Prop 311 increases payouts for first responders who die in the line of duty in Arizona

But the measure isn’t just about money; it’s also about politics. Proponents are touting it as a way for Arizona voters to send a signal of support to police after years of growing public concern that cops are abusing the power of their badge.

And the estimated $1 million annual cost of the new benefit, which was put on the House ballot, will be paid by everyone convicted of a crime in Arizona in the form of a new $20 surcharge, giving most voters the opportunity to support higher payments without taking on an additional burden themselves.

The measure also toughens penalties for attacks on police officers, firefighters and other emergency workers and provides for longer prison sentences. Lawmakers could have easily done this without voters’ approval.

Last year, lawmakers decided to put the bill, called the Back the Blue Act, before voters. It received bipartisan support in the state House of Representatives but only Republican support in the Senate. Police unions and advocates had previously lobbied for two years.

The new payments come on top of state benefits that already replace a deceased civil servant’s salary for the surviving spouse and a smaller amount for their children, including while they are studying. They also receive subsidized state health insurance.

And survivors receive a federal cash benefit of more than $437,000, as well as federal subsidies for up to four years of college for their children. Local and state agencies also offer basic life insurance and the option to purchase supplemental insurance.

Police unions and representatives of legal systems told parliamentarians that the new benefit was necessary to attract police officers, as security agencies struggle to fill their positions despite decent middle-class salaries and pensions that are far higher than those in the private sector.

However, supporters argued that there was also a political reason to put the issue before voters.

Proposition 311 emerged in the wake of nationwide backlash and protests against police misconduct following the killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer in 2020. Proponents testified before the House that Arizona voters needed a way to show they disagreed with protesters and supported the police, and the new death benefit was one way for them to do so.

Sydney Hay, a lobbyist for the Back the Blue Committee, testified that the attacks and shootings of police officers, firefighters and paramedics in Arizona showed that the measure was necessary, if only for voters to show support for public safety workers.

“So this bill is being put to a vote to show that the citizens of Arizona have the ability to change the mood across the country, that the people of this country support law enforcement, that we support our first responders and that we stand with police officers,” Hay told a House committee last year.

Opposition came from Democrats, who refused to cover the new costs by imposing new fees on convicted felons. The state already imposes fees and surcharges that can nearly double the fines imposed by courts to fund a variety of state programs.

An earlier version of the proposal, rejected by Parliament in 2022, would have funded a similarly expanded death benefit by imposing new fees not only on criminal convictions but also on civil violations such as speeding, which proved politically unacceptable. The revised 2023 version, which will go before voters in November, does not apply to civil violations.

Former Rep. Athena Salmon (D-Tempe) complained about the funding source in a Democratic Caucus meeting, saying that imposing higher fines and fees on people with typically lower incomes would exacerbate already existing inequities.

“Across the country, we’re seeing a movement in states and even in Congress to eliminate fees because they disproportionately burden low-income earners,” Salman said. “This legislation goes in the exact opposite direction by imposing fees to fund that.”

She pointed out that legislative analysts found that an average of four public safety workers lose their lives each year in Arizona and said there are other ways to fund the program.

Democratic Senator from Phoenix State Lela Alston also opposed this source of funding, but stressed that she has always supported death benefits.

“I have one problem with this bill, and that is that it creates another financial penalty that is disproportionate to certain members of our population,” she said during the Senate vote last year. “And to me, a better option would be if we paid that death benefit directly out of the general fund to the family of the firefighter or police officer who was killed and not impose another financial penalty in our legal system.”

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona also opposed the measure because of its funding source.

A review of Proposition 311 by House budget analysts found that 137,000 people would have to pay the additional $20 per year fee to fund the new benefit. However, only half will actually pay that fee, which would generate annual revenue of $1.4 million. These figures are based on state jurisdictional conviction information and current revenue from fines, fees and surcharges levied against people convicted of misdemeanors and felonies.

The estimated $1 million in annual payouts expected by analysts are based on an average of four deaths per year that the state’s public safety retirement system paid out for people who died in the line of duty between 2018 and 2020. Not all of those would be covered by the new measure because a death must be the result of a criminal act by another person.

Over the past two decades, Arizona lawmakers and voters have added fees and surcharges to civil and criminal convictions, so many that in many cases the underlying fine has been more than doubled. A $100 fine, for example, can end up costing $224 when the additional fees, surcharges and charges are added.

According to the latest report from the Legislature’s budget analysts, the state collected nearly $76 million in additional fees and surcharges in 2018. The additional payments are used to fund police, victim services, various health funds and the state’s Clean Elections Fund, which provides public funds to candidates who do not accept donations from special interests, among other things.

Under Proposition 311, lawmakers would be allowed to spend money on training and equipping police officers or increasing benefits for injured first responders if the fund used to collect the new $20 fee grows above $2 million.

There appears to be no organized opposition to the measure. The Back the Blue Committee, led by former Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio, has raised nearly $132,000 to fund a campaign in support of Proposition 311, according to its campaign finance filings. About $100,000 was still available as of mid-July.

The vast majority of contributions came from the Liberty Initiative Fund, based in Virginia.

The organization’s website states that its goal is to “mobilize Americans to regain control of government by helping them take the initiative to hold referendums or launch recall elections to strengthen our freedoms, particularly by bringing bills to a vote at the state and local levels.”

She is known for her support of term limits votes and changes to state pensions. She also provided funding for an unsuccessful attempt to reform Tucson’s employee pension system in 2013.