Key Points:

• Strike-everything amendments replace the original language of a bill

• Striker amendments should be related to the bill topic, but not always, due to lawmakers running out of time to file bills

• A committee member has to carry the strike-everything amendment

The legislation filing deadline is long gone, and if lawmakers want to squeeze something in, they’ll have to resort to a striker amendment. 

A strike-everything amendment barges in and wipes out the original text of the bill and substitutes new language. But not all the time. Occasionally, the amendment makes technical and conforming changes that were not included in the original bill language. 

Technically, strikers are supposed to be related to the bill’s topic, though that’s not always the case. Fun fact: In a few other states like Oklahoma, they’re called a “woolly-booger.” 

Beyond introducing new legislation after the deadline, striker amendments can be used to bypass committees that didn’t hear a bill, or introduce copycat legislation if a bill stalls in a chamber.

In Arizona’s Legislature, lawmakers have to get a committee member to carry the striker. For the 2026 legislative session so far, 58 strikers have been adopted and 72 have been proposed, according to the Arizona legislative website, but that number changes throughout the session. Last year, more than 300 strike-everything amendments were proposed. 

Here’s a short list of the most prominent strikers that have come through the Senate thus far. The link to a full list of strike-everything amendments can be found on the Legislature’s website. 

Senate Bill 1570 would have allowed federal immigration authorities to be present at polling places during elections. Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, filed the bill. Originally, it would have prohibited state agencies from using diversity, equity and inclusion programs for hiring, training or promotion purposes. 

Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, carried the striker in the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee, which she chairs. The bill died in committee in February because it was not heard in that committee before the deadline for legislation to be heard in its chamber of origin.

The striker drew harsh criticism from opponents and attracted many people to the committee hearing who were expecting to speak on the bill. But seven hours later, Rogers said the bill wouldn’t be heard because Hoffman wasn’t there to present it. 

Another striker, Senate Bill 1111, would outline when law enforcement agencies can use automated license plate readers. Sen. Kevin Payne, R-Peoria, sponsored the bill, saying it would outline how law enforcement agencies can use automated license plate readers and set requirements related to use, training and data management. 

Payne’s floor amendment, which passed, further stipulated that the data is restricted to law enforcement agencies and is accessible only when a trackable criminal case or incident number is provided. 

“Today, under license plate readers for the state and cities and counties throughout the state, there is no guidance. There is no guardrail. They can do whatever they want with this data, with these cameras,” Payne said during a Committee of the Whole hearing last week.

Opponents argued it would create a surveillance state, with Hoffman saying, “Our founders did not flee tyranny only to build a surveillance state of their own. They understood that a government that watches everything controls everything.”

Hoffman’s floor amendment would have limited the bill to allow only government vehicles on government property surrounded by a barrier to monitor for data. Significantly, it would have also prohibited the observation of vehicles on public roads. 

Sen. Lauren Kuby, D-Tempe, voiced her concerns about the possibility that data or images would not be subject to a public records request. Payne cited the need for privacy in cases of domestic disputes, but said he wants to work on that aspect. The bill hasn’t received a third read yet.

One of the only strike-everything amendments filed by a Democrat and adopted is Senate Bill 1798. The bill would require high schools to develop and implement a Free Application for Federal Student Aid awareness strategy, which includes designating a school employee as the school’s point of contact for the financial aid, known as FAFSA. 

The program would be established within the Arizona Department of Education, and that agency is directed to collaborate with the Arizona Board of Regents to administer it. 

If passed, the bill would take effect for the 2027-2028 school year. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Kiana Sears, D-Mesa, passed the Senate Committee of the Whole, but has not gotten a third read in the Senate yet. 

The bill aims to raise awareness about student resources and financial aid options. The reason? A huge disparity in the information school districts receive, Sears said.

“We have a ton of students slipping through the cracks and they don’t even know this exists,” Sears said. “So I think it’s so important that students know that they’re taught the possibilities are there if they fill out the FAFSA and then they are assured to get money after college to pursue their dreams.”

About 90% of students who fill out the Federal Application For Student Aid form go on to some type of post secondary education, according to the National College Attainment Network. Sears said this is the first bill of its kind.

“I’m proud to champion it because I’m proud of public school and pro-public school, all schools,” she said. “We have agreement with traditional public schools and charters alike to get this done.”

While mostly agreeing with the bill, Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, said he would prefer to see the effort limited to district schools and not include charter schools. He voted no at the time, but said his vote might change, depending on any amendments.

“I totally respect that you want this to be across the board because you want all parents and students to have the information,” he said. “When it comes to charter schools … no one has to go to them, I’m willing to give them a little more leeway rather than sort of micromanaging how they tackle this issue.”