Could it be, Satan?.
So this one caught my eye;
Sponsored by Gov’t Committee chair Sen Jake Hoffman (R-Queen Creek). The hearing was a little bit entertaining; you can make your own judgement here, but it seems to have some constitutional problems (i.e. apparently you can build certain kinds of alters on public property, but not satanic ones) — but at the end of the day, were it to reach governor’s desk it would presumably be vetoed. Political theater.
UPDATE 2/22/2024: After passing committee on party line vote, failed on the senate floor (by two whole votes). Dead for now.
Why am I telling you this?
SB1195 and SCR1015
This one has a wacky grab bag of prohibitions: most but not all revolving around prohibiting any form of gov’t (including the state universities) from doing anything involving climate change, including measuring it, or studying it, or belonging to any organization or association that does that. The fecal matter, articles of clothing, and references to Marxism, and the (undefined terms) ‘stakeholder capitalism’, and ‘circular economy’ were curious.
And if anyone believes the law is being broken, they can then sue the government (litigation much?).
Item 5, the fecal matter, was amended out; and the bill (and it’s twin SCR) passed along party lines with Republicans voting 5-3 in favor.
A. A public entity may not spend public monies to promote, advocate or plan for, or become a member of an association or organization that promotes, advocates or plans for, any of the following: 1. reducing the consumption or production of meat or dairy products or replacing animal-based protein with insect or synthetic protein. 2. reducing or replacing motor vehicle travel with walking, biking, or public transit. 3. reducing or limiting travel by airplane. 4. limiting the number of articles of clothing an individual may purchase or own. 5. reusing water that has touched human feces as a source of municipal drinking water. 6. reducing greenhouse gas emissions or tracking and collecting of any information or data for determining consumption-based emissions. 7. limiting the increase of the average global temperature or producing or adopting a climate action plan. 8. replacing private ownership with shared or rented goods and services to promote a circular economy. 9. furthering Marxist ideologies, including stakeholder capitalism. 10. implementing mass surveillance systems to monitor motor vehicle travel.
Here’s a few tidbits:
Sen. Kern: “…the bill also disallows public agencies from limiting the number of articles of clothing an individual may purchase or own.
That’s kind of ‘out there’ to most of us, but there is a move in our country to bring in Marxism, to bring in anti-God, pro-Marxist ideology, anti-freedom, anti-constitution. And as I looked around the room, there’s a few of them in this room that would absolutely be against this bill (presumably referring to the people who spoke against the Satanist bill). But it is a good bill…”
Sen. Hoffman: “Senator Kern, eloquent and common sense is always…”
Sen Hoffman: “she’s (a speaker in opposition to the bill) not here to pontificate on random climate change crap”
It’s ‘out there’ all right!
Sen. Kern, you may recall last year, apparently believing that the “washington” , “woke types” were somehow going to force him to put bike lanes on I-10:
“So yeah and and I think that’s the reason for the amendment was to ensure that we also are very concerned about just widening the the I-10 there and not all these other you know ‘woke type’ implementations at the federal government wants to put into our transportation system. I’ve learned in the past week that you know our transportation system is somehow racist and all that nonsense so we do want the I-10 widened and that’s it, nothing else.”
Update as of end of February: Both the SCR and SB passed committee on party-line vote.
Then, the SCR failed on full senate vote. The Bill was passed on a party-line vote of 16-12-2; Every Republican voted for it. The bill then moves to the House.
A popular (lately) tactic of the Republican-majority legislature, in light of a Democratic governor, is to introduce both a bill that they know she won’t sign, and a copy of the bill as a ballot initiative. A bill can be vetoed, and an override (2/3 majority or something?) by the legislature is infeasible; but a ballot initiative goes directly to the ballot. Another “twin” is the photo-enforcement ban:
Welcome to Senator Bollick, to the Government committee, where even the best bills are partisan” — Sen. Jake Hoffman, chair of the committee