The post House GOP offer new school voucher limits as a ballot blocker first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>House Republican leaders are willing to impose new limits on the use of school vouchers as a trade off for a more far-reaching measure proposed by education advocates.
The deal offered to the Arizona Education Association by the GOP would solidify, in law, a list of prohibited purchases under the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program.
State law already restricts spending to educational purposes like curriculum, textbooks and even educational field trips.
But extensive reporting by KPNX has found the Arizona Department of Education has been reimbursing parents for jewelry, trips to amusement parks and even lingerie. The proposal being offered by the GOP would spell out these are clearly not allowed.
House Speaker Steve Montenegro has said those reports come from “activist journalists” and claims the reports are misleading.
But the Goodyear Republican did not deny that those stories have had an impact on the public perception surrounding a state program now funding the education of more than 100,000 Arizona students at the cost of $1 billion.
What makes all that significant is that the Arizona Education Association and its allies have been circulating petitions for a new November ballot measure that would place even more stringent restrictions on ESA vouchers — including its own list of forbidden purchases.
Notably, the AEA’s measure would deny the vouchers, which run about $7,400 a year for students without special needs, to children in families making more than $150,000 a year — a restriction that Republicans have called unacceptable.
Backers need to gather more than 255,000 valid signatures by July 2 to get the measure on the November ballot. And if it was approved by voters, it would be constitutionally protected against any future efforts by any opposing GOP majority in the Legislature.
Under the terms of the deal being negotiated, the AEA would scrap its initiative. Montenegro, however, would not confirm that the fear of an unalterable, voter-approved plan drove the deal.
“As Republicans, we always want to look at every angle at protecting taxpayer dollars,” he said.
“So if there is a narrative out there that provides uncertainty to the taxpayer, we’re willing to address it,” he said. “We’re not afraid to address being accountable and making sure we are showing parents we will fight for them and we will also fight for taxpayer dollars to be protected.”
Initiative organizers have said they are confident they can gather sufficient signatures by the July 2 deadline. But a deal would end the need to continue to retain paid circulators.
And despite all the publicity about how voucher money is being spent — and questions about whether it takes away money from public schools — there is no guarantee that it will be approved by voters.
Complicating matters, another group operating under the banner of Fortify AZ is circulating its own ballot measure targeting vouchers. It has a similar list to the AEA proposal of forbidden purchases, but it lacks the income cap.
Having two measures on the ballot could lead to confusion and the possibility both could fail.
And there’s something else designed to get the AEA to go along.
As part of any deal, GOP lawmakers have promised to scrap a different ballot measure of their own that would impose new restrictions on the ability of the AEA to organize.
HCR 2040 would prohibit a school district from using public resources to support labor organizations, including the use of school facilities, paid time off for union activities and having union dues deducted from teacher paychecks. And the Senate version of the measure also would say that any organized effort by teachers to call in sick, for any reason, would result in their loss of their teaching credentials.
The GOP planned to put this on the November ballot. If a deal is made with the AEA, that would go away.
In offering to impose their own restrictions on vouchers, Republicans also are offering up some other changes to make it more attractive to the AEA.
One is to provide an additional $4.5 million to the Arizona Department of Education.
Rep. Matt Gress who chairs the House Education Committee said that would allow for hiring more staff to deal with parents, to help to process claims for purchases — and to help resolve disputes if the agency tells parents that their purchases do not qualify for reimbursement. The Phoenix Republican said that is long overdue, especially with the growth of the program.
He said in 2020 there was one staffer for each 250 students in the program. Now, he said, the ratio is one staffer to 4,200 students.
Much of that is a simple recognition that the program is not the same as when it was first enacted.
In 2012, vouchers were proposed to help parents of children with special needs that could not be met inpublic schools.
Since then there have been incremental additions, with vouchers made available groups as diverse as foster children and the children of military to those who are attending schools rated D or F.
But the real explosion came in 2022 when Republican Gov. Doug Ducey signed legislation saying any student could get a voucher. That grew the program from about 12,000 students to more than 100,000, with a $1 billion pricetag.
At least part of the reason for the sharp growth is that the change made vouchers available to students who already were in private and parochial schools with their parents picking up the tab, or they were home schooled students who now could get vouchers to pay for educational supplies.
That change also led to something else, with parents of home-schooled children taking the vouchers, spending their own money on supplies — and banking it for college.
One of the reforms offered by Republicans is to cap the amount that can be saved to no more than $24,000, with $50,000 limits for certain students with special needs. But any parent with a higher balance would be able to keep it.
The post House GOP offer new school voucher limits as a ballot blocker first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>The post Legislation to protect historic neighborhoods still draws opposition first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>An attempt to enact legislation to protect historic neighborhoods failed in the House this week, but bill supporters are working to quickly bring it back before the legislative session ends.
There were multiple bills introduced this session to enact legislation to protect historic homes. Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoneix, introduced a bill earlier this session that passed the House but didn’t get a Senate hearing. With no Senate movement on his measure, he kept the idea alive with a striker amendment on Senate Bill 1118 that rewrote the bill to be similar to his House legislation.
But the House on June 1 voted 25-30 against SB 1118. Now, Gress is motioning for the bill to be introduced later for reconsideration, but time is running out this session as budget talks are close to finalizing.
The House version of the bill originally called for an exemption for historic neighborhoods to the state’s middle housing law that went into effect at the beginning 2026. The law requires cities of a population of 75,000 or more to allow the development of middle housing options like duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and townhomes, within a mile of a city’s central business district.
The proposal has since been amended with SB 1118, which now clarifies middle housing may be developed in historic areas if the new construction is designed to be compatible with the historical character of a neighborhood.
Save Historic AZ, a group of historic neighborhood associations that have supported Gress’ bill this session, said in a June 2 news release that the bill would return next week to the House floor for another vote since some key supporters were absent and some House members who originally voted yes on the House bill flipped their votes on the Senate version.
“The opposition, sensing defeat, pulled out all stops to stall 1118 until next week,” Save Historic AZ said in its news release.
Gress also sarcastically congratulated the lobbying efforts of the Arizona Housing Coalition and the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona on the House floor when it was clear he didn’t have the votes to pass the bill. He specifically called out former Republican state Sen. Steve Kaiser, who is now a lobbyist on behalf of the housing coalition, and the homebuilders’ Vice President of Legislative Affairs Spencer Kamps, who both were sitting in the gallery to observe the House vote on the bill.
“This issue is not over,” Gress said. “We will continue to advocate for communities and neighbors and historic preservation.”
Kaiser declined to comment on Gress’ words on the floor and Kamps did not respond to a request for comment from the Arizona Capitol Times. Both their organizations have supported the state’s middle housing law and have called Gress’ bill an attempt to undermine the law.
It was a bipartisan group of lawmakers who voted against the bill, with more than half of House Republicans and 10 Democrats opposed to the measure.
Rep. Sarah Liguori, D-Phoenix, has faced some controversy from constituents in her central Phoenix district over her opposition to the idea. She was one of the 10 Democrats who voted against it.
She called for cities to enact their own local policy to apply the state’s middle housing law to extend further than just a central business district so more neighborhoods could see middle housing options.
“Historic neighborhoods were built on middle housing principles, and I think that more neighborhoods and more accessibility with housing types is what we as a body should be doing for Arizonans — not retracting backwards on it,” Liguori said.
Rep. Kevin Volk, D-Tucson, said he saw Gress’ bill as an attempt to protect Phoenix historic neighborhoods since there are several within the city’s central business district. He also said expanding the middle housing law to cover the entire city would drastically increase the number of properties eligible for middle housing, although he said he was interested in a bill that more broadly protects historic buildings.
Rep. Teresa Martinez, R-Casa Grande, also voted against the bill and said she was bothered that it could give residents of historic homes different rights than non historic neighborhood residents, although she said she was open to working on the bill in the future.
“The rule for thee is not the rule for me and I hate that kind of attitude,” Martinez said.
The post Legislation to protect historic neighborhoods still draws opposition first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>The post Proposed ballot measures would expand size of Legislature, shorten session first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>A Republican lawmaker wants to ask voters this November if 30 more members should be added to the Arizona House of Representatives.
The House Government Committee on March 25 passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 1022 5-2, from Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler.
SCR 1022 would increase the number of House seats by 30, increasing the total number of seats to 90 members and giving each of the state’s 30 legislative districts three House seats.
The measure passed 5-2, although it wouldn’t take effect until 2043 if it makes it to the ballot and voters pass it.
Arizona formerly had 80 House members and 28 Senate members, but a 1964 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that state legislative districts must have roughly an equal population made the state’s legislative district map unconstitutional. The state went to 60 House members for the following election and it’s been unchanged since.
The average state House size in the country is 110 members.
“Smaller constituencies are more manageable,” Mesnard said. “The smaller your constituency, the less money influence comes into play — even party influence comes into play.”
Arizona has one of the smallest House rosters in the country. Only Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii and Nevada have fewer state House members. In Arizona, each House member represents the second-most people in the country at about 250,000 each, while California state lawmakers represent more people in their districts.
As a legislator in the swing Chandler district of Legislative District 13, Mesnard said it’s more useful for him to raise money for digital advertising to reach more people than it is for him to knock on doors and let residents get to know him face-to-face.
Many rural districts in the state are also very large. Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, pointed out that his Legislative District 7 is larger than several U.S. states in the eastern part of the country. LD7 covers Coconino, Gila, Navajo and Pinal counties and is about 35,000 square miles. It is the largest district in Arizona and the second-largest in the U.S.
Many legislators in large Arizona districts find themselves with long drives to get from one end of their district to the other. Rep. John Gillette, R-Kingman, said it takes him four hours to get to the northern part of Legislative District 30 of northwest Arizona from his home and three hours to get to the southern part of the district. LD30 covers La Paz County and parts of Mohave County, Yavapai County and Mohave County.
“I bought a new truck about five years ago. I have over 200,000 miles on that truck and I’m looking for a buyer,” Blackman said.
Rep. Aaron Marquez, D-Phoenix, said he prefers dividing each House district to keep the 60 members of the House, but decreasing the number of people each member represents. Under that approach, “single-shotting” strategies in competitive legislative districts would end, since members wouldn’t share districts.
“I think that’s also better for democracy,” Marquez said.
More members would require more desks on the House floor and more offices in the building. Mesnard, a former speaker of the House, said he believes the current building could fit 30 more members, although it would be a little “cozier.”
With an effective date in 2043, lawmakers would have nearly two decades to determine whether the buildings need renovations and how to accommodate 30 additional members. Lawmakers also receive a base salary of $24,000 annually, so it would cost the state $720,000 to pay 30 additional member salaries, not including travel expenses and per diem payments or anticipated increases in staff sizes.
The Government Committee also passed another Mesnard measure that would move the Legislature’s opening day from the second Monday of January to the fourth Monday of January. That measure, Senate Concurrent Resolution 1025, also passed 5-2.
Mesnard said he thinks a later start date would be better for staff after the holiday break. He also believes it would give lawmakers more time to file bills and actually spend time in initial committee meetings hearing bills.
Currently, most committees spend the first week of session either not meeting or listening to presentations from state agencies or other groups.
“There’s like not a whole lot that’s happening down here, if we’re going to be honest. Lots of presentations in committees that may or may not be interesting to just occupy time,” Mesnard said.
Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, D-Tucson, said she preferred the earlier start because it helps lawmakers outside of Maricopa County get more time to gather signatures and cosponsors on their bills before the bill filing deadline.
“It is hard to get here and to get signatures in the offseason,” Stahl Hamilton said.
Rep. Justin Wilmeth is sponsoring House Concurrent Resolution 2025, which would force the Legislature to end their yearly session by April 30. Lawmakers haven’t adjourned sine die in April since the 2015 legislative session.
Mesnard said his and Wilmeth’s measures should be consolidated into a single measure if they both have enough lawmaker support to get to the ballot. He was not aware of Wilmeth’s measure when he introduced his measure.
Marquez said he would be concerned about consolidating the measures. It would only give lawmakers 14 weeks to do the people’s business and pass a state budget, unless the governor calls a special session.
“We actually need more time, and maybe more breaks built around holidays,” Marquez said.
Mesnard said he thinks lawmakers could do their business if there was a deadline of April 30, with the session starting two weeks later. He said that even if the session were longer or had a firm end date, he still thinks lawmakers should start the session in late January.
The post Proposed ballot measures would expand size of Legislature, shorten session first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>The post Legislation to permanently hold primary elections in July will face early debate first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>Just as in 2024, one of the first issues lawmakers must tackle in the upcoming legislative session will be the state’s primary election date.
Arizona did move its primary election date from the first week of August to the final week of July in 2024, but that was a temporary measure. Now, with another upcoming midterm election, lawmakers will attempt to move the state’s primary election date to July permanently.
The 2024 law resulted from the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022, which changed the procedure for the counting of electoral votes.
Under those changes, election officials across the state worry that they could miss federal deadlines to submit election results if a recount is triggered. A recount is required if the race is within one-half of a percent, instead of one-tenth of a percent, which was the requirement before a 2022 law went into effect.
Rep. Alex Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, prefiled House Bill 2022 for the upcoming legislative session. His measure would permanently move the primary date to the last week of July while also allowing county party chairs to designate observers at voting locations.
“This is another commonsense measure that recent election cycles have demonstrated is critical to clean elections in Arizona,” Kolodin said in a statement. “The bill ensures that Arizonans will not be disenfranchised by Congress’ mistakes and clarifies that independent observers are permitted at all voting locations.”
Getting observers at voting locations has been a goal for Kolodin and other Republican members of the Legislature in recent years under Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs. In 2024, Hobbs vetoed a bill from Rep. Rachel Keshel, R-Tucson, which would have established the practice into law.
The governor wrote in her veto letter of House Bill 2153 that she didn’t object to uniform laws regarding political party observers but wasn’t sure whether counties could implement them.
“I am concerned this bill will strain the resources of counties that already struggle with recruiting poll workers by adding additional responsibilities to manage observers who would be required to act as challengers,” Hobbs wrote in her letter.
Jen Marson, executive director of the Arizona Association of Counties, told the Arizona Capitol Times that the counties have not yet taken a position on whether to include the ballot observer language in the bill.
The counties plan to run their own mirror bills through both House and Senate election committee chairs, Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff; and Rep. John Gillette, R-Kingman, Marson said. Those bills were not drafted to include the language about ballot observers.
Lawmakers had to act quickly with the 2024 temporary measure. Hobbs signed the bill in early February of that legislative session after the counties warned the Legislature that they might not have enough time to secure polling places and voting locations before the primary election if the bill remained in session.
This year, the counties have run into the same problem.
“We tried to do it last (session) and we had what we thought was a pretty good vote count, but then we got word that we should not move forward this year and we should wait and do it first out of the gate in 2026, so that’s what we’re doing,” Marson said. “We did take a lot of heat for changing the primary in the year of the primary and I did not want to do that again, but here we are so that’s what we’re going to need to do.”
Kolodin was one of the key negotiators of the 2024 temporary measure with former Democratic state Rep. Laura Terech. Both he and Terech described the negotiations over the bill as an exhausting ordeal, leaving some lawmakers in tears of triumph when they knew the bill would become law.
It was also an opportunity for Kolodin and other Republicans affiliated with the Arizona Freedom Caucus to negotiate election policies they had previously been unsuccessful in getting signed by Hobbs, including requiring county election officials to compare voters’ signatures from their voter records with a list of specific characteristics. Many election workers were already doing that, but the law established it as a required practice.
Kolodin’s bill for the 2026 legislative session would also change the amount of time voters have to correct any problems with their mail-in ballot signatures from five business days to five calendar days, which was also implemented in the 2024 measure.
Some Democrats opposed going to five calendar days because they believed it could disenfranchise voters who rely on public Wi-Fi and public transportation which have reduced service on weekends.
Marson said the counties requested that change because it helps give election workers enough time to gain days before federal deadlines if a recount is triggered.
The post Legislation to permanently hold primary elections in July will face early debate first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>The post Linley Wilson: The legal arm of the Arizona House first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>Linley Wilson, general counsel and deputy chief of staff for Arizona House Republicans, joined ahead of the 2022 session as the Legislature made it a more standard practice to wade into legal battles to defend state law.
Now, after three years, Wilson is leaving her post to join the political and election law firm Holtzman Vogel. Carrying legislative expertise and a background at the Attorney General’s Office, Wilson hopes to leverage her experience with constitutional issues and with the firm’s new State Attorneys General practice, with a focus on clients facing investigation and enforcement by state attorneys general.
Her first day was Oct. 21. But before leaving, Wilson spoke with the Arizona Capitol Times, reflecting on her work in the Legislature, her passion for state government and the work ahead in private practice.
Answers have been lightly edited for clarity.
What has been your career path so far?
My entire career has been spent in state government. I’ve had the honor of working in all three branches of state government in Arizona, and I’ve loved my career in public service. I spent over a decade at the Arizona Attorney General’s Office under Republican leadership, and I was thrilled when this opportunity became available to me at the Arizona House of Representatives. I’ve now spent three legislative sessions here, and I’m really proud of all of the work that the House has accomplished. We’ve taken a larger role in litigation, which you may have noticed over the past few years. We have extensively defended the constitutionality of state laws passed by the Legislature over the years, when challenged in state and federal courts. Really, it’s been a highlight of my career to be at the Legislature.
What have been your biggest takeaways from your time at the Legislature?
Personally, the insight into the legislative process and policy decisions that our elected leaders make on a daily basis on issues of statewide importance, just gave me a very deep appreciation for how state government works. I think that will translate really well to the private sector just in general. And of course, on the types of cases that I’ll be working on at Holzman Vogel.
To be an effective litigator or legislator, you have a good understanding of how the legislative process works in any state. It’s one thing to talk about the separation of powers, but to truly be firsthand and see how laws are made and why they’re important, and that this body has collectively decided that this should be the policy for Arizona, I think, as transitioning now to be a litigator at the firm, I think that background is critically important when we are litigating constitutional rights — interpreting the Arizona and the federal constitutions. I’m so thankful that I’ve had that experience to bring with me into the private sector.
What have you been most proud of during your tenure at the Legislature?
I’m really proud of the work on the Secure the Border Act that was referred to voters last year, which the voters passed on the ballot. The Legislature recently prevailed in court. It was challenged, and the legislative leadership intervened to defend it. The lawsuit was just dismissed there this week. So I think that really reflects the will of the voters. And border security is obviously so important for Arizona. So I really enjoyed working on that legislation.
Another one that stands out to me is the election timeline bill … Representative Kolodin sponsored the bill, and it was really important to put up some of Arizona’s deadlines for when certain election processes had to take place … I think that’s another really great accomplishment of the Legislature in the past couple of years.
What do you make of the Legislature more actively defending state laws in court?
That’s probably my proudest accomplishment. The Legislature just had another ruling come out of the Arizona court reaffirming that the Legislature has standing in court to bring claims if the House and the Senate believe that its institutional powers or authority under the Arizona Constitution is being violated by another actor, an executive branch or in intervening to defend interests of the House and Senate when a law isn’t being defended in court.
We’ve certainly taken the lead in the last few years. And that’s important, because those are laws that have been on the books. Prior Legislatures passed those laws, and I do believe it’s a duty of the Arizona attorney general to defend them in court when they’re challenged, and certainly that was my experience when I worked under Republican leadership at the Arizona Attorney General’s Office.
I think it’s important for the judicial system, too, for judges to have an adversarial process when a law is challenged in court. I don’t think judges want just a one-sided presentation of the facts and the law, and so it’s a valuable part that the Legislature played in that in litigation over the last few years. I just think it’s good for the entire system that that authority exists for the Legislature to step in when the attorney general, for whatever reason, decides that she doesn’t want to defend the law.
What kind of cases and issues are you going to be focused on in this new role?
I’m obviously excited to contribute to the firm’s appellate practice. So that’s something I’m really looking forward to. And litigation of constitutional rights. The cases that involve emerging technology and privacy interests are really fascinating.
Fundamentally, those issues will continue to emerge in the courts when you think about AI technology. And in Arizona, privacy interests are even more protected than they are at the federal level. So I think those issues are really fun to litigate, and they’re just very important all around for Arizonans. And again, that goes to the protection of constitutional rights.
While I was at the Attorney General’s Office, I was also involved in election integrity matters. I’m looking forward to gearing up for the election next year and expect that the firm will be involved in a fair amount of election litigation.
Why Holtzman Vogel?
I really admired the work that they’ve been involved in. To me, it really is very unique to come in at a time when the Phoenix office is still in a growth unit. So it’s really just an outstanding opportunity to help grow the direction of the Phoenix firm and even just bolster all of those areas that have already aligned with my background really well.
In a more existential sense, why do you think your work in public policy, and now in private practice, is important?
When we’re discussing constitutional rights and making arguments to set a precedent in Arizona for how courts will need to uphold and reflect additional rights in various contexts, I can’t imagine more rewarding work than that.
That’s why I’ve done this type of work for so long, and why I’m so excited to join the firm. As a lawyer in this space, I just find it incredibly rewarding to be talking about constitutional rights and doing whatever we can to protect them.
What would be your advice for your replacement in the House?
The job requires creativity, sometimes an open mind, and certainly a collaborative attitude and great communication skills. And it’s just incredibly fun. I look back on my time here and truly enjoyed being the general counsel for the Republican majority. I had the ability to meet all the elected leaders throughout the state, reach their goals, and create a good product for the people of Arizona. It’s really unlike any other job. I guess I would tell the next person to keep an open mind, to be supportive in this role, and help essentially write laws for the state that would be long lasting and be so important in years to come.
What guides you in this work?
My husband and I have two children, and they’re nine and 11 now. They’re being raised in Arizona. Of course, through my line of work, I think of them, and I think about the future that we’re creating in Arizona. And of course, that’s always my motivation and my guiding star.
What is something the average person might not know about you?
My interest these days is being a soccer mom. Both of my kids play competitive soccer. And to bring it back briefly, to how that relates to my job, is that it comes to mind that when the speaker and the president intervene to defend Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act … that really hit home for me, because I have a nine year old daughter who plays in a competitive sport. I just think fundamental fairness in girls sports is so important because I see it, you know, in my own life.
And so those issues do really hit home for me … I’m a soccer mom. I’m usually running kids around to soccer practice at least a few times a week … We just really enjoy this phase of life with them. They’re wonderful kids, and they keep us young.
The post Linley Wilson: The legal arm of the Arizona House first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>The post Session Wrap: Speaker Montenegro and the pulse of the House first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>House Republicans expanded their majority in the chamber after the 2024 election, but faced ire from the governor’s office, legislative Democrats and some Senate Republicans over critical issues at the Legislature this session. In his first session leading the chamber as Speaker, Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Goodyear, reflected on the 57th Legislative session in an interview with the Arizona Capitol Times.
The questions and answers have been edited lightly for style and clarity.
What were the biggest wins for House Republicans this session?
We started off the session with a very robust majority agenda centered around three major themes: Preserving the American Dream, promoting public safety and protecting individual rights and liberties. We want to focus on those areas, and, for the most part, we have. We did have major achievements when it comes to reforms. We were able to fully fund the Division of Developmental Disabilities and pass the supplemental budget, and, at the same time, advance some reforms that protect the vulnerable and ensure that the money is going where it should be.
How is the relationship between the House and Senate after the budget played out the way it did?
The relationship between the House and the Senate is fine. Historically, I think the founders have always intended there to be a certain healthy, friendly legislative tension between the House and Senate. The relationship is fine, and we’re going to continue doing the people’s work.
What were the biggest challenges of the session?
Understanding what some of the federal impacts are going to be on the state, whether it’s in Medicaid impacts, whether it’s in tax cuts, understanding how some of those decisions are going to impact the state. Not in a negative way, but just in how we should prepare and be wise stewards of the state.
The JLBC is expecting a $381 million cost to Arizona if it conforms to federal tax changes. Do you see that as a bad thing?
Well, tax cuts for Americans are never a bad thing. Republicans want people to have more of their own money in their pockets. We trust Arizonans to spend their money more wisely than the government spends its money. The larger the government, the smaller the individual. The smaller the government, the larger the individual. We want the individual to be more prosperous. Government has to learn to live within its means, just like we as citizens do.
We saw a lot of frustration from Republicans this year toward the governor’s office, particularly with DDD, vetoed bills, and her executive budget proposal. How do Republicans feel about that office right now?
We obviously don’t agree on much or how she’s running the state. We’ve seen some challenges throughout the session. As Arizonans, we have a decision to make about the direction of the state. We’re going to work together because we have to make sure that we’re governing the state. At the same time, there’s much that is at a standstill. If you take a look at the job creation numbers, the state fell dramatically in line with the rest of the states in our standing. That is due to the decisions made by the governor. We sent up great bills to help us maintain economic soundness in the state. If we want to be stronger economically, we’re going to have to change direction in the governor’s office.
How important was it for Republicans to get a resolution to designate drug cartels as terrorist organizations on the ballot?
Arizona is unique from most of the country because we are a southern state. And as of the last few years, we’ve always had a problem with drug trafficking, with human trafficking, but it’s intensified in the last few years. If it weren’t for President Trump coming in and strongly securing that border, we’d continue to be in serious trouble. We’re talking about the safety of our citizens. We’re talking about the ability for our children to play in our front yard without the fear of human trafficking, without the fear of child abduction. I think we’ve gotten to a point where citizens understand that the border has very strong dangers and the way that these cartels are operating, they are a danger to our citizens and we need to do everything possible to protect our citizens. The impact that this measure will have is that it is going to designate these drug cartels correctly and we’re going to make sure that law enforcement has every tool to go after these individuals that pose a great danger.
This was your first session as speaker. What does this position mean to you, and what have you learned this session?
The most sacred thing about being a speaker is that we have the responsibility to maintain and uphold the integrity of the institution. That’s the institution that our founders gave us to protect the individual rights of our citizens and their ability to achieve their American Dream. Arizonans send legislators to the Capitol to be their voice, and the Arizona House of Representatives is the place where those voices are heard. It doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you’re on. Disagreement is an American value. We must welcome it, and we understand that iron sharpens iron.
This session had some pressing issues. DDD, Axon, the budget. Each faced significant challenges but they were handled. How does that reflect on the caucus?
There were high challenges, and our members stood up to them, and they came through. I am very grateful to our caucus. We have a group of talented legislators, and when it was needed most, they came together. Like I said, there’s disagreements, of course, but in the end, we see the challenges and we see the needs and we were able to step up and do what was best in the eyes of the majority for the state. It turns out, we got some really important things done and we’re ready for the challenges that pop up and we have the leadership required to tackle those issues and govern adequately as Republicans and as conservatives.
What are your plans for the interim and what is priority one next session?
Of course, it’s going to continue to be the budget and continue to make sure that we have a sound economy in the state to prepare Arizona for our future and every individual to have an opportunity to prosper. That’s going to continue to be our constitutional duty in passing a balanced and sound budget that’s helping our families forward. At the same time, we want to make sure that every member has the tools they need to be successful and show their constituents that they were able to be an adequate voice for Arizonans. In the interim, we’re all back in our districts with our families, our communities, our citizens, meeting with moms and dads and teachers so when we come back to the Legislature, we are in tune with our constituents. That’s certainly my number one responsibility.
The post Session Wrap: Speaker Montenegro and the pulse of the House first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>The post Session Wrap: Rep. De Los Santos and the ‘dysfunctional’ GOP first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>In his first year as House minority leader, Rep. Oscar De Los Santos, D-Laveen, helped lead his caucus to gather the most votes for a budget negotiated under Gov. Katie Hobbs among House Democrats. In a recent interview with the Arizona Capitol Times, De Los Santos discussed the recent legislative session and the challenges it presented.
The questions and answers have been edited lightly for style and clarity.
What were the biggest wins for House Democrats this session?
I think the two biggest issues that the state Legislature saw this year were the Division of Developmental Disabilities fight and the budget. On both of those issues, House Democrats were the power players and the power brokers and we got extremely big wins in both. I mean, without House Democrats, you don’t have DDD being saved. You don’t have hundreds of millions of dollars going into some of the most vulnerable human beings in the state and their health care. And then on the budget, you have the biggest investment in child care and making child care affordable in the past 10 years for working families. You have the Aggregate Expenditure Limit lifted for two years, which has never happened before. You have opportunity weight funding, District Additional Assistance, you have access to free school meals, and you have the largest investment in the Arizona Promise program in Arizona’s history. We’re funding the Community College Promise Program for the first time. We’re drawing down over $200 million for tribal health care in the budget. We’re expanding access to cover treatment for patients with neck and head cancer. These are some huge wins, especially in this revenue environment that we’re in, which is tough. I think it’s a remarkable success for the caucus.
More House Democrats voted for the budget this year than the last two budgets that have been negotiated with Gov. Katie Hobbs. How involved were Democrats with this budget and what was different this year?
You had a supermajority of the House Democratic caucus on the budget and that’s for a reason. We were involved in the budget process from day one, engaging with Republicans and the Governor’s Office, and ultimately influencing the final product. As I mentioned, there are some significant wins for Arizona’s working families in there. But after two years of the relationship with the Governor’s Office, I think we’ve sort of on both sides figured it out a bit and understood how to work better together. When you also have a House Republican caucus that is dysfunctional and in disarray, you’re going to need Democratic votes to get this thing passed and that’s one of the first things I said on opening day was that you will not get a budget without Democratic votes. And, you know, that’s exactly what we did.
Why is waiving the AEL for two years instead of just one year such a big deal?
It’s a big deal on a policy level because schools are on the brink of financial calamity every year, which is insane. This is money that obviously has already been appropriated. It’s been approved. There’s an artificial limit here that makes no sense. It’s outdated, and yet the Republicans politicize it and jeopardize the education of hundreds to thousands of public school students and they sort of use it as a bargaining tool here at the Legislature and it’s ridiculous. So, we avoid this fight for the next two years. On a political level, though, it’s incredibly important because it takes away one of the bargaining chips that the Republicans have to extract concessions from us.
JLBC estimates that the federal budget reconciliation package will cost Arizona approximately $381 million to conform to the tax policy changes. What do Arizonans need to know about what’s going on federally?
That number is a massive understatement because it doesn’t take into account the cost shifts on SNAP, Medicaid, and the job cuts. When you have job cuts, you’re going to see a decline in income statewide. A decline in income means a decline in revenue for the state. You’re just gutting the health care economy in particular. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce is saying that we’re looking at at least 36,000 jobs lost because of this. Experts are predicting five critical access hospitals in rural Arizona are going to close. These are hospitals in rural areas where it’s the only hospital in that area. If they close, people are going to die. If you’re a pregnant woman who is having an emergency late during your pregnancy, where are you going to go? If you’re having a heart attack or a stroke that needs immediate care, what are you going to do? And so I think the most important thing is understanding the human cost of this, and the reason it happened is because Republicans want to give tax cuts to the billionaires. Every single Republican in Congress owns it, and every single Republican in the House and Senate here in Arizona owns it because they cheered it on. So, I think Arizonans need to know who to blame and it’s squarely the fault of the Republicans.
What’s next for Prop 123?
House Republicans need to stop using this as a political football. They’re trying to attach ESAs to Prop. 123, which has never happened before. And what they’re trying to do is enshrine ESAs into the Constitution. This is ridiculous for two reasons. One of them is they know the program is unpopular. If you recall, voters rejected ESAs at the ballot box by a massive margin just a couple of years ago. They know they can’t win on the issue alone, so they’re tying it to funding for public schools. It’s a stunning admission about how unpopular ESAs are that they can’t fight it on their own terms. But second of all, we just need a clean extension of Prop. 123 at this point. I mean, this is hundreds of millions of dollars that public schools depend on. We are ranked 49th in the country in per pupil funding for education. Meanwhile, you’ve seen the reports, it’s like hundreds of millions of dollars sitting in ESA accounts. It’s ridiculous, and so we need to do what we did with the budget and with DDD, which is to strike a commonsense compromise that sends a responsible Prop. 123 package to the ballot.
What was the most disappointing part of the session?
I think it’s the failure again to address ESAs. I mean, this is a billion-dollar boondoggle that is robbing public schools and is just rife with waste, fraud, and abuse. The fact that Republicans here are looking the other way toward this disaster is extremely disappointing.
There were a lot of real pressing issues this session. DDD, the budget, even Axon. Why did it feel like all of these came down to the wire?
It’s because the House Republicans don’t know how to govern. Frankly, the House Republican caucus is rife with incompetence and irresponsibility. I mean, the budget that passed was basically identical to the budget deal that was struck weeks beforehand. It’s just tantrums and games, and then we wind up where we started, and I don’t understand the theater that happens in the middle because the end result is effectively the same. Same thing with DDD. We drove families to the brink of calamity here. I mean, the number of moms I talked to who were in tears and who were having panic attacks. Somebody spoke about having suicidal ideations because they didn’t know whether that money and that support were going to be there. It’s insane, and it’s solely because the Republicans just don’t want to govern in a bipartisan manner. They throw a fit and a tantrum, and then at the end of the day, they fold like a cheap suit, and we’re back to where we were, square one.
What will your focus be in the interim, and what is priority one in the upcoming session?
House Democrats are going to be traveling all over Arizona to examine the impacts of the state budget. We’re going to head to the Navajo Nation, for example, to look at the new dialysis treatment center at Sage Memorial Hospital. We’re going to plan visits to things like veteran treatment courts that we funded in this budget. So, we’re going to go out into the community and show that Democrats are delivering for our constituents, and also to hear from people and learn about what we should be prioritizing in the coming session. All over the state. Rural and urban, red districts and blue districts, to learn about what the people expect from their leaders. The second thing that we’re going to be working on is understanding the impacts of Trump’s billionaire bill on Arizona and particularly on our state budget, and what it means for next year.
The post Session Wrap: Rep. De Los Santos and the ‘dysfunctional’ GOP first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>The post Session Wrap: Sen. Sundareshan, policy priorities and partisanship first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>For Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan, the legislative session contained its share of accomplishments and challenges for the Democratic caucus.
Some of the victories included working with Gov. Katie Hobbs and Republicans to ensure the Division of Developmental Disabilities program was fully funded, securing some of their funding priorities in the state budget and remaining unified in opposition to Republican bills they considered extreme.
However, many of the caucus’ priorities were unaddressed, including affordable housing, curtailing the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program and passing legislation to address rural groundwater shortages in the state.
Sundareshan spoke with the Arizona Capitol Times about these issues and future priorities.
What would you consider some of the biggest accomplishments from this session for you and your caucus?
A major accomplishment for my caucus was in sticking together on issues of value to the Democratic Party and our members, including on many of the extreme pieces of legislation that the Republicans put forward. Our caucus often was the caucus holding together. We were able to show the unity of our opposition, and when those bills then made it to the governor’s desk, that made it pretty clear to the governor that those were easy to veto because those were not in line with our Democratic values.
You supported the Ag-to-Urban bill, which had bipartisan support, despite concerns from some Democratic lawmakers regarding groundwater replenishment obligations. Why did you believe it was a good bill?
So ultimately, I felt comfortable voting for the language in the Ag-to-Urban bill. For one thing, and I think this is reflective of many of my caucus, as well as the House Democratic caucuses’ concerns, is that we should be addressing the big problem, which is rural groundwater. This had nothing to do with that. That problem remains outstanding, and there continues to be no solution, thanks to the intransigency of the Republicans who control the committees. So that’s one major issue. Two, there remains a significant concern about the ability for the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD) to fulfill its existing obligations in replenishing groundwater that has been pumped through because of development up to now, and they are in the process of submitting their 2025 plan of operations for the next 10 years and the Department of Water Resources still has to evaluate it. There already are concerns about where they’re going to find that replenishment water, because we know that the Colorado River is dwindling. There are significant parts of their plan that are no longer able to be counted on. And then, on top of it, what further impact does the Ag-to-Urban bill have on their replenishment obligations? And I think that’s a significant concern that I was raising during the negotiations of the Ag-to-Urban bill, and I continue to have concerns about the groundwater replenishment district.
I was glad to see the involvement of the Gila River Indian Community in this process, because…as part of this negotiation, they are willing and interested to enter into negotiations to sell some of their water rights to the (CAGRD) in order to support those replenishment obligations. Will that be sufficient? That’s an outstanding question that we’re going to have to keep an eye on. But, for now, I was able to support the bill because I felt that the compromise that was reached included a significant number of necessary guardrails to ensure the land that was converting from farm to development to single family housing would altogether — with all of the guardrails, there would be something that could result in groundwater savings over the next 100 years.
So what were some of the biggest challenges from this session?
So many things left unresolved yet again by the Republican majority in the Legislature. We can just rattle them off. For example, we were just talking about water. Rural groundwater remains unaddressed and it was very clear mid-session that there was no desire on the part of the committee chairs to continue negotiating any kind of bill that would do that. That is a huge disappointment and really tragic because there are people in rural Arizona who continue to face the issues of finding their wells running dry thanks to the unlimited ability for large corporate pumpers to just come in and leave the residents high and dry, literally.
Another thing that was left undone is Prop. 123. We had a lot of back and forth over the course of this session about how to ensure a ballot referral to the voters to renew Prop. 123 in a way that would support our education system. And that got bogged down unnecessarily by partisan bickering. I will again say that the House and Senate Republicans had decided that they wanted to start attaching unrelated policies to the Prop. 123 proposal, like voucher protections and other things, when we already have a very, extremely permissive voucher program in Arizona.
Why has it been so hard to address the rural groundwater issue?
What I’ve come to realize is that the reality of rural Arizona residents is just not being represented by even their own elected officials in this Legislature. I represent a suburban-to-urban district, but I have compassion for the people who are not my constituents, who are facing these water crises, and yet their own representatives are seemingly unmoved. Rep. Mathis and I introduced a bill that had Republican support from Republican elected officials in these rural areas across the state. This was something that was a bipartisan effort that we knew was reflective of the negotiations we had had with Republican legislators from last year. We worked together with other Republican elected officials from rural Arizona to put forward this proposal, and yet, that still could not get any hearing by the chairs of the committees.
Were you surprised by the budget process?
Certainly, it is a bit surprising to see the fractures within the Republican parties and the Republican caucuses display themselves so openly. I think what we observed with this budget process was to what extent the Freedom Caucus is willing to take everyone hostage — the entire state hostage — in order to achieve some of their goals, and how much of a hold they have over the Republican Party, because … they were flexing their power, and they showed that they are making demands of the broader Republican caucuses that needed to be addressed before we could move forward.
What enabled the Senate Democrats to be able to work with the Senate Republicans and the governor to reach some of the compromises in the budget?
Senate Democrats had significant concerns with the budget process, as we have for many years, because Republicans do not directly negotiate with us and so we worked with Governor Hobbs and her team to ensure that our Democratic priorities were reflected in the budget. I think we were able to significantly achieve a lot of what we were asking for by working with the governor, but we also were very dissatisfied with the failure to again address universal vouchers, which has a huge impact on the budget. Over $1 billion in the next year that is just going again to this unaccountable, fraudulent program and wasteful because it’s going to people who do not even need educational support and have simply sent their kids to private schools.
But, on the other hand, we also had a number of wins by negotiating for the budget. I’ll point to things like the Area Agencies on Aging that support seniors as they age and provide meals on wheels for seniors. That was a significant point that our caucus was fighting for. Another point is other services broadly for those who need it the most … refugee support and homelessness issues, there was very little funding available to put towards that. And I know many in my caucus would have loved to see a lot more go towards that but what we did see go towards that was due to the engagement of my caucus.
So what do you anticipate as the biggest democratic priorities for the next session?
So much of our affordability agenda was left untouched. We put forward many bills that would have helped Arizonans with affordable housing, with affording everyday necessities and none of those bills received hearings. So I anticipate that our focus on affordability will continue. So that’s one major thing we’ll focus on next session. In the water space, like I said, so much remains unaddressed in protecting our water and protecting our security to live here in Arizona.
Child care investments (were) a huge priority for our caucus, as was for the governor, and there was an investment in this year’s budget, but not to the extent that had been proposed. I think about less than half of that investment was funded. So we will continue to be pushing for that investment and … things that support everyday Arizonans.
The post Session Wrap: Sen. Sundareshan, policy priorities and partisanship first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>The post Session Wrap: Gov. Hobbs on 2025’s victories and ongoing battles first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>Gov. Katie Hobbs managed to score legislative wins and sign a bipartisan budget during her third legislative session on the Ninth Floor, but not without lengthy battles with Republicans and a new veto record.
Hobbs sat down with the Arizona Capitol Times to recap what she calls a “very successful session” that saw movement on groundwater legislation, extended funding for individuals with developmental disabilities and the passage of a $17.6 billion budget.
But several issues were left on the table when lawmakers adjourned at the end of June, like school voucher reform, education funding and affordable housing initiatives. The governor hopes more can be done to address those areas when the Legislature reconvenes in 2026.
What do you consider your biggest wins of this session?
When we saved the funding for the developmentally disabled population, I think that set a really good tone for the budget. But in and of itself, it was a huge win. And we all watched these families come to the Capitol day after day, and the House Republicans refusing to give them a chance to speak in committee. I had a round table and just heard their stories. It was gut wrenching, and that’s why it was such a priority to save that program, and we did. I think my best day of the session was when we had that bill signing.
Some of your priorities weren’t addressed this session, which are you hoping to keep working on?
First of all, I’m really focused on what we did get done. If you look at the budget that we passed, and what I talked about in my State of the State — laying out the “Arizona Promise” — we covered a lot of those priorities. Giving state police and firefighters a much needed raise, continuing local border support and efforts on border security, investing in child care, Homes for Heroes. So there’s certainly a lot we can build on. Obviously, we didn’t get any reforms on ESAs, and that’s still going to be a priority, as well as getting a Prop. 123 to the voters that invests in public education and gives teachers a raise, I think that’s a huge priority. And then we have more to do on housing. Housing is a big one, and Low Income Housing Tax Credits. It was really unfortunate that we couldn’t get a champion there but we’re not giving up. And the rural groundwater reform is also still critical. I certainly am really proud of the work we did on the urban groundwater with the Ag-to-Urban bill, but making sure that we’re not taking that as a win and going away because rural groundwater is still a really critical issue.
What kind of changes are you hoping to see in the state’s ESA program?
Everything’s on the table. I think the plan we proposed this year was very reasonable, and something that even supporters of the program could get behind. We’re not trying to eliminate the program. We want it to go back to its original purpose and help kids with disabilities, kids in low-performing schools. The more reporting we see on the abuses, the more ammunition, for lack of a better word, it gives a reasonable proposal. It’s really mind boggling to me that Republicans want to continue to defend these abuses.
It seemed like groundwater was also going to go unaddressed this session, but the Ag-to-Urban bill came in at the last minute. What did it take to get that to the finish line?
I think it was having Senator (T.J.) Shope as the champion, and him being willing to usher that through. Last year, the bill that got to my desk … it was rushed through, and it wasn’t the right compromise. And so we came back to the table. The legislative process is always weird, and sometimes things just sail through, and sometimes they stop, and then at the end is when you see the flurry of activity. I’m really glad we got the compromise that worked to make this a good program, and I think it just took the leadership of Senator Shope to get it done.
A few of the bills you signed this session had Democratic opposition and aligned with policies proposed by conservative groups. What was the reasoning there?
I have focused on not looking at the partisan solutions, but things that are addressing problems. An example is the age verification for online content. I vetoed a similar bill last year, and I’ve heard from more and more parents who are really concerned about content that their kids are exposed to. And this seemed like the right balance, and I have no idea that it was possibly aligned with right-wing things. To me, it’s something that’s addressing an issue that a lot of parents are struggling with.
I have to ask about the veto record. Why do you feel like that isn’t the best way to measure your legislative effectiveness?
There was definitely an orchestrated attempt to run up the score on that veto record. Like I vetoed bills this year that I vetoed one or two times before, and nothing’s changed about the bill or my position on it. I’ve been really clear, I’m going to be a backstop against extreme legislation that attacks fundamental freedoms of Arizonans. And a lot of those bills did that. But I think if you point to the work that we did, when people are willing to come to the table and compromise, we can get big things done. Ag-to-Urban, the DDD funding, the Axon bill, the Diamondbacks bill, the bipartisan budget — those are all things that have impact and and those are fewer and further between than the partisan stuff that goes on. Being willing to stay at the table is a lot harder than just ramming something through that you know is going to get vetoed. And I didn’t come here to veto bills, but I’m going to continue to be the backstop when I need to.
You had to play hardball this session with your bill moratorium and vetoing two different budgets. How do you feel about those decisions looking back?
What we saw with the developmental disability funding and with the two House rogue budgets (was) that they decided that they didn’t have to work together and that they could just do whatever they wanted and not need my support. But I’m the person that signs bills into law, and it seemed like they weren’t willing to understand that. Hopefully now they do.
What lessons did you learn from this session and what lessons do you hope the Legislature learned?
We had a very successful session, and I think it’s because we’ve been willing to do the hard work of staying at the table, not just our office, but legislators on both sides of the aisle. We worked really hard to have support on both sides of the aisle for our budget. I think this may be the most successful budget we’ve had of the three. It’s just that compromise is important and it’s important to stay at the table even when it gets really hard. And I don’t know that those are lessons that were learned or just reconfirmed again this year.
The post Session Wrap: Gov. Hobbs on 2025’s victories and ongoing battles first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>The post Session Wrap: Warren Petersen’s priorities ahead of AG race first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>For Senate President Warren Petersen, the next legislative session will likely be his last opportunity to help advance the Republican caucus’ legislative policy priorities.
Petersen is running for state attorney general in 2026, so he will look to work with his Senate Republican colleagues to revive legislation that either stalled or was previously vetoed, support the federal government on policies affecting Arizona and solidify the Senate’s relationship with House Republican leadership after the two chambers clashed during budget negotiations.
The following are responses provided by Petersen after inquiry from the Arizona Capitol Times. Answers have been edited slightly for clarity.
What do you consider some of the biggest accomplishments from this session?
Power and water are foundational elements that contribute to our population and business growth here in Arizona. We were able to pass meaningful legislation to help us keep up with the demand, which was shown with our historic water policy, enabling us to conserve and grow, using less water even with our growing population. In response to projections showing a 60% increase in power demand over the next 30 years, we passed legislation to strengthen our infrastructure and ensure Arizona families and businesses continue to have access to reliable and affordable energy. We made significant investments in public safety to keep Arizona communities secure and delivered tax cuts to support small business owners.
What were some of the biggest challenges?
One of the biggest challenges this session was the lack of efficiency, particularly with how long it took to pass the budget. There was clear frustration over the delays, and unnecessary division within the party made the process more difficult than it needed to be. In the end, the budget that passed was the Senate’s initial budget plan with some extra spending amended on by the other chamber.
Were you surprised that House leadership didn’t engage in the budget negotiations and instead released their own budget?
It was par for the course for this session. We saw the chaos unfold with the (Division of Developmental Disabilities) bill and how that was handled, so I’m not necessarily surprised, but I’m disappointed that the session was drawn out with unnecessary division in our party. Two years ago, we put a budget on Hobbs desk in February. The hope is we get back to that level of efficiency.
Where did some of that disagreement come from, especially during the budget?
I’ll just leave it at my (previous) statement. It’s the normal stuff. I think human nature can creep in. But there’s other things too. Anybody that was there … if you ask five people what it was, I think five people would probably all say similar things. So I’ll just leave it where it’s at. I mean, we’ve shown what we can do with divided government. Two years ago, we had budgets up on the governor’s desk in February with divided government. So (we can) be efficient, and hopefully, we’ll return to that next session.
What will it take for the House and Senate Republicans to solidify that relationship in time for next year’s budget?
I‘m confident the next session will look different. By bringing on Grant Hanna as the new Chief of Staff, the House is positioned to operate with significantly greater effectiveness.
Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a number of border bills, including the AZ ICE Act that you sponsored. You mentioned that you could bring the bill back as a ballot measure or wait to see if a new governor is elected. Is that still a possibility?
That’s a discussion we will have early on next session as a caucus, to see if it’s something we want to put on the ballot. I do feel confident that we will have a new governor in 2026 who will sign the legislation.
What were some of the other big issues that went unaddressed this session?
Two major issues that were left unaddressed are immigration and election reforms. We sent the AZ ICE Act to the governor’s desk, a bill that would have empowered local law enforcement to remove dangerous criminals from our streets, but she chose to veto it, putting both public safety and ICE agents in a more vulnerable position. She also vetoed our Florida-style election system bill which would have ensured faster, more transparent results on election night. Because of that veto, Arizonans will continue to face delays and uncertainty in our election process.
There were a number of bills that were introduced this session with the intention of expediting election results. Can those bills return next session?
We would definitely like to see those bills come back. We’re monitoring. All eyes are on 2026, and we’ll see how things are progressing. I think we’ll have a Republican governor. And you know, it may be best to just put our energy into making sure we get a Republican governor. And then 300 bills a session that are getting vetoed will get signed.
So anyway, we’ll look at it. I think it was close to a signature. So maybe … the bill gets tweaked a little bit and gets a signature, but we’ll see. We’ll have those discussions as we head into next session with the numbers.
What made this such an abnormal session?
The length. There’s absolutely no reason to be wrapping up the session on June 25. So mainly the budget.
What do you anticipate will be the most significant Republican priorities for the next legislative session?
Water will definitely be a key topic in the next session, but our primary focus will remain on protecting individual rights, supporting small businesses, and upholding core conservative values. A top priority will also be addressing staffing shortages in public safety, especially within the Department of Corrections, to ensure we can add and retain the people we need to keep Arizona safe. We’re also committed to advancing Prop 123 and working with the Trump Administration on federal regulations that impact our state. Additionally, we will continue to step in and defend laws that our current AG refuses to defend.
This will be your last session as Senate President before you run for attorney general. Is there anything you want to accomplish before you focus on that campaign?
We have the Arizona ICE Act, the Florida style elections. I have an SCR that I worked on that I would like to see passed that protects the taxpayer by a higher threshold for counties and cities to pass taxes. All three of those are important. Of course, we also have just the overarching issues that are important for Arizona: water, power. I’m sure I’ll get very involved with the water discussions as we go forward, continuing to deal with that. I don’t know that I’ll point to one bill that has to happen before I leave the Legislature. But those are things I’ll probably work on next session if there’s a path for a signature. I do like to spend my time on bills that have a good chance … that will be signed. Really, really, really, good chance of being signed. We’ll see what happens as we move forward.
The post Session Wrap: Warren Petersen’s priorities ahead of AG race first appeared on Arizona Capitol Times.
]]>