Arizona Intends To Ask Federal Judge Monday That It Be Allowed To Immediately Drop Insurance Benefits For Same Sex Partners Of State Employees

Sunday, the Arizona Daily Sun reports that attorneys for the state will ask a federal court Monday to allow it to stop providing insurance benefits for the partners of same sex employees, Assistant Attorney General Charles Grube contending that the United States District Judge John Sedwick erred when issuing an injunction in 2010 barring the state from amending its benefits package. That ruling requires Arizona continue to fund coverage until there is a final ruling, a process which could take years to complete. State legislators voted to end the benefits as a means of saving money. Grube said that, in deciding whether to issue an injunction, Sedwick was required to consider not only the claims of harm to the people losing the benefits but also the harm to the state of being required to maintain them. But Grube said Sedwick was "explicitly dismissive" of evidence presented by the state about the cost burden on taxpayers of continuing to provide coverage. Grube said Sedwick afforded much credibility to what he said are little more than unproven allegations by those challenging the law, and that Sedwick did more than ignore the state’s evidence of cost; he contends the judge improperly relied on “unsupported allegations” by contending the law is somehow discriminatory. Arizona provides benefits to the dependents of its state and university employees. But prior to 2008, that did not include the domestic partners of its single workers. That year, at the request of then-Governor Janet Napolitano, the Department of Administration administratively altered the rules to redefine who is a dependent. Napolitano, a Democrat, quit in early 2009 to become Homeland Security chief in the Obama administration, elevating Republican Jan Brewer to governor. And that paved the way for the Republican controlled Legislature to approve a provision in the state budget limiting who is entitled to dependent coverage -- and specifically excluding the partners of unmarried employees, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Lambda Legal filed suit on behalf of gay workers, saying they have no option of getting benefits because the Arizona Constitution forbids them from marrying. In his ruling last year, Sedwick said the change is discriminatory because it makes benefits available "on terms that are a legal impossibility for gay and lesbian couples. As a result, (the law) denies lesbian and gay state employees in qualifying domestic partnership a valuable form of compensation on the basis of sexual orientation."