ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥

Also Wednesday, Republican Gov. Doug Ducey said he does not intend to fill the gap by issuing an executive order prohibiting school boards from enacting or enforcing such rules.

“This is going to be decided in court,� he said.

In a brief order Wednesday, the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Supreme Court rebuffed a bid by Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich to immediately suspend Monday’s ruling by a Maricopa County judge that provisions of four separate pieces of legislation, including that ban, were illegally enacted.

Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper said lawmakers failed to comply with constitutional requirements that bills be limited to a single subject and that the title of each measure inform people of its contents.

The justices did, however, indicate a willingness to review her ruling on an expedited basis, setting a deadline of Friday for both sides to file any paperwork. None of that is a guarantee they will buy arguments by Brnovich that Cooper exceeded her authority in invalidating the challenged provisions.

The law prohibiting local school boards from requiring students and staff to wear masks while they are on campus was supposed to take effect Wednesday.

Cooper, in an extensive ruling, also ruled a host of other measures, including:

Limiting how schools can teach about race, ethnicity and gender

Prohibiting universities and community colleges from requiring proof of vaccination or use of masks

Limiting the powers of Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, and establishing a special Senate committee to review the results of that chamber’s just-completed audit of the 2020 presidential election

Brnovich argued all require the justices’ immediate attention.

“The trial court’s ruling carries significant implications for the operation of state government,� he said in his filings. “And the state will continue to suffer harm if the trial court’s ruling is not swiftly overturned, allowing the challenged provisions to immediately go into effect.�

Ducey separately said he is looking at challenging Cooper’s ruling.

The ruling could affect the governor’s ability to negotiate a budget with state lawmakers in future years if they cannot use the same practice of lumping various issues — unrelated, according to the judge — into a single bill. That method is designed to corral votes by getting legislators who might oppose a specific provision to go along in order to get approval for the measures they want.

“The budgets that I’ve signed have had some customary practices,� Ducey said. “And this was one of them.�

In the meantime, the ban on mask mandates remains unenforceable. And several school districts that had been waiting for the ruling have since decided to keep their bans in place.

In seeking Supreme Court intervention, Brnovich argued that Cooper’s order “constitutes irreparable harm to the state and the public interest.�

“It is well established that a state suffers irreparable injury whenever an enactment of its people or their representatives is enjoined,� he wrote. “The (trial) court’s ruling and judgment, which declares multiple provisions of duly-enacted state law unconstitutional, alters the delicate balance between the elected branches of government and the state.�

But Cooper cited a constitutional provision that every legislative act “shall embrace but one subject and matters property connected therewith, which subject shall be expressed in the title.� More to the point, Cooper noted that the constitution says anything in a bill that is not reflected in the title those provisions “shall be void.�

What lawmakers approved, she said, were four bills with general titles about appropriations and budget procedures.

“Their function was to enact laws to effectuate the budget,� Cooper wrote. “It was not to enact laws prohibiting mask mandates, regulating school curriculum, or authorizing special interest projects unrelated to the budget or budget reconciliation.�

Brnovich told the justices that Cooper is exceeding her authority to tell lawmakers what they can and cannot do.

“The court refused to recognize that the constitution does not define what is ‘necessary’ for inclusion in a ‘budget reconciliation’ bill,� he said. Brnovich also argued that what is necessary to effectuate the budget — the stated purpose of reconciliation bills — is “a political question that is left for the legislature to decide.�

“There are strong prudential reasons why the judicial power does not extend to determining whether budgetary measures are sufficiently related or tied to budgeting, thereby rendering it an unreviewable political question,� he said.

Cooper heard and dismissed that contention, saying it is precisely the role of courts to decide whether acts of other branches of government are constitutional.

If that argument doesn’t work, Brnovich has others about why what is in each of the bills really does relate to the budget.

“These provisions address the operations of publicly funded schools, including whether public monies can be spent to teach critical race theory and whether publicly funded school can condition employment or attendance or wearing face coverings or obtaining COVID-19 vaccinations,� he said.

Ditto, he said, to provisions in another bill relating to elections.

For example,he said the bill limits the use of budget funds to purchase specified ballot paper, bars local governments from using public funds to enforce mask mandates against public businesses, and decides that it should be his office — and not the secretary of state — that spends public money defending state election laws.

Cooper rejected that argument when it was presented to her.

“The state’s view would allow the legislature to re-define ‘budget reconciliation’ to mean anything it chooses,� she wrote. “Going forward, the legislature could add any policy or regulatory provision to a budget reconciliation bill, regardless of whether the measure was necessary to implement the budget (and) without notice to the public.�

Brnovich also has a fall-back position if the justices conclude that Cooper, in fact, was correct in ruling that legislators acted unconstitutionally.

He told the justices they have never addressed this specific question of the scope of legislative power. And, given that, Brnovich argues her ruling should instead be prospective only, allowing the challenged provisions to take effect this time but giving fair warning to future lawmakers that such maneuvers are no longer permissible.