Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Gov. Doug Ducey

Lawmakers advance bill to criminalize warnings about impending ICE arrests

Key Points:
  • Arizona lawmakers advance bill criminalizing warnings about ICE arrests
  • Democrats argue bill violates First Amendment rights to free speech
  • Lawmakers included a “severability” clause in the bill for legal challenges

State lawmakers are advancing a Republican proposal to make criminals out of those who warn others that they are in “imminent or ongoing” threat of being arrested or picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Legislative Democrats say SB 1635 is so broad that it would allow police to arrest someone for simply warning their neighbors that ICE is in the neighborhood. And that, they argue, is a violation of First Amendment rights.

Sen. John Kavanagh acknowledged the original version of his legislation could have been interpreted to do that. In fact, the Fountain Hills Republican admitted he crafted it after Democratic state Sen. Analise Ortiz posted the location of ICE agents in her Phoenix neighborhood. The measure specifically targets activities not just like that but even people blowing whistles to warn of the presence of federal agents.

But Kavanagh conceded that would not pass constitutional muster. So he said the new version, the one just approved by the House, is intentionally narrower, targeting only those who notify someone who they know is being sought by law enforcement.

Kavanagh said there are already laws that make it a crime to physically obstruct police who are trying to make an arrest, but nothing to criminalize those who obstruct police by warning those the police are seeking.

The measure has alarmed Democrats.

“It targets speech,” said Rep. Nancy Gutierrez. “It criminalizes communications itself.”

The problem, said the Tucson Democrat, is the breadth of what the legislation defines as an illegal warning. That includes everything from bells and whistles to electronic communications, gestures, written messages and even “any other method of conveying information” that is not specifically listed.

“My colleagues and I have reached out to our communities when we are hearing about ICE in a neighborhood and when we are wanting to prevent the random kidnapping of our citizens,” Gutierrez explained.

“So we let people know: This has been seen at this corner or at this grocery store, or people have been seen here, be careful if you are in that area,” she said. “This bill would make that illegal.”

Kavanagh, however, contends that’s not what the bill does — at least not now.

He added language to his original Senate bill to say that a crime occurs only when it is designed to hinder, delay or prevent the lawful arrest of another “specific” person.

That, Kavanagh explained, eliminates the possibility of arrest for someone who simply warns others that there are ICE officers — or any other law enforcement — in the area. He said the law would apply only when someone knew that another specific person was being sought and then warned that other person.

Gutierrez, however, said she remains unconvinced that the language is narrow enough — and that the state should make such acts a Class 1 misdemeanor carrying up to six months in county jail and a $2,500 fine.

Consider, she said, if she has a neighbor whose legal status may be in question. That, Gutierrez said, could include people who have followed the law and applied for asylum — people who are still being swept up by ICE as they go to their immigration hearings.

“I go to that neighbor and say, ‘Hey, ICE is coming to our neighborhood,’ then I can be arrested for telling my neighbor because it’s one specific person?” she asked.

Ditto, Gutierrez said, if she finds out that immigration officials are coming to a school.

“Why shouldn’t I be able to say specifically to a family, ‘Hey, you don’t want to be here. This is what we’re hearing is happening,’” Gutierrez said.

Kavanagh, however, said that she would remain free to do just that even if his bill becomes law. And the key, he said, is that provision which says it’s only illegal if someone is warning a “specific” person that law enforcement is coming for them.

“You don’t even know if the police are coming for that person,” Kavanagh said of Gutierrez’s example.

So what would qualify as illegal under Kavanagh’s proposal?

“If police get out of the car and said, ‘All right, let’s serve this warrant on Joe Blow’ and you quickly walk to the back yard where you know he is barbecuing and said, ‘ICE is here to get you,’ then it would (be illegal),” he said.

Kavanagh, a former police officer, acknowledged that, if he had his way, the legislation would read exactly the way the Democrats fear. But that, he said, isn’t an option.

“Courts have ruled that it’s a First Amendment right to post on the internet ‘Police are on Fifth Avenue and 23rd Street,’ ” Kavanagh said.

“It’s a First Amendment right if you see ICE coming down the street to blow a whistle and say, ‘ICE is here,’ ” he said. And that, said Kavanagh, required him to recraft his bill to avoid those constitutional issues.

But House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos isn’t convinced that the lines Kavanagh said his legislation draws are as clearly as the senator suggests. The Laveen Democrat said he still believes that what’s in SB1635 could make criminals out of people who he believes are really doing nothing wrong.

“This bill includes a lot of language including things like ‘interference’ or ‘assisting’ or ‘harbor’ that are undefined,” De Los Santos said.

“Because they’re undefined they are vague and could be used in a sweeping manner, in an overly broad manner,” he said. “And my fear is that, because of the poor draftsmanship of the bill, it is not only unconstitutional but potentially you could have a case where somebody could be arrested or charged with crimes simply for going around and educating their community about their rights.”

While Kavanagh said he’s convinced the legislation as it now stands will withstand legal challenge, it still was designed with the possibility that a court could find that parts are unconstitutional.

Kavanagh included a “severability” clause. It says if any part of the act — or even how it is applied to any person or circumstance — is found by a court to be legally invalid, it does not invalidate the entire statute.

Arizona short-term rental bill likely dead for the year

Key Points:
  • Arizona House measure on short-term rentals likely dead for the year
  • Rep. Selina Bliss’s House Bill 2429 missed key deadlines in the state Senate
  • The bill aimed to allow cities to limit the number of new short-term rentals

An Arizona House measure boosting rules for short-term rentals like those offered through Airbnb and Vrbo is likely dead for the year after failing to get a hearing in the state Senate. 

Short of some legislative sleight-of-hand, Rep. Selina Bliss’s House Bill 2429 faces nearly impossible odds after missing key deadlines when the final scheduled committee hearings of the legislative session passed in both chambers without it being heard. 

She had hoped to get it on the March 31 Senate Appropriations Committee’s agenda, but it didn’t make the chairman’s cut. And it was too late to make it onto the companion House committee agenda the same day, leaving few options for her to resurrect it.

Bliss, R-Prescott, said she’s not giving up, but realizes her chances are between slim and none.

“I don’t want to walk out of here at the end of session thinking I left a stone unturned,” the Prescott Republican said in an interview with Capitol Media Services. “This is too important to too many people, too many districts.”

What that most immediately means is that, at least for this year, there will be no limits on the number of people who can stay in these short-term rentals, no easing the path for communities to shut down bad actors, and no checks to see if renters are sex offenders.

Bliss’ long odds come despite Senate President Warren Petersen’s comments that the short-term rental bill “sounded like a reasonable compromise.” The Gilbert Republican said he told his staff to convey to the House his willingness to put it to a vote.

Petersen’s comment that he didn’t oppose the measure was prompted by Bliss saying she was told he was opposed to bypassing committees by allowing “strike-everything” amendments to move bills that fail to get Senate committee hearings. 

She said she and backers of her compromise legislation, including cities, Realtors and Airbnb, worked every angle in recent weeks to get it heard in the Senate.

But by the time the final Senate committee agenda was posted, it was too late to get it on last Tuesday’s House appropriations committee agenda to add it to a previously-passed Senate measure — an act known as a strike-everything amendment. Bliss said she was getting mixed messages and was never able to speak to Petersen directly to hash out a way forward.

Bliss has been pushing for three years for new rules on short-term rentals, or STRs, including giving municipalities the ability to limit their numbers. 

The number of STR’s has exploded in Arizona since then-Gov. Doug Ducey signed legislation in 2016, which he strongly backed barring regulations of the industry. 

That led to big problems in vacation towns like Sedona, where average workers can’t find housing, and even Scottsdale, where rental properties are increasingly scarce because of the number of Airbnbs.

Despite calls from many municipalities, she was unable to win backing for proposals allowing cities and towns to limit the number of new STR’s or add new regulations because of opposition from the industry and from some lawmakers who support free-market principles.

But she was smiling earlier this year when she negotiated a deal with the industry, Realtors and cities and towns to allow at least some new rules. 

They included limiting the number of people who can stay overnight in STRs to two per bedroom, a move that should slow parking complaints. The measure also lets cities suspend a local license if there are three violations in 24 months, immediately act if there is just one serious health and safety violation, refuse a permit if there are unpaid fines, and allow cities to require that renters be checked for sex offender status.

That last item — sex offender checks — was one of the reasons the bill was late getting to the Senate. After passing the House on a 36-19 vote on March 10, some members demanded the bill be amended to make the checks mandatory.

In a rare move, Bliss pulled the bill back for a new amendment doing just that, and a second House tally. It passed for a second time on March 17 on a 37-14 count.

That week-long delay meant most Senate committees were down to their final hearing of the year, and it never made it onto the agenda for its assigned committee, or for last week’s final scheduled hearing of the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Transportation and Technology.

She said she spoke with Sen. David Farnsworth, R-Mesa, the committee’s chair, and that he was supportive and would put it on his agenda. But that didn’t happen.

“I missed the deadline because I thought Farnsworth was going to do it for me on the Senate side, and then the agendas got published at the same time, and then I lost both opportunities,” Bliss said last Tuesday. 

“That was the point when I knew it was officially dead, when Farnsworth did not have it on his approps agenda,” she said.

GOP bill would require voter approval of government surveillance

Key Points
  • Lawmakers propose comprehensive government surveillance regulation
  • Legislation requires public vote before establishing surveillance networks
  • Law enforcement agencies worry the bill may hinder crime-solving efforts

Arizona lawmakers are moving to enact what could be the most comprehensive regulation of government surveillance in the nation.

Legislation crafted by Sen. Jake Hoffman would prohibit any state or local agency from establishing a surveillance network without first notifying residents and then getting their permission at a public vote. If voters do not approve, it would almost immediately wipe out the automated license plate readers that many police departments have already been using. 

But the measure by the Queen Creek Republican, approved March 26 by the Senate Government Committee with bipartisan support, would go far enough to require a public vote on any “government mass surveillance network.” That is defined to include monitoring by any technological devices, whether stationary, mobile or satellite.

Still being worked out are some details, like how any of this would affect cameras at intersections, on roads and on highways to monitor traffic.

But what is clear is that, even with voter approval in any community, HB 2917 is designed to impose strict limits not just on how the information from these cameras is used, but also on how long it can be saved.

Under the bill, it is defined as no more than three minutes. And if the information from the camera or other equipment doesn’t turn up a “hit” for someone who is wanted or someone being sought in the case of a missing or abducted person, then the data automatically would be “irreversibly destroyed in a manner that renders the data unrecoverable.”

Hoffman said this is by design. He said it prevents the government from creating a record of where individuals have been.

“We’re talking about free people, moving about their business, moving about the state of Arizona, their relationships in a free society,” Hoffman said.

And HB 2917, which now needs approval of the full Senate before going to the House, even has some absolute prohibitions against setting up cameras where they could be used to monitor vehicles or individuals who are traveling to or engaged in “constitutionally protected activity” — even if local voters approve a surveillance system. And that includes everything from going to religious services or visiting an attorney to going to a news media outlet or an abortion facility.

It even protects against surveillance, in whatever form, of political protests, marches, demonstrations or rallies.

“I may dislike it to the end of the Earth,” Hoffman said. “But even an anti-ICE protest, you are protected because, in the United States, as long as you’re not violent and as long as you’re not obstructing law enforcement, that is a constitutionally protected activity.”

All this is raising concern among law enforcement, according to Mike Pooley, chief of the Apache Junction Police Department.

Pooley said that, as written, the bill would eliminate body-worn cameras by officers as well as cameras set up to monitor special events.

“We use cameras to monitor people coming in and out of large events,” he said. Also endangered, Pooley said, would be cameras used for security in public buildings like schools — and even in the state Senate.

Hoffman said none of this is designed to preclude such cameras, or even drones to monitor crowds. Instead, the focus appears to be whether those cameras can track — and record — any individual’s movements.

The concerns expressed by Pooley were enough to convince Sen. Eva Diaz to vote against the measure. The Tolleson Democrat said she believes the technology has played a role in solving crimes.

But Democratic Sen. Lauren Kuby of Tempe voted in favor.

“I see this as really strengthening privacy protections,” she said.

“It limits government mass surveillance,” Kuby said. “It doesn’t do away with it. And voters can vote to have these systems in their cities and towns.”

Competing measures on early voting could wind up on the November ballot

Key Points:

  • A ballot proposal would confirm voting by mail in the state Constitution
  • A GOP lawmaker wants control over early voting to remain within the Legislature   
  • Because of early voting rules, Arizona is among the last states to verify results

A new initiative seeks to ask Arizona voters whether they want to constitutionally preserve the right that nearly 90% of them use: to vote early and even drop off their ballots on Election Day.

A petition drive has been launched by a group calling itself Protect the Vote Arizona to add a provision to the Arizona Constitution recognizing a “fundamental right” to vote early and on Election Day. And that, according to Stacy Pearson, whose Lumen Strategies is managing the campaign, includes not just showing up in person to cast a ballot but also dropping off the ballots that were mailed to their homes.

What it also would cement into the Constitution is that the right to vote early can be exercised “without providing a reason or excuse.”

Who is behind the campaign is less clear.

Pearson has a history of working with Democratic candidates and causes. But she insisted that this is a bipartisan effort.

She also would not disclose who the leaders of the effort are, nor who will fund what could be an expensive campaign to gather the 383,923 valid signatures by July 2 to get the issue on the November ballot. Instead, Pearson said that they will have to wait until the group actually starts gathering signatures.

But Rep. Alexander Kolodin, who is pushing his own contrary measure, said he is “well aware of who this progressive, far-Left organization is and the out-of-state dark money billionaires backing them.” 

The Scottsdale Republican, however, did not respond to inquiries seeking specifics.

Kolodin hopes to get his legislative colleagues to put his own measure on the ballot.

One key provision of his HCR 2001 would preserve the Legislature’s right to conclude at some future date that there is no right to vote early.

That is not a sure thing. In fact, Kolodin himself, before becoming a legislator, filed an unsuccessful lawsuit on behalf of the Arizona Republican Party, arguing that the Arizona Constitution permits only in-person voting.

What his measure definitely would do is end early voting no later than 7 p.m. on the Friday prior to the election.

What’s behind that new deadline is the argument that last-minute drop-offs lead to delays in people finding out who actually won.

The problem is that early ballots cannot be tabulated until the signatures on the envelopes are verified. And that verification process for what are called “late-early ballots” cannot begin until after Election Day.

That’s not a problem when there are just a few of those ballots.

But in the 2024 general election, there were about 265,000 of these, including more than 210,000 in Maricopa County.

All that has led to Arizona gaining a reputation as one of the last states in the nation – if not the last – to have final election returns.

It occurred in 2022 when it took days to confirm that Democrat Katie Hobbs had beaten Republican challenger Kari Lake for governor. And the situation repeated itself in 2024 when delays in processing ballots left many wondering whether Kamala Harris could make up her vote deficit against Donald Trump for president.

Kolodin, who is running for secretary of state – the state’s chief elections officer – said what is in the newly filed initiative is designed to “confuse voters and codify policy that would render Arizona’s elections less secure, less trustworthy, and less lawful.” But Pearson said there is nothing radical about it.

“This now takes mail-in voting as it currently stands, the windows in which it currently stands, and codifies that in the state Constitution,” she said. “It takes mail-in voting that has worked well in Arizona for decades out of the whim of the Legislature.”

And that includes the right to vote early.

That is not a given. In 2022, before he was elected to the House, Kolodin filed suit on behalf of the Arizona Republican Party to challenge the legality of early voting.

Kolodin, in his legal papers, argued that there is nothing in the state Constitution to allow for early voting. He said the only form of voting specifically authorized by the framers of the Constitution is in person and on Election Day.

And what that means, Kolodin said, is that anything else – including the current system of no-excuse early ballots created by the Legislature in 1991 and used by nearly 90% of Arizona – is illegal.

He also presented an alternate legal theory.

Kolodin said that, at the very least, the state was required to return to the way the situation was before 1991. That’s when voters could get early ballots – but only if they provided proof they needed it, such as being away from their voting precinct on Election Day or having a physical disability.

Those arguments were rebuffed by both a trial judge and the Court of Appeals.

What is in the initiative would forever foreclose future efforts to restrict early voting.

It also would overturn another law, signed in 2021 by then-Gov. Doug Ducey, which eliminated the state’s “permanent early voting list.”

Prior to that, people who signed up to receive a ballot by mail continue to receive one until they move, die, or opt out. The new law said anyone who hasn’t used the early ballot in two election cycles would be taken off the list, though they could sign up again.

The initiative would overturn that, establishing a constitutional right for people on the early voting list to continue receiving them for any election for which they are registered unless they ask to be removed, their voter registration is canceled, or the ballot is returned as undeliverable.

Kolodin’s measure is awaiting a final House vote before going to the Senate. If approved there, it would go to voters in November as the governor has no veto power over what lawmakers put on the ballot.

The Protect the Vote Arizona Initiative will be on the ballot if backers get the signatures and it survives expected legal challenges.

Kolodin dismissed the chances of competition with his own plan.

“Republicans in Arizona are unfazed by the astroturfed efforts of groups like this to confuse voters and codify policy that would render Arizona’s elections less secure, less trustworthy, and less lawful,” he said in a prepared statement. But Kolodin did not respond to follow-up questions about exactly what he believes is in the initiative that does any of that.

If both measures are on the ballot and are approved, sections of each that do not conflict with each other could take effect. But where both cannot coexist, the proposal with the most votes would take precedence.

Kevin McCarthy: An oracle of Arizona’s tax code

As lawmakers at the state Capitol grapple with conforming to new federal tax code, Arizona Tax Research Association President Kevin McCarthy sat down with the Arizona Capitol Times to discuss the issue and the potential pathways toward a solution. McCarthy, who has served with the organization since 1986, is among the top tax policy experts at the Capitol. He discusses the last tax conformity conflict the Legislature faced during Republican Gov. Doug Ducey’s administration and other issues ATRA is looking at this session. 

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

Tax conformity is the hot issue right now at the Legislature. Could you walk me through what that is?

Well, this is a mess, right? Most states that tax income use the federal tax code to benchmark off of and to tether themselves to so they don’t have to create that tax base they’re going to use to tax income. That’s a good idea. That makes it simpler for taxpayers to comply if they don’t have a completely different tax code at the state level than they have at the federal level. One of our top criteria for good tax policy is simplicity. So, we’re big believers in conformity and trying to keep things to have as little deviation between the state code and the federal code. Arizona is what’s called a static conformity state. We don’t just reflexively conform completely every year. The Legislature has to act to pass a bill. We wouldn’t advocate for static conformity because the state has to be in a position to protect its interests, whether it’s the taxpayers’ interest, or it’s the state general fund’s interests, if the feds significantly change the tax system. Most of the time, 90% of the time, the conformity bill is a non-event when it’s passed and ATRA and the certified public accountants are really the only ones paying attention.

Can you tell me when conformity was an issue in the past?

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act, when it passed in 2017, was probably the most profound change in my career that I can remember where the Legislature and governor needed to respond to federal changes. What’s happened there is almost the mirror image of what’s happening now. The changes they made increased federally the adjusted gross income — our starting point for conformity. They did that because they got rid of all sorts of deductions. The state and local deduction was dramatically limited and all sorts of deductions were eliminated in an effort to simplify the federal code and bring down rates. It was, in my opinion, one of the best pieces of legislation that Congress had ever passed in terms of making the federal tax code simpler, but the implications of that at the state level were significant because they significantly adjusted gross income. We weighed in immediately in 2018 with the Legislature and the governor. We had time to react to that and figure out how we were going to offset what was going to be a big tax increase on Arizona taxpayers, which the Department of Revenue was stabbing at about $300 million. Well, the Legislature and governor do nothing. We struggled with Gov. Doug Ducey and his staff to get them to react to it. So we roll around into the 2019 session and alarm bells are going off because people are recognizing we’ve got a big problem here. We’ve got a big tax increase that your department now has assumed and is in the forms that have gone out on the street.

What’s the Department of Revenue supposed to do when the Legislature and governor do not give it guidance?

They just assume conformity, although not totally. They assume conformity on the “above the line” stuff, which is everything before you get to federally adjusted gross income. They did that in the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, and now, they’re doing it here where we have the reverse in this case. Now we’re going to have reductions in revenue and reductions in taxes. It’s the complete opposite of what happened in 2019. We’re not critical of that. The department has to get forms out in December to all of the Turbo Taxes of the world. That’s the desirable approach, but we probably should have been in a special session in the fall and had this figured out so the state could give the department complete guidance. We didn’t do that. Now the clock ticks and taxpayers are reacting as we speak. 

So from your understanding, what did the department do differently this year?

The department went beyond normal conformity for the above the line stuff. They took the guidance from Governor Hobbs to add the below the line things that she found attractive like no tax on tips or overtime, auto loans and the senior deduction. If you get on the department’s website, those below the line items are in a separate form. I wonder how many taxpayers are actually going to find that. Back in November, the governor issued an executive order saying she wants to eliminate from Arizona income tax some of the same things that were part of the Big Beautiful Bill. I was surprised, but more important than the surprise is what exactly did she mean by that? What did she tell the Department of Revenue to do? Because she can’t tell the department to do that. She needs the Legislature to pass that bill. Moreover, she was openly critical of the above the line stuff that the department would have in the forms when they sent them out. So for the rest of December, everybody waited with bated breath to see what the department was going to do. I fully expected the department to come out with forms that did this, but also denied all of that above the line stuff. If you read the bills the governor vetoed, you’ll see they actually had to go back and add back in the state and local tax deduction and put it back at $10,000, and not the $40,000 that’s in the federal bill. If none of this ever passes, you’re going to have people taking these deductions in the below the line items and there’s not going to be a law in place to facilitate that. Who knows how that’s going to work out?

What course of action should the Legislature take?

What policymakers ought to be most concerned about at this point is avoiding a situation where people have to file amended returns, but we’re headed in that direction. What the governor vetoed — that wasn’t a clean conformity bill either. They didn’t pass a bill that conformed to the forms that went out, which would have been the above the line stuff. So even if she signed it, it would mean that we’ve got to get correct, new forms. The below the line items — that’s all new tax policy. That’s all new law, and they have every right to do that, but it’s not necessarily clean conformity. So you have one side that’s creating complications with no law to back this up and then you have the Legislature passing something that also isn’t going to be consistent with what the forms are. In 2019, there was a bill to tax remote sales, the Wayfare legislation. They ended up passing a bill to smooth out all the rough edges and return monies to taxpayers through a prospective change in the code, so the tax increase went into effect. Everybody paid it, and then they passed a remote seller law that brought in a bunch of money. I don’t see that dynamic coming together here. 

Now, we’ve got new revenue numbers that have come in. Things are looking better for the state budget than we thought a month ago. Maybe there’s some flexibility there for the Legislature and the governor to react quickly to do this, but the politics of the two sides don’t lend themselves to that. She’s highly critical of the above the line stuff that’s really important to Republicans. Not that the tips and wages aren’t, but I don’t see a lot of room for quick compromise to that. That’s kind of regrettable, so I’m telling everybody that I know not to file your Arizona return until you have to because, we could be at this for a while.

What’s another issue ATRA is looking at this session?

We’ve got a lot of chaos in the sales tax system and we will be pursuing a bill that we had last year that didn’t make it to the governor’s desk to try to create some certainty on sales tax sourcing right now. There is a disagreement between the Department of Revenue and Arizona cities that, regrettably, are able to administer their own sales tax codes and audits regarding how to source an in-state sale. If you’re an Arizona business and you’re having sales within the state of Arizona, the way the law reads, you’re able to source all your sales tax transactions to the city you’re located in. Well, the cities don’t buy that. Cities are arguing now that for sales that are sent to another city, you’ve got to pay that other city. We’ve got a bill to clear that up. The other significant one is a bill to change the Government Property Lease Excise Tax.

Joanne MacDonnell: pride, service and the Arizona Ombudsman’s Office

If there’s one state agency that guides people through the jungle of state government, it’s the Arizona Ombudsman Citizens Aide Office. And if there’s one person at that office who’s taken the responsibility as a point of personal pride, it’s Joane MacDonnell. 

Macdonell has served as the state’s ombudsman, an appointed role with a five-year duration, since her selection by Gov. Doug Ducey in 2022. As a fourth-generation Phoenician, she is no stranger to state government. 

She watched her dad serve as a state senator and representative and even helped him as a campaign manager in 1981. Her mom was a teacher and MacDonnell has those characteristics instilled in her as well. 

Barry Goldwater appointed her as a page at the Republican National Convention, and she helped Carl Kunasek when he ran for Senate President and eventually for the Arizona Corporation Commission. Later, she went to work as the Director of Corporations at the commission, shortly after it had just received a “horrible” rating from an audit. With her direction, the commission won “Agency Turnaround of the Year” in 1998. 

After her time at the commission, she joined the Ombudsman Office as Deputy Ombudsman in 2005 and worked under the first two ombudsmans. The Ombudsman Office is the smallest state agency with just 12 employees and two interns. Requesting help from the Ombudsman Office is free.

MacDonnell and her husband Phil live in Phoenix and have two grown children and one grandchild. 

This interview has been lightly edited for style and clarity.

What does the Ombudsman do?

We’re kind of like the scout team for the Legislature. We’re out there seeing what’s going on in government, that might be something they need to know about, because maybe the law says x and y, but it creates some unintended bad consequences, so we have to tell the citizen, “Well, it’s the law,” but then we can tell them (the Legislature) in our summaries that this is creating an unfortunate situation.

We classify it into three different areas. Everything starts as coaching. That’s what I meant about the librarian and air traffic control.
Sometimes that’s just guiding people, sometimes they haven’t been to the Ombudsman Office and we’ll load them up. We’ve got a huge resource page.

We’ll help you so you can have an effective conversation with (a state) agency. We have a whole written guide on our website about how to file effective complaints. It never helps to use all caps and an exclamation point.

Assistance is when we know something’s off track. Other times it’s investigations. We can do an investigation informally, depending on the topic, sometimes within hours, depending on what agency it is, how fast we can get things turned around, how fast we can get critical information to us. We try to do it informally when we can, and work with the agencies.

The other way is when we decide the complainant’s allegations or part of their allegations, some aspects are true, and then we go to the agency and we go, “We think this, this, this, that, that, are accurate, what they’re alleging. We have some recommendations to fix this. Do you want to handle it and fix it with them and try and make it right?” Ninety-nine percent of the time, the agencies go “Okay, yeah, we’ll make it right.
We’ll make it as right as we can.” 

But sometimes they dig in, and those are usually the cases where they’re saying “No, we think we’re right because of this, and this and this. And we disagree because of this and this and this.”
That’s when we’re backed into the corner of writing the formal reports. 

How does your office function in a divided state government? 

We’re strictly bipartisan, no politics, so we never work on campaigns. We’re kind of a safe place for every political persuasion because we don’t do politics. We help all the legislators with their constituents. If they’ve got a constituent that’s having trouble in government, it lets the legislators have some professional distance so they’re not appearing to poke around an agency and lean on an agency, but it gives (them) an independent group that can go in and take a look. They know that we’re just calling balls and strikes like an umpire.

I have never, ever had a legislator ask me to lean on an agency.
It’s supposed to be just independent, sift through the facts, and not care who’s best friend was with who or which agency.

What is the best part of your job? 

Helping people. Having a little bit of a counterweight to the very intimidating 800-pound gorilla that people are afraid of, which is the government. They often feel like, “Oh, I have to be a lawyer. I’ve got to be a lobbyist or I’ve got to be some big business person or some big nonprofit to be able to affect it.” You really don’t. You just have a good point and are on the right side. That I think is the best.

What is the most challenging aspect of your job or office? 

If you ask me in a couple of years, I might say AI, but then I might love it too, so I’m not sure. 

There’s a small group of anti-social people in the past year, we’ve had to contact police and the Department of Public Safety. Sometimes we’ve seen things of violent nature, sexual nature, totally antisocial, slurs, disparaging things, and not beyond the pale — we’ve been cussed out with the best of them. But just people who are really not good at what they’re sending and wanting to shock or behaving in such an antisocial way. That’s tough, especially if they go after one of your staff. 

The second worst is the folks that just want what they want, and kind of “damn the torpedoes” and whether they’re in compliance with the law, whether they’re being reasonable, they don’t care, and they behave badly while doing it. 

Your office serves as the middleman between state agencies and the public. What do you wish state agencies did better? 

Everyone, including the agencies, could have a very discernible, “What to do with a dispute in our agency.” It would also be helpful if people looked at our website. We’ve got all these suggestions about how to be a more effective complainant, because if you’re taking the time to express your unhappiness, you want to be heard, and you want the highest likelihood of prevailing, if the facts are on your side. 

Every agency should have its own diagnostic process and hopefully part of that is the internal ombudsman office. It should be on the same floor or very near to where the director is, because if they’re doing their job right, they should be spotting the issues as they arise. 

I think it would be very helpful for the agencies if they look at their internal ombudsman as an opportunity to reverse engineer, “How did we get here?” I’m a firm believer in educating people. Most folks, if you extend them the kindness of a full explanation, they don’t have to guess. 

My last recommendation would be, “Don’t live with a bad law.” That’s one of our jobs, to point out when you’re acting contrary to law, but you don’t have to live with it.

Ducey sends $400M of CARES money to state agencies

Gov. Doug Ducey is using hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds earmarked for COVID-19 relief to pay for state operations, such as salaries, which some say contravenes the...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Arizona average of new COVID cases doubles in past 2 weeks

Arizona on Tuesday reported over 4,000 new COVID-19 cases for the fourth time within six days. The current surge in the coronavirus outbreak saw the state’s seven-day rolling average of...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Court expansion brings more cases, less efficiency

The Arizona Supreme Court from left are James Beene, Andrew Gould, Ann Scott-Timmer, Chief Justice Robert Brutinel, Clint Bolick, John Lopez, and Bill Montgomery. Arizona Supreme...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Ducey to drop stay-at-home order

Gov. Doug Ducey explains Tuesday the criteria he is using to decide to allow his stay-at-home order to expire at midnight Friday night. (Capitol Media Services...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Gov. Doug Ducey’s live town hall

Gov. Doug Ducey is holding a town hall at 6 p.m. tonight to give updates on the state’s response to COVID-19. Joining him are Arizona Department of Health Services Director Dr....

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.