The COVID Project
The record
- Jurisdiction
- Pima County, Arizona (with State of Arizona, Attorney General) · Phoenix and Tucson · Arizona
- Level
- County
- Authority
- A.R.S. 36-183.02 and Title 36, ch. 1, art. 4 (Pima County); A.R.S. 26-307 and EO 2020-40 (State authorization); A.R.S. 41-193(A)(7) (opinion)
- Issued
- 2020-06-19 June 19, 2020
- Effective
- 2020-06-19 (Resolution 2020-49); 2020-12-04 (Resolution 2020-96, updating the mandate) (read as 2020-06-19)
- End
- Pima County bulletin of Mar. 30, 2021: Resolution 2020-96 'is still in effect' notwithstanding EO 2021-06; repeal date not verified (read as 2021-03-30)
- In force
- June 19, 2020 to Mar. 30, 2021
- Quarters
- 2020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q2
2020 Q22020 Q32020 Q42021 Q12021 Q22021 Q3
- Limitation types
- Face-covering requirementWorkplace rules
- Addressees
- all persons five years and older in Pima County, including incorporated areas
- businesses
- Functions reached
- SF public places and businesses in Pima County (patron masks)
- CB
- WF
- Collection
- Phoenix and Tucson MET-PHX
Operative words
On June 19, 2020, Pima County adopted Resolution 2020-49, requiring, among other things, that when a person not exempted by the resolution 'is in a public place and cannot easily maintain a continuous distance of at least six feet from all other persons[,]' the person 'must wear a face covering.' This order was incorporated into Resolution 2020-96, adopted on December 4, 2020, which updated the previously adopted face-covering mandate.... [EO 2021-06:] Pursuant to A.R.S. 26-307, no county, city or town may make or issue any order, rule or regulation that conflicts with or is in addition to the policy, directives or intent of this or any other Executive Order... This includes but is not limited to mandated use of face coverings. Any city, town or county that has a rule, regulation or ordinance not in place as of March 11, 2020 that is in conflict with the provisions of this order shall not be enforced. Political [subdivisions] maintain the right to set and enforce mitigation policies in their own government buildings and on public transportation, including, but not limited to, requiring face coverings.... this informal opinion concludes that it is unlikely Pima County Resolution 2020-96 is unenforceable due to conflict with Executive Order 2021-06.
Enforcement
Resolution 2020-49 precluded any penalty, including any civil penalty (Tucson Ordinance 11766 recital); Tucson supplied the civil penalty within the City
Notes
Husch Blackwell (Ex. MET-PHX-036): Resolution passed June 19, 2020, ages five and older, exempting restaurant patrons and outdoor exercisers, no expiration date. Footnote 1 of the opinion records the pending curfew litigation, Next Level Arcade Tucson, LLC v. Pima County, 2 CA-CV 2021-0034 (Ariz. Ct. App.). the opinion is read in full (verified_primary as a State instrument).
Retrieval noteRequested Mar. 30, 2021 by Sen. Ugenti-Rita, Sen. Leach and Rep. Roberts. AZ Mirror Apr. 7, 2021 (Ex. MET-PHX-034) reports Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson kept their mandates after EO 2021-06.