Coronavirus

Arizona Governor Bans Municipal 'Vaccination Passport' Mandates

Executive order leaves it to individual businesses, not the government.

|

Arizona's Republican Gov. Doug Ducey has ordered local governments to back off of any plans that would force citizens to carry around "vaccination passports," instead leaving it to local businesses to determine their own best practices.

On Monday, Ducey released an executive order stating that "no state agency, county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state" shall adopt any regulations or pass any ordinances that require an individual to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination in order to enter a business or facility or as a condition of receiving service.

The order only forbids governments within the state from demanding vaccine passports and does not forbid private businesses from setting their own guidelines. It specifically makes it clear that health care institutions and schools can still demand vaccination records in compliance with existing state law. This is by design. In explaining the order, Ducey made it clear he wants private businesses to decide for themselves.

"The residents of our state should not be required by the government to share their private medical information," Ducey said in a prepared statement. "While we strongly recommend all Arizonans get the COVID-19 vaccine, it's not mandated in our state—and it never will be. Vaccination is up to each individual, not the government."

This is the exact right needle to thread. Governments shouldn't be forcing businesses to intrude on a customer's privacy in order to provide goods and services. At the same time, each business should be empowered to decide the level of risk and exposure it wants to take on. And then, ultimately, customers will make their own decisions about whether they'll visit certain shops on the basis of whichever policies have been put into place. To twist around a comparison, bakers shouldn't be forced to bake wedding cakes for people who refuse to be vaccinated. Bakers also shouldn't be forced to deny wedding cakes to these people.

Ducey's order does raise a question about his executive authority: Does the governor have the power to tell local cities which ordinances they're allowed to pass? Wouldn't that fall under the power of state lawmakers?

In his executive order, Ducey is claiming this authority under the emergency powers granted to him due to the pandemic. It gives his office wide latitude and, while cities and counties may establish their own emergency rules and regulations, they "shall not be inconsistent with orders, rules and regulations promulgated by the governor."

But we're increasingly seeing state lawmakers worry about the amount of power governors seize for themselves by declaring emergencies, and Arizona is no different. Some lawmakers in Arizona are attempting to terminate Ducey's emergency orders and pass a law that would give them the power to overrule his mandates with a majority vote.

NEXT: Why Are CBD Cocktails Still Prohibited in California?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Individuals are capable of achieving great things and making good decisions all by their lonesome. Amazing what we can do if the government gets out of the way.

      1. FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

      2. FOR USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular DF office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..VISIT HERE

    1. I agree. Yet what have we mostly seen from governors and mayors? Arbitrary lockdowns that economically harm people, in the name of protecting them, and mostly from statist Democrats. Meanwhile, we seldom hear a “conservative” GOP politician defend individual and property rights, where business owners decide what Covid safety policies they will implement, with the assistance of the government to defend their rights of association, which includes the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason (good or bad IMHO, because otherwise the government will second guess your reasoning and prosecute you for your faulty – to them – reasoning).

      Trump, as part of his superpower to get his political opponents to reveal themselves, read the Constitution and allowed the States to implement their own policies rather than a federal forced policy. The Democrats like Cuomo, Whitmer, and Pelosi, and Republicans like Ducey and DeSantis, did reveal themselves.

  2. “… customers will make their own decisions about whether they’ll visit certain shops on the basis of whichever policies have been put into place.”

    WHAT??? Taking personal responsibility? What a concept!!

    1. Its harder to push a Stone Uphill than allow it to slide down of its own volition aided by gravity.

      1. Sisyphus? Not getting the correlation….. or is it just too early in the morning for me?

        1. personal responsibility tames much:

          personal effort
          sacrifice
          work
          Not falling for Group Think

          Thus is much work involved. As pushing a stone up hill

  3. Bakers should not be forced to make cakes for those who are unvaccinated provided that:

    (1) the baker is not a publicly traded enterprise;

    (2) the baker is not a multi-national enterprise;

    (3) the baker does not receive subsidies from any governmental concern;

    (4) the baker does not receive more than 10% of its gross revenues from the public sector;

    (5) the baker does not conduct any business with a pharmaceutical company that derives income from the sale of vaccines;

    (6) the baker does not conduct any business with a pharmaceutical company that lobbies for immunity from liability for any injuries caused by the sale of pharmaceutical products;

    (7) the baker is not a participant any public / private partnerships; and

    (8) the baker does not aid, assist, or otherwise collaborate with the public sector in the monitoring, surveillance, and tracking of the general public.

    1. (9) The baker is fully HIPPA compliant.

    2. Baker puts Ex Lax in gay wedding cake.

      Problem solved. Have a good laugh and gurantee they wont be back for more Cakes.

      Baker makes cake, delivers it and at last minute,, drops it on the gravel in the parking lot. Everyone that matters has a good laugh.

      “Sorry, the oven broke, cant deliver the cake.

      The Baker, exhibiting more intelligence than the radical Politicker can come out on top.

      Cant do so by grovelling in the mud with them.

      They like mud holes.

      1. I like your creative approaches to this problem of forced association daveca, though if I were in the baker’s position I wouldn’t use any of them, since I don’t see anything immoral about selling cakes to anyone. On the other hand, I don’t want to do business with people in the business of oppressing others, such as those running slave labor camps, or engaging in immoral war against others.

        As for bigots, I’d sell to them, because after awhile I’d hope my non-bigotry will rub off on them. I don’t see bigotry (including refusing to do business with someone) as a crime but instead as an unfortunate belief. As thoughts are not actions and if the bigot doesn’t use force against those they hate, there’s no harm to others. Democrats and liberals have turned on this, now claiming speech that offends is harmful, and gives the “victim” of that speech the right to defend themselves with violence, including the government violence of arresting/fining people for it, or usually putting a stop to it before the speech ever happens.

  4. business will require passports for fear of being sued. Making business require vac passports is no different than forcing every one to have a vac passport.
    note will doctors no longer see people who haven’t been vaccinated? while still aborting post term babies because mama don’t want to raise no kids

    1. The business is more likely to get sued for “requiring” customers to take an unapproved, experimental vaccine.
      Remember, ALL of the vaccines now administered are under an EMERGENCY approval. Until a proper long term study has been conducted and documented, and fully approved by the FDA for general (non-emergency) use, those shots are still considered experimental.
      And to the extent they are ‘partnering’ with a non-HIPPA compliant, non-medical company (IBM, Mastercard etc), they are in violation of federal laws.

  5. Ducey has been very good to Arizona the last few months. He tended to falter in face of media prior. Good to see.

  6. Ohhh, lots of myth and fantasy and un Constitutional stuff here to analyze:

    “Arizona’s Republican Gov. Doug Ducey has ordered local governments to back off of any plans that would force citizens to carry around “vaccination passports,”

    Governor is a State Official, Constitutional.

    CITIES ARE NEITHER. Cities are NOT Government. They are CORPORATIONS.

    No one is a Citizen of a City. Nor the US. We are Citizens of States.

    This aint Ancient Greece- we do nto have City-States no matter how desperate the Radical New Age NWO Left are to impose that.

    And the BS about “private business”

    Businesses OPEN to the PUBLIC are NOT PRIVATE.

    This is a Left Wing Internet Meme…Businesses are Incorporations like Cities and Counties and are subject to control by the State.

    They are NOT Government. leave the Commie NGO baloney for the Useless Nations…

    1. Too often, libertarians fall for the proposition that the property rights of the party who owns or otherwise has control over commercial space are paramount to the property rights of business invitees.

      Why shouldn’t the bodily integrity rights of a customer prevail over the commercial tenants’ rights to exclude the customer because he won’t don a diaper rag or demonstrate that he has been injected by an experimental biological agent?

      1. “Why shouldn’t the bodily integrity rights of a customer prevail over the commercial tenants’ rights to exclude the customer because he won’t don a diaper rag or demonstrate that he has been injected by an experimental biological agent?”

        Because 1) the business owner has a right, actually, a duty, under the law, (even if not particularly logical), to protect the health of him/herself and the employees? And 2) Private property rights.

        I favor the second option.

        1. Private property rights of the commercial owner / lessee are superior to the private property rights of the business invitee?

          Why?

          1. Just as the private property rights of a homeowner take precedent over that of an invited visitor.

            1. wrong. Falecomparison.

              Corporations arenot Natural Citizens and do not have Rights.

              Theyare fictions of Law under co trol of the State.

              False Meme Fail! Lose 2 turns!

              1. Corporations are a group of people. Do they lose their rights when they form an entity together? Also that assumes no business is a sole proprietor. If a sole proprietor can set their terms because they have natural rights per your definition, how come 2 or more people can not come to agreement for the terms of entry into their business?

                1. + Beat me to it.

            2. Not much of an argument there.

              You fail to distinguish between a home owner and a commercial enterprise that, by its very existence, seeks business invitees. The homeowner is not a publicly traded enterprise and he or she is not a multinational corporation and does not hold itself out as a commercial enterprise.

              One’s right to respiratory freedom is not forfeited because one wants to enter a commercial enterprise.

              Implicit in your position is that the commercial enterprise property rights are absolute solely upon the basis that it owns or leases the commercial property in question.

              Please produce a reasoned analysis as to why the business patron’s rights of bodily integrity must be subordinate to the property rights of the commercial enterprise, particularly a commercial enterprise that takes subsidies from the state and / or has any of the characteristics I set forth above.

              1. If you want to claim “respiratory rights,” well, then you will have to have that recognized as a right under the law which can be enforced against a private business. Then you will have prove to a court that a mask requirement somehow violates that right.

                As far as someone requiring certain apparel, well, I guess a business owner could just claim is as part of their “dress code,” like shoes, or a tie, or “no tank tops or hats permitted.”

              2. As far as your “list,” I don’t find it applicable. If the government was part owner of the business, well, that could change things. Many farmers receive subsidies. Over 90% of farms are privately owned by individuals or family corporations. This does not make the government a co-owner or co-operator.

                1. You’re forgetting the part where this Covid thing is a huge racket with seriously twisted monetary incentives. Arguing who’s rights take precedence based on a total fabrication created by government in order to enable the largest wealth transfer this country has ever seen is stupid.

                2. And I’m not trying to be snarky; your posts are usually excellent. It just seems insane to argue natural rights inside the framework of a total lie perpetuated by the state.

                  1. I will not disagree with your premise that 90% of covid restrictions are a sham, or, as you say, a “lie.” I was against mandatory “masks” for businesses shortly after this BS started, preferring to leave it, generally, up to the customers and the business owners. And, yes, I was considering broader implications. The recent, and ludicrous, statement by Gov Whitmer of Michigan sort of forces the issue.

              3. Jefferson’s Ghost fails to make those distinctions because they are irrelevant. Neither being publicly traded, being a multinational corporation nor holding oneself out as a commercial enterprise diminishes ones private property rights at all. They are the same whether you are an individual homeowner or a multinational.

                You’re asking for “a reasoned analysis” why the business patron’s rights of bodily integrity must be subordinate to the property rights of the commercial enterprise but that’s a false premise. The business patron’s rights of bodily integrity are not subordinate – they are peer-level. The business patron has the right to go to some other seller – just like the home invitee has the option to turn down the invitation and go to someone else’s party instead.
                – Yes, there are some interesting issues when the seller is a monopoly. That’s one of the reasons we limit and/or regulate monopolies differently than competitive businesses.
                – Yes, there are some interesting issues when all sellers impose identical restrictions. That’s one of the reasons we prosecute and/or regulate cartels.

                1. To simply dismiss all of the factors as irrelevant without any substantive argument in support thereof, is insufficient to carry the day.

                  1. To claim that they are relevant without any substantive argument in support thereof is even less sufficient. They are irrelevant because there is no distinction in law to make them relevant. Property rights are the same no matter who is the owner.

                    1. In practice, not so much. Witness the mass shutdowns of mom & pop enterprises, but no shutdown of Amazon, Target, and Walmart. In addition, how about the distinction between “essential” and “non-essential” businesses.

                    2. Clearly, size affects profitability and the resources necessary to ride out business disruptions. Economies of scale are an economic reality. They are, however, irrelevant to the concept of property rights.

                      Abuse by government of the distinction between “essential” and “non-essential” is also an important topic that has no connection to the idea of property rights. Some big companies were irrationally deemed non-essential while some small companies were irrationally deemed essential and vice versa.

                      You still haven’t made your case that size or organizational structure have anything to do with property rights.

          2. Because the commercial owner can set the rules for their operation. The invitee can either choose to abide by those rules or not enter – that is their right, nothing more nothing less.

      2. Having studied the Libertarian Handbook in detail, they are just Democrat Leftists whose platform is Corporate Welfare instead of Individual Welfare.

        And I paid for their subversive literature!

        1. Interesting. I have identified as a libertarian, and been a member of the Libertarian Party, for over 40 years. I have yet to see a “handbook.” Perhaps you are referring to the Libertarian Party Platform?

          https://www.lp.org/platform/

          Certainly, not all libertarians see eye-to-eye on all issues, but the platform provides, at least, a glimpse into the general thinking. As for myself, the older I get, the more I lean towards some form of minarchism.

    2. CITIES ARE NEITHER. Cities are NOT Government. They are CORPORATIONS.

      Depends on what you think government is.

      If it is lines drawn on a map by a different government entity (congress or king) – and then imposed/managed downward, well then I guess the Dillon Rule holds and cities themselves should only exist at the sufferance of states (through the states legislature not governor).

      If it is an institutional expression of self-governance, then the most valid government is the one closest to the individual – and that is the muni or other home-rule Cooley doctrine entity

    3. Not enough RANDOM capitalization.

      Also, you are wrong.

    4. re: “Cities are NOT Government.”

      No. Unambiguously, no. Legally, cities are subordinate arms of the state government. While we talk about cities “incorporating”, they have nothing to do with the legal structure of corporations.

      In short, cities ARE government and are subject to the constraints thereof.

      By the way, you are a citizen both of your state and of the US. That’s what dual-sovereignty means. (It is a bit more ambiguous whether you can be a “citizen” of a city rather than just a “resident” but there’s not a meaningful distinction under tax or any other law.)

      Finally, businesses “open to the public” are most definitely still private entities. You are confusing “place of public accommodation” (a very narrow set of industries) with constitutional structure (where “public” means arm of the government and “private” means everything else).

  7. Your post has been so helpful because it was clear and concise writing made it easy to understand. Thank you! https://routerlogin.pro

  8. How did we get here?

    13 months ago, I was standing in the TSA line at the airport and the guy in front of me was speculating about the only lady in line with a mask and whether or not she had COVID-19. I figured she didn’t because she was wearing an N-95 mask with a valve in it, which wouldn’t protect anyone from her. But that guy’s fear kind of rippled through the line and people were glaring at this lady in full display of their ignorance.

    Today Democrats in Michigan are attempting to make emergency health mandates permanent. Today a Republican from Arizona is saying that the government can’t require medical clearance to be in public, but it’s fine if private businesses do. Was one questionable pandemic all it took for Americans to accept that freedom of travel and freedom of association are not natural rights? Is a majority of the country really ready to hold a healthy man and my healthy children and my healthy grandchildren responsible for the frail health of others?

    Because the message is clear: I am unvaccinated; I am unclean; I deserve to be muzzled; I deserve to be excluded.

    Right now masks are being used to exclude shoppers. How long before a vaccine is used to exclude employees? How long before it is mandatory?

    1. Violence is the only solution

    2. Your ilk lost your credibility. You all have been lying with every word out of your mouth for a year now. You are no more relevant than a barking dog. That is the consequence of lying through your teeth about every damn thing related to this disease.

      I live in one of those places that risks this whole perpetual mandate shit. I will oppose it for my reasons – and with my personal ‘return to normal’ objectives – eg a participatory choir like this.

      Your reasons will remain completely irrelevant unless you happen to command some relevant voice in the place where you live. And your philosophical/ideological ‘help’ to return to normal is not wanted. Your ilk is poison to all rational discussion of anything.

      1. Fucker, you’ve been enabling this bullshit for the last year with your panic porn. A 5% hospitalization rate and 0.7% asymptomatic spread rate, with a 90% reduction in hospitalizations with budesonide that could have been implemented MONTHS ago, yet here we are because Gen-Xers and Millennials are bunch of soft-ass bitches who need every single potential risk in their lives mitigated, thanks to the media admittedly pimping a doomer narrative.

        Fuck off with your self-righteous bullshit.

        1. Budesonide? Too fucking late asshole. You lost your credibility long before April 9 2021 when that Lancet article re budesonide seems to have sparked the interest of whatever clown you listen to (you sure as fuck didn’t find that article on your own). There have been plenty of medical interventions that have been tried out since prob Feb last year. some worked, some didn’t. But ALL entirely irrelevant to the meme you all were trying to sell all last year and even into this year.

          Maybe at this point you will try to learn about the actual disease. Bully for you. But don’t start trying to throw terms and numbers around as if you are actually interested in any reality about the disease now. Because you’re not. And since you’ve lost your credibility and your honesty (and even your empathy or whatever emotion indicates you’re not just some fucking nihilist) – you all are dishonorable. That dishonor will not change. Maybe you clowns can move on to some other issue where you haven’t screwed the pooch. Good luck with that.

          1. Lol. You were pushing models a d rates so much higher than reality fuckwit. Telling others to learn? Lol.

          2. Budesonide? Too fucking late asshole. You lost your credibility long before April 9 2021 when that Lancet article re budesonide seems to have sparked the interest of whatever clown you listen to (you sure as fuck didn’t find that article on your own).

            Hey fuckface, this has been reported on since at least fucking JULY, and the doctor who reported the results was called a quack at the time. The study in Australia had to be stopped halfway through and the control group put on the treatment because they couldn’t ethically keep sick people off something with that level of success rate.

            But no, you fuckheads had to have your lockdowns and your masks. Look at the great fucking results of that. That’s on you and your ilk, not us.

            1. Here’s the Lancet article. Maybe you should read the actual fucking article rather than just parrot some clown’s talking point. The study STARTED in July. With a hypothesis based exactly on the method of reasoning popularized by Sherlock Holmes’ stories (which was called deductive reasoning but is actually abductive reasoning). That is not the basis for actual treatment of anything but is a great basis for a hypothesis and a detective novel.

              The study stopped adding participants in DECEMBER not because it was magic but because statistically it was going to differ from the placebo part of the study. And the study itself wrapped up in mid-January. All of which is irrelevant because that treatment was for mild cases. By December the vaccine was correctly deemed the most important means of reducing the prevalence/severity of mild cases. And since hospitals were full by then, dexamethasone (the same class of medication – glucocorticoid) was what was being used for serious cases and had been for months.

              IOW – there is really not much there there. But you conspiratorial clowns want to latch onto anything that will allow you to pretend unnamed people deliberately wanted to make this disease worse. Which is bullshit but then again everything you clowns utter or think is also bullshit.

              1. The study stopped adding participants in DECEMBER not because it was magic

                Where are the claims of magic, you asshole?

                All of which is irrelevant because that treatment was for mild cases.

                Huh, you mean catching this early on when symptoms show up can lead to better outcomes? You don’t say!

                By December the vaccine was correctly deemed the most important means of reducing the prevalence/severity of mild cases.

                Well, sure, what gets more attention–a cheap treatment that reduces hospitalizations by 90%, or a brand-new vaccine that the media needs to pimp?

                Which is bullshit but then again everything you clowns utter or think is also bullshit.

                What’s bullshit is you clowns relying on Science! to save your ass, and watching it utterly fail.

                1. Huh, you mean catching this early on when symptoms show up can lead to better outcomes?

                  no I mean managing medical treatment for many millions of cases that become merely symptomatic is far more expensive, diversionary and daunting a public health challenge when the hospitals themselves are trying to prevent the far more serious challenge of people dying. We don’t HAVE public health in this country and assholes like you were certainly not spending last year advocating for universal access to the medical system for ‘just the flu’.

                  You simply can’t stop lying and being a useful idiot for someone who has some agenda here. So who is it? Ministry Now? Richard Bartlett? Lew Rockwell? some anti-vaxxer?

            2. the doctor who reported the results was called a quack at the time.

              Well maybe that’s because he proclaimed – on the renowned medical media outlet God Reports – that God supernaturally downloaded the treatment strategy that included budesonide. The local hospital (Midland Memorial in Texas) denied that there was any clinical study that involved them. So this was entirely anecdotal – from God no less.

              don’t get me wrong. I respect his faith and I’m glad he treated this disease seriously from the start. But the reality is that anecdotes from (maybe) a dozen patients with God as the primary diagnostician were not enough to convince even you ‘just the flu’ folks to start treating patients with this. Much less the non-evangelical community outside right-wing circles.

              And the fact is that dexamethasone (a near identical medication) has been used for many months – to save lives – in hospitals and ICU units. So nothing is being hidden or suppressed here. That is merely your conspiracy mind.

        2. +1000
          – 1 for the Millennial comment, this Millennial wants nothing more then to see you old fucks keel over so you can stop leaching off me. God damn I have been paying SS since I was 11 and you greedy bastards won’t even consider a cut to make sure I might see a nickel of it before I die.

      2. 2 million dead jfree. Thats what you were predicting.

        You’ve also failed to recognize the glaring issues in the counting of covids died with vs died of metrics, preferring the latter since you think it makes you right.

        Youre a statist.

        1. You’re a lying sack of shit and you know it.

  9. Even though I decided to get vaccinated after weighing the risks either way, if vaccine passports become required I’m going to get a fake one.

    1. I got a vaccine as well, will get my second one in early May. Still deeply uncomfortable with vaccine passports. Not the least reason being that the government won’t implement it well.
      If you want to throw it in a certain type of person’s face, you can pretty easily guess this will cause disproportionate issues with certain minorities as well.

  10. Perfect because now I know which businesses to avoid.

  11. Election passports are still illegal though.

  12. Its harder to push a Stone Uphill than allow it to slide down of its own volition aided by gravity. Wood Refinishing

Please to post comments