March 28, 2025 | Arizona Capitol Times

Proposed per diem pay increase could double yearly pay for legislators in Maricopa County

A veteran state lawmaker is pushing a late-session maneuver that would double his own pay and that of more than half of his colleagues.

The proposal by Rep. David Livingston, R-Peoria, set to be heard in the House Appropriations Committee on Monday, would entitle lawmakers who live in Maricopa County to a daily allowance of 80% of what the General Services Administration allows in hotel and meal expenses for federal employees who are traveling. That comes out to close to $200 a day.

The only thing is, Maricopa county lawmakers, unlike their rural counterparts, are simply driving to their own offices each day.

In fact, they already are getting $35 a day just for that — and getting it seven days a week — even though lawmakers generally are in session only four days most weeks.

And that’s on top of the $24,000 annual salary, something that a separate measure — also set for debate on Monday — seeks to double, though that one is subject to voter approval.

But Livingston told Capitol Media Services that it’s wrong to look at what is called the “per diem” allowance simply as covering expenses. He said it should instead be seen as part of a lawmaker’s overall compensation.

If all this seems familiar, it should.

Lawmakers tried a similar maneuver in 2019, tying their allowance to the GSA rate.

Then-Gov. Doug Ducey was willing to support an increase for out-county lawmakers.

“There is a strong case to be made for ensuring we are appropriately recognizing what is required for them to be here at the state Capitol in Phoenix during session,” he wrote. But he vetoed the bill because of the attempted increase for in-county lawmakers.

A separate measure for those living in the other 14 counties eventually was approved and signed by Ducey, giving them the full GSA rate. That equates out to $249 a day for the first 120 days of the session, or $29,880, on top of that $24,000 salary.

The actual allowance is greater given that lawmakers also can collect it any day they act “on a legislative matter” after the session is over, which could mean meetings with others at the Capitol or in their home districts.

Livingston’s measure using the 80% figure would come out to close to $24,000 in allowance plus the salary for 120 days.

And there’s even a provision to get 40% of the GSA rate when the session runs longer.

That’s not unusual. In fact, one year the session extended into August.

Livingston said he understands that asking lawmakers to approve such a sharp boost in their own compensation without seeking voter input — particularly for lawmakers who live in Maricopa County who don’t have the same living expenses — comes with a certain amount of political risk.

But, he said that an increase for himself and other Maricopa County lawmakers is appropriate. And Livingston said he believes that voters will understand.

As proof, he cited the recent resignation of former Sen. Eva Burch.

“I have been struggling to make ends meet and to find balance with my legislative work and my job as a healthcare provider,” said the Mesa Democrat, calling herself “a casualty of legislative pay.”

And Livingston conceded that something else may help convince colleagues to bite the potentially politically unpopular bullet and go along — if they act now: It will be another year before lawmakers need to face voters and run for reelection.

“I think the timing is right,” he said.

Livingston also has another argument about why in-county lawmakers should be paid more — even if it is in the form of an allowance.

“I think it’s discrimination against the members that live in Maricopa County versus the members that live outside of the county in the discrepancy in pay,” he said.

And what of the fact that those who live in the county don’t have the same expenses like hotels and having to take all their meals away from home?

“I understand all that,” Livingston said. But it comes back to his argument that per diem is not really an allowance for expenses but another part of their compensation.

“You can’t have members paid to do the same job being one-and-a-half, two times, three times the other members,” he said. “It’s not fair. It’s discrimination. We do the same work. We need to be paid the same, no matter what it is and how you divide it up.”

But even if Livingston can convince a majority of lawmakers to go along, that doesn’t end his battle.

Just like what happened in 2019, a change in allowance still goes to the governor. And Katie Hobbs appears no more inclined to go along than did her predecessor.

“Pay raises for politicians is the height of budget mismanagement,” Hobbs press aide Christian Slater told Capitol Media Services.

And then there’s the timing.

He noted that the plan comes as Livingston has been publicly critical of the governor, accusing her of overspending the money she had been allocated for foster care programs and services for the developmentally disabled. In fact, House Speaker Steve Montenegro formed a new panel specifically to investigate Hobbs’ fiscal practices.

Slater said if that panel is interested in looking at “mismanagement” perhaps it should widen its focus.

“We look forward to the new ad hoc committee investigating Rep. Livingston’s disastrous proposed spending spree,” he said.

Governor’s Regulatory Review Council criticized for water rulemaking at sunset hearing

A Republican lawmaker says the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council is not performing its statutory duties to review agency rulemakings for legal compliance and legislative intent, despite denials of wrongdoing by the council’s chair.

During a Senate Government Committee hearing on March 26, Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, questioned the chair of GRRC for nearly an hour about its processes for reviewing proposed rules from state agencies. The hearing was meant to serve as a review of a sunset audit conducted by the Auditor General’s Office, but the questioning focused on a particular rulemaking from the Department of Water Resources.

Hoffman said he heard that the Governor’s Office and ADWR asked GRRC to speed up the rulemaking process for the Alternative Path to Assured Water Supply rules, known as ADAWS. The rules are currently the subject of several lawsuits filed by the Legislature and Republican-aligned groups.

GRRC reviewed the ADAWS rules and approved them in late 2024, but Hoffman accused the council of rushing the review, violating laws related to public comment periods, and scheduling a vote on the rulemaking during a study session when some council members were absent.

“We feel so strongly that you violated the law. We will be vindicated, and that rule will be thrown out,” Hoffman told GRRC chair Jessica Klein during the hearing. “GRRC has to do a better job of ensuring statutory compliance. Right now, you’re failing in that mission.”

Klein vehemently denied the accusations made by Hoffman and at times expressed frustration with his questions. She noted that she was appearing before the committee to testify on an auditor general report of the agency, which did not include the ADAWS rulemaking.

“I’m a simple council member who follows the statutes as they’re written,” Klein told Hoffman.

He pushed back on that, saying “that doesn’t seem to be the case,” before arguing that Klein’s role as the general counsel of the Department of Administration — which houses GRRC — made her answer “disingenuous.”

Hobbs’ spokesperson, Christian Slater, denied allegations that the Governor’s Office asked GRRC to rush the ADAWS rulemaking and criticized his characterization of the rules and the rulemaking process.

“Jake Hoffman has no idea what he’s talking about,” Slater said in a text message. “GRRC had three hearings on ADAWS, instead of the usual two … His desperate attempts to undermine this common sense policy show how out of touch and radical he, and the entire caucus that follows him, have become.”

Sen. Lauren Kuby, D-Tempe, said she was “appalled” by Hoffman’s approach to questioning Klein and commended her for her testimony during the hearing.

“You’re being asked the same question over and over and over again, and you’ve been answering it, and I appreciate your patience with this committee,” Kuby told Klein.

Klein was originally scheduled to appear before the Senate Government Committee in January, but had been unable to attend due to illness. She emphasized that when asked by Hoffman if she takes the sunset review process seriously.

“I take this process very seriously,” Klein responded. “This is actually my first in-person meeting this year after some pretty serious medical issues. I’m very happy to be here today, and I was happy to speak on behalf of my role within the council.”

Kuby also noted that five of the six members serving on the council currently were appointed by former Gov. Doug Ducey, despite Hoffman’s implications that issues with GRRC have arisen under Hobbs.

GRRC is scheduled to sunset in July if it is not renewed by the Legislature, but the bill to continue the council for two more years contains several provisions that seem to be inspired by concerns over the ADAWS rulemaking. House Bill 2594 would prohibit GRRC from voting on rules during study sessions and would require meetings to include equal time for public comment opposing and supporting a rule.

Klein said the council received advice from staff during the ADAWS rulemaking process that voting on a rule at a study session would not be out of the norm. She also noted that the council added an additional meeting to discuss the rules to ensure there was ample time for public comment.

The bill also makes significant changes to the makeup of the council and would prohibit Klein from continuing to serve as chair. HB2594 would prohibit ADOA’s general counsel from serving as chair of GRRC. Instead, it would require the director or deputy director to take Klein’s place.

The bill also takes three of the council member appointments away from the governor and gives them to the Legislature. Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, sponsored the bill and said the change in makeup is an attempt to give lawmakers a say on the council.

The Senate Government Committee voted 4-3 on party lines to pass HB2594, but Hoffman said he would ensure the bill is held in the Senate Rules Committee until GRRC can provide him more information about times the council voted on rules during a study session.

Arizona Capitol Times – March 28, 2025

Private scholarships fill the gap for Arizona ‘Dreamers’

After the passage of Proposition 308 in 2022, students without citizenship, including so-called dreamers — those brought to the U.S. as children and granted legal status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA — pay in-state tuition, so long as they attended and graduated from an Arizona high school

But financial aid creates another, sometimes insurmountable hurdle, as federal assistance through the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, and Pell Grant is not available to any student who is not a U.S. citizen or an eligible noncitizen. What’s more, the Arizona Promise Scholarship, tuition coverage for in-state students, requires a FAFSA application or Pell Grant eligibility to apply.

The lack of state and federal funded aid leaves private scholarships to fill in the gaps. And amid increasing anxiety, one organization providing financial assistance has had to extend mental health support to respond to a barrage of existential threats to students without legal status, or from mixed status families, all while speaking from personal experience.

José Patiño, vice president of education and external affairs for Aliento, a support organization for undocumented, DACA, and mixed immigration status families, planned to attend Arizona State University in fall 2006.

The university initially offered Patiño in-state tuition with a full-ride scholarship. But after Proposition 300 — a ballot measure barring students who fail to show proof of U.S. citizenship or lawful immigration status from receiving in-state tuition and state financial aid — passed in November 2006, Patiño could not afford to attend.

But both Patiño and Reyna Montoya, the founder of Aliento, became scholars of the American Dream Fund, a scholarship program by Helios Education Fund to support undocumented students. Through Aliento, Patiño and Montoya carry on the same work to support students who are now walking a parallel path.

Most recently, the organization wrapped applications to the Adelante Scholarship, a partnership with Helios Education Foundation and Education Forward, to provide up to $5,000 per academic year to students pursuing a bachelor’s degree and $2,500 to students enrolled in an associate’s degree program.

“We’re talking about students, dreamers, who came here at a very young age – their parents, most likely are undocumented, they’re not working within the formal economy, they don’t have a lot of wealth,” Montoya said. “Being able to provide access to scholarships based on their merit or their economic need, I think it’s really critical to do.”

Patiño said there’s been a need to expand and bend the scope of support, too, given mounting anxiety for students without legal immigration status attending or seeking higher education.

He noted the loss of college campuses as protected areas, a fear of family members being detained or deported, and the subsequent interruption to education, and fears about their own immigration status giving way to a pause on pursuing post-secondary education at all.

“It is just a constant barrage,” Patiño said.

It’s also shifted how Aliento operates, with a pivot to a less public presence.

“Now, we have to keep it more word of mouth,” Patiño said. “Because a lot of folks fear that potentially we could have some individual or individuals who are not part of the community, who could potentially start harassing individuals, or potentially start reporting individuals.”

In looking to the future, Montoya said she would like to see the Arizona Promise Program extended to all Arizona residents.

“It’s really critical for us to see education as an investment,” Montoya said. “I am a testament of what happens when we invest in our young people and we just give them an opportunity for their sole desire to give back to Arizona, and now I’m living proof that I am giving back to my community.”

Rich Nickel, president and CEO of Education Forward, a partner in the Adelante scholarship and an advocate for the passage of Prop. 308, also added the importance of protecting Prop. 308 and continuing external support, again making the connection to the value to the state.

He noted the organization’s Achieve60AZ, an ongoing plan to reach 60% higher education attainment in the state, which Education Forward and Helios Education Foundation said could lead to $5 billion in economic gains for the state.

“The only way we can get there is if everyone in our state has an opportunity,” Nickel said. “What we’ve been able to do since (Prop. 308) is really include those students in our pipeline … students who have, you know, went to high school here and graduated here, have lived here their entire lives, but previously, really couldn’t afford to go.”

‘Starter Homes Act’ one step closer to governor

Political leaders in both parties at the legislature have identified affordable housing as one of their top issues, but one bipartisan bill aimed at lowering housing prices with smaller homes is close to approaching Gov. Katie Hobbs’ desk.

After many stakeholder meetings and negotiations throughout the legislative session, the House Government Committee passed the “Arizona Starter Homes Act,” 5-4, as several members on the committee expressed their problems with the bill.

SB1229 now needs to get through the House, and likely the Senate again for a final vote on amendments before Hobbs gets her say.

With the goal of building smaller and cheaper homes, the measure would prohibit cities with a population of at least 70,000 from requiring specific home design and development standards.

The Government Committee’s discussion of the measure opened with Rep. Janeen Connolly, D-Tempe, introducing a striker amendment that would replace its language with that of a similar measure backed by the League of Arizona Cities and Towns that municipal leaders say would ensure Arizona residents, not corporations, purchase the new homes.

Critics of SB1229 say the measure doesn’t guarantee the homes built under the terms of the bill will be affordable or be sold to Arizona residents.

“Our goal is to put Arizona residents at the front of the line when it comes to buying and owning starter homes, not Wall Street investors who sell to the highest bidder,” said Chandler Mayor Kevin Hartke, president of the league. “This bill would help increase the affordable housing pipeline and make homeownership attainable for hard-working families and residents.”

SB1229’s sponsor, Sen. Shawna Bolick, R-Phoenix, called the league’s amendment “hostile” in a post on X prior to the House Government Committee hearing on March 25. The amendment is similar to a competing starter homes proposal backed by the league, SB1698, which never received a committee hearing this session.

Connolly withdrew her amendment shortly after introducing it. The league’s Legislative Director Tom Savage told the Arizona Capitol Times that the amendment isn’t an attempt from the league to “take over” the bill, but is a method to at least get their proposal heard by the Legislature.

The league has feuded with supporters of the Starter Homes Act for years. Nick Ponder, a lobbyist with HighGround Public Affairs Consultants who lobbies for the league, said the league has been working on “starter home” legislation since back when former Sen. Steve Kaiser championed the issue.

Kaiser’s major housing bill in the 2023 legislative session died in the Senate. Gov Katie Hobbs vetoed a similar starter homes proposal in 2024 and Ponder said the league wrote its bill this year based on Hobbs’ veto of the 2024 measure. He said the League considers SB1229 to be a “pure developer” bill that interferes with municipal infrastructure and general plans that are required to be approved by voters.

Queen Creek Mayor Julia Wheatley, said, “This legislation disproportionately impacts the town and our ability to determine the look and feel while balancing our agricultural and equestrian roots with residential development.”

Starter Act supporters argue the free market will ensure more affordable homes are built with the bill because there are developers who want to provide a product for first-time homebuyers.

“Preemption is a weapon that the Legislature uses when they feel like that there’s no other other choice, and I believe we’ve reached a boiling point across the board,” said Rep. Justine Wilmeth, R-Phoenix. “It’s a supply and demand economy … A big reason why prices are so high is that there’s no supply anymore”

The league’s proposal would allow cities to require slightly larger homes than what SB1229 offers, with a residency requirement of 15 years from the owners of new starter homes and an area median income requirement to try and target working-class Arizona residents and families.

“I do hope that as the senator’s bill moves forward, we see a number of additional amendments that reflect these considerations,” Connolly said.

Bolick said she still expects one additional floor amendment to SB1229 before it receives a full vote from the House floor and is sent to the governor’s desk.

Jake Hinman, a lobbyist supporting SB1229 on behalf of the Arizona Neighborhood Project, said he believes the bill as currently written would allow people to buy homes at a price around $250,000 to $260,000, but concessions made with the bill have already increased the expected prices of the new homes.

Still, SB1229 may be the only opportunity this legislative session for lawmakers to get a significant housing bill aimed at lowering the cost of single-family homes this session.

AZ Republicans showed why Puerto Rico statehood should be a GOP cause

Last November, Arizona’s Latinos overwhelmingly swung to the right side of the aisle. We saw this trend across the country and many were surprised, but we weren’t. While Democrats told Latinos what they should care about, Arizona Republicans listened to them, understood their values and demonstrated to them that conservatives share their priorities.

Now, it’s time for Republicans in other parts of the country to take notice and follow our lead.

President Donald Trump won the state of Arizona comfortably, driven in part by significant gains with Latinos. In Santa Cruz County, which is 85% Hispanic, Trump received an 8-point increase in his vote share compared to his 2020 total. In Yuma County, which is 60% Hispanic, Trump gained a 13-point bump. These numbers are unprecedented for modern Republican presidential candidates.

Latinos’ rightward shift in Arizona should be a case study for the Republican Party. Trump won big among Latinos in Arizona because he spoke about their concerns like inflation, crime and traditional family values, not identity politics or wokeness. And yes, he focused on immigration too, which clearly resonated with Latino voters in Arizona who agree on the need to prioritize safety along the border. Arizona Republicans and President Trump listened and focused on the issues Latinos care about, winning them over in historic numbers.

We’ve seen this shift across the country and across the diverse Latino community. In the recent election, Puerto Ricans made it explicitly clear that they are ready to vote for Republicans, and they are ready for statehood.

In 2024, Puerto Rico elected Jenniffer González-Colón, an ally of President Trump, as governor. Her party also won legislative majorities in Puerto Rico’s House and Senate, which elected Republicans to lead each body. That success coincided with Republican gains among Puerto Ricans in places like Osceola County, Florida, and Berks County, Pennsylvania. On top of that, the island’s most recent “shadow” senator, Zoraida Buxó Santiago, is a Republican who endorsed President Trump last year. The trend is clear. Puerto Ricans want to support Republicans. And at the same time that Puerto Ricans were turning out for President Trump and Republicans, they were also making their voices heard on the issue of statehood.

In the recent election, Puerto Ricans voted overwhelmingly once again in favor of statehood. That follows previous elections in 2020, 2017 and 2012 when Puerto Ricans voted for statehood. Time after time, they have made their wishes clear, but politicians in Washington haven’t listened… yet.

Republicans in Washington D.C. and across the country must respond to Puerto Ricans’ support for their party and statehood. Listening to them and advocating for their cause is exactly how Republicans won over Latinos in Arizona. It’s largely how President Trump won our state. And while Republicans have not always listened to what Puerto Ricans want when it comes to statehood out of fear that the island would only send Democrats to Washington, it’s time for Republicans to flip that misguided conventional wisdom on its head because it’s simply not the case. In fact, recent evidence shows the very opposite is true.

President Trump famously said, “We’re one people, one family and one glorious nation under God.” It’s time we live up to those words by embracing Puerto Rico as a full member of our American family. Republicans in Arizona and across the country should champion statehood because it’s in the best interest of our party and our nation.

Jaime Molera is a former Arizona superintendent of public instruction.

Upcoming Event

Day: March 28, 2025