Key points:

• A measure that would constitutionally require the Legislature to adjourn by April 30 passed a House committee

• Lawmakers haven’t adjourned by April in more than a decade

• Voters must pass the measure to go into effect if it passes the House and Senate

The length of Arizona’s legislative sessions has grown longer in the 2020s, but voters this year could have the chance to ensure legislative sessions end no later than April.

A House concurrent resolution sponsored by Rep. Justin Wilmeth, R-Phoenix, would require the Legislature to adjourn sine die by April 30 each year. On Feb. 4, the measure passed the House Government Committee 4-3, bringing it one step closer to voters this November. 

Both the House and the Senate have a rule requiring the chambers to adjourn by the Saturday following the 100th day of session, usually around late April. But since lawmakers get to make their own rules, that deadline has been consistently waived year-after-year while lawmakers pass the state budget in May and June.

The measure, House Concurrent Resolution 2005, would be on the November ballot if it passes the House and Senate. It has not received a full House vote yet. 

“Our legislative sessions are going longer and longer, and longer,” Wilmeth said. “This is unacceptable to me, and hopefully it is to you too.”

Wilmeth has been involved in Arizona’s legislative sessions either as a staffer or as a lawmaker for more than a decade. Since he was first elected to the House in 2020, every session he has been involved in has gone into June. 

In 2023, lawmakers didn’t adjourn sine die until July 31 despite the budget being signed that year in May and the fiscal year ending on June 30. The last time the Legislature finished in April was 2015, when lawmakers adjourned sine die on April 3. 

Arizona’s Legislature was established to be part-time and with a salary of $24,000 annually for lawmakers, Wilmeth said extending the session until near-July isn’t practical for several lawmakers and many people who would be interested in running for office. 

Wilmeth was also open to a full-time Legislature in Arizona, but he said he’s running the early adjournment date measure because it would be the easier option to actually implement. Going full-time would likely require a pay increase for lawmakers, which must be approved by voters. 

Rep. Aaron Marquez, D-Phoenix, voted against HCR2005 in committee but said he would prefer a measure that makes the Legislature full-time to keep institutional knowledge and power in lawmakers’ hands rather than in the hands of lobbyists who work year-round and earn higher salaries.

“If we’re going to dream big, let’s dream about what a full-time Legislature looks like with real conflict of interest laws that prevent us from doing anything to enrich ourselves while we’re down here at the Legislature,” Marquez said. 

Other lawmakers also feel that adjourning sine die by April presents some challenges for the state budget, which is often negotiated between legislative leaders and the Governor’s Office after most bills have been considered. In recent years, lawmakers have started taking multiple mini breaks in the later months of session until a budget is ready to be voted on. 

“That budget process — it’s more than 40 hours. It’s more like 60 or 70 hours a week,” said Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, D-Tucson. 

The 2023 session saw lawmakers go on a month-long break before returning in June to vote on the budget. Wilmeth said he envisions a full-time Legislature in Arizona functioning in a similar way, with the budget being passed in the spring and while lawmakers return in the fall for other bills. 

If voters pass HCR2005 and a budget is not signed into law by April 30, the governor would have to call a special session before the end of the fiscal year to pass the budget. Rep. Rachel Keshel, R-Tuscon, said she didn’t mind that approach because a special session would keep “zombie bills,” or failed bills that are resurrected for floor votes and discussions, from taking up legislative time. 

“We can cause a lot less damage if we’re here for a shorter period of time,” Keshel said. 

A complementary measure to HCR2005 is House Concurrent Resolution 2048, another constitutional measure sponsored by Rep. Michael Way, R-Queen Creek. That measure would prohibit salary increases for elected officials from taking effect during their current term and it would not allow lawmakers, the governor and other elected state officials, from receiving a paycheck after April 30 if a budget isn’t signed into law by then. 

“Taxpayers do not get paid for work they do not finish, and lawmakers should not be treated any differently,” Way said in a statement. “We are elected to do one essential job each year, pass a state budget. If we fail to meet that deadline, we should not collect a paycheck.”