibility to implement necessary regulations while ensuring legislative oversight. The introduction of Proposition 315 would upend this balance, unnecessarily clogging the legislative process and delaying important regulations.

By requiring legislative ratification for every rule, the proposition risks creating bottlenecks that could stymie the implementation of critical public health and safety regulations, among others.

Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC)

In addition to legislative oversight, Arizona also has the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council [ARS 41-1051 to 41-1057] which plays a crucial role in reviewing and approving agency rules before they can take effect. The GRRC is charged with ensuring all proposed agency rules meet specific statutory criteria, including necessity, statutory authority, and cost-effectiveness.

One of the key requirements under ARS 41-1055 is that agencies must provide a thorough economic, small business, and consumer impact statement.

This statement is intended to assess the potential costs and benefits of the proposed rule, ensuring that it does not impose unnecessary burdens on businesses or consumers. GRRC then reviews these impact statements alongside the proposed rule, evaluating whether the rule is justified and in line with state law.

Before approving any agency rulemaking ARS 41-1052(D) requires that GRRC ensure that each rule:

• Is necessary and does not impose excessive costs on the public
• Is within the agency’s statutory authority
• Doesn’t conflict with other state laws
• Is clear, concise, and understandable
• Has undergone proper public consultation

These criteria serve as a robust safeguard against the enactment of unnecessary or overreaching regulations. By the time a rule reaches the GRRC, it has already been subjected to rigorous internal review within the agency, public comment, and economic analysis.

The Risks of Proposition 315

The added layer of legislative bureaucracy proposed in Proposition 315 is not only totally unnecessary but could be detrimental to the health and safety of Arizonans and the environment.

Under this proposition, a single committee chair could effectively kill a proposed rule by refusing to give it a hearing. Moreover, the president of the senate or the speaker of the house could block the rule’s ratification simply by not bringing it to the floor for a vote.

This level of gatekeeping sets the stage for partisan sabotage and poses significant risks to the prompt implementation of regulations that protect public health, safety, and the environment.

Proposition 315 would concentrate too much power in the hands of a few legislators, allowing them to override the thorough review processes already in place.

This could result in important regulations being delayed or blocked entirely for political reasons, rather than being evaluated on their merits.

If you care about keeping up to date with evidence based public policy you should definitely vote no on Prop 315.