Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: J.D. Mesnard

Lawmaker proposes 30 new seats for the Arizona House

Key Points:
  • Sen. J.D. Mesnard proposes adding 30 more to the state House
  • Current system has two representatives for each of the 30 legislative districts
  • Mesnard’s plan would delay changes until the 2040 census results

So how many state lawmakers is enough?

Sen. J.D. Mesnard says 90 — 30 senators and 60 representatives — is too few. So he is proposing to add 30 more to the state House.

The current system has two representatives for each of the 30 legislative districts, with each theoretically representing everyone in their district. 

Mesnard would like to take those 30 districts and divide each of them into three, creating a total of 90 districts, and authorizing each to have its own representative. 

Why? Right now, each district has about 254,000 residents. And that, Mesnard contends, makes it hard for anyone to truly represent everyone in a district.

Divide that into three and each House member would represent fewer than 85,000.

“This is about good governance,” Mesnard said. “It allows for the House members to be a little more closer to the people.”

What his plan also does, he said, is bring Arizona more in line with other states. Mesnard shared a chart with colleagues showing that the average state House has 110 members.

And then there’s the fact that the 254,000 residents per representative is exceeded only by California, where each of their 80 member Assembly — the equivalent of the Arizona House — represents more than 491,000 constituents.

Still, he said, there are things to be worked out if the measure clears the Senate, House and, ultimately, the voters. It starts with having the new lines drawn by the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission which meets after each decennial census.

There’s also the question of cost — an estimated $1 million to the state budget for legislator salaries and daily living expenses alone.

And that’s just part of it.

“I think the bigger question is, where do you put them,” Mesnard said.

The current House chamber, built in the 1960s, is designed for the current 60 members.

Sen. Jake Hoffman said he doesn’t see any reason that more lawmakers can’t be accommodated. The Queen Creek Republican said there are plenty of “fancy desks” for new representatives, though they are no larger than the ones he and his other 29 Senate colleagues are already assigned.

More challenging, however, is the problem of office space. 

Mesnard acknowledged there could be construction costs, pointing to long-shelved plans to modernize — and possibly rebuild entirely — both the House and Senate.

Still, he urged colleagues not to think in terms of dollars and cents.

“If cost is the overriding factor, we can reverse it and shrink the size of the Legislature,” Mesnard said.

“It will be very efficient and very cheap,” he said. “I don’t know if it would be very representative. But you can do that.”

Mesnard also pointed out that there is at least some precedent for what he is suggesting.

Prior to 1966, there actually were 80 state representatives, chosen according to a formula that assigned each county a certain number based largely on population.

All that fell apart after the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 1964 ruling known as “one man, one vote.” In essence, the justices said that state legislative districts must have roughly equal population.

U.S. District Court Judge Roslyn Silver, in a 2021 article in the Arizona State Law Journal, said state lawmakers initially balked at drawing new lines, “likely because the legislators did not want to apportion themselves out of office.” What it took, she said, was a successful lawsuit by Gary Peter Klahr, then a law student at Arizona State University, to finally get some action.

That resulted in the current 60-member House.

What it also did was reduce the influence of rural Democrats who, until that time, used the county-based system to control the process. And the House in 1966 went from being 45-35 Democrat to 33-27 Republicans — an edge that, to this date, the GOP has never lost in the lower chamber.

Sen. Lauren Kuby said she sees some benefit to what Mesnard is proposing.

“I believe it would increase representation,” said the Tempe Democrat. She also said it could remove some barriers, financial and otherwise, for would-be candidates, what with having to knock on fewer doors and spend money mailing out campaign material.

“But I think it needs more thoughtful consideration,” Kuby said. And for her, that means having some sort of study looking at all the possibilities instead of just going ahead now and asking voters to approve the plan in November.

“There may be other alternatives to reform a system,” she said as she voted against the plan when it went through the Senate Government Committee.

Mesnard, for his part, acknowledged the difficulty that remains even if voters approve.

His initial plan called for the new districts to be drawn up after the 2030 census. But the measure awaiting a final Senate vote, puts off any changes until the 2040 census, meaning the first time Arizona could choose to elect 90 representatives would be in 2042.

He noted, though, that by that point the need for smaller House districts could be even greater, with the Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity saying by that year the state population could top 10 million. That would mean more than 330,000 residents of each district under the current system — or 110,000 if the change is approved.

None of what is in Mesnard’s plan would alter how state senators are chosen. There would remain just one for each of the 30 districts.

Senate OKs ballot measure to double lawmaker salaries

Key Points: 
  • Majority of Arizona state senators want to double their pay
  • Senators claim higher pay will attract more diverse candidates
  • Proposed pay hike would be tied to the consumer price index annually

A majority of state senators want to ask voters to double their pay.

And the claim is that Arizonans may get a better — or at least broader — choice of people to represent them.

The 20-9 vote March 11 to send the issue to the November ballot came on a proposal by Senate Majority Leader John Kavanagh who has argued that voters can be convinced it’s time to revisit the current $24,000 salary, first enacted in 1998. 

Under the Arizona Constitution, legislative pay can be altered only if there is a recommendation from the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers – and then, only if voters ratify that proposal. But every effort since 1998 to hike salaries has been rejected at the ballot box.

So the Fountain Hills Republican is trying something different.

He wants voters to scrap the constitutional provisions about commission recommendations and voter approval. In its place would be an amendment saying that salaries would be adjusted every year based on changes in the cost of living as measured by the consumer price index.

More to the point, if the proposal is approved, first by the House and then by voters, that would put future increases on legislative pay on automatic and make it the last time that lawmakers would need to go to voters for authorization.

But what is not obvious is that Kavanagh worded his SCR 1020 so that the indexing would begin based not on the current salary – assuming the measure is approved – but would instead be computed from that 1998 increase. And that translates into an immediate pay boost of more than $48,000, according to an inflation calculator from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Sen. Mitzi Epstein told colleagues that a pay hike is justified. She said while Arizona is supposed to have a part-time Legislature, the reality is that it can take 60 hours a week.

And it’s been years since lawmakers have adjourned in April as the rules suggest.

“The compensation needs to be there so that we can recruit people to do the job who are not already able to pay their way,” said the Tempe Democrat. Epstein, who is not seeking re-election, said she wants to be part of that recruitment process.

Closely linked to that, she said, is having a Legislature that is more reflective of the population.

“We cannot reach that representation goal unless we are providing a salary that you can live on,” Epstein said. “And $24,000 a year is not livable unless, in my case, you are already living on retirement savings.”

Sen. Mark Finchem agreed that a higher salary would lead to a more diverse Legislature.

“That means Joe Average can leave a job, or take a sabbatical for a couple of years, run for office, serve, and then go back to his job, without sacrificing that median home income for his family,” said the Prescott Republican. Finchem, who is seeking re-election, previously served in the state House for eight years, left to run unsuccessfully for secretary of state, and then moved to Prescott, where he won a successful bid to represent the area in the Senate.

Sen. Lauren Kuby, in her first term in the Legislature, echoed the sentiment.

“We certainly want people of all incomes to have the opportunity to run for office,” the Tempe Democrat told Capitol Media Services afterwards.

But she should not bring herself to support the measure.

“Why is this a priority when Arizona’s working families are struggling for fair wages?” asked Kuby.

She also noted it is now nine weeks into the 2026 legislative session.

“And we haven’t centered our attention on real struggles and issues affecting our communities,” Kuby said. “If there were a performance evaluation from our constituents, not sure how well we would score.”

Also voting against the measure was Sen. Jake Hoffman, who had his own set of reasons. The Queen Creek Republican told Capitol Media Services he isn’t buying the argument that higher salaries will result in a larger pool of qualified contenders.

Consider, he said, the congressional salary of $174,000 a year.

“Yet Congress limps along with approval ratings barely above 20%,” he said. And Hoffman, first elected in 2022 and seeking another term in November, said that California and New York legislatures, with salaries of $132,000 and $142,000 respectively, “have become poster children for overreach, bureaucracy, and policies many view as outright fascist and authoritarian.”

“Raising pay … simply entrenches career politicians, rewards incumbency, and further disconnects them from the people they claim to serve,” he said. “Proposals to increase pay for politicians only produce higher pay for politicians, nothing more and nothing less. Period.”

Sen. J.D. Mesnard said he’s not against the concept.

“It’s not a terrible idea,” said the Chandler Republican who was first elected to the Legislature in 2010. He also is not seeking re-election and would not be affected by what voters decide.

But he, too, voted against the measure, questioning whether it makes sense to set up a system that gives lawmakers an automatic cost-of-living increase every year.

“That’s a little bit more generous than most employers provide,” Mesnard said.

He also has a practical concern: Would voters, learning that approval of the measure would immediately double legislative salaries, be willing to go along?

Kavanagh, for his part, said he’s not worried about that. He said it’s just a matter of explaining to voters that this really shouldn’t be seen as doubling legislative pay.

The way Kavanagh sees it, when voters approved the last pay hike in 1998 – an increase from $15,000 that had been in effect since 1980 – they thought that $24,000 was an appropriate wage for that time. All his measure does, he said, is ask voters to adjust the current wages to match that level.

Kavanagh, first elected in 2006 and hoping for yet another two-year term, also said the proposal is fair: It is structured so that if there is deflation and the consumer price index drops, legislators’ salaries would drop the following year.

The measure now goes to the House.

History of legislative pay:

– Original 1912 Arizona Constitution: $7 per day

– 1932 initiative – $8 per day.

– 1958 referendum – $3,600 per year

– 1968 referendum – $6,000 per year

– 1980 salary commission recommendation approved by voters – $15,000

– 1998 salary commission recommendation approved by voters – $24,000

Do you smell that? Mesnard wants to criminalize excess marijuana odor

Key Points:
  • Arizona Senator J.D. Mesnard proposes legislation to expand nuisance laws to include excessive marijuana smoke and odor
  • The bill aims to address the impact of marijuana smoke on families, including restricting its use on residential properties
  • The legislation would allow judges to issue orders to abate marijuana nuisances

Someone in J.D. Mesnard’s Chandler neighborhood smokes marijuana.

The Republican senator doesn’t know who, though he’s pretty sure it’s not the folks next door.

But wherever it’s coming from, Mesnard said it’s strong enough to keep families from being able to use their own yards.

So the senator is proposing legislation to expand the state’s laws which make it a crime to use residential property in a way that creates a public nuisance. And he would do that by expanding the definition of “crime” to include “the creation of excessive marijuana smoke and odor,” — something that even could land people in county jail, though it does not define what is “excessive.”

The proposal comes 15 years after voters first approved marijuana for medical use. A decade later, they expanded the law to allow adults to use marijuana for recreational purposes.

Nothing in the law permits the use in public spaces.

But it says nothing about elsewhere — including in and around someone’s house, yard and pool.

“I don’t even know where it’s coming from,” Mesnard told Capitol Media Services.

He said that this time of year is “a great time to open our windows.”

“But half the time I can’t keep our windows open,” Mesnard said.

It’s not just a problem for him — or even just in Chandler.

“When I dropped the bill, my phone was blowing up with people letting me know their own experience,” he said. What that shows, Mesnard said, is that “people were just sort of tolerating it.”

That, he said, convinced him that the problem is broad enough to be covered under existing nuisance laws.

Part of his proposal addresses judges’ authority to issue orders to property owners to abate “criminal nuisances” — which his measure would expand to include excessive marijuana smoke or odor—or face having the government or homeowner association do so. But in that case, the cost would become a lien against the property.

But there’s more.

There already is a provision in the state’s criminal code that makes it illegal to recklessly create or maintain a condition that “endangers the safety or health of others.”

Mesnard’s bill goes a step further, declaring as a matter of law that “it is presumed that the creation of excessive marijuana smoke and odor is injurious to health, indecent, offensive to the senses and an obstruction of the free use of property that interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property and is a public nuisance.”

Put another way, it would not be up to the government to prove any of that to get a conviction. Instead, it would be up to the homeowner to prove otherwise.

A conviction for knowingly maintaining such a nuisance could land someone in jail for up to four months and subject them to a $750 fine.

Mesnard said legislative intervention is necessary.

“I’m hearing from some people that, depending on their neighbor situation, they may not be able to have their kids go outside because the marijuana smoke is so potent,” he said. “It can even creep into your own house or, in my case, into my garage.”

Mesnard said he never supported legalizing recreational marijuana. But he also said that fighting it wasn’t his top issue.

“But experiencing now what’s happened, even in my own neighborhood, is a pretty frustrating situation,” he said. The legislation, Mesnard said, is to buttress the idea that “you should be responsible neighbors if you’re going to smoke pot, that it can be a real issue for families, especially with kids.”

Still, that leaves the question of why single out smoke from marijuana as a nuisance and not smoke or odor from cigarettes, cigars and pipes — or even someone lighting wood on fire in a pit.

“I’ll concede I hadn’t thought about it,” Mesnard said. But he also said that, based on his own experience, he hasn’t found that to be a problem.

And there’s something else.

“I’m pretty sure that marijuana smoke has a different impact than, say, other smoke that might make you cough,” Mesnard said.

“I don’t want my kids to get high,” he said. “If someone wants to get high on their own, let them get high on their own.”

Mesnard said that the moment an individual’s actions affect other people, especially kids, “that’s where I take serious issue.”

Less clear is whether voters will have any say.

One version, SB 1725, would take effect if approved by the House and Senate and signed by the governor.

The only thing is, marijuana was legalized in an election. And the Arizona Constitution limits lawmakers’ ability to tinker with anything voters have approved.

Mesnard said his proposal could be considered an effort to amend the initiative. So he also has crafted SCR 1048 which is identical in every way with SB 1725 with the exception that legislative approval would simply send the question to the November ballot where voters would get the last word.

Lawmakers face waiver of school spending limit or permanent fix

Another legislative session means another waiver on the aggregate expenditure limit, and with no end in sight, lawmakers and a school finance aficionado stress the need for a permanent fix given the perpetual limits school district budgets face. 

Entering the fifth consecutive fiscal year of a necessary waiver to avoid about a billion dollars in budget cuts to school districts, another single fiscal year fix cleared its first hurdle in committee Feb. 18, while legislative proposals to alter or do away with the limit altogether gained no ground.  

Lawmakers and education groups agree on bringing the 1980s budget limit in touch with contemporary school funding levels, but what exactly the long-term should look like is still a budding conversation. 

Chuck Essigs
Chuck Essigs

“It’s not like maybe we need to address it because we’re going to be over the limit,” Chuck Essigs, director of governmental affairs for the Arizona Association of School Business Officials, said. “We’re going to go way over the limit, and we’re going to continue to be over the limit until we fix how the limit is calculated.” 

Voters approved the aggregate expenditure limit, a constitutional amendment capping school district spending based on inflation and changes in student population, in 1980.

Since its inception, the Legislature has waived it a handful of times, with the most recent stint beginning in 2022. 

An increase in school funding coupled with a dip in student enrollment over the Covid pandemic pushed districts more than $1.15 billion over in FY2022. Districts exceeded the limit again in FY2023, and when it was poised to do so in FY2024 and FY2025, lawmakers preemptively raised the limit. District budgets ran over the limit by $1.38 billion in FY2023 and $1.36 billion in FY2024, and would have resulted in significant statewide school budget cuts absent legislative action. 

In facing the same situation in FY2026, Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, introduced House Concurrent Resolution 2003 which would preemptively provide another year-long fix. Gress previously identified waiving the aggregate expenditure limit as a priority for the legislative session.

hotel, shelter, homeless, Scottsdale, Gress, David Ortega
Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix

He said increases in state spending on public schools created the “annual exercise” where districts exceed the spending cap and task the Legislature with overriding the limit with a two-thirds vote to ensure school budgets go unslashed. 

It’s true the state has continued to increase dollars to public schools. A report by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee shows the per-pupil funding from the state alone increased from $4,529 in FY2016 to $8,072 in FY2025. 

Essigs pointed to the continuation of the Classroom Site Fund as one exacerbating factor. In 2000, voters passed Proposition 301, which increased the state’s sales tax to provide additional funds for educational programs, with those funds exempted from the limit. 

But when the sales tax was continued in 2018, an exemption from the aggregate expenditure limit was not. 

Essigs said district budgets are nearly assured to run over the limit in  perpetuity, necessitating a change to the formula. 

He said one option could be exempting certain funds, or altering how the formula counts and weighs students. As it stands, the aggregate expenditure limit operates off a straight-student count, as opposed to one taking into account funding weights for students with disabilities or low-income students. 

Essigs brought into question the legitimacy of the expenditure limit in the first place given existing legislative oversight. 

“Why do you need a limit that controls spending authority by school districts when the legislature already has full control over the school budgets?”

Marisol Garcia, president of the Arizona Education Association, said another one year waiver is “bare minimum for public schools,” and “par for the course.” Garcia wants to see the limit eliminated entirely, or at least have educators at the table to discuss how to retool it for the future. 

“It is a limiting factor on what we can do for our students, and it is a political game that gets played every year, and I just think we’re done with it,” Garcia said. “It’s just disappointing that we’re still doing this.”  

Garcia noted the aggregate expenditure limit is considered a “bargaining chip,” in the state budget, too. Education groups have also called to tie the limit into Proposition 123, as lawmakers and stakeholders mull how exactly to continue allocating dollars from the state land trust fund to education. 

Meghaen Dell’Artino, lobbyist for the Education Finance Reform Group, told lawmakers Feb. 19 that making sure schools can spend the money to be allocated is a chief concern. 

Gress wants to see the aggregate expenditure limit updated to meet modern funding rates. 

“Longer term, we need to take a look at the AEL to maybe update it to reflect the investments,” Gress said. “I don’t believe getting rid of the AEL is prudent either, because it, I think, invites a conversation around school funding that is a healthy one.”

Essigs said for this session, preemptively waiving the limit, ahead of the March 1, 2026, deadline for FY2026, is a better way of approaching the AEL given the severity of the prospective budget cuts, but noted again that it can only go so far. 

“That’s a really good thing to do. It doesn’t fix the problem with the aggregate expenditure limit, but at least it prevents districts from being penalized until someone or some group can come up with a better way of addressing that issue.”

House and Senate Democrats introduced resolutions to incorporate weighted student counts into the formula and to repeal the limit, but the legislative attempts have failed to make it to committee. 

Gress’s resolution on the AEL passed the House Education Committee on Feb. 18 near-unanimously. He said it will not go to a floor vote until  budget negotiations. 

 

Lawmakers, stakeholders working on next version of Prop 123

When is the deadline to call a special election to pass a renewed version of Proposition 123 before the end of the fiscal year? It depends on who you ask. 

With Proposition 123, a 2016 voter-approved measure increasing the distribution from the state land trust to K-12 schools, set to lapse at the end of the fiscal year, stakeholders are still trying to figure out how exactly to fashion the next version of the school funding mechanism, and when to send the resulting measure to voters. 

According to the Secretary of State’s Office, lawmakers would need to call an election within the first week of the legislative session as county election officials need a minimum of five months to prepare for a statewide election. But a senator working on the measure said the true legal deadline is closer to mid-February. 

Either way, a new iteration of Prop. 123 by the end of the fiscal year is not exactly vital. Though stakeholders are working to extend the measure sooner rather than later, the Legislature has a legal obligation to backfill about the approximately $300 million that would no longer be covered by the state land trust come July. 

ASU, Arizona State University, freedom of speech,
Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler

“It’s not a fiscal cliff,” Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, said. “It’s designed not to be a fiscal cliff.” 

Although an election call in the first week of session may be ideal, Mesnard said he did not believe it to be the legal drop dead date. He noted, too, a call by the first week is not realistic. 

“It would be hard enough if we had the same Legislature,” Mesnard said. “But we have a new Legislature, some members don’t know anything about this, even though we are picking up where we left off.” 

Mesnard said he understood the deadline to be in February, though he would “admittedly get more concerned as we get into February.” 

State statute requires consolidated election dates, one of which being the third Tuesday in May, which in 2025, would be May 20. The Secretary of State’s Office has a separate constitutional duty to publish the proposed amendments for at least 90 days prior to the election. 

Under that time constraint, the Legislature would have to pass legislation before Feb. 18, with time to transmit to the governor and the secretary of state. 

Though a special election is the initial goal, Mesnard said the question could wait, with the potential it goes to voters in the 2026 general election. 

How the measure itself takes shape remains an open question. 

Prop. 123 came about as part of a settlement of Cave Creek Unified School District v Ducey, in which the court required the state to keep base level funding for K-12 schools in step with inflation. 

The measure, which was first enacted with 50.92% voters approval in a special election in 2016, increased the distribution rate from the state land trust fund to schools from 2.5% to 6.9% through FY2025. 

Last session, as Prop. 123’s expiration date crept closer, lawmakers started to formulate how exactly to retool and revamp the draw from the state land trust. 

Republicans hit first and proposed the Legislature backfill the base level for Prop. 123 and use the funds for teacher pay raises instead.Democrats shot back with a plan to increase the distribution rate from 6.9% to 8.9%, with a split to cover general school funding, educator and staff pay raises and school safety. 

But no salient, bipartisan plan came to be by the end of session, leaving Prop. 123’s fate yet to be decided. 

Stakeholders, including the governor, the Secretary of State’s Office, lawmakers, education groups and business groups have continued to meet about Prop. 123 since late summer. 

Meghaen Dell’Artino, a lobbyist with Public Policy Partners, said in an email that spending the dollars on teachers and those who support the classroom continue to be a priority. 

“For us, as long as the funding is ongoing we are okay restricting the dollars for that purpose. But if the plan only provides funding for 10 years then the funds would need to be flexible or you end up with a funding cliff and pay that can not be sustained because the funding expires,” Dell’Artino said. “Stakeholders are talking with legislators and the governor and believe that a bipartisan Prop 123 deal that benefits all public schools will get to the finish line. When, we aren’t sure.”

For the governor’s part, spokesman Christian Slater said in a text that a special concurrent legislative session is “definitely on the table if it will be necessary and productive.” 

He added Hobbs is “committed to extending Prop. 123 to properly fund public education and ensure Arizona students can thrive in their neighborhood schools.” 

Mesnard said he and Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, held a listening session with stakeholders “from one end of the political spectrum to the other one (and) one area of interest within education or another” to start and plan to hold another before the session starts.

“I think it’s early to say what all will be captured, but certainly within our K-12 conversation, you have a lot of support for school choice and the right of parents to make the educational decisions that work best for their kids,” Mesnard said.

He continued, “How that fits into (Prop 123)? I’m uncertain right now, but it’s just acknowledging because when we go to the voters, we’re going to want to have as broad a support as possible. We want it to pass. We don’t want to send something that is going to fail. And so hearing from all these different groups with, again, their different lens on what they see is valuable, what they know, what they prioritize, that right now can include anything.” 

The key contentions with Prop. 123 last session continued to be the proportion drawn from the state land trust fund and who would benefit from the funds, with a particular fissure along party lines on whether school staff or solely teachers would benefit from pay raises. 

Justan Rice, executive director for the Arizona School Boards Association, attended a Prop. 123 listening session, and said “no one has really said one thing or the other about whether this money will be strictly siloed to teachers, or where this is something that might be a little bit more expansive.” 

Rice said discussion about dollar or percentage amounts from the state land trust fund is at early stages. 

Mesnard added that there is a potential for a “plethora” of legal challenges down the line. There could be litigation on the single subject rule, a provision requiring a constitutional amendment be limited to one matter, and a standing question of whether the state has congressional approval to further tap into the state land trust fund under the Enabling Act, the initial federal legislation setting up the Arizona state land trust at the time of statehood. 

“There are plenty of places this thing could go off the legal rails,” Mesnard said. “It’s an uphill battle, politically, policy wise, legally. We’re still working to get it done, but we’re cognizant of the land mines.” 

 

Arizona Republicans want quicker election results like in Florida

Republicans in the state Legislature pre-filed an elections bill that aims to make Arizona’s election system more like Florida’s, but there’s no guarantee the measure will see Gov. Katie Hobbs’s signature.

Speeding up election night reporting is one of the top priorities for Republicans, many of whom have grown frustrated with how long the state has taken to count ballots. 

“Arizona is a laughingstock across the country for how long it’s taking our state to determine winners and losers in this election,” said Sen. J.D. Mesnard in a Nov. 8 news release days after the general election. 

ASU, Arizona State University, freedom of speech,
Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler

Both Mesnard and Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, have pre-filed bills intended to speed up election result reporting. 

Petersen’s bill will be the first bill heard in the Senate Judiciary and Elections Committee, chaired by Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, according to a Dec. 12 post on X from Petersen. 

The Senate president’s measure, SB1011, would move the deadline to drop off an early ballot at a polling place to 7 p.m. the Friday before an Election Day instead of on Election Day. It would also expand early voting to include the Monday and weekend before an election, and repeal state law that instructs county supervisors to set up emergency voting centers, which requires voters to provide “unforeseen circumstances” that prevent them from voting at the polls. 

If the bill becomes law, anyone who drops off an early ballot in person after the new deadline could show identification and sign an affidavit, eliminating signature verification for their “late early” ballots, which election officials say is one of the leading causes of election reporting delays.

Many of the ideas in Petersen’s bill are also supported by Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Vice Chairman Thomas Galvin. 

“By moving up the cutoff date for early ballot drop offs, using government buildings to host polling sites, and eliminate emergency voting for the Saturday and Monday prior to the election while allowing folks to vote in person, we can significantly speed up the process and have nearly 95% of ballots tabulated by election night,” Galvin said in a Nov. 18 news release. 

Doug Cole, a political consultant at HighGround Public Affairs Consultants, said Galvin’s support of speeding up election results is significant, particularly since Maricopa County contains nearly two-thirds of the number of people who vote in Arizona. 

“There’s more momentum right now than there has been in years past,” Cole said. “Maybe there’s a deal to be made. When you’re dealing with a divided government, it’s all about making a deal.” Cole said

Incoming House Speaker Steve Montenegro, R-Goodyear, said the House is planning on running a mirror bill to Petersen’s. It will likely have no trouble passing the GOP-controlled House or Senate, but Democrats have publicly opposed the measure. 

“Faster election results should not come at the expense of voters’ rights,” Hobbs’s spokesman Christian Slater said in a written statement. “Governor Hobbs is open to proposals to speed up the counting process, but any solution must protect Arizonans’ freedom to make their voices heard at the ballot box. She remains committed to a voting process that maintains accessibility and integrity for all Arizona voters and guarantees safe, secure and fair elections.”

The Arizona Association of Counties has not stated a position on Petersen’s bill yet. Association Executive Director Jen Marson told the Arizona Capitol Times on Dec. 18 in an email that prefiled bills have gone out to county officials for feedback, but many newly elected individuals have not had their county emails activated yet with a chance to weigh in on legislation. 

The association was against a similar proposal from Mesnard two years ago that allowed early ballots to be submitted at polling places if voters showed identification at the polls to eliminate signature verification.

That measure was vetoed by Hobbs in 2023. The governor wrote in her veto letter that she believed the bill failed to meaningfully address real challenges facing Arizona voters. Mesnard has reintroduced his bill as SB1001 in the upcoming legislative session. 

Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer has also supported speeding up election results. Richer outlined several proposals to do so after the 2022 election and he said the “cleanest” solution is to eliminate late early ballots like Petersen has proposed.

“Some will say this reduces accessibility. And it does. And there will be some pains during the first election cycle,” Richer wrote in a Dec. 13 thread on X. “But it still allows for 27 days of early voting, 24 of which allow for the drop off of early mail ballots at ANY location. It allows you to return your ballot through USPS. It allows 27 days of in-person early voting. It allows in-person voting on Election Day.”

Richer will not be returning to office. Cole said Richer’s successor, Rep. Justin Heap, R-Mesa, a Freedom Caucus Republican, is likely to support Petersen’s proposal. 

Another prominent county recorder in the state has criticized the measure. Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cázares-Kelly pointed out in a similar thread on X to Richer’s that Arizona’s 15 counties are much larger than Florida’s 67 counties. 

“The problem the bill sponsors want to solve: reducing the time it takes to obtain election results, was largely impacted by political parties who discouraged voters from returning ballots by mail in 2020. In 2024 the parties supported Early Voting and that number was reduced,” Cázares-Kelly wrote.

While Democrats largely oppose Petersen’s measure, they have shown support for the goal of faster results. 

A recent poll from Noble Predictive Insights that surveyed nearly 1,000 voters found 52% of respondents expressed frustration with how long it takes the state to finalize election results, despite an increased confidence in the election process. 

“Arizona’s elections are secure and trusted, but we can always improve,” Noble said. “Expediting the ballot counting process should be a top priority. Voters deserve accuracy, but they also deserve timeliness.”

 

Incumbent Mesnard “cautiously optimistic” in LD13 Senate race

A longtime Republican legislator is defending his seat against his Democrat challenger in the Legislative District 13 Senate race, that could determine which party controls the chamber. 

Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, is an experienced lawmaker who started his legislative career after being elected to the House in 2010. In his last term in the House, he served as the speaker, before being elected to the Senate in 2018. 

His challenger is Democrat Sharon Winters, a political newcomer and retired special education teacher. A published author of four books and a former small business owner, she said her background has given her “a unique preparation for solving problems in our society.” 

The district is among the most competitive in the state, and the race could decide whether Republicans maintain their slim majority in the chamber. The district favors GOP candidates by 4.4%, according to the Independent Redistricting Commission. Records from the Secretary of State’s Office indicate that Republicans hold a notable advantage with 12,042 more registered voters in the district. 

Mesnard authored the state’s flat personal income tax rate that passed out of the Legislature in 2021, which he pointed to as a notable example of his legislative effectiveness. He said his work cutting taxes has largely benefitted Arizonans, both within his district and across the state. 

He sponsored HB2663 in 2018, which he said “increased teacher pay by 20% and fully restored spending for school supplies.” The legislation was slowly implemented after its passage, and he said it has benefitted educators within his district. 

“If you look at the bills that I have sponsored, they really represent the largest investment in K-12 education, so I’m very proud of that,” Mesnard said. “We’ve seen in Chandler – among other places – average teacher pay go up considerably.” 

If re-elected, Mesnard said he will continue to focus on making sure the environment in Arizona “is conducive to job growth and expansion.” He served as the chairman of the Finance and Commerce Committee in his current term, and plans to focus on the regulatory and tax environment, which he said is “near and dear to (his) heart.” 

Mesnard’s opponent has an opposite stance on education, shaped by Winter’s experience as a public school teacher. She did not respond to a request for an interview by the deadline. However, she wants the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Fund reformed, according to her campaign website, where she said “public funds should be used to invest in our public schools, not private ones.” 

“We must ensure that there is accountability when divesting from public schools in favor of charter or private schools,” Winters said on her campaign website. “In Arizona, our teachers are overworked and underpaid, leading to many leaving the profession.”

On the other hand, Mesnard backs the state’s school voucher program and supports school choice. 

The top-line issue in Winter’s campaign is reproductive rights, and she is pro-choice. She supports enshrining “abortion protection into our state’s Constitution to ensure that these rights can never be attacked again.” Her opponent, Mesnard, is pro-life. 

Like other legislative races in competitive districts, Democrats see this district as a pick-up opportunity in their path to a majority in either chamber. However, recent campaign finance reports show that Mesnard outspent Winters by a decent margin during the latest reporting period. This is a departure from a trend this election cycle, where Democratic candidates have typically been the bigger spenders. 

Pre-primary campaign finance reports showed Mesnard raised $116,435 and spent $187,560, while Winters raised $146,665 and spent $109,427. However, Winters has the larger war chest ahead of the general election. She finished the period with $85,451 on-hand while Mesnard had $63,507. 

GOP consultant Barrett Marson said it will be difficult for Winters to unseat Mesnard. 

“It’s almost as if the Democrats have given up in that district,” Marson said. “Senator Mesnard just seems to be of the district. A young family that understands the area. It was always going to be hard to unseat him.” 

However, Democrat consultant Stacey Pearson said the race is “absolutely still in play.” She said the district, which encompasses the Chandler and Gilbert area, is made up of voters who “do their homework.” Specifically, she noted the few ballot referrals that Mesnard supported during the past legislative session and the impact that could have on voters in his race. 

“This is a group of voters that doesn’t like being hoodwinked, and certainly is supportive of abortion,” Pearson said. “Those issues, I think, come back to haunt Republicans. It’s not just what he’s done, it’s also what he’s failed to do, that I think voters are going to hold him accountable.” 

With less than two weeks left before the general election, Mesnard said he is feeling “cautiously optimistic.” 

“I went into the race fully cognizant that it’s one of the most competitive in the state,” Mesnard said. “I’ve been grateful that I have not faced the same level of negative ads that I did in the last presidential cycle. In 2020, they (Democrats) spent more against me in attack than any other legislative candidate in the history of the state, $1.3 million, so I was bracing myself for something similar. But so far, I haven’t experienced that.”

Bill OKs more discussion with public in meetings

A Republican state senator is seeking to change open meeting law and allow local government officials to engage in more discussions with attendees. The House Government Committee passed a bill March...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

GOP lawmakers use ballot box strategy to avoid vetoes

Republican lawmakers have stepped up the use of introducing proposed ballot measures this year to get around Gov. Katie Hobbs’ veto power. The strategy comes as Republicans hold a one...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Work in progress: teacher pay raise plan gets initial OK

Republican lawmakers’ plan to increase teacher pay by extending Proposition 123, which uses state land trust funds, passed out of a Senate committee Wednesday.  The passage came with a caveat that...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Expelled lawmaker nominated to fill House seat

Republican precinct committeemen in Legislative District 13 chose three candidates Monday night to replace expelled Rep. Liz Harris. And Harris got the most votes. Liz Harris...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

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