SurveillanceArizona lawmaker pushes measure to limit NSA operations in the state
Arizona State Senator Kelli Ward, a tea party Republican representing the Lake Havasu area, is pushing a bill in the State Senate which would impose limits on the ability of the NSA to operate in Arizona. In December Ward became the first legislator in the nation to declare she would introduce legislation to limit NSA activities in the state, and so far legislators in twelve other states have introduced similar bills. Arizona SB 1156 would. Among other things, prohibit local and state law enforcement officials from cooperating with the NSA and would prevent state or local prosecutors from using NSA-collected information which had not been obtained with a warrant. The bill would also withhold funds from state universities and colleges supporting the NSA with research or recruitment. Legal scholars say the courts would in all likelihood strike down Ward’s measure because Arizona, in essence, is trying to regulate the federal government.
Three years ago Arizona expressed its dissatisfaction with what it saw as the federal government’s foot-dragging on enforcing existing immigration laws and securing the border, so it passed the tough – and controversial — SB1070 state immigration law. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 hollowed out the law after finding most of its provisions unconstitutional.
It appears that Arizona is again at the forefront of confronting the federal government, but this time not over doing too little, as was the case with enforcing immigration law and securing the border, but doing too much, as in NSA surveillance.
The Los Angeles Times reports that State Senator Kelli Ward, a tea party Republican representing the Lake Havasu area, is pushing a bill which would impose limits on the ability of the NSA to operate in Arizona.
In December Ward became the first legislator in the nation to declare she would introduce legislation to limit NSA activities – and the Tenth Amendment Center, which provides model legislation for pushing back on NSA surveillance, says that so far legislators in twelve other states have introduced similar bills.
Arizona SB 1156 would prohibit local and state law enforcement officials from cooperating with the NSA and would prevent state or local prosecutors from using NSA-collected information which had not been obtained with a warrant. The bill would also withhold funds from state universities and colleges supporting the NSA with research or recruitment.
“Many of my constituents have expressed serious anger about what they’ve learned the NSA is doing,” said Ward. “And, personally, I’m not happy about NSA surveillance programs either. I believe it’s my duty to do something here in Arizona to help put a stop to it.”
Her bill is supported by state rights’ activists and privacy advocates, but legal observers say it is unconstitutional, as was most of SB 1070 immigration measure.
“Once again, it’s a black mark on Arizona,” State Senator Steve Gallardo (D-District 13) said. “Over the last several years, Arizona has been under a black cloud of legislation that is very unconstitutional and very controversial, and this just plays into that style.”
Gallardo, who represents Phoenix suburbs, said Ward was grandstanding, and that relying on an unconstitutional bill to fight the alleged unconstitutional transgression of the NSA was not a good idea.
Today (Monday) SB 1156 will be debated by members of the Senate Government and Environment Committee.
The bill’s thirteen sponsors are all Republicans, but Ward says she has bipartisan support from people who “really just want their privacy protected.”
If passed, the bill would:
- Prohibit state officials from providing assistance in any form to federal agencies that claim to have the power to gather and store electronic data on any person without a warrant.
- Prohibit state and local government entities from providing material support to the NSA.
- Make unconstitutionally gathered data inadmissible in state court.
- Make corporations doing business with the NSA ineligible for state or local government contracts.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine’s School of Law and a constitutional scholar, told the Times that courts would in all likelihood strike down Ward’s measure because Arizona, in essence, is trying to regulate the federal government. Perhaps the only portion of the bill which would withstand a judicial review is the provision that declares data gathered by the NSA inadmissible in Arizona court, because that is in the purview of the state, Chemerinsky said.
“The question here is going to be to what extent is the state interfering with the achievement of the federal objective? To what extent is the state regulating the federal government’s activities?” he said. “However well-intentioned it is, most would be preempted by federal law…. The law is clear that states can’t regulate the federal government.”
Michael Boldin, executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, told the Times he thinks states have a right to regulate what happens within their borders.
“If enough people in enough states say they are not going to participate in this, it will stop them from doing what they are doing,” Boldin said of the NSA. “It’s going to box them in a corner and be more difficult for them to pull things off.”
