Home / Capitol Insiders / Pearce points to Constitution for power to oust activists

Pearce points to Constitution for power to oust activists

Sen. President Russell Pearce (Photo by Ryan Cook/RJ Cook Photography)

Sen. President Russell Pearce (Photo by Ryan Cook/RJ Cook Photography)

In banning some immigration activists from setting foot in the Senate building, Senate President Russell Pearce insists he has the backing of the state Constitution, which says each legislative chamber will determine its own rules and procedures.

“It gives me complete control of this chamber and this facility,” Pearce said.

That constitutional provision has always been interpreted to give the speaker of the House and the Senate president wide latitude in running their chambers, said Greg Jernigan, the Senate’s general counsel.

In addition, Senate rules, whose provisions were derived from the Constitution, also give the president the authority to oversee security, Jernigan said.

“The suggestion that the president of the Senate has no authority to remove people that violate the rules of decorum and order in the Senate is clearly false,” he said, adding that includes the authority to prevent people from coming back for some reasonable period.

Actually, Senate rules also spell out the need for order during committee hearings. The rules require that all hearings be open to the public — “so long as the proper decorum is maintained.”

But it’s not the president’s authority to evict unruly people from a committee hearing that is causing heartburn among Democrats and other critics.

No one is also questioning Pearce’s authority to maintain order in the chamber.

What critics argue is that the ban is disproportionately heavy-handed. In addition, some insist he has no power to ban anyone at all, and he’s reading the Constitution and Senate rules to suit his decision.

Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix, said neither the state Constitution nor Senate rules grant Pearce that authority.

“He’s trying to interpret it that way, but it doesn’t say that,” Gallardo said, referring to Article 4, Part 2 Section 8 of the state Constitution. “It’s totally overreaching.”

His critics dispute Pearce’s characterization that the disruptions during a February committee hearing on immigration bills constituted a dangerous situation — especially because the loud applause, boos and cheers came from a different room from where the actual hearing was taking place.

Some also complained that Salvador Reza, a well-known immigration activist who was arrested based on Pearce’s ban, was singled out. That is, he wasn’t the only person applauding or booing loudly on

Feb. 22, when the Senate Appropriations Committee heard a slew of immigration measures, including a proposal that ultimately aims to get the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the automatic American citizenship of children born in the United States to illegal immigrants.

Reza, along with a colleague, Anayanse Garza, was arrested on Feb. 24, when he entered and refused to leave the Senate building.

A legal question remaining is how long a president may ban someone from the Senate.

Jernigan, the Republicans’ legal counsel, acknowledged that there are no rules or statute prescribing a timeframe, but he surmised that the courts would look at what is reasonable and consider what has transpired in the state, including the Tucson shootings, and likely say the Legislature’s presiding officers have wide latitude in securing their chambers.

Pearce has said he will consider letting the two back in if they ask him to.

In the last few days, Democrats pressed Pearce about the ban and asked who else is not allowed to set foot in the chamber.

“I believe it is inappropriate and perhaps unlawful to permanently deny Arizona citizens access to their state Capitol due to such an incident,” Senate Minority Leader David Schapira said.


  1. Give Pearce a copy of the constitution written in pencil, an eraser and some crayons.

  2. This is nothing new, Senate President Leo Corbet banned a lobbyist way back, I think in 1980 for billing six state agencies for lobbying fees when he sprung a bill from the Speaker’s draw which was holding the extension of the agencies’ lifes under the new Sunset legislation. I also remember another lobbyist banned for some misrepresention to get into Senate offices, stating he was an official of the Republican Party and he was not. These bans lasted the life of that particular President. And no one contested it then under the Senate rules granting the President such powers. Such precedents of long standing should dim the furor over now President Pearce just exercising his authority, tried and true, and many years of record.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *




Check Also

(Photo by Luige del Puerto/Arizona Capitol Times)

For the DeMennas, the business of government is a family affair (access required)

It’s common for children to follow in the footsteps of their parents, but in politics, that’s usually the case for elected officials, not lobbyists, and that’s one reason why the DeMennas occupy an unusual perch.