Identical, obscure proposals in each legislative chamber would make a major change to the state’s legal system. And even though they appear to be dead, the question of whether it’s right to force lawyers to join the State Bar of Arizona will likely rise again.

SB1414 and HB2480 would turn over all parts of attorney discipline to the Arizona Supreme Court and do away with mandatory, paid membership with the State Bar of Arizona for lawyers.

The sponsors of the bills, Sen. Rick Murphy, R-Peoria, and Rep. John Allen, R-Scottsdale, each had their own reasons for introducing their measures, but both have problems with the requirement for lawyers to join the Bar.

Murphy sees it as a similar situation to forcing someone to join a labor union, which compels the person to subsidize political positions they might not agree with. Allen sees the dues members have to pay as the functional equivalent of a tax imposed by the court, which is unconstitutional.

He compared the requirement to improper attempts to do good deeds.

“Even if it produced less orphans and flowers and soccer fields, they (the court) still don’t have the ability to do it,” Allen said. “It’s one of those things of no matter what the fruit, that taking is illegal.”

Both lawmakers held their proposals after debate in Judiciary committees in their respective chambers as they realized they didn’t have the votes for passage, but each said they at least wanted to get a discussion started.

“I’m sure it will come back eventually,” Murphy said.

Arizona is one of 32 states that require its lawyers to join the bar.

State Bar of Arizona Executive Director John Phelps said the requirement to join has been upheld by the courts, and surveys have shown that more than

70 percent of its members are satisfied.

He said the State Bar, which was created by the Supreme Court, is also an integral part of the legal system.

“When you take an oath you’re trained to be part of this larger system,” Phelps said. “It almost goes without saying you should be required to be accountable to that institution, and in states like ours that institution is the court and the Bar is an arm of the court.”

But Allen and Murphy don’t think much of the Bar’s high ratings in satisfaction surveys, saying they’ve heard from many dissatisfied lawyers who fear reprisals for speaking out.

One of those who isn’t fearful is Cathi Herrod, a lawyer and president of Center for Arizona Policy, an organization that pushes for conservative social policy.

“Many attorneys are concerned about dues being paid to the State Bar of Arizona and it doesn’t represent our views,” Herrod said. “I don’t see a need for forced membership in the State Bar.”

Herrod’s organization was not involved in lobbying for the two bills.

While the Bar does lobby at the Legislature, the issues it can take on are limited by a 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Keller v. State Bar of California. The court found that mandatory membership dues are legal, but they can only fund activities that are related to the state’s interest in regulating the legal profession and improving the quality of legal services.

In that suit, a group of lawyers objected to the California Bar lobbying and taking legal positions in politically charged issues such as gun control, school prayer, and the death penalty.

Voluntary state bars can get involved in partisan politics, and some do more than others, said State Bar of Arizona spokesman Rick DeBruhl.

The first time the U.S. Supreme Court upheld mandatory bar membership was in 1961 in Lathrop v. Donahue.