Petersen v. Hobbs: The Clash Over Director Nominations is Jeopardizing State Agency Effectiveness
Judge Blaney ruled for senate president Petersen in the Petersen v Hobbs case. The case, Petersen v. Hobbs, centers on the governor’s strategy to circumvent the Senate’s approval process for her nominees.
Oral Arguments Monday in Petersen v. Hobbs Agency Director Nominations Case
Most of you will remember the behavior of the newly created Senate Director Nominations Committee. In a nutshell, the committee chair refused to hear most of Hobbs’ nominees and the ones that did get time before the committee faced partisan prosecutorial attacks rather than honest hearings.
See: Senate committee doesn’t ‘vet’ nominees. It sabotages them
Governor Hobbs eventually withdrew her nominations for several agency directors. She then appointed Ben Henderson as the interim director for multiple agencies, with previously nominated individuals being chosen as Executive Deputy Directors, allowing them to effectively lead the agencies without the formal title of director, thereby sidestepping the need for Senate confirmation.
Gov. Katie Hobbs’ health director was sabotaged. So was Arizona
For the last several months, nearly all state agency directors have been making agency decisions and operational priorities without official confirmation.
The Senate sued in Maricopa County Superior Court, asserting that Hobbs’ approach undermines the legislative process and oversteps her executive authority. This legal dispute not only affects current agency operations but also sets a precedent for how future administrations might handle similar conflicts.
Judge Blaney, in Maricopa County Superior Court ruled yesterday that while Hobbs was “arguably” within her powers to withdraw her nominees but that she didn’t have the authority call them deputy directors and still give them full authority as an official director.
See the Ruling
A secondary argument offered by the Hobbs legal team suggested Hobbs misused a state law allowing the appointment of deputy directors, saying that argument “… improperly elevates form over substance”.
However, Blaney’s ruling didn’t order Hobbs to turn in nominees to the Senate, saying he intends to hear arguments later this summer to resolve the conflict. A quote from the ruling says he will instead “… give these co-equal branches of government an opportunity to meet and confer in an attempt to reach a mutually agreeable resolution of this dispute.”
If Hobbs and Petersen can’t resolve the conflict themselves Blaney suggested he would impose a solution by mandamus, basically imposing a resolution.
Editorial Note: The timing of the ruling is actually good. Why? Because it gives the two an opportunity to each use their leverage during the budget negotiations to come up with a solution they can both live with. The sense of urgency to get a final budget may compel them both to come up with a compromise.
But, if they agree to a budget that doesn’t include at least a handshake agreement on director nominations, the case may actually go ahead to court for the resolution phase this summer.
With the Legislature out of session in just under a month, there will be no immediate problem for Hobbs – as 38-211 allows the Governor to wait to nominate agency directors until the 2025 legislative session begins in January.
The Senate may look quite different in January… perhaps moving to a 15-15 tie, or out and out control of the Senate by the Democrats.
Either result would likely mean there’d be a new Senate President and elimination of the Director Nomination Committee, honest vetting of the nominees, and a more traditional confirmation process rendering the case moot.