State Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale. Photo by Gage Skidmore (modified) | Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0
A Republican lawmaker wants to fortify what he called “free speech” protections for people who harass government employees. But a handful of Republicans joined with Democrats to reject the proposal that critics said would embolden domestic abusers and people who seek to torment unelected government employees, including election workers.
Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, sponsored House Bill 2043, which would change the definition of harassment in state law to require an explicit intent to harass. Currently, actions like contacting a person repeatedly or following them “in a manner that harasses” after being told to stop qualify as harassment.
Kolodin’s proposal would also have allowed those accused of harassment to defend themselves from prosecution if they repeatedly contacted or followed a public official or employee while criticizing their actions.
The bill failed in the Republican-controlled House on Monday by a vote of 26-30, with one Democrat, Tempe Rep. Brian Garcia, voting in favor.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
Republicans who joined the rest of the Democrats in voting against HB2043 were Reps. Walt Blackman, Pamela Carter, Matt Gress and Jeff Weninger. Kolodin changed his vote from yes to no at the last second because a legislator has to be on the prevailing side to request reconsideration of a bill. Later on Monday, the House voted to allow Kolodin to bring his proposal back for another vote.
Kolodin claimed on the House floor that his bill corrects a problem in the state’s existing criminal code which makes any complaints constituents lob at lawmakers harassment, according to the letter of the law.
“Have that annoying constituent who’s sending you too many emails criticizing the way that you vote? That is harassment under our current state statutes,” Kolodin said. “Do you have protesters yelling at you on the way in the front door? That is harassment under our current statute.”
The right to protest is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Democratic Rep. Betty Villegas, of Tucson, said Monday that she strongly opposed Kolodin’s proposal because the requirement to show intent to harass will make it more difficult for victims of stalking, domestic abuse and cyberbullying to seek justice.
“It creates loopholes for bad actors to evade accountability and opens the door to more intimidation and harm,” Villegas said. “Let’s be clear: Free speech and legitimate criticism of public officials are already protected under existing law. What this bill does is muddy the waters, making it easier for harassment to be excused as criticism. We should be strengthening protections for victims, not giving harassers more cover.”
While Kolodin said he proposed the bill because elected lawmakers are “big boys and big girls” who should be able to withstand criticism from their constituents, he didn’t mention that the law would apply to anyone accused of harassment, not just instances that target elected officials. And the portion that would provide a defense of harassment aimed at government officials would apply to unelected employees, as well, including election workers who have faced increased criticism since President Donald Trump claimed without evidence that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him.
Kolodin, who is an attorney, was admonished and put on probation by the Arizona State Bar in 2023 for his involvement in cases challenging the results of the 2020 presidential election, including the infamous “kraken” lawsuit that made implausible and evidence-free claims of massive election fraud.
In an emailed statement about her office’s opposition to House Bill 2043, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, a Republican, said it was an example of Kolodin’s “soft on crime agenda.”
“HB 2043 is an overly broad, poorly thought-out bill that would make it more difficult to prosecute harassment cases and protect victims, particularly in domestic violence situations,” Mitchell wrote. “By narrowing the legal standard of harassment to focus solely on the offender’s intent, it neglects victims and the impact on them.”
Rep. Patty Contreras, D-Phoenix, also criticized the proposal on Monday, saying that government employees were bound to take a certain amount of criticism, but there had to be a limit.
As a former municipal employee who ran adult sports leagues, Contreras said she didn’t want to subject workers in similar positions to unlimited harassment from people who disagreed with referee calls, for example.
While several advocacy groups, including the Arizona National Organization for Women, the League of Arizona Cities and Towns and the Arizona Association of Counties, officially oppose Kolodin’s bill, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona and Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice support it.
During a Jan. 22 House Judiciary Committee meeting, AACJ lobbyist Armando Nava told lawmakers that the organization supported the bill because it narrows language that currently “opens so many people up to prosecution that they might not know is coming.”
Kolodin’s proposal, Nava said, would prevent prosecution of people who are merely offended by an accused harasser’s actions and prevent a chilling effect on criticism of public officials.
But Dianne Post, the lobbyist for Arizona NOW, told the Arizona Mirror in an email that the legislation could endanger both victims of domestic abuse and government workers by giving abusers an easy out that their behavior was merely criticism protected by the First Amendment.
“In domestic violence cases, the abuser always says they never INTENDED to harass,” Post wrote. “They just wanted to talk to her, or send her flowers to apologize, or text her to invite her to dinner or some such nonsense when the victim and those of us who are aware know full well the intent is to express a threat. But the clueless will say how can a flower be a threat? Easy. They are meant for your grave.”
The Arizona Association of Counties opposes the bill because it’s too vague and potentially allows criticism of government employees for any reason, even those unrelated to their job, Executive Director Jen Marson told the Mirror in an email.
“Public employees, like election employees or cafeteria workers, should not be subjected to unchecked harassment simply because they work in public roles,” Marson wrote.
As he watched the votes come in on Monday, Kolodin chastised his colleagues in the House for voting against his bill.
“It is very sad to see that there is opposition to this very simple and basic First Amendment concept,” he said.
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.