The fight over states' rights is back on the ballot

• Arizona Republicans are pushing a ballot measure they say will protect Arizonans from being forced to fund federal overreach.
• Supporters argue Proposition 122 is the solution to federal health care mandates%2C children dying under the watch of the state%27s child protection agency and Environmental Protection Agency regulations harming local farmers and ranchers.
• Opponents say Prop. 122 is an unconstitutional power grab that will give the Legislature the authority to thumb its nose at the federal government and endanger the state%27s natural resources.

The battle over state sovereignty is back on the ballot in Arizona.

Arizona Republican leaders, including gubernatorial candidate Doug Ducey, are pushing a ballot measure they say will protect Arizonans from being forced to fund federal overreach. They argue Proposition 122 is the solution to federal health-care mandates, children dying under the watch of the state's child protection agency and Environmental Protection Agency regulations harming farmers and ranchers.

"It creates an orderly process by which the state could opt out of spending money on certain identified federal actions," said supporter and former state lawmaker Jonathan Paton. "The state can't overturn a federal law, but it can say 'we're not going to use our money to forward it.' "

But a growing number of opponents say Prop. 122 is an unconstitutional power grab that will give the state Legislature the authority to thumb its nose at the federal government, endanger the state's natural resources and once again make Arizona a running joke in late-night television monologues.

"Proponents say all it does is say Arizona controls its own dollars," Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, said. "But Arizona already can control its own dollars. The Legislature doesn't have to fund federal programs, but they definitely have to follow federal laws and they don't get to cherry-pick which ones."

Prop. 122 would change the state constitution to allow Arizona to "exercise its sovereign authority to restrict the actions of its personnel and the use of its financial resources to purposes that are consistent with the (U.S.) Constitution." It allows the state to pass an initiative, referendum or legislation, or go to court to determine a federal action or program is unconstitutional and then forbid the use of any state or local personnel or money to comply with that action or program.

The ballot effort is being supported by influential political figures linked to conservative billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch and the American Legislative Exchange Council, a corporate-backed group known for peddling model legislation in statehouses around the country.

Former Arizona Sen. Chester Crandell, R-Heber, who died in August after being thrown from his horse, was the primary sponsor of the bill as it moved through the Legislature.

"I think we can all agree that the federal government is out of control. Look at Obamacare, excessive EPA regulations and the takeover of our automobile and financial industries," Crandell wrote in the campaign literature sent out by the state. "The forest service and EPA are driving many of my rancher and farmer constituents out of business. The federal government has their hands in every aspect of our lives."

Bahr said opposition to Prop. 122 has been slow to develop, but is growing.

"I think a lot of people didn't bother doing anything because they thought it was so stupid, thought it was just another one of those thumb-your-nose-at-the-government proposals from the state Legislature," she said. "The last time they did this, they didn't put a lot of resources into getting it passed."

Voters in 2012 opposed by a wide margin a proposition that would have given the state authority over all air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural resources within the state's boundaries. But with this one, Bahr said, "they've been a little more clever with the language and they have a lot of cash behind it."

The measure appears to be the vision of Scottsdale millionaire and human-resources company owner Jack Biltis.

Biltis last month donated $75,000 to the Freedom Partners Action Fund, a super PAC funded by the Koch brothers that supports Republican candidates. Most outside spending groups connected to the Kochs are not required by law to disclose donors, but super PACs must.

Biltis declined a request for an interview from The Arizona Republic. In his written arguments supporting the proposition, he shared a personal story involving his wife Leigh's father.

"We're originally from Canada and we've seen what happens when government grows out of control," he wrote. "We saw the Canadian bureaucrats deny Leigh's father a drug he needed to prevent him from bleeding to death after a surgery. While they acknowledged he would die overnight without the drug, the government office that approved these expenses wouldn't open until 9 a.m. the next day."

He goes on to write that they were "lucky to escape to the U.S." and "have made it our mission to stop this from happening in this great country that has warmly adopted us."

Biltis in 2012 spent $1.2 million of his money trying to get a similar measure on the ballot but failed to collect enough valid signatures. He then found a cheaper route to success.

In 2013, he donated $424 to Crandell's campaign and $2,000 to the campaign of Rep. Brenda Barton, R-Payson, who is also listed as a sponsor. In addition to sponsoring the bill, Crandell successfully pushed it through the Senate committee he chaired. Biltis also in 2013 donated to the House campaign of Shawnna Bolick; Bolick's husband, Clint, is the Goldwater Institute's vice president for litigation and has also signed on supporting the measure.

According to state campaign records, the Biltises had not been major donors in Arizona elections prior to 2013. Other than the money spent on their own ballot measure, the only local contributions were $424 each in 2012 to conservative former Sen. Lori Klein.

Earlier this year, Biltis gave Crandell's campaign another $1,885. He also donated $6,000 to Republican attorney general candidate Mark Brnovich. Brnovich, Ducey, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and former Senate President Russell Pearce all submitted arguments supporting Prop. 122.

"Arizona needs to decide how it will best spend its own budget," Ducey wrote. "Many federal programs cost Arizona more than the state receives from the federal government. Prop 122 creates a way for the state to evaluate these programs and determine what makes sense for Arizona's taxpayers."

Others publicly supporting the measure include the leaders of the Arizona arm of the Koch brothers' organization Americans for Prosperity; Randy Kendrick, wife of Arizona Diamondbacks owner Ken Kendrick and a vocal supporter of Charles Koch; and Scot Mussi, executive director of the outside spending group the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, which does not disclose its donors.

Paton said the federal health law is an example of where the proposition could be used. "If you were to put this on the ballot, you could say we're not going to have a state exchange in Arizona, or we're not going to allow the Department of Insurance to get rid of self-insurance," he said.

Paton said the person introducing legislation or an initiative to opt out of spending money would have to identify the specific federal action at issue. He said he is confident the proposition would survive a legal challenge of its constitutionality, noting communities have refused to use state and local resources to enforce the federal Patriot Act. Some states where marijuana is legal have refused to enforce federal drug laws, he said.

Bahr said the Sierra Club and several other local environmental groups are concerned the proposition will allow the state to stop enforcing federal environmental laws, including protecting endangered species and clean air and water.

"Those laws provide the basis for making sure we don't have the mines running the state," she said.

She said the Republican-led Legislature has already shown an interest in ignoring federal environmental regulations. For example, the Legislature this year passed, but Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed, a bill that would have allowed ranchers to kill endangered wolves in certain situations.

Bahr said it's also bad for business as Arizona struggles to bring new companies to the state and recover from the Great Recession.

"These types of measures ... are bad for business," she said. "The view of Arizona is it's kind of wacky and people will wonder what federal law they're not going to abide by next."

An argument by supporters of Prop. 122 that the measure could be used to require the state's child protective agency to disclose more information about children who are murdered is causing an uproar. Supporters allege a federal law is being used by state workers to protect them from having to disclose public records.

Bahr called the argument offensive.

"Just because the state agencies are using federal law as an excuse doesn't mean the federal law is a problem," she said. "Invading the privacy of families or children is not the answer to this."

Arizona would be the first state to pass such a measure.

But if the measure passes in Arizona, expect to see it spread to other states. The American Legislative Exchange Council in January approved the exact wording of Arizona's proposition as model legislation for other states to consider.

Prop. 122

Changes the state constitution to allow Arizona to "exercise its sovereign authority to restrict the actions of its personnel and the use of its financial resources to purposes that are consistent with the (U.S.) Constitution." It allows the state to pass an initiative, referendum or legislation, or go to court to determine a federal action or program is unconstitutional and forbid the use of any state or local personnel or money to comply with that action or program.