Arizona Democratic Governor Katie Hobbs, who is in her first term after a stint as the state’s Secretary of State and a victory in the state’s elections last year over Republican challenger Kari Lake, who’s still mad, is vetoing dozens and dozens of bills as she faces continued GOP dominance in Arizona’s legislature.
As recapped in the Arizona news outlet the Arizona Mirror, one of those bills would have provided special treatment to the firearms industry. The bill, HB 2394, would’ve blocked new taxes or fees aimed at firearms and ammunition. The Republicans responsible for that initiative undertook the plan even as legislative leaders elsewhere seek action to save lives considering the unfolding plague of gun violence that continues to threaten Americans of all age groups, which is quite a contrast in the respective parties’ ambitions. Hobbs produced only a brief letter explaining her veto, but she certainly got the message across. “This bill exempts the firearm industry from the same basic regulation to which all other industries are accustomed,” the Democratic governor told the Speaker of the state House.
She also recently rejected a couple of additional proposals from legislative Republicans related to elections. One would’ve restricted the usage of artificial intelligence in steps of ballot processing including the verification of signatures submitted with absentee votes, and another imposed evidently arbitrary and sweeping requirements on local leaders handling elections that could’ve created paralyzing confusion, as so-called “irregularities” required to be recorded weren’t even comprehensively defined. “As I have stated previously, I am eager to work with the Legislature to advance legislation that strengthens our elections,” Hobbs said when announcing that veto Tuesday. “This bill, unfortunately, does not advance that goal.”
Also in Arizona, the state Republican Party is still facing financial penalties that are meant to cover the other side’s legal fees incurred in the course of litigation state leaders brought after the 2020 presidential election seeking an additional audit. An appeals court recently upheld those consequences. Calls for additional investigations of the election results from 2020 or afterwards have often been founded on the just brazenly false notion that many, many probes hadn’t already been conducted.
Image: Gage Skidmore/ Creative Commons
