Supporters of Prop 315 argue that it saves money; Opponents say it will cost lives

On the list of proposals for Arizona’s ballot this year is a measure that would require legislative approval for state agency rules that increase regulatory costs.

Proponents say the measure will save taxpayers money and give power back to the people, but opponents say it will slow regulators’ rulemaking to a pace harmful to Arizonans.

Proposition 315, a bill sponsored by Republican Sen. Anthony Kern, would require state agencies to submit proposed rules to the Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity that could increase regulatory costs by more than $100,000. If the OEO, an office overseen by the governor, determines that the proposed rules would increase regulatory costs by more than $500,000 over five years, the rules must be submitted to the Legislature for approval.

Many supporters of Prop. 315 are Republican lawmakers and Republican-aligned organizations like Americans for Prosperity, which supported the measure as it made its way through the legislature. Steven Shadegg, AFP director for Arizona, said the measure would give power back to the people by creating oversight of state agencies run by appointed officials rather than elected officials.

“When [voters] Check out this suggestion. “They should view this as a way to control any additional taxes that may have to be imposed on Arizonans as a result of new regulations implemented by agencies but not approved by the state legislature,” Shadegg said.

By allowing elected officials to participate in agency rulemaking, Prop. 315 would give power back to the people, Shadegg said.

“Our main goal is simply to make sure that we have a representative democracy and that people have a say in how money is spent,” Shadegg said.

But some former agency leaders are vehemently opposed to Prop. 315, saying it will create another hurdle in an already bureaucratic agency rulemaking process.

Agencies set rules to support a variety of government programs and laws. For example, the Arizona Department of Health Services recently began drafting regulations to implement the “Tamale Law,” a law passed by the legislature that expands the types of foods vendors can sell in their home kitchens.

Any rule change by a state agency must go through a lengthy process that includes economic impact statements, public comment periods, oral arguments, and approval by the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council.

Will Humble, the former director of ADHS, made an argument against Prop. 315 in the Secretary of State’s promotional brochure. He said delays in rulemaking could be fatal for agencies like ADHS, which oversees many areas of the state’s health care and public safety system.

Humble said an average agency rulemaking process takes at least 18 months, but if new hurdles arise, the process could drag on even longer or not be completed at all. That could put Arizona residents at risk if important rules related to issues like nursing homes and clean water are ignored.

“[If] If there is a stakeholder who is angry and doesn’t like the rule, then they can contact… the president of the Senate, who could then make sure that the motion to approve the rule never comes to the floor, which an individual legislator could do killing an entire rules package,” Humble said.

He said he was concerned that lawmakers could weaponize Prop. 315 in a time of divided government, similar to how Republican lawmakers threatened state agencies led by Democratic representatives when they came before the Legislature for review earlier this year came.

“If they want to make a governor look bad and make their agencies look bad for political reasons, even if it hurts the public, then they do all this monkey business,” Humble said.

He acknowledged that setting government rules often involves regulatory costs, but said those costs are often necessary to protect Arizonans. Humble said many regulations targeting health care providers and nursing homes increase regulatory costs but ultimately make those facilities safer.

“So the people who make this argument [Prop.] 315 will save regulatory costs, that may well be true, but it will also cost lives,” Humble said.

Shadegg said Prop. 315 is not intended to strip authorities of authority or jeopardize their ability to keep Arizonans safe. He noted that eight other states have taken similar measures to Arizona with help from AFP.

“I think it’s important for agency leaders to understand that while public safety is the top priority, the money being spent is the people of Arizona’s money and therefore the people of Arizona have a review and regulatory process for should have the money. said Shadegg.

Both Shadegg and Humble agree that Prop. 315 is an important measure that voters should pay attention to, along with the 12 other statewide proposals on the ballot. Shadegg said voters should consider the proposal’s impact on their wallets, while Humble wanted to remind voters that once proposals are passed, it is nearly impossible to undo them.