ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥

The Senate Rules Committee decided Monday that the proposal, House Bill 2523, requires a three-fourths vote for approval. A Senate staff attorney concluded the bill would effectively amend two separate public votes that created and raised the state’s minimum wage. And the ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ Constitution says lawmakers can alter or repeal a voter-approved initiative only with a three-fourths vote of the House and Senate.

The bill squeaked out of the House on a 31-29 party-line margin, far short of the 45 needed for a three-fourths margin. And it would now need 23 of the 30 senators, and the 13 Senate Democrats have expressed opposition, leaving HB 2523 short of the votes needed for final approval.

The legislation would have created a new category of “casual� employees: those younger than 22, going to school full-time and working only part-time. Employers could have paid them the federal minimum of $7.25 an hour, compared to the state’s $11 an hour minimum.

“We’re going to be counting noses,� said Senate President Karen Fann, R-Prescott. She said she won’t allow the bill to go to the full Senate for debate if there is no possibility of approval.

Fann, however, expressed no particular sorrow about the bill’s fate.

“Personally, I think the bill stinks,� she said. “And you can put me on record on that one.�

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Travis Grantham, R-Gilbert, said he disagrees with the lawyer’s opinion as well as the committee vote. “You can find attorneys to tell you whatever you want,� he said.

But it isn’t just Senate attorney Chris Kleminich who contends HB 2523 can’t go anywhere without a three-fourths vote.

Last month, Ken Behringer, general counsel of the nonpartisan Legislative Council, declared that the bill runs afoul of what voters approved. He said the voter-approved minimum wage law applies to all employees, regardless of age.

And last week, in an informal legal opinion, the Attorney General’s Office reached the same conclusion.

The fight is over the fact that ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ns voted in 2006 to establish a state minimum wage higher than required under federal law. Then, in 2016, voters approved another measure, to increase the state minimum to $10. With scheduled future increases the minimum is now $11 and will go to $12 next year.

Grantham, backed by business interests, said that has created a hardship, particularly for small companies that cannot afford to pay that much for basic labor. As a result, there are fewer jobs for young people, he said.

Unable to repeal the voter-approved law, Grantham and his business allies sought to do an end-run of sorts.

A new category of casual employees, Grantham argued, would not be covered by what voters approved.

Grantham contends the Legislature is free to decide who is and isn’t included in the definition of “employees� who must be paid the state minimum wage.

Kleminich disagreed. He said the first ballot measure, in 2006, created a “broad definition� of who is an employee subject to the minimum wage law. The state can’t, on its own, simply decide that not everyone who works is an employee, he said.

The 2016 version that puts ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥ on the path to a $12-an-hour minimum wage, the attorney said, keeps the same definition.

Even before Monday’s decision by the Rules Committee, there was some doubt whether the measure could garner a simple majority.

Sen. Tyler Pace, R-Mesa, objected to the idea that an employer could pay just $7.25 an hour to someone solely because he or she is a student while someone the same age who is not in school would have to be paid $11 an hour. He said that penalizes students for taking part-time jobs to finish their schooling.

Fann expressed similar sentiments about creating a two-tiered system. The Senate president said she knows lots of young people who go to school full-time who are supporting families, and she sees no reason why employers should be able to pay them less.