Key Points:

• Republican lawmakers reject Democrat proposal to ban police masks

• Proposal aimed to promote transparency and accountability

• Several Arizona law enforcement agencies already have policies against masking

Arizona lawmakers won’t ban state and local police from using masks during routine duties.

On a party-line vote, the state House rejected a proposal by Rep. Mariana Sandoval to require that police agencies have a written policy against the routine use of masks.

The proposal by the Goodyear Democrat included some exceptions, but Sandoval told colleagues that there needs to be a basic understanding of when masks are — and are not — appropriate.

“The purpose of this amendment is simple: transparency, accountability and public trust,” she said.

“Peace officers are entrusted with significant authority, including the power to detain, arrest and use force,” Sandoval said. “With that authority comes responsibility: To remain identifiable to the public when they serve.”

Conversely, she said, having police routinely wear masks undermines both transparency and community trust.

The issue has arisen by the widespread use of masks by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers who have entered communities around the nation in the name of finding people who are not in this country legally. And that use has come under closer scrutiny in the wake of multiple videos showing masked federal officers apparently assaulting civilians, including U.S. citizens, and the deaths of two people in Minnesota.

Federal officials have insisted that the masks are necessary to keep federal officers from being “doxxed,” having their identities and the addresses of their families made public. But the policy also has led to charges that officers, protected by anonymity, have been abusive.

Nothing in her proposal would have affected what federal officers could do, as their actions are beyond the reach of state laws. But Sandoval said she wanted to make sure the practice does not spread to state and local agencies.

Sandoval specifically questioned the need for police in Arizona to wear masks, noting that several law enforcement agencies already have policies prohibiting their routine use.

Tucson police, for example, issued a statement last month saying that officers responding to calls or conducting enforcement actions “are not permitted to wear face coverings.” The policy also says officers will provide their name, badge number and show their department-issued identification card with their photograph “to any person who requests it, whenever possible under the circumstances.”

Phoenix has a similar policy.

Lt. Col. Daven Byrd of the Arizona Department of Public Safety has issued a directive that his highway patrol officers will not wear face masks or otherwise hide their identity.

Other agencies have a different approach.

Greenlee County Sheriff Eric Ellison said his office does not have such a policy but added that masking would not be allowed as part of normal operations while he is in office.

And the Flagstaff Police Department put out a statement after the killing of Alex Pretti in Minnesota saying that officers will not wear full-face coverings “except when needed in inclement weather.” And the agency also said that if people come across someone in a face covering or lacks clear identification on clothing, “the public has the right to question that individual’s identity.”

Sandoval said a policy against masking makes sense.

“Requiring clear identification protects both the public and law enforcement officers and promotes professionalism, reinforces accountability, and helps to ensure that interactions between officers and community members are grounded in mutual trust,” she said.

Since Democrats generally can’t get their proposals heard in the Republican-controlled Legislature, Sandoval sought to attach her language to HB2862.

That is Rep. Quang Nguyen’s proposal to impose a stiffer penalty for people who commit certain crimes while masked. The Prescott Valley lawmaker said an additional penalty in those circumstances is necessary.

But Sandoval never actually got a chance to get a full debate in the House. That is because the Republican majority used a procedural maneuver to replace her amendment with an entirely different one.

And when she tried to overturn that tactic, all the Republicans on the floor voted to reject the move.