Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correctly attribute the original ownership of the bill the striker was passed on. 

Key Points:

• The bill would redefine inhumane conditions for domestic animals

• Sen. Bolick spent weeks advocating for the law after it stalled in House committees

• Rep. Blackman used a striker amendment on another Bolick bill to get the measure heard again

An animal cruelty bill that supporters say would clearly define suitable conditions for pets is one step closer to receiving final legislative approval.

Senate Bill 1658 passed the House Committee of the Whole on May 20 after it was added to the calendar before the House convened for a floor session.

The measure would clarify what constitutes inhumane conditions for domestic animals, redefine what it means to provide the appropriate food, water and shelter, and add a misdemeanor charge for failing to provide an animal with medical attention to prevent unnecessary suffering. 

The bill was prompted by an animal cruelty case in September 2023, when 55 disabled dogs were seized from a Chandler home. The homeowner was arrested on multiple charges of animal cruelty, fraud and theft.

The House will still need to give final approval for the measure during its next third read hearing, which will likely be delayed for a couple of weeks since the chamber recessed until June 4. The bill will then need to head back to the Senate for final approval before it’s sent to the governor.

The Committee of the Whole hearing was the latest in an arduous journey for the bill, which has faced obstacles in the House and Senate, and had to be revived as a striker amendment after the original bill stalled in the House.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, spent the last several weeks advocating for the legislation after House leadership told her the bill lacked support. 

Bolick joined Arizona Humane Society President and CEO Dr. Steven Hansen and dozens of supporters for a rally and press conference the morning before the start of the House floor session.

Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, and Sen. Lauren Kuby, D-Tempe, also appeared at the rally to show support for the bill.

“I decided to introduce Senate Bill 1658 when I learned of significant shortcomings in the state that make it difficult to prosecute people who commit cruelty against companion animals,” Bolick said at the press conference. 

The bill was initially introduced as Senate Bill 1234, but was double assigned to the the House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee and House Judiciary Committee after it was approved in the Senate with bipartisan support.

Blackman used a striker amendment on another Bolick bill after the original animal cruelty measure was double assigned.

The bill maintained its bipartisan support during the Committee of the Whole hearing on Tuesday, although some Republican lawmakers questioned whether the penalties were too harsh and the bill too vague.

“This bill is cruel to a very different type of animal, and that would be human beings,” Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale. “I always hate to see bills pushed through this chamber that put in the legislative text a primacy on the well-being of animals over people, and this bill does exactly that.”

Rep. Rachel Keshel, R-Tucson, said the bill’s language could lead to unintended consequences for animal owners.

“The language is just far too vague at certain points where it could potentially criminalize someone who possibly can’t afford to take care of their animal properly according to this bill, and this will be someone that actually loves their animal very much,” Keshel said.

Blackman said lawmakers didn’t have to vote for the bill if they didn’t support it, but he issued a strong rebuke to some legislators he believed were obstructing the bill and keeping it from being heard in the chamber.

“We don’t have the opportunity or the luxury just to pick and choose what’s going to get us elected or not,” Blackman said. “We do the job that people want us to do, and this is the job that people want us to do …They want to make sure that dogs are not being mistreated. (That they are) being fed properly, given water. What’s wrong with that? Why is that such a political big deal?”