Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: John Kavanagh

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

Arizona AG Kris Mayes seeks public’s help to monitor ICE agents

Key Points: 

  • Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes seeks public videos and photos of ICE agents’ actions in the state
  • Mayes sets up website for public to report potential unlawful activity by federal agents, including ICE and CBP
  • Mayes sets up website for public to submit evidence of federal misconduct

Attorney General Kris Mayes wants you to send her your videos and photos of what ICE agents are doing in Arizona.

Mayes has set up a website on her official state page where members of the public to report “potential unlawful activity by federal agents or personnel.” That includes not just Immigration and Customs Enforcement but also Customs and Border Protection and Homeland Security Investigations.

And the attorney general is making it clear this isn’t just an idle request.

“Independent evidence, submitted directly to our office, could be critical for future independent investigations into alleged misconduct,” the site says.

And press aide Richie Taylor acknowledged that the decision to seek out evidence is in direct response to what has happened in Minneapolis. That includes the Jan. 7 shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called what Good and others were doing that day an “act of domestic terrorism” and said the officer feared she was going to run him down when he fired three times into the vehicle.

But cell phone video — the kind that Mayes wants to gather here — has painted a somewhat different picture, including that the officer had placed himself in front of the vehicle, that she was turning away, and that it was the third shot that killed her.

A medical examiner ruled her death a homicide.

That doesn’t necessarily mean the shooting was a criminal act, but it opens the door to prosecutors pursuing a further investigation.

Mayes said she does not question the fact that federal agents have “broad authority” to enforce federal laws. And that includes immigration laws.

“But they must do so lawfully,” she said.

So what crosses the line?

That list, she said, includes use of excessive force, unlawful searches or arrests, wrongful detentions, interference with voting, or other civil rights violations.

And Mayes, in setting up the website, also said she is sending a message.

“As Arizona’s top law enforcement officer, I want to remind all federal agents of my expectations for them in our state: Respect the law, do not mask, deescalate violence when possible, and stay out of schools, hospitals and churches,” she said.

But Taylor said his boss is not saying that masking violates state laws.

“ICE has reversed previous guidance from previous administrations,” he said. “She believes it’s unacceptable.”

Ditto with going into schools, hospitals and churches

“It’s not per se illegal,” Taylor said, but, again, a reversal of prior policy.

“And she believes it’s inappropriate for schools and churches and hospitals to be the focus of immigration enforcement,” he said. “It jeopardizes public safety in a very real way.”

The new website comes amid a controversy Mayes ignited over what she said could happen when masked and plainclothes ICE agents come up against what is known as Arizona’s “stand your ground law.”

It starts, she said, with the fact that Arizona has “a lot of guns.”

“We’re a gun culture in this state,” she told Brahm Resnik of KTVK-TV.

“It’s kind of a recipe for disaster because you have these masked federal officers with very little identification, sometimes no identification, wearing plain clothes and masks,” Mayes said. “And we have a ‘stand your ground law’ that says that if you reasonably believe that your life is in danger and you’re in your house or your car or on your property that you can defend yourself with lethal force.”

She said that’s why it’s important for police to have uniforms and be easily identified, “especially in a state like Arizona, which has a stand your ground law.”

Mayes made similar comments to Capitol Media Services.

“When armed, masked agents force their way into the homes of U.S. citizens without warrants, the risk of dangerous and volatile situations rises dramatically,” she said. “The Trump administration must start acting within the bounds of the Constitution so we can ensure public safety in Arizona and across the country.”

The remarks have produced a chorus of criticism from Republican lawmakers and party officials, most recently from state Senate Majority Leader John Kavanagh.

“This is not rhetoric,” said the Fountain Hills Republican.

“This is a direct threat to law enforcement,” he said in a prepared statement. “When the attorney general of Arizona tells people they may be justified in shooting masked officers, she is inviting violence.”

And Kavanagh, who was a police officer, said Mayes should resign.

“The chief law enforcement officer in Arizona has publicly stated that if you are confronted by armed individuals wearing non-traditional police uniforms — meaning wearing the types of military fatigues that ICE wears and SWAT teams wear — and they have a mask on their face, that that is defensible grounds to shoot them and kill them,” he told Capitol Media Services.

Taylor said his boss wasn’t encouraging violence.

“When you have agents who are acting like what we’ve seen in Minneapolis, specifically busting down the door of a U.S. citizen without a judicial warrant, and not even there for the person they are actually trying to find, in Arizona that could create a very dangerous situation,” he said. Taylor said Mayes believes that those kinds of activities by federal agents, given the prevalence of guns and the state’s stand your ground law, “heightens the risk for a volatile and tragic situation to occur.”

And Taylor said that the first thing people who find themselves in that situation is to call 911.

“That is the safest and best thing that you can do.”

Kavanagh also complained that Mayes was making statements that federal officers who are doing what has happened elsewhere have no immunity. Kavanagh acknowledged, though, that he is unsure of the extent to which federal law enforcement officers can be prosecuted for state crimes.

Vice President JD Vance said after the Minneapolis shooting that ICE agents were “protected by absolute immunity.” But he later backtracked, saying federal officials would conduct an investigation.

In many ways, the purpose of the website that Mayes set up is to take the first steps: gather information on what has occurred, and then determine whether a state crime has occurred.

Taylor said that Mayes would examine each complaint received — and that prosecution “would depend on what laws may have been violated.” But he said the attorney general believes there is no absolute immunity.

“Murder is not lawful,” Taylor said.

The form at “www.azag.gov/complaints/federal-misconduct” is comprehensive.

It starts with the name of the person filing the complaint.

Mayes said she needs that for her investigators to contact witnesses for further information.

But she conceded that her ability to keep that information confidential is only “to the extent permitted by law,” as the state has extensive laws on what is a public record. Mayes said, though, that forms can be submitted anonymously.

The forms ask for a description of what happened, where and when that occurred, whether anyone was injured, and whether the person filing the report was physically present.

Most significantly, there’s a link to add up to five still photos.

Videos require an extra step.

Rather than accept direct submission, the form asks that the videos be uploaded to a third-party site like YouTube, Twitter, Instagram or Facebook, and then provide a link to the video.

Widow’s lawsuit sparks debate over selling guns used in crimes

Key points:
  • Sen. John Kavanagh has second thoughts on selling firearms used in crimes
  • A gun used to kill a Phoenix police officer may be sold at auction
  • Arizona lawmakers may consider expanding the law to include attempted murders

PHOENIX — More than a dozen years ago Sen. John Kavanagh voted along with every Republican in the Legislature to require any firearm used in a crime to be sold off to raise money for local governments.

Now the Fountain Hills Republican is having second thoughts. And the reason is that one weapon that now could be sold was used to kill a Phoenix police officer.

What changed his mind was Julie Erfle filing suit in October to prevent the city of Phoenix from selling off a gun that was used in 2007 to kill her husband, Nick, during an attempted arrest. The man fled the scene but was later killed by police.

Erfle said she believed that the weapon had since been destroyed. It was only after she inquired earlier this year whether police had ever done a trace on the weapon to find out who supplied the gun — they had not — that she learned it was still being held as evidence even though there was no active case for which it was needed.

And that, she said in her lawsuit, leads her to believe that the gun will be sold, “allowing the city of Phoenix to profit from the sale of a weapon used to murder her husband.”

At the very least, Erfle contends that the city should be required to consult with her under the Victim’s Bill of Rights before taking any further action about the gun. That 1990 voter-approved measure requires police and prosecutors to keep victims and their families informed of every development in a case, including consultation in some cases.

In this case, Erfle said, the city broke the law by failing to inform her that the gun had not been destroyed and could now be sold.

But she also wants Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney to issue an injunction preventing the gun’s destruction while the case is pending. And, ultimately, she wants the judge to direct the city to destroy it.

The original requirement to sell off weapons was approved in 2013. The idea was that there was no reason to destroy a perfectly good gun just because it had been seized in a crime or even had been turned in by an owner.

A lobbyist for the Arizona State Rifle and Pistol Association, the local chapter of the National Rifle Association, said government resources are being wasted, and not only in the time and effort of collecting and destroying weapons.”

“This is a valuable asset that the city has come in possession of,” said Gary Christensn, no different from cars, boats and houses that are seized as part of criminal investigations and must be used for law-enforcement purposes or sold off.

“That money goes back to help fund programs that we depend on, including the police departments, that are trying to make the streets safe,” he told lawmakers.

“When we were having the hearing, when we were having the debate, nobody, not any of the opponents, not any of the commentators ever foresaw that you would have a situation where a weapon used to murder a police officer was going to be auctioned,” Kavanagh said, calling that “macabre and certainly insensitive to the survivors of the officer — or any homicide victim.”

And now?

“No bill can possibly foresee every future contingency,” Kavanagh said of his 2013 vote in support.

So his new SB 1028 would create an exception to the sell-all-firearms law, saying that if it is used in a homicide, “the court shall order the firearm forfeited and destroyed or otherwise properly disposed of” after the case is over.

Erfle, who became active in political causes following her husband’s death, said the measure is a step in the right direction. But she’s not sure that it actually would help her situation.

“It says very specifically ‘on the conviction of any person for a homicide in which a firearm was used,’ ” she said. “Well, there was no conviction here because the individual who killed my husband was killed later that same morning in a shootout with police.”

Kavanagh conceded the point, saying the measure may need to be tweaked.

Even if the measure is altered during debate, Erfle said she still doesn’t think it goes far enough.

“I know we were hoping for something a little more expansive than just ‘homicide,’ ” she said.

“Definitely, you can have situations where there is an attempted murder, they are very seriously injured, there’s an attempted assassination,” Erfle said, where she believes it would be wrong to sell off the weapon. She specifically cited the attempted 2001 assassination of then-Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, who survived and, therefore, the crime covered under the Kavanagh bill about destroying the weapon would not apply.

“We were approaching it from a victim’s standpoint and what that gun then means to somebody who has been victimized by it,” Erfle said. “So I think this is quite narrow.”

Kavanagh, for his part, said he’s not interested in broadening his bill.

“Murder is the ultimate crime,” he said. “And to have the weapon resold, especially in a noteworthy murder — and perhaps having somebody display it in a museum or resell it with that theme — is disrespectful and insensitive.”

But that, he said, is where the requirement to destroy a weapon should end.

“If you seize a weapon that a felon illegally possessed and it’s a perfectly good weapon, why wouldn’t you sell it to a licensed gun dealer to get some money for the municipality?” Kavanagh asked. Anyway, he said, it’s not like destroying a weapon means there are fewer weapons on the street, as someone who doesn’t get the seized gun through a dealer would simply purchase another one.

“So, what was the purpose, other than making a virtue-signaling, anti-gun statement?” he asked.

But Erfle is not alone.

An aide to Attorney General Kris Mayes said she is supportive of not just requiring the destruction of guns used in homicides but also any deadly weapon that is used to victimize people.

Any change to the law also could reopen the door to Tucson once again destroying seized weapons.

That is what is required under a 2005 ordinance. But the Arizona Supreme Court, in a 2017 ruling, overruled that ordinance, saying the city has no authority to ignore the 2013 law.

Since that time, the city has sold off all seized and surrendered weapons through a contract with a third-party auction house.

GOP senator to push new bathroom gender restrictions to voters

Key Points:

  • Arizona Senator John Kavanagh plans to take bathroom bill measures directly to voters
  • Kavanagh’s legislation would require students to use bathrooms matching their assigned gender at birth
  • Kavanagh’s legislation includes a “reasonable accommodation” for students with different needs

Unable to get his measures about who can use what bathroom past Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Fountain Hills Republican senator is planning an end-run.

John Kavanagh told Capitol Media Services he wants to go directly to voters to ask them to approve legislation that spells out that students in public and charter schools can use only the bathroom that matches the gender they were assigned at birth. The same rule would also apply to locker rooms and showers.

And students on field trips would also only be able to share rooms with those whose “biological sex as determined by anatomy and genetics existing at the time of the person’s birth.”

And that’s just one part of what the Republican senator has planned for the 2026 ballot.

Another Hobbs-vetoed bill dealing with sex and gender identity is back.

This one bars school employees and contractors from addressing a student younger than 18 by “a pronoun that differs from the pronoun that aligns with the student’s biological sex.”

There is, however, an exception. Teachers and others could use “he” and “she,” regardless of the student’s biology, as long as the school first obtained written permission from the student’s parents.

Then there’s an exception to the exception. Parental permission or not, Kavanagh’s legislation says it cannot be used to require a school employee or contractor to use that preferred pronoun if that would be contrary to the person’s “religious or moral convictions.”

Kavanagh should have little problem getting both of those referred to the ballot by the Republican-controlled Legislature.

Both have previously been approved on party-line votes, only to meet with the governor’s veto pen.

In 2023, her first year in office, she blasted the bill about bathrooms and more as “yet another discriminatory act against LGBTQ+ youth passed by the majority at the state Legislature.” And the Democratic governor called the pronoun bill “harmful legislation directed at transgender youth.”

Kavanagh, however, said he believes Hobbs is out of step with what most voters want.

“All the polls I’ve seen totally back my position, like 80-20,” he said.

This isn’t Kavanagh’s first foray into what’s become known as the “bathroom bill,” just the latest in a multi-year effort to see gender regulations in Arizona’s schools. 

As far back as 2012, Kavanagh actually sought to make it a crime for someone to use a restroom, shower, or locker room in any public establishment — including businesses — that does not match that person’s biological gender. His measure even sought to make it a crime, with penalties up to six months in jail.

That died after encountering various problems, including questions about whether customers would have to carry a birth certificate.

A modified version sought to give business owners immunity from civil and criminal prosecution if they turned someone away from a restroom based on the owner’s or manager’s belief that the person should not be using that facility. That version fared no better.

Since then, Kavanagh has focused on school children and who gets to be in places where students may be in various states of undress.

“Human beings have an innate sense of modesty,” the senator said earlier this year in pushing the proposal on bathrooms, locker rooms and showers. “This bill simply respects that basic human sense of privacy for the same gender in these kinds of situations.”

But his plan does include an escape clause of sorts designed to recognize that there may be situations where the “assigned” bathroom and the “assigned” sex don’t match.

It requires schools to provide a “reasonable accommodation” to any person who is “unwilling or unable” to use a multi-occupancy restroom or changing facility that is designated for that person’s biological sex and makes a request in writing. Kavanagh said he envisions it taking the form of a teacher’s restroom, lounge, or any other single-occupancy restroom or changing facility.

There are teeth in the measure.

On one hand, someone denied such an accommodation would have the right to sue. The only defense would be if the school can demonstrate that providing that accommodation “would cause an undue hardship.”

Conversely, the parents or relatives of a student who encountered someone of the opposite sex in a single-sex restroom or locker room would have the right to sue the school.

House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos said that Kavanagh’s plan to send the issues directly to voters doesn’t make either concept more acceptable.

“Democrats believe every Arizonan deserves freedom, dignity, and equality,” he told Capitol Media Services.

More to the point, the Laveen Democrat called it all a diversionary tactic.

“Republicans are pushing divisive culture wants because they don’t want to talk about the reality: They’ve raised costs, cut health care, and left our public schools in crisis,” he said, accusing GOP lawmakers of “choosing chaos over solutions.”

Democrats also have registered specific objections during prior debates.

Rep. Nancy Gutierrez, speaking earlier this year about the pronoun bill, said that addressing issues like gender can be an important part of growing up for some students.

“All it is are kids exploring who they are, and that is a good thing,” said the Tucson Democrat who is a high school teacher. She said that for students who might be fearful of being thrown out of their home because they are gay or transgender, having teachers and other school staff support them is critical. 

“So can we please just respect our young students and allow them this,” she said during a debate on the bill banning different pronouns. “I promise you, they need to feel respected in school.” 

But Rep. Lisa Fink, R-Glendale, said the measure simply respects parents’ right to have ultimate authority over the upbringing and education of their children.

“What we’re seeing is that, yes, many of these kids do present with a mental health challenge, but it’s being hidden from the parents,” Fink said. “Parents need to know and need to understand if their child is having some difficulties, that they have the ultimate responsibility, not the school, in transitioning these children.”

The bathroom bill drew different criticism from Rep. Patty Contreras.

“SB 1003 takes direct aim at transgender students by restricting their ability to use restrooms and other facilities,” said the Phoenix Democrat. “While these bills are designed to ensure student safety, they stigmatize our transgender students, putting them more in harm’s way.”

And Contreras said the bill is unnecessary.

“Just let these people go relieve themselves,” she said. “Let the students, let the adults, let the transgender folks go to the bathroom where they feel they need to go.”

The merits of either proposal aside, there’s also a political factor at work here.

Hobbs herself is on the 2026 ballot in what could be a tough reelection effort. Having the bathroom and pronoun bills on the same ballot would remind voters that she opposes them. 

In fact, while the governor nixed both measures again earlier this year, her verbiage was far different than the 2023 veto messages. This time, Hobbs didn’t even discuss the specifics of either proposal or what she didn’t like about them.

“This bill will not increase opportunity, security or freedom for Arizonans,” she wrote in identical veto messages to both bills. “I encourage the legislature to join with me in prioritizing legislation that will lower costs, protect the border, create jobs, and secure our water future.”

And De Los Santos said he doesn’t see these measures as sure winners for Republicans — either in getting approved or in using them to attack Democratic candidates.

“Voters aren’t buying the fear mongering,” he said. “They want leaders focused on lowering costs and improving healthcare, not stoking needless culture wars.”

Does Arizona still have a part-time Legislature?

Key points:
  • Lawmaker proposes constitutional requirement to end legislative session in 100 days
  • Last time the legislative session wrapped up before June was April 2015
  • Low salary and longer sessions keep people from seeking public office

Both chambers of the Arizona Legislature have traditionally pushed to finish the legislative session by its 100th day, but that goal hasn’t been met in a decade. 

Now, one lawmaker wants to enshrine it as a requirement in the state Constitution.

Rep. Justin Wilmeth, R-Phoenix, plans on introducing a concurrent resolution next session that would require lawmakers to be done with the legislative session by the end of April. 

“I want it to be in the Constitution that we have to be done,” Wilmeth said. “I think most people are going to like it. Some won’t, but that’s the conversation I am making us have next year.”

Lawmakers didn’t sine die, or adjourn for the session, until June 27, the 213th day of the session this year. 

The last time lawmakers wrapped up their business in April was 2015, which had a sine die date of April 3. That 81-day session was unusual even a decade ago, as it was the shortest legislative session seen in close to a half century.

Wilmeth was first elected to the Arizona House in 2020, and each session he has been involved in has gone at least into June. In 2023, lawmakers didn’t adjourn for the year until July 31 — more than two months after Gov. Katie Hobbs signed that year’s budget. The four sessions from 2016-2020 finished in May following 2015’s unusually short session. 

“It’s important for us to stay true to what we’re supposed to be. We’re either going to be a part-time Legislature that gets done in four months … or we need to have a conversation about considering a full-time Legislature,” Wilmeth said. “I’m not saying we should do that, but what we’re doing now is akin to being a sprint runner and then having it morph into a marathon halfway through the race.”

Longer sessions mean more difficulty for legislators without a passive income, as time spent on the chamber floor often equates to lost time for personal careers or businesses. And while Wilmeth has set his sights on limiting the duration of session, several others have introduced proposals to tackle the complications of a $24,000 annual salary. 

Last session, Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 1003, which would have adjusted lawmakers’ annual salary, which voters approved in 1998, to inflation. The measure never got a hearing on the House floor, but it did clear the Senate and the House Appropriations Committee. 

If Kavanagh’s measure was in effect, the salary for lawmakers would nearly double to just under $48,000. Kavanagh argued during discussions of the bill that he doesn’t believe it was the intent of 1998 voters for lawmakers to only be paid roughly $12,000, which is about how much $24,000 in 2025 would be worth back then. 

Kavanagh, who was recently named the new Senate majority leader, told the Arizona Capitol Times he plans on reintroducing the measure next session. 

The average annual salary for state lawmakers across the country in 2024 was $44,320, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. 

The low salary has become an issue for some lawmakers. Former Democratic Sen. Eva Burch resigned in March and cited the salary as one of the reasons for her departure from the Capitol. 

“I have been struggling to make ends meet and to find balance with my legislative work and my job as a healthcare provider. I know that I am not the first, nor will I be the last, good person to find themself a casualty of legislative pay,” Burch said in a statement about her resignation. “I hope that the future will see Arizona lawmakers earning a living wage so that our constituents can be represented by working class citizens who understand the pressures of raising a family and struggling to make ends meet here in Arizona.”

That’s one of the reasons why Wilmeth is advocating for a constitutionally required shorter session. He said the length of recent legislative sessions combined with the salary is keeping people from running for office. 

“Four months is easy to sell to maybe your wife or husband or your employer, but six months is a problem,” he said. 

Both Wilmeth’s measure and any measure related to legislative pay would have to be approved by Arizona voters in a general election if they make it through the House and Senate. Rep. Stacey Travers, D-Tempe, said she doesn’t think voters would be willing to increase her and her colleagues’ salaries. 

“I don’t know if we deserve a raise with the way we’ve been behaving as a Legislature,” Travers said. 

Travers has introduced her own proposal for raising legislative salaries, but it does come with “strings.” Her 2024 concurrent resolution proposed increasing salaries to $35,000 annually, which would then be adjusted every two years based on the percentage change of the consumer price index. 

Her resolution also called for lifetime term limits, which would only allow lawmakers to switch chambers once. Currently, a legislator can serve in one chamber for a maximum of four consecutive two-year terms. 

“If it comes tied with strings, then it’s something I think is worth a conversation,” Travers said. 

Kevin DeMenna, a senior adviser at DeMenna Public Affairs, has been one of the most vocal advocates for increasing legislative salaries. 

In a 2022 opinion column published by The Arizona Republic, DeMenna proposed raising the salary upward in the range of $70,000, since the part-time position requires attention from lawmakers all year. 

DeMenna’s idea is close to proposals from other lawmakers about legislative pay. Rep. Chris Mathis, D-Tucson had a measure that would set legislative salaries equal to salaries of county supervisors, who make between $83,000 to $96,000 depending on the county’s size. Sen. Catherine Miranda, D-Laveen, also had a measure that would raise lawmakers’ salaries to $70,000. 

Sen. Kavanagh publishes book on state legislatures for ASU

Key Points:
  • Sen. John Kavanagh recently published a book about state legislatures 
  • Book was written for lawmakers, lobbyists, reporters and others interested in the Arizona Legislature
  • Lawmaker will use the book to teach college course at Arizona State University

Sen. John Kavanagh has drawn upon his legislative experience and academic background to write a textbook-style guide to the state Legislature.

“State Legislatures: An Owner’s Manual” covers the history and structure of state legislatures, how bills are drafted and laws are made, legislative ethics rules, the importance of supporting a position with logic and facts, and several other topics.

The Fountain Hills Republican, who has a Ph.D. in criminal justice from Rutgers University and was also a police officer with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department, has taught criminal justice courses for 25 years at Arizona State University and Scottsdale Community College. 

He has served in the state Legislature for almost 20 years.

Kavanagh decided to write the book after he was approved to teach a course on state legislatures at ASU. He realized while preparing for the course that there was no introductory textbook on the topic and decided to make one himself.

“I would say this is not a typical dry textbook presentation,” he said. “It’s written like I’m giving lectures. So it’s very smooth flowing, easy reading. I have a lot of … comical sides or just real world observations.”

Kavanagh connected with former Democratic legislator Steve Farley, who he hired to illustrate the book’s cover.

Farley, who’s been an artist for nearly 30 years, has designed murals in Tucson and also has had his work displayed at the Senate.

The two lawmakers developed a relationship from the years they served in the Legislature, despite working on different sides of the aisle. 

“I served during a time which seems very far away now, but Democrats and Republicans got along,” said Farley, who served in the House for six years before moving to the Senate for another six years. “So we worked together on a lot of things, and with the stuff we didn’t agree on, we fought.”

There wasn’t much disagreement during this process, as Kavanagh admired Farley’s graphic design work and even recruited him to design a cover for his wife’s book.

It took Kavanagh a year and a half to finish the book, which was released a couple of weeks ago on Amazon, he said.

“I would begin researching one thing and, as you’re researching that, some other issue comes up that you then say ‘I have to cover,’” he said. “So it kind of takes you all over the place.”

Although Kavanagh is a veteran legislator, he was still surprised by some of the information he uncovered from his research.

For example, he originally thought general writing rules and using plain language applied to crafting laws.

“Laws have to be very precise and technically written, and there are also rules of construction, of where you place commas and ‘ands,’ and a lot of court rulings on the way different words are interpreted in relation to other words,” he said.

Because of the level of research conducted, a book that was destined to be about 200 pages grew to nearly 400 pages.

The chapters are broken down to cover different topics, including people who inhabit the legislature, such as lawmakers, lobbyists and reporters, external threats to legislative authority, and logical fallacies encountered during legislative debates.

It also includes a touch of humor.

“Supporters call state legislatures the “laboratories of democracy,” but detractors disparagingly refer to them as “meth labs,” Kavanagh wrote in the book’s introduction. “In reality, legislatures can be perceived as either, depending on the political views of the person passing judgment and the ideological slant of the legislature being judged.”

 

Republican senator proposes inflation adjustments to lawmakers’ pay

Sen. John Kavanagh wants to give voters a new chance to decide if he and his colleagues are worth more than the $24,000 annual salary they now get for what are supposed to be part-time jobs.

The Fountain Hills Republican is proposing a measure for the 2026 ballot to put in an automatic inflation adjustment. Put simply, if approved, lawmakers would get an annual boost every year tied to the Consumer Price Index.

More to the point, unlike the current system, lawmakers would never again have to seek voter approval for future pay hikes.

Kavanagh, the longest continually serving legislator, acknowledged that voters have had multiple chances in the past to conclude that the $24,000 figure, approved in 1998, is insufficient. But they turned down every effort, most recently a 2014 proposal to set the figure at $35,000.

But he said that this is different because it would use the current salary as a base and then just make annual adjustments.

So, had his proposal been in effect now, the lawmakers being sworn in Monday would get a $648 raise based on the most recent CPI report, which pegged annual inflation at 2.7%.

And what of the fact that the Legislature is supposed to be a part-time job?

Kavanagh said lawmakers have been meeting most years into at least May despite the 100-day deadline. Plus there are hearings and other meetings throughout the year.

John Kavanagh
Sen. John Kavanagh

That, he said, precludes many legislators from having outside jobs.

“There aren’t many people looking around for half-time workers,” said Kavanagh.

But even if being a lawmaker is considered a half-time gig, he said that a $48,000 salary – what he really thinks it should be with inflation since that last raise in 1998 – is not unreasonable, even if it is higher than the most recent median income figures for Arizonans. He said it is based on the responsibilities lawmakers have.

“I mean, we’re not digging ditches, we’re not working a fast-food restaurant line,” Kavanagh said.

The issue of legislative pay is complex.

Under the Arizona Constitution, voters get the last word on their salaries.

The way the system is designed is that the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers is supposed to meet on a biennial basis. And among its chores is to make recommendations for legislative salaries and ask voters to approve them.

The panel did make such recommendations in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2008 – all rejected by voters.

Then-Gov. Jan Brewer refused to name members to the panel for four years, saying it was inappropriate to consider pay hikes for elected officials during “difficult times.” She did finally make selections in time for 2014, though she openly opposed that proposal to boost pay to $35,000. It fared even worse than the others, with just 32% of voters approving the plan.

Since then, however, the commission has made no recommendations.

In fact, the commission exists only on paper as Doug Ducey, who succeeded her, did not fill the two gubernatorial vacancies when they developed on the five-member board, one of whom is supposed to chair the panel. Kirk Adams, who was his chief of staff, said his boss shared the concerns about asking voters to hike salaries for elected officials during difficult economic times.

Current Gov. Katie Hobbs has not resurrected the panel, though there was no immediate response from her office about why. And that lack of action means that, absent what Kavanagh wants, there is currently no way for lawmakers to even get voters to consider a pay hike.

The senator said his plan is a better alternative — and not just because it doesn’t rely on a governor to set the process in motion. If approved, the annual adjustments would be automatic and not dependent on the commission.

What he wants, however, presumes that voters are inclined to believe that their lawmakers who also get a daily allowance of at least $3,500 a year to spend as they will – more for out-county-legislators – deserve more money.

But Kavanagh believes his SCR1003 should be an easier sell than the bigger increases that voters have turned down in the past. And it starts, he said, with the fact that they decided in 1998 that $24,000 was an appropriate salary.

“I do not believe that the voters in 1998 when they said ‘You should get $24,000’ intended for that amount to be eroded nearly in half due to inflation,” Kavanagh said.

In fact, an inflation calculator at the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics figures that you’d need $46,085 in current dollars to buy as much as you could for $24,000 in 1998.

Kavanagh said even if the commission is reactivated, he’s convinced his proposal is better. And at least one key, he said, is that if it is approved, it takes voters out of the equation for future years.

“Very often, the mood of the public based on other events the Legislature’s associated with sometimes determines whether they’re for us or against us,” Kavanagh said.

Put another way, his plan would make it irrelevant whether voters like or hate what lawmakers are doing.

Anyway, Kavanagh said, there is precedent for what he is proposing.

In 2006 voters approved creation of the state’s first-ever minimum wage. That set the floor for workers in Arizona at $6.75 an hour, versus the federal minimum of just $5.15.

More to the point, the law requires annual inflation adjustments.

That measure, along with an update in 2016, has boosted the state minimum to $14.70; the federal minimum remains at $7.25, a figure that Congress hasn’t adjusted since 2009.

“If the voters said inflation’s OK for the minimum wage, I don’t think voters would be opposed to this,” Kavanagh said.

The senator did not mention, however, that he actually opposed the ballot measure raising the minimum wage. But he did argue that an inflation adjustment is more justified for lawmakers than those at the bottom of the pay scale.

“Most people only work in a minimum wage slot for a short period of time before they either get a promotion or a longevity raise,” he said. “There is no promotion or longevity raises for legislators.”

That still leaves the fact that he and everyone else who voluntarily runs for the Legislature knows up front that the salary is just $24,000 a year.

“I accept that,” Kavanagh said. “And if my referral goes to the ballot and the voters vote it down, I accept that.”

But he said the failure of officials to appoint members to the salary commission means voters “have been deprived that opportunity” since the last ballot measure in 2014.

“So let’s give it to them,” he said.

While the salary is just $24,000, there are other perks.

The minimum per diem allowance is $35 a day for those living in Maricopa County for what is supposed to be a 100-day session. In essence, that’s a payment for them going to the Capitol, though they also get the allowance for weekends and other days the Legislature is not in session.

That figure gets cut to $10 a day after 120 days.

Out-county lawmakers get a figure equal to the federal General Services Administration rate, the figure used by the federal government to reimburse employees on the road. That is currently about $250 a day, covering both lodging and an allowance for meals.

Then there’s a pension. For those first elected to any office before 2012, it can hit 80% of what they were earning after 20 years; there are lower benefits for newer elected officials.

But there’s also a sweetener for those who move from the Legislature to another elective office: Their benefits are calculated on the highest five years of their earnings.

So a lawmaker who serves 16 years at the Capitol at $24,000 but then becomes the state treasurer at $70,000. That means after just five years in the new job that person is entitled to a pension of $52,500 – plus annual cost-of-living adjustments.

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

1980 referral by salary commission approved by voters increased to $15,000

1998 referral by salary commission approved by voters increase to current $24,000

 

Prefiled GOP bills look familiar – Hobbs vetoed them

Republicans introduced bills that Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed in previous years as the period for prefiling got underway Monday. 

Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, reintroduced two bills Democrats heavily opposed last year about transgender rights at public schools. He told the Arizona Capitol Times on Dec. 3 he had run compromise versions of the bills last year in an attempt to get Hobbs on board with them, but the recent election showed him that voters are rejecting “woke” ideology. 

“I’m hoping that the governor and some of the Democrats have now learned their lesson from this election where, amongst other things, their uber wokeness was rebutted,” Kavanagh said.

One measure, SB1002, would prohibit school employees from calling a student by a pronoun that differs from the student’s birth sex or by a name that isn’t listed on their official school record unless a parent provides written permission to do so. 

Employees could refer to a student by a nickname that is commonly associated with their name. 

Last year’s version of the bill required schools to notify a student’s parents if an employee called a student by a preferred pronoun or name and didn’t require employees to use a student’s preferred pronoun if it was contrary to an employee’s “religious or moral convictions.”

The new legislation would ban the practice of using preferred pronouns and names that differ from a student’s sex without parental permission, and employees could still refuse even with parental permission on the grounds of religious or moral reasons. 

Another measure, SB1003, would require schools to provide a reasonable accommodation to any person who is unwilling or unable to use a restroom, changing facility or sleeping quarters that is designated for their sex.

Kavanagh said last year’s version of the bill was softer since it was limited to just shower rooms. He pointed to Hobbs’ willingness to work with President-elect Donald Trump on immigration issues as a reason why he hoped for Democrats to be swayed this year with his bills.

A spokesman for Hobbs said Dec. 3 that her stance since she vetoed prior versions of Kavanagh’s bills hasn’t changed, and the measures will likely again be met with a veto stamp if they get to her desk. 

“As I have said time and time again, I will not sign legislation that attacks Arizonans,” Hobbs wrote in her veto letter of Kavanagh’s shower bill from the 2024 legislative session, SB1182.

Republicans are also pushing a once-vetoed election measure from 2023 that they say would increase the speed of reporting election night results. 

The measure was the first prefiled Senate bill, SB 1001. It would require people who turn in mailed ballots after the Friday before Election Day to present identification when dropping off their ballots. 

The bill sponsor Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, says this would eliminate the lengthy process of validating hundreds of thousands of signatures for mailed ballots that are delivered days before or on Election Day.

Hobbs vetoed Mesnard’s legislation in 2023, and he called on Hobbs to sign the bill in 2025 in a Nov. 8 news release. 

“Ignoring this problem is a complete disservice to our voters who are taking their precious time to exercise their civic duty. It also continually puts us in the national spotlight, and not in a good way,” Mesnard said in the news release. 

Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, has spoken highly of the measure and said Republicans are trying to replicate election result reporting from Florida. Petersen wrote in a post on X that he met with Florida’s Secretary of State Cord Byrd to discuss ways to get election results out faster, which include establishing a cutoff for dropping off early ballots at polling places. 

Democrats are opposed to the election measure and argue it would make voting more difficult since people wouldn’t be able to drop off ballots of people in their household. 

Hobbs vetoed the 2023 version of the bill, SB1597, and wrote in her veto letter that it would present logistical and cost challenges for election administrators. 

As of Dec. 3, the only prefiled bill that wasn’t vetoed in an earlier version was HB2001, a measure from Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix, that would require the State Board of Behavioral Health Examiners to issue a temporary license to a college graduate in the process of applying for an associate level license if they’ve completed a course of study in behavioral therapy fields.

Gress’ bill is an attempt to get college graduates practicing more quickly in the behavioral health field.

That measure never made it to Hobb’s desk in 2024, but it was widely opposed by most Democrats and some Republicans. It failed in the Senate in a 14-16 vote as HB2509.

 

Students picking up more of the state university funding

A bid by the Board of Regents for another $732 million to finance state universities is rekindling a decades old fight about the financial responsibility of state taxpayers versus how much of the cost should be borne by students.

In their new request, the board says the money is necessary to maintain programs in the face of prior funding cuts

More to the point, they want all of that to come from taxpayers versus students. And that is a 75% increase from current state funding.

The chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee said that’s not going to happen. Sen. John Kavanagh said the estimates of tax collections for the coming fiscal year suggests that no one – including the universities – are going to be able to get additional funding.

John Kavanagh
Sen. John Kavanagh

But regardless of the state’s overall financial situation, the Fountain Hills Republican who has been in the Legislature since 2007, said he thinks the university system is getting what it needs from state taxpayers. And he said that for a large share of Arizonans, higher education remains quite affordable and free for many.

That affordability, however, is not due to state aid, which has been decreasing for decades.

Instead, universities, facing years of cuts in public dollars, are making up the difference by recruiting more out-of-state students who pay three times as much as Arizona residents. And they now make up 51% of those enrolled, double what it was two decades ago.

Regent Fred DuVal said that a $732 million increase is necessary because of cuts that universities already have had to make in critical programs like the Arizona Teachers Academy. That covers tuition and mandatory fees for each year that a student commits to teaching in an Arizona school.

Also cut this year, DuVal said, was funding for the Arizona Promise Program, a guaranteed scholarship program for eligible Arizona residents to ensure all tuition and fees are covered at the state’s public universities.

Some of that can be attributed to the fact that pretty much all state agencies had to take a 3.5% year-over-year funding cut to balance the state budget.

But for universities, the actual dollar cut was bigger: State funds went from $1.1 billion two years ago to a bit more than $1 billion last school year, to the current $970 million figure.

Arizona State University President Michael Crow, who says his school lost $24 million this fiscal year as what he called a direct result of “recent budget cuts passed by the state Legislature and signed by the governor,” is not mincing words.

Last week he said the cuts are leading to new spending reductions and even a $350 surcharge this spring for on-campus students. And ASU will close its Lake Havasu Center next summer.

“These necessary actions reflect the continuing lack of public investment from state government for higher education in Arizona,” Crow said in a written statement. “ASU simply cannot be asked to fund the expansion of higher education across the state without state investment as a part of the financial structure to do so.”

Gov. Katie Hobbs, who signed the budget, does not dispute the numbers.

“Facing a $1.8 billion deficit that was largely inherited, I brought together a bipartisan coalition to pass a balanced budget, protect Arizonans from egregious cuts, and still make some new investments,” she told Capitol Media Services. But that also meant using the funds she had for her other priorities like money for housing and helping the homeless.

All that, however, relates directly to how much of the financial burden of running a state university system should be borne by students versus taxpayers.

Consider the trend.

This year the general fund put in $970 million – against $3.4 billion paid by students in tuition and fees.

Put another way, in that 2007-2008 school year, the general fund paid for 33% of the operating budgets of the state universities. That includes not just tuition and general funds but other federal grants and dollars.

This year that’s down to 12%.

Fred DuVal

On the other side of the equation, tuition and fees made up 23% of university operating budgets in 207-2008. Now that’s up to 43%.

The balance comes from federal dollars, much of it in dedicated research grants, that currently make up more than 40% of total funding.

There’s another way of looking at it.

According to the regents, state aid on a per-student basis during the 2007-2008 school year was $9,439. For the current year that figure in actual dollars is estimated to be at $4,174. And that’s not taking into account how inflation has affected the value of those dollars.

But the trend – and, in particular, the shift in the burden from taxpayers to students – raises the question of at what point, with students absorbing more and more of the costs, why have a state university system.

“That’s part of why I’m working to build governing majorities in the Legislature, governing majorities that support higher education,” Hobbs said. And the governor has made no secret that she is raising money now – in a year when she is not up for reelection – to help gain seats for fellow Democrats and end the control of Republicans.

But Hobbs balked at whether that definitely means more higher education funding if Democrats take over.

“I cannot guarantee that,” she said. “I can guarantee that we will work to fund them equitably.”

As to relief for students, their only hope is that the Legislature and the governor step in.

Kavanagh acknowledged that tuition for Arizona students has increased.

In the 2010-2011 school year, for example, tuition and mandatory fees at the University of Arizona were $8,237. The current figure is $13,900.

But that, said Kavanagh, is misleading.

“Look at the walk-out-the-door price,” he said, saying the figures he has seen over the years in his role of having purview over university budgets show that close to half of all in-state students pay nothing in tuition after various scholarships and grants are factored in.

The actual figures across the university system according to the Board of Regents is 42.8% for first-time, full-time students and 37.8% for all full-time undergraduates. But the point remains.

“The next one third might have paid 25% of the tuition,” Kavanagh continued. “The only people who are paying full freight are people from wealthy families. And they can afford it.”

DuVal does not dispute that most in-state students aren’t paying the sticker price. But he said that can happen in an age of decreasing state support only because the universities are making up the difference by actively recruiting students from other states and countries.

That also makes up for the reduced state funding. But he’s not sure that’s been a good move.

“Decades ago, we capped those (out-of-state) students at 30%,” DuVal said. It’s now about half.

“Conversely, Arizona degree attainment is flat.” he said. “But educating Arizona students is our principal assignment.”

And those students from other states or other countries, said DuVal, return home after graduation.

“Arizona employers are saying their Number One issue is workforce,” he said. “And they see the universities as essential to fulfilling that need.”

But Kavanagh said he sees the number of students from elsewhere as a good thing. And he said it hasn’t come at the expense of quality.

Consider Arizona State University.

“When I came here in 1993, the reputation was a party school,” he said.

“The reputation now is top-tier, four-year public research institution” said Kavanagh. “I applaud the universities, especially (Michael) Crow, for creating a good brand that out-of-state people are willing to pay a premium price for,” Kavanagh said.

Nor does he see out-of-state students pushing out Arizona residents.

ASU, for example, saw its undergraduate headcount go from 58,404 in 2012 to 112,171 in 2023. 

The growth at U of A was not as remarkable, going from 30,665 to 38,751 during the same period.

 

Kavanagh wants Surprise probed over alleged free speech violation

Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, is asking Attorney General Kris Mayes to launch a probe of the City of Suprise’s public comment policy after a woman was arrested while speaking at a city council meeting on Aug. 20. 

Rebekah Massie attended the Surprise City Council meeting with her 10-year-old daughter to speak in opposition of a proposal to increase the city attorney’s salary. 

Near the second hour of the meeting, Massie was speaking before being cut off by Surprise Mayor Skip Hall, who said she had violated the rules for public comment. 

“Do you want to be escorted out of here?” Hall asked Massie.“Oral communications during the city council meeting may not be used to lodge charges or complaints against any employee of the city or members of the body.”  

“That’s a violation of my First Amendment rights,” Massie replied. 

John Kavanagh
Sen. John Kavanagh

Hall asked Massie if she wanted to be escorted out of the building while she repeated that he had violated her rights and acted in an unconstitutional manner. 

Massie was arrested and subsequently charged with criminal trespass in the third degree for knowingly remaining unlawfully on property after being asked to leave, according to case records. 

On Tuesday, Kavanagh sent a letter to Mayes’s office to formally request that she investigate the city’s public speaking policy. 

Kavanagh said he was following media coverage of the dispute and had waited to file the complaint “to give the Mayor and Council or manager an opportunity to correct the situation.” 

“Arizona’s open meetings law specifically states that – if you have a call to the public – the individual can comment on any issue within the jurisdiction of the public body, and clearly, the salary of the town attorney and the performance of the town attorney… fall within the jurisdiction of the council,” Kavanagh said. “So, she should have been allowed to make those comments.” 

Kavanagh said “if there are any questions as to whether those comments are allowed,” the state’s open meeting law states that “any discrepancies or questions about it should be resolved in favor of free speech.” 

He said open meeting law allows members of the public body torespond to criticism made by those who have addressed the public body, so “if council members can respond to criticism, it obviously allows criticism.” 

The passage of SB1487 in 2016 permitted Arizona lawmakers to ask the Attorney General to investigate whether an official action taken by the governing body of a city or town violates state law or the constitution. 

Kavanagh submitted the complaint to Mayes to ask that she investigate whether the council’s rule is illegal. Alongside his letter, Kavanagh said he submitted a two-page legal analysis from the Senate Rules attorney which outlines potential violations of the law. 

If the Attorney General’s office finds the public comment regulation to stray from state law, Kavanagh said that Surprise city officials must scrap the rule or forfeit its state-shared revenues. 

A spokesperson for the AG’s office confirmed that they received Kavanagh’s letter and will “fulfill its statutory duties under the law and evaluate the Senator’s request for a 1487 investigation.” 

The AG’s office declined to comment on further details of the investigation as it is pending. 

The probe falls parallel to Massie’s own lawsuit against the city and what she calls an “unconstitutional decorum rule.” 

Massie is a regular attendee of city council meetings, the complaint said, and so is Quintus Schulzke, the second plaintiff in the suit. 

The complaint alleged that the city’s criticism policy violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment by allowing the removal of speakers not only for actual disturbances but also “simply for speech that officials dislike.” The complaint also alleged that the council’s actions violated the Fourth and 14th Amendments.

“I fear that I will be ejected or detained if I make a negative comment about a city official if I were to speak at City Council meetings,” Schulzke said in a declaration submitted to the court in support of a preliminary injunction. 

Massie’s arraignment is scheduled for Sept. 25 in the Hassayampa Justice Court.

“Protecting freedom of speech, especially in public government settings, is incredibly important to our democracy,” Kavanagh said. “Regardless of where they stand, members of the public deserve the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns to city leaders.”

 

Comprehensive election legislation gets initial approval

A Senate elections panel advanced a GOP ballot referral package Thursday on party lines that foes say would impose restrictions on early voting. The proposed measure, HCR2056, is heavily opposed...

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

Lawmakers set to vote on border legislation

State lawmakers have set the stage for final approval of legislation billed as providing increased border security. On Thursday, the Senate gave preliminary approval to HCR 2030, a multi-pronged proposal...

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.