How a bill designed to create a single fee for off-road vehicles and fund environmental protection efforts became a controversy in the Senate is befuddling for the sponsor, who says common sense should make the measure a no-brainer.
Rep. Jerry Weiers, R-12, says the debate that erupted around H2443 when it came up for a floor vote in the Senate on April 26, and failed 14-13, stems from a misunderstanding about what the legislation does.
“The people that seem to be opposed to this are the people that don’t understand the bill,” he said.
But opponents said the bill forces people to pay a fee even if they don’t use off-highway vehicles (OHV) on trails.
“This is an out-and-out taking,” Sen. Robert Blendu, R-12, said when the Senate voted the bill down. “It’s done in the guise of everybody paying to preserve trails.
“There are people out there who ride nowhere except in the sand dunes [in California].”
Blendu criticized the measure for trying to force everyone who owned such a vehicle to “subsidize someone else’s activity.”
The legislation would require all owners of off-highway vehicles — all terrain vehicles, or ATVs, and dirt bikes, primarily — to pay an annual fee of about $20. Currently, OHV owners are required to purchase a special plate for the vehicle and many also must pay additional fees to register the vehicle to be driven on streets. Weiers says many owners choose not to pay the fees.
The solution, he says, is a one-size-fits-all fee: the system established under H2443 will allow owners to drive their vehicles on any Arizona roads or trails. The money collected from the fee will be used to maintain trails and hire Game and Fish officers to ensure all OHV riders have registered their vehicles.
During the Senate vote, Sen. Jake Flake, R-5, said the OHVs damage trails and contribute to the air quality problems many parts of the state experience.
“If we do absolutely nothing…we’re going to have some drastic consequences to come,” he said, “because if we don’t have places for these people to ride, they’re going to tear up the forest and the desert [by riding off the trails].”
Weiers: ‘Man has messed this up”
Weiers said environmental concerns were a driving force behind the bill.
“If we close our eyes and pretend there isn’t a problem, we’re doing a disservice to the state,” he said. “Man has messed this up and man needs to step in there and fix the problem.”
On May 1, the Senate revived the bill, despite the efforts of one lawmaker to stall any attempt to bring it back to the floor.
The day before, Sen. Ron Gould, R-3, used Senate rules to stop a motion to reconsider the bill – at least for one night.
That afternoon Sen. Robert Burns, R-9, made a motion to reconsider H2443.
Gould, who says the bill is a tax increase, made a substitute motion to adjourn and called for a roll-call vote; he teamed up with Sen. Rebecca Rios, D-23, who seconded the motion.
Then Gould deliberately held off voting on his own motion, bringing business to a halt.
According to Senate Rule 5-A, “every member shall be present within the Senate Chamber during its sittings, unless excused or necessarily prevented; and shall vote on each question put, unless the member has a personal financial interest in the question…”
Rule 15.1-D also states that “the [voting] shall not be closed until every Senator who is present has voted, explained the reason for not voting or been excused from voting.”
Gould complained that the reconsideration of bills should not be done so late when many senators had already left for the day.
“We set a pattern over the last couple of weeks. We do our business in the morning and the floor is left open for messages from the House,” he said. “But now we’ve decided to make a procedural maneuver, where we have members that aren’t here to vote on the maneuver. They aren’t here to vote on the bills that are being reconsidered and I don’t think that that’s fair”.
Senate President Tim Bee conferred with staff and members and consulted with the rules attorney on how to proceed. At one point, Bee told Gould that he had had enough opportunity to explain his vote.
Bee could only tell the Arizona Capitol Times later that it was Gould’s way of expressing his disapproval of what his colleagues were doing, but emphasized that at any point, any member could make a motion, such as what Burns did.
Eventually, after a deal was apparently struck, Gould voted on his motion, which failed by a close shave. But Burns also withdrew his motion to reconsider the bill.
The next day, Gould again tried to stop a motion to reconsider the measure. He made a substitute motion to suspend the rule that allows bills to be reconsidered for the remainder of the session, but no one seconded his motion.
Senators then voted on Burns’ motion to reconsider H2443. Gould called for a standing division, but the motion carried by a 15-11 vote.
H2443 has not yet been scheduled for another vote, but Weiers says he expects it to pass when the second vote takes place.
“Most intelligent people, when they understand the bill, view this as a reduction [of fees], not an increase, and it will keep trails open,” he said.