minimum wage

AZ Supreme Court to consider Prop. 206 Minimum Wage appeal

by

The Arizona Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments by Chamber of Commerce organizations that the new voter-approved minimum wage, Prop. 206, violates the state’s Constitution. State Supreme Court agrees to take up minimum wage case:

The Arizona Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of the case and announced Tuesday afternoon it will hold a hearing on March 9. At the heart of the issue, which the court will hear, is the claim that Proposition 206 violates the Constitution’s revenue source rule. The case was brought by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and other business groups and supported by Gov. Doug Ducey and Republican legislative leaders.

Justices had declined to block the minimum wage from taking effect on January 1, spurning an appeal from those same business groups after their initial complaint was struck down in Maricopa County Superior Court. Now attorneys will again argue that Proposition 206 violates a requirement in the Arizona Constitution that any new voter-mandated spending designate a funding source to cover its costs. The funding stream may not come from the general fund.

Attorneys for the chamber had offered up other legal arguments against the law in Superior Court, but the Supreme Court will only hear arguments concerning the revenue source rule. Opponents of the minimum wage hike contend the state is forced to increase spending for services through the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, which contracts with service providers to ensure people have access to care.

Read more

UPDATE: Arizona Supreme Court declines to stay Minimum Wage initiative, Prop. 206

by

The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports, Arizona Supreme Court declines to block Prop 206:

RaiseTheWageWithout comment the state Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a last-ditch bid by the business community, with support from Gov. Doug Ducey and legislative leaders, to delay the effect of Proposition 206. That measure, approved earlier this year by voters on a 58-42 margin, raises the current minimum wage of $8.05 an hour to $10 at the beginning of 2017.

The same initiative eventually increases that to $12 an hour by 2020. And beginning July 1 it requires employers to provide workers with at least three days of paid sick leave each year.

Thursday’s ruling does not end the matter.

The justices have agreed to consider claims by initiative foes that the measure violates a constitutional provision that requires all ballot proposals that result in new state spending to have a dedicated revenue source. But that won’t occur until February, meaning the $10 requirement will remain in place at least until then — if not beyond.

Read more

Court upholds the will of the voters on Minimum Wage initiative (Prop. 206)

by

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Daniel Kiley today denied the Arizona Chamber of Commerce’s attempt to prevent the Minimum Wage initiative (Prop.206) from taking effect as scheduled on January 1. The Chamber, of course, will appeal.

The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports, Superior Court judge refuses to block minimum wage hike:

RaiseTheWageMaricopa County Superior Court Judge Daniel Kiley rebuffed arguments by business interests that Proposition 206 should have been split into two separate measures, one to set the minimum at $10 an hour and the other to require that employers give workers at least three days of paid personal leave.

Kiley also said there was no merit to the claim that the initiative violates a state constitutional provision which requires any voter-approved measure to have a separate source of revenues to cover the costs.

The judge said it may be that the state’s Medicaid program will increase what it pays to private contractors that offer nursing home and in-home services that now need pay workers only $8.05 an hour.

But he said nothing in the initiative actually mandates the higher expenditure. And he pointed out that both Arizona law and the contracts with Medicaid providers have provisions which say the state does not have to spend money it does not have.

Today’s ruling is unlikely the last word.

Read more

Court refuses to enjoin the minimum wage initiative; hearing set for Tuesday

by

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Daniel Kiley refused a request by Chamber of Commerce organizations to immediately block the voter-approved hike in the minimum wage from taking effect as scheduled next year. the Arizona Capitol Times (subscription required) reports, Judge refuses to block minimum wage hike:

RaiseTheWageKiley said there’s no basis for him to even consider whether to delay enforcement on the law, much less decide its constitutionality.

If nothing else, the judge noted that the challenge was filed only a day earlier. He said that means those defending the law — including both the attorney general’s office and Proposition 206 supporters — have not had a “fair opportunity” to respond to the allegations.

* * *

Kiley did agree to consider the legal arguments in depth this coming Tuesday.

Kiley rejected claims by challengers that leaving the law in place before the full-blown hearing on its legality will cause hardship for employers.

Read more

Chambers of Commerce sue to overturn the will of the voters on Minimum Wage Initiative

by

RaiseTheWageThe incoming Speaker of the House, J.D. Mesnard, just happened to suggest on Monday that there appears to be legal grounds for someone to sue to overturn the Prop. 206 minimum wage hike approved by voters, but it won’t be him (wink, wink). House speaker mulls minimum wage lawsuit:

As to litigation, Mesnard said at this point he’s moving to take the case to court.

“I’m not spearheading anything,” he said. “Until today, I had no legal staff on hand,” Mesnard said, saying others may have to take the lead.

Mesnard does not need to file a lawsuit when he has the masters he serves in the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry to do it for him. Mesnard’s feigned knowledge of a lawsuit was political Kabuki theater. He was coordinating with the Chamber and he knew full well when he made his “suggestion” of a lawsuit that the Chamber was prepared to file a lawsuit to overturn the will of the voters this week. Suit filed to block minimum wage hike:

Unable to defeat it at the ballot, business interests are now trying to get a judge to void the voter-approved hike in the state minimum wage.

Read more