It’s a rare instance when a lobbyist’s advocacy for a bill becomes personal, but that’s what the recently signed “Ava’s Law” became for Gretchen Jacobs. Jacobs, a lobbyist with Arizona Governmental Affairs, was one of the key figures who saw Senate Bill 1106 signed by Gov. Katie Hobbs on April 18. The law is named after Jacobs’ daughter, who is nonverbal and living with autism. Jacobs worked to change school policy law with the measure after an employee at Scottsdale Unified School District’s Chaparral High School sexually abused her daughter in 2021. The district faced no accountability for failing to conduct a thorough background check into the employee’s history and didn’t discover previous concerning behavior in the employee’s work history. Ava’s Law ends legal immunity for public schools and charter schools if an employee commits a felony sexual offense and a school fails to perform its statutory duty related to employee background checks or fails to report anything the school is required by law to report. In a recent Q&A interview with the Arizona Capitol Times, Jacobs discussed how she and other supporters got Ava’s Law signed this year.

The questions and answers have been lightly edited for style and clarity.

I want to go back to when the governor first vetoed an earlier version of this bill last year. What was going through your head at that time?

You know, I thought, OK, I will look at this bill every year until it passes. I felt really resolved. It didn’t slow me down in my mind. I just had to keep working on it. One of the things I focused on was when I saw that there was what, I believe, is a loophole in the law with immunity for public and charter schools. One of the things I wanted to do, since I’m not an expert in this area, was to examine the history of the law. It just seemed like a loophole and so I thought maybe I don’t understand it. Since it’s just me, working on this as a citizen, I wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing something. So one of the first things I did was go do the legislative history to see if when this was enacted, was that immunity contemplated? Was there any discussion related to this? I just wanted to make sure that I was not going against the intent of the original law or that I wasn’t missing some policy considerations I hadn’t considered. I found that this usage of it was never contemplated.

What was different with your approach to the bill this year?

Last year when I started out, I didn’t tell anybody about what happened with Ava. I told a couple of people, but very, very few. When it got over to the House, I had some senators contact me saying I just heard you have a personal experience related to this. Why didn’t you tell me? And the reason I didn’t tell people is I wanted them to be objective in their analysis and their discussions with me without being afraid that they would hurt my feelings or that I wouldn’t be receptive to feedback. So, I thought it was better not to tell people. I was surprised to learn that people were disappointed and I hadn’t shared it with them and they said it really mattered and that I shouldn’t shy away from it. I just wanted to make sure that they were feeling like they could be objective and forthcoming. I had just not planned to talk about my thoughts and my opinions related to my life experience. I found another case that I talked about last year, Gallagher v. Tucson Unified School District, that I used as the basis for why this law was needed. By the end of the session, I gave up on that and had told people that it was because I’ve seen this first hand myself. 

Who were your allies? Who did you find to be the most helpful or influential in getting this bill signed?

It really was about removing the opposition. So, the stakeholders who were involved, who allowed it to go forward, and most of them who said they were neutral or that they were supportive of the bill, that went a long way and was profoundly appreciated. The stakeholders, even though they’re not legislators, by signing in support and found a resolution, which was really appreciated.

How much does it mean to you that this bill passed with unanimous support at every stage of the legislative process? 

That, to me, shows that the stakeholders were operating in good faith and I shouldn’t have written them off last year after the bill failed. They really did care more than I perceived.

As a mother, how rewarding was getting this done, not only for your own child, but others who might find themselves in similar situations?

It was very cathartic, and it felt like it gave meaning to how this could happen and why would this happen. It felt like you did this to the wrong child. Now, you’ve made it hard for all other predators. That’s how I perceived it. It gave it meaning to be able to make this difference.

What kind of reaction did Ava have when this bill was signed? 

Oh, she was so happy. Last year when it was vetoed, she took it so hard. I really felt like maybe I shouldn’t have even worked on it because I didn’t realize she would take it so hard. This year, she literally giggled. She just was giggling, just so happy and her eyes were sparkling and I was proud that we got it through. 

This law is repealed in 2029. I figure you’d like to see it permanently enacted, so what are your next steps until then?

Hopefully, to get some information and some feedback on how it’s being implemented. My whole purpose of working on this legislation was not for children to be sexually victimized and then get a windfall. My goal was to create an incentive to make sure that people were taking the issue seriously. In order to keep governmental immunity, they need only follow the law, or make a good faith effort to follow the law. If they do that, they still have governmental immunity. If they don’t, then their immunity is in jeopardy. My hope is to make sure that schools are trained in what the laws are and they all make a good face effort to comply.

Anything else you want people to know?

I just appreciate everybody working in good faith and I think that we’ve made a very positive change for the children in our state who are in public school. One of the things that’s interesting is that this governmental immunity protection doesn’t exist for private schools, so it really levels the playing field in terms of protections for children in public schools.