Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

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

Jaime Molera
Jaime Molera

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.

Measure that could affect GOP 2026 race for governor advances

The GOP head of the Arizona Freedom Caucus is advancing legislation that would bar fellow Republican Karrin Taylor Robson from becoming the next governor — even if she were to win the election.

Strictly speaking, HCR 2037 which was approved by the Senate Government Committee on March 26, says nothing about the attorney and business consultant who formally jumped in the 2026 gubernatorial race earlier this year.

But what the measure crafted by Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, does say is that no person is eligible to become a state elected official who, for two years prior to the primary, has been required to register as a paid lobbyist.

And that happens to include Robson who as recently as January registered with the city of Phoenix that she is a lobbyist with AZ Strategies LLC. Robson is listed as the founder and president. That same city registration also lists Arizona Public Service, the state’s largest electric utility, as one of her clients. But a spokesman for APS said she ceased doing work for the utility in the fourth quarter of last year. And Resolution Copper Co., in its own filing with the Secretary of State’s Office, said Robson served as a lobbyist until this week.

Hoffman never mentioned Robson’s name when he first explained his measure to other members of the Government Committee, which he chairs.

“This one seems very straightforward,” he told colleagues. “We have the prohibition on lobbying following office.”

That refers to a state statute making it illegal for any former lawmakers to take a paid job lobbying the Legislature for one year after they leave office.

“We think that also should apply prior to office,” Hoffman said. “So it seems like a common-sense measure in line with what we have.”

But Hoffman conceded to Capitol Media Services this isn’t occurring in a vacuum.

He is a vocal supporter of a bid by current U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs who also wants to be the Republican nominee for governor. And Hoffman, while denying that his measure is aimed strictly at Robson, acknowledged he crafted it with her in mind.

“The public has an overwhelming distrust of paid lobbyists because their job includes the potential hazard of selling themselves and their influence to the highest bidder,” he said.

“This legislation seeks to prevent the poisoning of the public’s trust in government that would come from allowing someone in that profession to be able to immediately serve in a position of key influence such as the governorship,” Hoffman continued. “Karrin Taylor Robson is certainly a valid example as to why legislation is needed given her recent moonlighting as a paid lobbyist.”

Robson, in her own prepared response, made no mention of her registration as a lobbyist. Instead she said that Hoffman’s “desperate political tactic fails basic legal scrutiny.”

What makes HCR 2037 potentially dangerous for Robson’s political future is the way it is worded.

Hoffman’s proposal, if approved by the Legislature, would have to be ratified by voters at the Nov. 3, 2026, election.

But the measure does not say that people who have been lobbyists in the affected two-year period are ineligible to run. Such a wording could be interpreted to mean that, if approved, it would be effective proactively, affecting only those who choose to run in future years.

Instead, Hoffman crafted his measure to make anyone who has been a lobbyist for the two years before the 2026 primary — meaning Aug. 4, 2024 — legally unqualified to be sworn in.

If the measure is approved, it would become part of the Arizona Constitution when the 2026 election results are formally certified, something that is set to occur on Nov. 23, 2026.

But whoever is elected in 2026 would not take office until the first day in January 2027 — after the provision becomes effective.

Yet Hoffman called it “laughable” that he was advancing the measure in a way to convince Republicans to nominate Biggs, who is not a lobbyist and therefore would be unaffected even if voters approve his ballot measure.

“There is no need to target her given my confidence that her primary opponent will be elected as our state’s next governor,” Hoffman said, predicting he will win not only the GOP primary but defeat incumbent Democrat Katie Hobbs, who already has made it clear she wants another term.

There is no guarantee that Hoffman’s proposal will make it through the Legislature given there are many Republicans who already have announced their support for Robson. And, even if it does make it onto the ballot, voter approval is not guaranteed.

But despite his disavowals that HCR 2037 is all about Robson, Hoffman also left no doubt that he is using the measure to try to undermine voter support for her.

“A public conversation is warranted about what traps and entanglements might be present with a candidate for governor so closely aligned with, not to mention financially tied to, the largest monopoly utility in the state,” he told Capitol Media Services.

Legally speaking, there is no way for Biggs to benefit if the measure is approved: If Robson wins the GOP primary, defeats Hobbs but is unable to be sworn in, Biggs would not become governor.

So who would?

In 2022, Arizona voters agreed to create the position of lieutenant governor, beginning with the 2026 race.

Under that system, the nominees of each party after the primary will select a running mate, with the two of them running as a ticket. That is similar to what happens in presidential races where the nominee selects a running mate.

Hoffman said he reads the constitutional provision as meaning if the successful gubernatorial candidate can’t take office, the post goes to the lieutenant governor.

Robson, who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2022 got an early boost last December when President-elect Donald Trump, speaking at an event in Phoenix, called her out in front of the crowd.

“Are you running for governor?” he asked. “I think so Karrin, because if you do, you’re going to have my support, OK?”

Biggs, a former state Senate president and now a congressional representative, became the first to officially enter the race a month later. Robson followed in February complete with an announcement touting that “endorsement” in which she mentioned the president’s name 12 times.

It remains unclear, however, whether Robson will be able to make an exclusive claim to Trump’s backing, particularly as Biggs has been a vocal supporter of the president’s agenda.

Stolen valor bill faces roadblock, but striker could get it to governor

A week after the bill’s sponsor accused the committee chairman of blocking the measure, the Senate Judiciary and Elections committee held a bill Wednesday that would establish criminal offenses for people who impersonate an armed forces veteran.

Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, who chairs the committee, included House Bill 2030 on the agenda after Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, who sponsored the bill, and a bipartisan group of lawmakers and military veterans called out Rogers and committee member Sen. Mark Finchem, R-Prescott, at a press conference last week.

Rogers said during the committee hearing that she asked Blackman to amend the bill so it would comport with federal law. She didn’t elaborate on the federal law and how the bill lacked compliance.

“My staff let his staff know that I was including it on today’s agenda, in case we had applicable discussions before committee,” she said. “We have not, so I’m holding the bill.”

Blackman, a U.S. Army veteran, previously said he believes the reason why Rogers held the bill was because she and Finchem were attempting to protect Steve Slaton, Blackman’s opponent in Legislative District 7. Slaton was accused of misrepresenting his military service while campaigning last year.

On his website, Slaton claimed that he worked as a crew chief and co-pilot on a Cobra helicopter, serving in Vietnam and Korea. But the DD-214, the official military record, does not mention Vietnam, and only that he was listed as a helicopter repairman in Korea.

Rogers was criticized last year for campaigning with Slaton despite the allegations against him.

Although the bill has stalled again, there is still a chance the legislation can bypass Rogers and make it to the governor’s desk.

The House Rules committee on Monday unanimously approved a striker amendment to Senate Bill 1424, which contains the same language as Blackman’s bill. The House Government committee also unanimously passed the striker last week.

SB1424 is sponsored by Sen. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, who said she agreed to run the striker to keep the bill moving forward.

Lawmakers hone in on ‘revenge porn’ loophole

State lawmakers are moving to close a loophole in a law designed to prevent victims against “revenge porn.”

But the measure, approved by an 8-1 margin on March 26 by the House Judiciary Committee, has raised concerns that, in an effort to plug that loophole, it subjects more people to possible felony charges.

A 2016 Arizona law already makes it a felony to distribute nude or sexually explicit photos of others without their consent. These often arise from situations when a relationship ends and the jilted partner decides to make public the naked photos of the other person — photos that may have been made with that person’s consent, but clearly were not meant to be shared.

And what made it more problematic, according to Sen. J.D. Mesnard, who crafted the original law, had the ability to not just create the images with smart phones, but be able to share them widely on the internet.

But at the committee meeting, the Chandler Republican said yet another advancement has created a new problem: the “exciting and frightening technology” of artificial intelligence.

Put simply, Mesnard said, that scientific leap now allows someone to “generate … very realistic nude pictures that are then shared for the purpose of hurting somebody.” But he said since what’s being shared online isn’t an actual photo of someone that isn’t forbidden under the existing law.

His SB1462 is designed to close that gap.

“A very realistic-looking nude picture, but that’s not technically of the person but is used to harass and hurt the person, generally a woman, could be captured in this statute,” Mesnard explained to lawmakers in explaining the need for the change.

Mesnard could not get the measure approved as originally crafted after it raised concerns from the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

“I think the bill violates the First Amendment without some sort of protection for persons who are engaged in parody, artistic expression, political speech” said lobbyist Marilyn Rodriguez. She said courts have concluded that these are protected — even if it is “a vulgar image of a politician.”

“Those images may harm a politician or a famous person but can also be protected speech,” she said. And Rodriguez said she doubts that is what Mesnard is trying to prevent.

Mesnard agreed to alter the measure to create exceptions for “an image made in the public interest, including scientific or education activities, a newsworthy or on (an) issue of public concern.”

But Rodriguez made it clear that her organization still has concerns about the breadth of the measure — especially the possibility of someone being subject to a prison term of 2 1/2 years.

She said that it is so broad that it applies to someone who takes a picture of someone else who the person sees or knows and digitally alters it.

“It’s far less intimate,” Rodriguez said, than the original law that involves sending out photos that someone has shared in a relationship.

“I certainly wonder if it deserves a Class 4 felony designation,” she said. “It certainly seems like it’s criminalizing far more conduct than just the original revenge porn statute.”

And there’s something else.

“We are really concerned that young people who are prone to mistakes and lack access to sexual education and education about the internet could be facing Class 4 felonies for jokes,” she said.

The ACLU isn’t the only one worried about the breadth of the bill.

Kathryn Krejci, a volunteer attorney with Arizona Attorney for Criminal Justice, pointed out that the original revenge porn law required prosecutors to prove that the person in the image had “a reasonable expectation of privacy.” But Krejci, whose organization is composed of lawyers who defend people accused of crimes, told lawmakers that SB1462 removes that requirement — and in a way that would allow charges to be brought against people who distribute images where the person in the photo had no such expectation.

Mesnard, however, said that change applies only to digitally created images. He said that, since those depicted had no way of knowing someone was crafting the photo, there would be no way for them to have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Not everyone on the House Judiciary Committee was buying that explanation — or is convinced that what Mesnard is proposing is just a minor change in the law.

Rep. Alexander Kolodin said he agrees with Krejci’s interpretation that the legislation would make criminals out of those who share images where the person depicted has no expectation of privacy.

Consider, said the Scottsdale Republican, a scenario where he might decide to “tear naked through the floor of the House” and the act was captured by a news reporter on camera.

“That would then be a crime even though I had no reasonable expectation of privacy because I was on the floor of the House?” Kolodin asked as he cast the lone dissenting vote on the measure.

The measure, which already has been approved by the Senate, now goes to the full House.

Legislative immunity reform bill assumed dead in Senate committee

A bid to strip state lawmakers of their ability to avoid traffic citations during the legislative session has fizzled.

Rep. Quang Nguyen managed to get his proposal to send the issue to voters out of the House earlier this month on a bipartisan 37-20 margin. That sent the Prescott Valley Republican’s HCR 2053 to the Senate.

There, Senate President Warren Petersen assigned the bill to the Public Safety Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Kevin Payne.

However, the Peoria Republican did not include it on his committee’s agenda for a hearing last week, and the same is true for the meeting scheduled for this Wednesday.

What makes this critical is that this is the last week for Senate committees to hear measures approved by the House. If his committee does not hear the measure, it is essentially dead, as it cannot be considered by the full Senate.

Payne told Capitol Media Services on Tuesday there’s a good reason for his decision: He said there aren’t the votes for the measure in his seven-member committee.

He acknowledged, though, that he’s among the opponents.

“It’s in our constitution,” said Payne. “They put it in there for a reason.”

That provision, often incorrectly referred to as “immunity,” says that state lawmakers are “privileged from arrest” during the time the Legislature is in session and for 15 days ahead of that.

There are exceptions in cases of treason, felonies and breach of the peace. Those would remain under Nguyen’s proposal.

But he would add another exception: all traffic violations.

The measure comes on the heels of three high-profile cases where state lawmakers were stopped by police but escaped being cited because of the provision. And there is a decades-long history of other legislators who have claimed privilege from being ticketed.

Strictly speaking, the privilege does not immunize lawmakers from citations and even arrest.

Police departments remain free to issue the tickets after the end of the session. But there is a mixed record of actual follow-up by police.

Nguyen said the privilege, to the extent it was ever necessary, has outlived its usefulness.

Not Payne.

“I believe in it,” he said.

And what of his colleagues who escaped citations because of the provision?

“I don’t think that a few bad actors should take it out for everyone,” Payne said of eliminating the privilege.

But it wouldn’t be lawmakers who ultimately make the decision. All Nguyen’s measure would have done is put the question on the 2026 ballot.

So, shouldn’t voters get the last word?

“I suppose they could,” Payne responded. “But not this year.”

Nguyen, for his part, told Capitol Media Services that he is not giving up. He said another bid could occur next session.

But Nguyen also said he hopes that nothing happens before it goes to voters.

“You know, it is only a matter of time before a legislator will run over a child on a bicycle,” he said, noting the number of current and former lawmakers who not only have been exceeding the posted speed limit but actually have been driving at least 20 miles an hour over that, something considered a crime.

Petersen said he didn’t put the House-passed measure into Payne’s committee with the goal of killing it.

“I support the bill,” said the Gilbert Republican, who is also running for attorney general in 2026.

The issue, he said, is that all bills need to be assigned to at least one committee. And Petersen said he thought it actually would have a better chance of getting a hearing in Payne’s committee than others to which it could have been assigned.

Payne, for his part, said his opposition is not based on any personal experience. He said he has never tried to get out of a citation by citing privilege.

The little-known provision came into focus last year when Justine Wadsack, then a state senator, told a Tucson police officer she could not be cited for speeding because of her immunity.

That, however, didn’t keep police from serving her with the citation after the end of the session. And she ended up getting the ticket dismissed by going to traffic school.

More recently, Republican Sen. Mark Finchem told a police officer in his new home town of Prescott he could not be cited for speeding. Still unresolved is whether police will ticket him after the session is over.

And Republican Sen. Jake Hoffman was not ticketed for driving 24 miles over the speed limit on a freeway after a trooper recognized him as a legislator. There is no evidence Hoffman claimed immunity, and DPS has decided not to issue a new citation when the session ends.

Payne isn’t alone in his opposition.

During House debate, Rep. Rachel Keshel, R-Tucson, said stripping lawmakers of the privilege could result in a governor — not necessarily this one — sending out state police to stop lawmakers from reaching the Capitol to cast an important vote. That drew a strong reaction from Nguyen.

“That is an insult to law enforcement to say that you’re nothing more than a tool that the governor will be able to use … to interfere with the democratic process,” he said.

 

Parent criticism sends new ESA handbook back to the drawing board

A motion to adopt a new draft of the Empowerment Scholarship Account handbook went without a second or a vote in a meeting of the State Board of Education Monday after a string of speakers and written comments opposed the implementation of price caps on certain purchases.

The decision to effectively table adoption of the ESA handbook leaves board members, the Department of Education, a parent handbook committee, and program participants to sift through issues raised by parents and propose another round of revisions.

The State Board of Education must adopt a handbook by May 1. However, the process for drafting a new handbook remains unclear after the recent opposition.

“I fully expected the handbook to be adopted today,” John Ward, executive director of the ESA program said. “So, I don’t know what feedback we will get from the state board about what they want to see changed before the next meeting.”

The ESA handbook functions as a user manual for ESA account holders, detailing everything from the documentation needed to apply to the criteria for program purchases. State Board of Education administrative rules require yearly updates to the handbook.

Tensions over another edition of the ESA handbook started simmering early, especially as the board declined to adopt a handbook for 2024 and continued under the existing manual after parents and Republican lawmakers claimed inadequate input from ESA account holders.

After the draft manual fell through, the Department of Education convened an ESA parent committee to promulgate their own handbook, with subsequent review by the department and eventual presentation to the state board.

The department issued an initial draft of the 2025-26 handbook on March 3 and solicited comments from account holders on March 4. It was met with near immediate critiques – with a key contention being price caps.

If adopted, ESA account holders would have been barred from spending more than $500 annually on home economic equipment, $4,000 on instruments, $2,500 on physical education equipment, $1,500 on tools for vocational education every three years, $2,500 on a playground, more than $2,000 on personal laptops and computers every two years, and $3,000 on a SmartBoard for the entire duration of program participation.

Ward deemed the issue a “lightning rod,” and said written comments submitted to the department “almost exclusively” dealt with the price caps. Monday’s meeting resulted in more than 40 requests to speak and just shy of 170 pages of public comment, with the issue of the price caps dominating again.

The position of Arizona State Superintendent of Schools Tom Horne, as previously expressed in an email to parents and emphasized in his superintendent’s report, is rooted in the department’s authority to ensure the program stays in compliance with state law.

“Somebody has to decide what is and what is not a valid educational expense, and the legislature gave that (authority) to the Department of Education,” Horne said in his report to the board.

Though the department is backing the price caps, the idea to implement limits started with the ESA Parent Handbook committee.

Janelle Wood, chair of the committee, said members wanted to provide more clarity on what a “reasonable” purchase would be under the program and sought to speed up the reimbursement process by eliminating research on market value and the reasonableness of purchases on the department’s end.

But she noted that the department’s final version lowered some price caps and placed time limits on purchases. For instance, the department initially set a $1,500 limit per item on vocational tools, then the department changed it to $1,500 total over three years.

Ward confirmed the department had changed how certain caps operated, but he clarified they did not implement a price cap where none existed before.

Still, account holders took issue, with particular concern on how such caps could stand to impact students with disabilities.

Stacey Brown, a member of the committee, advocating against adopting the handbook she helped develop. She said the committee had initially intended to exempt students with disabilities from price caps entirely, though she claimed the asterisks never made it into the final draft. Monday, Brown called it a “direct attack on special education students.”

However, Ward pointed out that the department added language to exempt students with disabilities, so long as they provided a letter from a specialist justifying the expense. Beyond that, Ward said the maximums would be a “hard and fast rule” for students enrolled under universal eligibility.

Board members asked for more specificity in the text of the handbook on how the price caps would operate and apply to different students.

“I think we need to be really explicit on how this process works,” board member Karla Krivickas said.

When it came to a vote, Superintendent Tom Horne made a motion to adopt the handbook. No board member seconded the motion.

Though the initial motion failed, Horne said he was confident the board would approve a handbook at the next meeting.

The state board meets again on April 28, and in the coming weeks, plans to work with the department on changes to the handbook.

Sean Ross, executive director of the State Board of Education, said in a statement, board members are looking for the department to seek more stakeholder feedback and clarify how newly added restrictions apply to students with disabilities.

Ross confirmed the handbook will come before the board again at next month’s meeting and said the board plans to “communicate its wishes regarding the handbook to the department in the coming days so that they can be considered and potentially implemented.”

Janelle Wood, chair of the ESA Parent Handbook Committee said she was not sure whether the parent committee would reconvene or work with the department as part of the second round of revisions. But she expects changes to primarily revolve around making spending caps clearer.

“We got some great feedback from people that the rest of the book read well,” Wood said.

‘Chemtrail’ ban bill under review in House

The scientific debate about artificially curbing solar radiation to reduce heat has bubbled over into legislative debate about whether the government and private industry are poisoning Arizonans by spraying chemicals from airplanes.

And now, state lawmakers are moving to outlaw the practice of “geoengineering” entirely.

Legislation already approved by the Senate would make it illegal to intentionally release or dispense “any chemical, chemical compound, substance or apparatus” within Arizona designed for “solar radiation management.” SB1432 specifically defines this as injecting aerosols into the stratosphere to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the planet.

According to the bill’s backers, one form of geoengineering occurring is chemicals being dispersed in the upper atmosphere by aircraft through “chemtrails” that are already starting to block out the sun.

There is a scientific basis for looking at ways to block sunlight to curb climate change. It has long been known, for example, that pollution from erupting volcanoes can reduce solar radiation and cause cooling.

And there already have been experiments, with even Scientific American noting some efforts. There also is a report in MIT Technology Review saying that, from a technology standpoint, large-scale deployment could occur within five years.

But the debate at the state Capitol instead featured a parade of speakers contending whether this is already happening. And some, like Jodi Burkett, were armed with photos of what she called chemtrails – “lines in the sky that did not look normal.” Lines, which she claims, that “became haze … covering the sun.”

And Rep. Joseph Chaplik, R-Scottsdale, said there is reason to believe that’s already happening.

“I’ve lived in Arizona almost 15 years,” he said, saying what he saw at the time was “sunshine, beautiful weather.”

“And now it seems like in my neighborhood … you’re seeing these in the sky at nighttime or early morning,” Chaplik said, not when planes are flying.

All that then led to questions about the effects of all this.

“This is poisoning the people,” testified Gail Golec.

Golec, who worked to stop the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors from certifying the 2022 election returns, rejected arguments that what people see in the upper atmosphere are “contrails” – condensation formed by aircraft engines in certain atmospheric conditions – and not harmful.

“There’s a difference between chemtrail and contrail,” she told lawmakers.

“Not all planes have condensation coming out of them,” Golec said. “If we did, you’d go to Phoenix airport, you wouldn’t be able to see.”

Don Adams told lawmakers that there already are experiments to put out “reflective metals and chemical compounds,” saying there is research that shows these chemicals are resulting in declining crop yields. On the human end, he said there is an increase in neurodegenerative diseases, respiratory problems, increased cancer and Vitamin D deficiency.

Rebecca Peek, who identified herself as a government contracting consultant, said that there is an accumulation of aluminum which has been sprayed into the upper atmosphere in soils.

“There are actors out there that have seeds that grow in high aluminum environments,” she said, including people who are financially backing the development of technology that would dim the sun’s rays that reach the earth.

All that, according to Rep. Rachel Keshel, shows that there is reason to be concerned – and to act now.

“I think that it’s very disappointing that people like to relate it to tin-foil-hat wearing and Chemtrail Kelli,” said the Tucson Republican.

That latter reference is to former state senator Kelli Ward from Lake Havasu City who, in 2014, organized a forum in her district to address concerns about chemtrails. Ward later said she wasn’t buying into the theories but wanted to provide an avenue for constituents to express their concerns.

“This is happening,” said Keshel of efforts to cut solar radiation. “This is being tested.”

More to the point, in voting for state restrictions, she said it is being done “without the consent of the people.”

So far, though, it has been only Republican lawmakers who have supported the legislation crafted by Sen. David Farnsworth, R-Mesa, and a parallel bid by Rep. Lisa Fink, R-Glendale.

Sen. Priya Sundareshan, D-Tucson, said it’s not like she doesn’t believe that chemicals are being injected into the atmosphere, but that supporters of this measure are missing the point. Consider, she said, testimony about sulfur dioxide being sprayed into the air.

“The problem is unchecked air pollution that only gets worse the longer we allow it to,” Sundareshan said. “We must have stronger regulations and move our energy generation and our industrial activity toward less pollution-emitting sources.”

But so far the momentum is on the side of those who believe that the air is purposely being sprayed with chemicals. At the very least, some supporters of the measure say that deployment in Arizona of any solar radiation management should await further research.

“SRM involves dumping large amounts of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere to literally block out the sun,” said Rep. Alexander Kolodin.

“Some of the public health impacts of any time you deploy anything into the atmosphere need to be examined,” said the Scottsdale Republican. “And, more importantly, the people of Arizona really need to buy in to their efforts before they can be deployed.”

Rep. Lupe Contreras said there might be something there. But the Avondale Democrat and lifelong Arizona resident said what is missing in all of what was being presented to lawmakers was any actual evidence from any doctor about whether any of this – occurring now or not – is affecting human health.

Keshel said there’s a good reason for that.

“I do think that a lot of the doctors, scientists that have spoken out about this have been silenced,” she said.

Fink actually had proposed more comprehensive restrictions before this. Her own proposal would have outlawed cloud seeding as a method of producing more rain.

That, however, drew opposition from Fareed Bailey who lobbies for the Salt River Project. While primarily known as an electric provider, it actually has its roots in constructing dams and providing water for the Phoenix area for both agricultural and municipal use.

That got the attention of Kolodin who said that if Arizona is to have enough water – and have residents not paying $700-a-month water bills – options like this need to be explored.

Fink’s bill did clear the House in modified fashion, but never got a hearing in the Senate. That leaves the Farnsworth proposal as the only one that remains legally viable if it can get through another House committee and approval by the full House.

The final word, however, would rest with Gov. Katie Hobbs.

Wildfire regulation bill to be stripped of most contentious elements in Senate

A sweeping measure passed by the Arizona House giving utilities like Arizona Public Service and Tucson Electric Power major protections from lawsuits for wildfires sparked by their equipment will be stripped of the most contentious provisions in a state Senate committee hearing on Monday, the panel’s chairman said.

Finance Committee chairman Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, told Capitol Media Services on Friday that the amendment he crafted will remove provisions sought by the utilities requiring people or companies who sue over wildfire damages to prove by “clear and convincing” evidence that the utilities were at fault. That’s a much higher level of proof than what is normally required in lawsuits.

Also gone is a prohibition on recovering “consequential damages,” said Mesnard. Those include things like lost business income or compensation for renting a car if a person’s vehicle is destroyed by a fire and the owner awaits a replacement from the utility at fault.

Mesnard said that’s only fair.

Multiple drafts of the amendment, posted late Friday and still subject to change, also restore the ability to win punitive damages from a company whose negligence sparks a wildfire.

What utilities will still get in the legislation are hefty new protections from lawsuits if they follow new “wildfire mitigation plans” they will be required to create if HB2201 is enacted.

But Mesnard plans some changes there as well, one of which being the removal of a provision giving utilities a lawsuit shield if they only “substantially comply” with those plans. Also gone will be sections allowing the boards of public utilities like the Salt River Project to approve their own plans. 

Mesnard said that having a public utility approve its own plan that grants it lawsuit protections was problematic. Those company’s plans will instead have to be reviewed by the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 

“That resonated with me, the idea of having your own board approve your plan, and that allowing for you to then have immunity or some degree of protection,” Mesnard said. “That did not make sense to me. I needed there to be some other authority.”

That “substantial compliance” provision that Mesnard found troubling could have awarded liability protections for utilities even if they didn’t follow parts of their plans, like failing to trim back vegetation along parts of their power lines’ route. Under the House-passed measure, someone who lost a home still had to prove by “clear and convincing” evidence the utility was at fault even if they didn’t follow their plans to the letter. 

“So it’s sort of like if we reach a lower bar it protects us to a higher bar, and I had a hard time going along with that,” he said.

The version that reached the Senate had legal issues as well, according to House lawyers who reviewed the proposal.

Most notably, they said it likely ran afoul of a provision in the state constitution that bars laws that limit the right of people to sue for compensation. The changes Mesnard is pushing should address those concerns.

Mesnard said he met with APS lobbyists and with opponents of the bill, most prominently lobbyists for the insurance industry and trial lawyers, to hammer out changes he would need before agreeing to put the measure on his committee’s agenda. Committee chairs can kill legislation by refusing to hear a bill, and Mesnard said he was prepared to do that if his concerns weren’t addressed.

An APS spokesman said the company, the largest power provider in the state, supports the measure and Mesnard’s proposed amendment. An SRP spokeswoman said her company still needs to review the final proposed changes but appreciated Mesnard’s attention and expects to be able to support the bill.

TEP spokesman Joe Barrios said his company welcomes the clear guidance it will give utilities for submitting wildfire mitigation plans that include procedures for things like cutting off power during high wind events to avoid triggering a fire and for cutting back trees and brush near power lines. 

“It will also provide protection for customers because wildfire liability costs and higher insurance costs are passed (on) through higher rates,” Barrios said in a written statement. 

“We have an obligation to continue serving customers, even in areas that may be risk-prone for wildfires,” he wrote. “The bill would reduce exposure to unfair financial risks only if we satisfy standards in our wildfire mitigation plans, thereby reducing real and potential costs for our customers.”

Opponents of the Arizona liability protection measure said Mesnard’s proposed changes will make the bill more palatable. Insurance companies and trial lawyers have strongly opposed the original measure because it stripped homeowners and insurers of much of their ability to recover damages from utilities responsible for starting a blaze.

“It is a lot, a lot better,” said Marc Osborn, a lobbyist who represents Farmers, Geico, Nationwide and Allstate at the Capitol.

Having the ability to hold a utility responsible is important, he said. PG&E, for example, is now burying its power lines to avoid sparking a wildfire – something that only happened after the company faced two multibillion dollar lawsuits. He called the bill much more reasonable with Mesnard’s changes. 

“Would we prefer no bill? Yes,” Osborn said. “But I think Mr. Mesnard did a pretty good job of grinding off the rough edges on it.”

If the changes are adopted in Mesnard’s committee, the measure will go to the full Senate for approval and then back to the House for them to sign off on the changes. 

Gov. Katie Hobbs will then have the final say.

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.