Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has asked a Maricopa County judge to define exactly what in a paycheck is actually a benefit.

Writing on behalf of Brnovich, Assistant Attorney General Rusty Crandell submitted an argument attempting to preserve a 2016 Republican measure blocking local governments from mandating how private businesses compensate employees beyond the standard paycheck.

Democrat lawmakers, the chief challengers to the measure, take issue with Republicans changing the 2006 voter approved minimum-wage law to strictly include only salaries paid to workers and classify everything else as “non-wage compensation.”  Ultimately, that would exclude maternity, sick and vacation pay, sales commissions, and pension contributions from protection under the 2006 law.

Attorney Jim Barton represents the challengers and said the voters’ intended to protect those benefits when they passed the 2006 minimum-wage law.  He went on to claim voters reinforced their intent passing Proposition 206 last November, which once again raised the minimum wage and, for the first time ever, mandated paid sick leave.

Crandell insisted the voters did not mean to include fringe benefits.  He referred to the measure’s title alone, “Raise the Minimum Wage for Working Arizonans Act,” and claimed it indicated voters meant wages and nothing more.

The fight is not over, Barton has pointed out the Arizona Constitution forbids lawmakers alter voter-approved laws unless the measure “furthers the purpose” of the original law.

If a court were to decide the Republican measure furthers the 2006 initiatives’ purpose, a change to an initiative requires a three-fourths vote from both the House and Senate, which the measure did not receive on either side.