Key Points:

• Bill redefines inhumane conditions for domestic animals

• There’s an ongoing push to secure support from House Republicans 

• June 16 is likely the last day the bill can receive a vote in the House

The supporters of an animal cruelty bill are pushing for the measure to receive a vote before time expires on the legislative session.

Senate Bill 1658 is awaiting approval in the House, but the chamber didn’t vote on the bill when it convened on June 4. That means the House will have to vote when it returns on June 16 or the bill will likely die this session.

If the House approves the bill, the legislation will then return to the Senate for a final vote. By then, however, it may be too late since both chambers could start advancing budget bills that week.

Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, said the bill is supposed to be heard when the House reconvenes, but he’ll use a procedural measure to bring it up for a vote if it’s not on the agenda. 

Blackman has been working with the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, and the Arizona Humane Society to advance the measure through the Legislature.

Senate Bill 1658 aims to clearly define suitable conditions for pets and add a misdemeanor charge for failing to provide an animal with medical attention to prevent unnecessary suffering. 

The measure would also redefine what it means to provide the appropriate food, water and shelter, but lawmakers and stakeholders are working to update the language to secure approval from some Republicans who are currently against the bill.

“It is common sense, does not affect livestock, does not affect people experiencing homelessness, very straightforward language,” said Humane Society President and CEO Dr. Steven Hansen. 

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 to keep the legislation alive.

The bill moved through the House Government and Rules committees, and advanced through the House Committee of the Whole on May 20, maintaining its bipartisan support. 

Bolick previously said she spent several weeks advocating for the legislation after House leadership told her the bill lacked the votes to be approved.

Some Republican lawmakers questioned the harshness of the penalties and the clarity of the language.

“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,” said Rep. Rachel Keshel, R-Tucson, during the Committee of the Whole hearing.

Hansen said on June 4 that the Humane Society worked with Blackman and Bolick to revise certain provisions of the bill, which would have expanded the definition of cruel neglect to include the failure to provide a pet with food fit for consumption and water suitable for drinking.

“So what we had agreed to is removing the definition of water as drinkable and just that animals require water, and also removing the food has to be appropriate for the species and edible, so just food,” he said. “So those are two big steps backwards.”

The Humane Society and lawmakers were initially able to keep a requirement in the bill calling for pet owners to provide suitable shelter but questions arose during negotiations regarding whether the structure had to be sound.

For example, legislators would need to determine whether a tent could be considered a suitable shelter. 

The bill’s language has to be “well defined,” Blackman said.

Blackman said the focus will be defining that language, as well as other aspects of the bill so it can garner the necessary support by June 16.

“I got to crank out that language … make sure it’s good to go,” he said.