The overall purpose of an emergency
declaration at the state level is to provide the government with the
authority and resources needed to respond swiftly and effectively to
crises that threaten public safety and health. 

This declaration allows the governor
and state agencies to implement measures that are not typically
permissible under normal circumstances. Many of those measures are
designed to cut red tape and allow for temporary relief from ordinary
regulations.

Some of the key purposes include:

• Mobilizing
  Resources: Enables the rapid allocation of state resources, like
  funding, personnel, and equipment, to areas affected by the emergency.
• Regulatory
  Flexibility: Allows for the temporary suspension or modification of
  regulations that may impede timely response efforts. This can include
  waivers for health care facility requirements, licensing reciprocity for
  out-of-state medical professionals, and expedited procurement
  processes.
• Information
  Gathering: Enhances the ability to collect and issue critical
  information, including enhanced surveillance data, to monitor and manage
  the situation effectively.
• Public
  Safety Measures: Authorizes the implementation of necessary public
  safety measures, such as evacuations, curfews, and quarantine orders, to
  protect citizens from immediate threats.
• Coordination
  and Support: Facilitates coordination between various state agencies,
  local governments, federal entities, and non-governmental organizations
  to ensure a unified and efficient response.

Overall, an emergency declaration is a
crucial tool for state leaders to mitigate the impact of emergencies,
protect public health, and restore normalcy as swiftly as possible.

Proposition 135 on November’s ballot
asks you to pass an amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would
significantly limit the governor’s ability to respond to emergencies. 

As a constitutional amendment,
reversing or changing these restrictions would be exceedingly difficult,
requiring another amendment and voter approval.

This proposition poses several risks to public health and safety:

• Inability to respond to biological or radiologic emergencies effectively:
• The
  governor’s response capabilities to public health crises, such as
  pandemics or radiologic events, would be severely restricted.
• Essential
  measures like the rapid deployment of medical resources, quarantine
  enforcement, and coordination with federal agencies could be delayed or
  hindered.
• Loss of regulatory flexibility after 30 days:
• Interstate professional license reciprocity:
  Health care professionals from other states could not provide services
  in Arizona beyond 30 days, potentially leading to severe health care
  staffing shortages during prolonged emergencies.
• Liability waivers for responders:
  Emergency responders would lose critical legal protections,
  discouraging volunteerism and participation in emergency operations.
• Temporary waivers of health care institution regulations:
  Hospitals and clinics would be unable to adapt swiftly to the surge in
  patient numbers, affecting their ability to provide prompt and adequate
  care.
• Clinic licenses for antivirals/vaccine distribution:
  The swift establishment of temporary clinics for mass distribution of
  antivirals or vaccines would be obstructed, delaying public access to
  life-saving treatments.
• Tort liability protection for emergency responders:
  The removal of legal protections for responders would increase the risk
  of litigation, potentially reducing the number of willing participants
  in emergency responses.
• Collection of enhanced surveillance data:
  Essential data collection for monitoring and controlling the spread of
  diseases would be hampered, impeding the ability to make informed public
  health decisions.

Prop. 135 would undermine state and
local government’s ability to safeguard public health during emergencies
by imposing stringent limitations on necessary regulatory flexibility
and emergency response measures. This inflexibility could lead to
delayed responses, inadequate medical care, and increased mortality
during crises.

And the amendment introduces
unnecessary rigidity, as the current system already includes checks and
balances to prevent abuse of emergency powers. A.R.S. § 36-787
already limits public health emergency declarations to 120 days. Any
extensions beyond this period require legislative approval, ensuring a
balance of power and oversight.

The Arizona Public Health Association
urges voters to think carefully about the practical implications of
this dangerous constitutional amendment before deciding how to vote on
Prop 135. I know how I’m going to vote.