AFP-AZ's Shadegg Makes the Case for Proposition 315

Proposition 315 is up for consideration this November in Arizona. Americans for Prosperity's Arizona chapter head Stephen Shadegg has advocated for the measure in recent weeks, saying, "Our main goal is just to make sure that we have representative democracy and that the people are able to have a say in how their money is being spent."

The measure was introduced earlier this year in February, which would require that any proposed rule projected to increase regulatory costs in the state by over $100,000 within five years of implementation to be submitted to the Office of Economic Opportunity for review.

In essence, Proposition 315 is a state-level version of the REINS Act which passed the House in June, which required major rulings introduced by Federal agencies to be subject to Congressional approval if they imposed cost or price increases for consumers, "significant" adverse effects on American industry, or an economic impact totaling $100 million or more.

As Shadegg noted in his October 7th op-ed for the Arizona Republic, the Grand Canyon State already has the Governor's Regulatory Review Council, which "reviews state regulations with the goal of eliminating or improving outdated rules. The state Office of Economic Opportunity has calculated that from 2016-2022 the state eliminated 676 rules, for a cost savings of $41.9 million, and improved 2,701 rules for a cost savings of another $204.9 million."

Thus, he continued, "Proposition 315 would help to prevent regulatory costs from getting that high by inserting cost controls before [emphasis his] regulations can be implemented."

In comments to the Arizona Capitol Times, Shadegg further suggested the bill restores accountability to regulatory agencies and power to voters.

"Our main goal is just to make sure that we have representative democracy and that the people are able to have a say in how their money is being spent," he told the Capitol Times.

However, opponents to the bill have argued that these new measures drastically slow down the regulatory process, which could prove harmful if health and safety regulations are unable to leave the state legislature floor fast enough, and that the review process could be weaponized in times of divided government.

"[If] there’s a stakeholder that’s pissed off and doesn’t like the rule, then they can go to … the president of the Senate, who could then make sure that the request to approve the rule never makes it to the floor, so a single legislator could kill an entire rule package," argued Will Humble, former director of the Arizona Department of Health Services as recorded by the Capitol Times, adding, "When they want a governor to look bad, and their agencies to look bad for political reasons, even though it’s hurting the public, then they do all this monkey business."