PHOENIX – A Scottsdale lawmaker’s ballot proposal to have Arizonans vote on a constitutional amendment regarding state of emergencies declared by the governor hit a snag when members of his own party questioned its workability.

The state Senate was likely just a few minutes away from approving the measure this past week that would ask Arizona voters to OK a constitutional amendment requiring the Legislature to reauthorize any state of emergency called by the governor every 30 days.

Then one lawmaker raised questions that sidelined the proposal.

The plan proposed by Rep. Joseph Chaplik, R-Scottsdale, to refer the measure to voters in 2024  had been approved by the House and had gone through the Senate's Rules Committee Wednesday.

Then it was discussed at the Republican caucus meeting where the majority lawmakers talk about items about to have votes by the full Senate.

Sen. Ken Bennett, a Prescott Republican, sent for his laptop computer so he could look closely at the bill and asked that it be brought back a second time. He questioned whether the concept could work.

And the more Bennett learned from staff called back to the meeting to explain the proposal, the more he was concerned. And a handful of other majority GOP lawmakers began joining him.

If sent to the ballot and approved by voters, HCR 2039 would have impacts on how the state oversees disaster declarations and affect tens of millions of dollars in federal funding. Many of those declarations can last for years, not because a fire is still burning or floodwaters are still inundating homes, but because the declaration must remain open to fund the repairs and rebuilding.

As of Jan. 17, Arizona had 41 open state disaster declarations, each relying on an emergency being declared by the governor, according to the state Department of Emergency and Military Affairs.

It can - and often does - take years, sometimes even decades, for a disaster to be closed. An open declaration is needed to qualify for federal emergency funding.

What is fueling this debate is Republican lawmakers' anger over school and business closures ordered by former Gov. Doug Ducey in early 2020 when the coronavirus pandemic hit the state.

Last year, the GOP-controlled Legislature responded by sharply limiting a governor’s ability to call public health emergencies. Ducey, also a Republican, signed it - but it only after it was crafted to take effect when he left office in early January and Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs became the state’s chief executive.

Now, any health emergency is limited to 120 days. After that, the legislature would need to approve an extension every 30 days.

After an hour of  what one GOP senator called "robust'' discussion prompted by Bennett’s questions, the bill was put on hold - indefinitely - by Senate President Warren Petersen so a "working group'' could figure out whether it can be changed enough to be feasible, Bennett told Capitol Media Services.

"I was really kind of seeing it for the first time,'' he said.

"But when I got my laptop brought to me after we had gone on to several other bills and I looked at it, I became immediately concerned that it was not workable,'' Bennett said.

The measure already has been approved by the GOP-controlled House with only Republican votes. As a constitutional amendment, it needs no signature from Hobbs to be placed on the ballot.

And with strong support from Republicans like Petersen and Senate Government Committee chair Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, it was primed for a vote in the GOP-controlled Senate after last Wednesday's caucus meeting. 

Chaplik and other Republican proponents of the bill argue the Legislature has a duty to review emergency declarations. Hoffman championed it in the Senate Government Committee, where he said he wanted lawmakers to seize their constitutional oversight power.

"It is our job as Legislature to have a say and have a voice on behalf of our constituency when it comes to these things, regardless of who that governor is,'' Hoffman said at a hearing last month. "That's why I like this measure.''

Bennett ultimately did not.

“I think it would have passed if I hadn't brought up the concerns,'' he said.

Hoffman was unavailable for an interview Friday to discuss how he might change the measure to get the needed Senate GOP votes.

But in a text message in response to questions from Capitol Media Services, he appeared focused on preventing more lockdowns and business closures, not the much more routine fire and flood emergency declarations now covered by the bill.

"There is no disagreement amongst Senate Republicans that the voters should be given the opportunity to rein in the executive branch’s dangerously broad emergency powers,'' he wrote.

"And as with all bills, Republican lawmakers are judiciously working through the process to find the strongest possible solution that will garner the necessary votes to prevent future lockdowns and mandates like America experienced during COVID.''