Tag: Lupe Diaz

Key Points:

• GOP lawmakers are taking aim at the Arizona Attorney General over her public nuisance lawsuits

• Mayes has been using unprecedented public nuisance laws to curb the water use of large-scale agricultural businesses 

• Mayes argues she is stepping up to defend rural Arizonans when legislators have failed to act

Republican lawmakers are moving to clip the legal wings of Attorney General Kris Mayes, with one legislator even calling her a “bully” for how she is pursuing companies over their groundwater pumping.

Legislation approved by both the House and Senate would allow those who believe they have been damaged by an improper “nuisance” or “consumer fraud” lawsuit to sue the attorney general for damages — everything from legal fees to lost profits and even a reduction in the value of the business.

It would not be absolute.

The action would have to have been dismissed or found to have no merit. And the person filing the suit would have to show that the attorney general knew the action lacked merit — or, at least, that she publicized the lawsuit. But Rep. Lupe Diaz, R-Benson, said it should be enough to restrain any overly anxious attorney general from going after businesses using that nuisance claim.

Mayes, however, says she is acting to protect residents from corporations that take advantage of the fact that state lawmakers have failed to regulate groundwater pumping in rural areas. Those nuisance laws, she said, provide the only legal avenue for relief.

HB 2167 is just one of three measures filed by Diaz that he acknowledges are aimed at Mayes — and how he contends she is acting improperly in using public nuisance laws to go after companies over the amount of groundwater they are pumping.

He is also behind a second measure that would make the attorney general automatically guilty of defamation if she filed a public nuisance lawsuit that, as in the case of HB 2167, lacked merit and she knew about it and publicized it.

And a third would prohibit an attorney general from filing a nuisance action unless she first had the permission of the county board of supervisors.

So far, though, only HB 2167 has cleared both the House and the Senate and is now on Gov. Katie Hobbs’s desk.

What started all this was that Mayes filed suit two years ago against a Saudi company to force it to stop “excessively pumping groundwater” at its western Arizona alfalfa operations and require it to set aside funds to compensate neighbors it has damaged.

More to the point, she is using a largely untested legal theory that the actions of Fondomonte have created a “public nuisance” by pumping so much water it has dried up the wells of nearby neighbors and resulted in subsidence of the land around Vicksburg in La Paz County.

That case is still pending. And any new legislation would not affect it.

Since that time, however, Mayes used the threat of a similar lawsuit to force Riverview, LLP, a Minnesota company that owns two large dairies in the Willcox basin to take 2,000 acres of farmland out of production and set aside $11 million for well drilling and water access for affected residents in Cochise County’s Sulfur Springs Valley.

More to the point, Mayes has suggested she might use the same nuisance law to go after others who are withdrawing large quantities of groundwater in rural areas where there now are few, if any, state restrictions.

“People are not trusting the government today,” he said of his legislation. “This will help to be able to bring some accountability and some comfort to those that may be feeling like Big Brother is coming against them.”

But he made it clear that his aim was narrow: To rein in the use of nuisance laws by Mayes and any future attorney general.

“I think that will help them think twice about pursuing these and putting the public in a position of having to defend themselves in court and spend all that money doing that,” Diaz said.

Rep. Teresa Martinez had a simpler explanation for her support of curbing Mayes’ power.

“I hate a bully,” said the Casa Grande Republican.

But Rep. Mariana Sandoval said she sees the legislation through a different lens.

“This is a thinly veiled attempt to intimidate the attorney general and shield powerful foreign corporations like Fondomonte and Riverview from accountability for draining Arizona’s scarce groundwater,” said the Goodyear Democrat.

Fellow Democratic Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton of Tucson said she, too, isn’t buying Diaz’s argument that he is attempting to shield common people from the abuses of large government, especially when it comes to Mayes using the public nuisance law. That is the one option the attorney general says she has to deal with excessive groundwater pumping in rural areas.

“When I think about standing up for the little guy, and I think about who the little guy is in the state, I can’t discount the stories that I’ve heard of people who go to turn on their tap water and there’s no water there,” she said.

“I cannot discount the stories I’ve heard of foundations cracking, thus eliminating any kind of equity in home ownership,” Stahl Hamilton said. “And I absolutely think that our attorney general is listening to the little guy in this case and is paving a way forward.”

All that goes to the regulation — or lack thereof — of groundwater pumping in rural areas.

Major urban areas are located within “active management areas” where pumping is monitored and regulated. There also are “irrigation non-expansion areas” with certain limits.

Pumping pretty much everywhere else is ungoverned. And efforts by some local officials in rural counties to force better oversight have so far gone unheeded.

Mayes noted the gap in the law when filing suit against Fondomonte, a company that came to Arizona to grow alfalfa to feed dairy cattle in Saudi Arabia, where such farming is not allowed.

“Fondomonte is taking advantage of Arizona’s failure to protect its precious groundwater resources,” she said.

All that goes to her decision to use the tool Mayes says she has: The public nuisance provision in the state criminal code. She said that because Fondomonte’s operations are harming its neighbors, that fits the definition.

Mayes wants a court order enjoining the “excessive” pumping of groundwater.

Her lawsuit does not define that in actual terms. But Mayes said that in 2023 alone, Fondomonte used about 31,196 acre-feet of water — more than 10 billion gallons — considered enough to serve about 93,000 single-family homes.

She also wants Fondomonte to set up an “abatement fund” to reimburse others who have been affected.

Among the issues that Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Minder has to decide is whether any of this fits within nuisance laws.

There really is no legal precedent for the case.

The only known use of the law in a situation like this came earlier in Mayes’ tenure, when she used it to go after a company’s plan to mine rock and gravel on a 25-acre parcel it owned in a neighborhood in a rural area near Chino Valley. The site was within 100 feet of homes.

When the state mine inspector said he had no authority to block the plan, Mayes cited nuisance laws and got a court to issue a preliminary injunction.

The only thing is, there was never a final ruling on whether the mine was a nuisance — or whether the nuisance law applied. The lawsuit went away when someone else bought the land and mining plans were abandoned.

It is the future use of those nuisance laws, Diaz said, he wants to restrain.

He said Mayes — or any other attorney general — legally still could pursue nuisance claims. But Diaz said his HB 2167 sets the stage for someone to be able to fight such a claim and recover damages.

That kind of law, he said, might have resulted in a different outcome in what happened with Riverview.

Diaz does not dispute that there are people in the Willcox area who found their wells were drying up. But he said most went down between 100 and 300 feet; Diaz said Riverview was drawing from a different layer in the aquifer at 1,200 feet.

“And then she comes in and threatens that she’s going to take them to court,” he said, without any proof.

The company never admitted it was part of the problem. But Diaz said that, under threat from Mayes, it decided it was better to settle — and pay the $11 million — than risk the same kind of litigation as Fondomonte.

Under his measure, he said, a company could fight the attorney general with a better chance of recovering not just its legal fees, which are typical in many civil cases, but also any other damages it might incur like lost sales, lost profits, and loss in the value of the business.

“I believe she was using her position to extort,” he said.

But Sen. Lauren Kuby said it’s not like Mayes was simply out looking for someone to sue.

“In the Riverview case, the Willcox basin residents were faced with drying wells,” said the Tempe Democrat. “They called upon her office after years of heavy pumping by a large dairy.”

And that, Kuby said, is what led to the settlement to provide $11 million and to follow 2,000 acres.

“This is a concrete fix for a real, ongoing harm,” she said.

Kuby said that’s precisely what’s wrong with HB 2167.

“It would tie the hands of one official, our attorney general, who can act and is acting when communities raise the alarm across our state,” she said. “Riverview shows the model: When harm is real and urgent, the AG must be able to act decisively.”

Diaz, however, said not everything — including wells drying up — require intervention by the attorney general.

“We have been in an almost close to a 30-year drought now,” he said.

“With that, comes a lot of things that we are not prepared for,” Diaz said. “But we also are a very creative people.”

Consider, he said, people in his Southeast Arizona district whose wells have run dry.

“They have bought tanks, they transfer their water, and they continue to move on,” Diaz said, without “everything to be the government to bail everybody out.” And he said there are government programs designed to help rural communities to build or improve drinking water systems.

Diaz also brushes aside claims that Mayes intervened because rural residents want that.

“We are creative people and we get around these things,” Diaz said.

Consider, he said, an acquaintance who has lived in the area a long time, with water trucked into her property every week “so that she can do the laundry and shower and all that kind of stuff.”

“Yeah, they have to watch a little bit of their water use,” Diaz said. “But they trade that off because they like to live in rural Arizona.”

But what of those who sought intervention by Mayes?

“The ones that are complaining the most are the ones that are coming in from California,” he said.

Mayes, for her part, says Diaz is ignoring the reality of the situation — and why she believes that what Diaz is trying to do is harmful.

“Hundreds of residents in Cochise County came out to my town hall to beg for help because their wells were going dry and the land was cracking open around their homes and no one in power was doing anything to protect them,” she said.

“This year, we got them help while the Legislature has gone another session without doing anything to protect rural groundwater,” Mayes said. “It’s outrageous that instead of doing their jobs, Republican lawmakers want to punish me for doing mine.”

Correction: This story has had its headline updated to reflect the story. 

Key Points:

• House Ethics Committee chair declines to hear complaint against Rep. John Gillette

• Democrats cited the Republican’s anti-Muslim social media posts

• Gillette fired back, accusing Democrats of having anti-American values

House Ethics Committee Chairman Rep. Lupe Diaz said he will not take up a complaint against a Republican representative who recently made several anti-Muslim comments on social media, and some House Democrats said they no longer feel safe in his presence. 

Diaz, R-Benson, informed Democrats last week of his decision to reject their complaint against Rep. John Gillette, R-Kingman. Democrats accuse Gillette of dehumanizing an entire religious group by referring to Muslims as “savages” and “terrorists” in a story published in the Arizona Mirror on Sept. 9.

Diaz wrote in a Sept. 12 letter that it would have been unprecedented for him to take action on the complaint against Gillette since remarks, statements or lawmaker opinions are traditionally not the subject of an ethics inquiry. 

“In light of recent events, it is imperative that government institutions protect the freedom of speech, rather than take actions to silence, punish, or censor speech simply because someone might find it offensive or disagreeable,” Diaz wrote. “The inquiry you request this Committee to make would result in no more than an inquiry into the sincerity of Representative Gillette’s beliefs or a debate into the merits of those beliefs — neither for which an Ethics Committee hearing is the proper venue.”

On Sept. 14, following the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, Rep. Sarah Liguori, D-Phoenix, sent an email to House members calling on them to be mindful of their words and to seek unity instead of division. 

“There is no ‘us versus them,’ “ Liguori wrote in her email. “We may represent different districts and different parties, but that shouldn’t define us, because at the end of the day, we are moms and dads, sisters and brothers, friends and neighbors.” 

Gillette responded to Liguori’s email that same day saying “unity is no longer an option” and accusing Democrats of attacking Republicans and their constituents. 

“Your side has called us Nazis, fascists, racists, misogynists, and a ‘direct threat to democracy,’” Gillette’s response stated. He continued to criticize Democrats for aligning with “anti-American” values and said Democrats have awakened a “sleeping giant” like the Japanese military did during the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the terrorists who carried out the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11.

House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos, D-Laveen, called Gillette’s response “troubling.”

“Such comparisons are beyond inflammatory and, in the current climate, are credibly being taken as a call to violence against Democratic lawmakers. Given that Representative Gillette is known to carry a firearm, several members have expressed that they no longer feel safe in his presence,” De Los Santos said in a statement. “We call on elected officials of all stripes to disavow this language and escalation. Silence is tacit endorsement.”

Gillette is not the only lawmaker who has recently been the subject of an ethics complaint over their speech. 

Sen. Jake Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, filed an ethics complaint against Sen. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, earlier in September after alleging that Ortiz’s social media posts revealing the location for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity qualified as disorderly behavior.

Senate Ethics Committee Chairwoman Shawnna Bolick, R-Phoenix, also didn’t take any committee action with Hoffman’s complaint, but instead referred it to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona to determine if Ortiz interfered with U.S. law enforcement.

In 2024, a House ethics panel determined both De Los Santos and Ortiz engaged in disorderly behavior after the two led a chant on the House floor against Republicans who tabled a vote to repeal the state’s 1864 abortion ban. 

Republicans who filed the 2024 complaint accused De Los Santos and Ortiz of inciting a riot on the House floor, but the two said in a joint statement that Republicans were trying to suppress speech they don’t agree with. The House didn’t take further action on the complaint after the Ethics Committee published its report. 

Sen. Mark Finchem, R-Prescott, also filed a complaint against former Democratic Rep. Mark Cardenas in 2017 — back when Finchem served in the House — over a Facebook post in which Cardenas was critical of Republicans who supported that year’s budget. 

Finchem took issue with Cardenas describing the budget as being made up of “sweetheart deals and bribes to lawmakers” and Finchem accused Cardenas of engaging in impermissible debate by deliberately misrepresenting other lawmakers. Finchem’s complaint also wasn’t heard in the Ethics Committee that year.

Key Points:

• Rep. Lupe Diaz plans to reintroduce a bill that would prevent the state from providing public funding to clinics that promote or perform abortions

• Opponents of the proposed bill say it would restrict health care access for low income patients

• Republican lawmaker plans to revive bill to ban public funding for abortions

A Republican lawmaker wants to revive a bill that would prohibit the state from providing public funding to facilities and clinics that perform or promote abortions.

Rep. Lupe Diaz, R-Benson, said he plans to reintroduce his measure to prevent the state from entering into a contract or providing grants to any person or facility that provides or advises clients to seek an abortion.

Under current law, Arizona doesn’t allow public funding for most abortions except for emergencies, but Diaz’s proposal would expand upon that provision.

“For me and … all of the Republican Caucus, is that it is an individual and that individual deserves the same rights as any citizen under the constitution, which means protection of life,” said Diaz, who serves as the pastor of a nondenominational church in Benson. “Once you begin to violate … to cross that line, then, yeah, I’m going to restrict every dollar that I can from going to promote, perform and provide an abortion.”

Diaz’s original bill, House Bill 2547, passed the House along party lines before moving to the Senate, where it was approved in the Senate Government Committee. The measure then stalled before being approved by the chamber.

Supporters of the bill acknowledged that voters approved Proposition 139 last fall, which enshrines the right to an abortion in the state Constitution. However, they opposed the idea of taxpayer money funding facilities that advertise the procedure as a viable option for unwanted pregnancies.

“The crux of this whole issue is whether the taxpayer should be paying for that promotion,” said U.S. Rep Andy Biggs, R-Ariz, at the Senate Government Committee hearing on March 19. “So if you’re defining promotion as someone going in and being referred to a specific specialist for medical care, in this instance, there is no rationale that says that the public should have to be paying for that.”

The legislation drew strong opposition from medical professionals and abortion-rights groups that criticized the bill for attempting to circumvent the new constitutional right to abortion. 

According to those groups, the bill could limit access to health care options, affect low income people who rely on publicly funded clinics for reproductive health care and lead to the closure of facilities that provide abortions and other health care. 

“Arizonans spoke loud and clear last election when they overwhelmingly approved Prop 139. Yet extremists in the state legislature continuously target and stigmatize health care professionals and health centers at the expense of the health and well-being of Arizona’s already-vulnerable communities,” said Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona Interim President and CEO, April Donovan, in a statement. “We made clear this legislative session that HB 2547 is unpopular among voters and completely misleading – the bill was stalled and should not be revived.”

Diaz disagreed with the idea that the legislation would restrict health care services.

“There’s still going to be services provided. And for the low income, there’s going to be plenty of medical availability for them,” he said. “They just can’t perform abortions or promote them.”

Diaz originally said on X on June 26 that he was going to bring back the bill after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic case that a private citizen couldn’t sue South Carolina for excluding Planned Parenthood from receiving state Medicaid funding.

Although the ruling allows South Carolina to move forward with its plans, it still doesn’t address the legality of removing government funding from clinics that perform abortions, said James G. Hodge Jr., the Peter Kiewit Foundation professor of law and director of the Center for Public Health Law and Policy at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law.

“They did not make any statement about whether South Carolina’s maneuver here was actually legally sound,” Hodge said. “We still don’t know exactly whether or not that will fly with the U.S. Supreme Court. They have not clarified that. My best guess is they will probably allow it.”

Arizona is one of 38 states with laws that restrict the use of public resources for abortions to varying degrees, according to data compiled in November 2022 by Temple University’s Center for Public Health Law Research. 

Most of the state policies mirror federal law by restricting funding for abortions except for emergencies.

States have intensified efforts to limit abortions since the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade and withdrew the constitutional right to an abortion in 2022, Hodge said.

However, Diaz’s bill might face obstacles with Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, who has expressed her support for protecting abortion rights and women’s healthcare.

But that still won’t deter Diaz, who referred to Prop. 139 as a “special interest initiative.”

“I believe in good and evil,” he said. “And this was nothing but evil.”

Republican lawmakers are advancing what could be a head-on challenge to the options women have under the newly approved constitutional amendment guaranteeing a fundamental right to terminate a pregnancy.

And a separate GOP bill awaiting a House vote would undermine state funding for health clinics if their staffers even mention to patients that they have the legal option of abortion.

On a party-line vote, members of the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 19 approved legislation that would impose new requirements and restrictions on the use of abortion-inducing drugs. These range from requiring a physician to first examine the patient to blood tests and scheduling a follow-up visit.

Rep. Rachel Keshel, the sponsor of HB2681, did not show up to testify at the hearing to explain her legislation or the need for it. The Tucson Republican also did not return messages seeking comment.

Instead, lawmakers heard from Maura Rodriguez from Arizona Right to Life who said she used to work for Planned Parenthood and related stories of women who were given bad advice or no advice at all.

And Grace Hertz told legislators about other women who she said had problems, including bleeding, after using the pills.

But Keshel has made no secret she wants to undo Proposition 139.

She argues that voters made a mistake and, she contends, were misled when they approved the initiative in November by a 3-2 margin. Keshel already is sponsoring a measure to ask voters to partially repeal the constitutional amendment in 2026.

This proposal, however, takes a different tack. It seeks to impose the new restrictions despite the explicit language and prohibitions in Proposition 139 in further legislative restrictions.

Arizona law already spells out that only doctors may provide abortion-inducing drugs. There also are requirements for things like ensuring patients have given informed consent and reporting requirements.

The legality of none of these have been tested since approval of Prop 139.

Despite that, Keshel’s HB2681 seeks to impose even more requirements, including that the doctor independently verify a pregnancy exists, new documentation requirements, determine the patient’s blood type and inform the patient “of possible physical and psychological aftereffects” of the drug.

But Jodi Liggett, lobbyist for Reproductive Freedom for All, contends the state can’t do that.

“In November, Arizona voters approved Proposition 139, enshrining a constitutional right to abortion,” she said.

What it also does, Liggett reminded lawmakers, is spell out that this is a fundamental right prior to the point of fetal viability. And what that means, according to the language that voters approved, is the state cannot deny, restrict or interfere with that right “unless justified by a compelling state interest that is achieved by the least restrictive means.”

“We believe that these restrictions violate the constitution,” she said.

Rep. Quang Nguyen, who chairs the panel, was not convinced. He pointed out that the two individuals who spoke in favor of the bill said that women were not given directions, told stories about others who had suffered bleeding, and that some people received the drugs through the mail.

“I can’t speak to an individual experience,” Liggett responded.

She said, though, that the state already regulates the practice of medicine, just as the Food and Drug Administration of drugs. And Liggett said when the protocols are followed, more than 300 studies have shown the medications are safe.

And the stories told to lawmakers?

“Of course, it’s a tragedy when someone falls into that less than one-third of 1 percent” who have complications, she said.

All that, however, still leaves the question of how much latitude lawmakers have to impose new restrictions given the language of Proposition 139.

“Arizonans spoke loud and clear last election when they overwhelmingly approved Proposition 139,” said Erika Mach. She is a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona, the political arm of the organization.

“Yet this Republican-controlled state legislature is continuing to introduce and advance legislation that amends and dismantles this newly founded constitutional right to abortion,” Mach said.

In fact, she contends that some of the laws that  already were on the books before the November vote are themselves now illegal.

That, Mach said, specifically includes a ban on telemedicine, instead requiring women to have a face-to-face visit with a doctor to obtain the abortion drug. Also overruled, she argues, are requirements for a 24-hour waiting period, what she called “unnecessary ultrasounds,” and a requirement that medication abortions be done only by doctors and not specially trained clinicians.

And then there’s that ban on the mailing of medication abortions.

So far the only challenge that has been filed alleging a conflict with Prop 139 is to the state’s 15-week limit on abortions. Planned Parenthood and others filed suit in December seeking a ruling that it is no longer enforceable and their staffers cannot be prosecuted for abortions beyond that point because of the language in the initiative.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Frank Moskowitz has yet to rule on the request.

Keshel’s bill isn’t the only bid by GOP lawmakers to restrict abortions, at least indirectly.

Arizona law already bars the use of state dollars to perform abortions. That prohibition of state funds also applies to any person who performs abortions as well as anyone who operates a facility where abortions are performed.

Now the House is set to consider a bill that would deny state dollars to any individual who even just “promotes” abortions.

There is no definition in HB2547 of what that means. But Liggett told members of the House Government Committee, which was hearing that measure, that it would defund clinics that provide other reproductive and health care services just because they inform women that they are legally entitled to terminate a pregnancy.

“We think this is dangerous for the patient,” she said. What it also would do, said Liggett, is endanger funding for clinics that don’t provide abortions but do provide services like family planning, contraception and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, and do tell patients of their rights.

This isn’t just about grants to those clinics.

Dr. Julie Kwatra, a Scottsdale obstetrician and gynecologist, said it also could endanger the ability of doctors to get reimbursement for routine services for patients who are in the state’s Medicaid program simply because they tell some about the option to terminate a pregnancy.

But Rep. Lupe Diaz who is the sponsor of the legislation told colleagues that the approval of Proposition 139 proves to him there is no need for any state dollars to go to anyone who even promotes abortion.

“The abortion industry has a ton of money already,” said the Benson Republican.

“They were able to fund 139 with monies coming in from out of state, from throughout the nation, and probably outside of the nation,” he said. “We have some big players out there that want to just kill babies and that kind of stuff.”

Campaign finance reports show supporters of the ballot measure spent more than $33 million. That includes $4.7 million from The Fairness Project, which supports abortion ballot measures in multiple states, $3.25 million from the Advocacy Action Fund and $3 million from Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

There is no evidence of international donations.

The 4-3 vote in the committee came even after Marilyn Rodriguez, a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood Advocates, informed each of the lawmakers on the panel that Proposition 139 was approved by voters in each of their legislative districts.

For example, she said, 95,000 residents of LD 17, which Keshel represents, supported the initiative. By contrast, Rodriguez said, Keshel herself got just 71,000 votes.

“Your voters support abortion,” she told lawmakers, asking them to “respect their constitutional rights and vote ‘no.’ ”

Keshel, for her part, said she sides with Diaz, citing figures that Planned Parenthood nationally received close to $998 million in private donations in the 2022-2023 cycle.

“People like us, who do not support abortions, I don’t want a single penny of my taxpayer dollars going to that,” she said. “Planned Parenthood is doing just fine with donations from people who do support that.”

A nonbinary Democrat lawmaker lashed out Monday at a Republican representative for using his prayer on the House floor for “weaponizing religion to condemn our constituents.”

Rep. Lorena Austin said it was inappropriate for Rep. Lupe Diaz, who also is pastor of Grace Chapel in Benson, to use the opportunity of offering the daily prayer to talk about the decision of President Biden to declare March 31 as Transgender Day of Visibility. That meant it also came on Easter, the holiest day of the western Christian calendar, which celebrates the resurrection of Christ.

“His judgment is going to come upon those who are sinners and unrighteous,” Diaz said of God. “And we find that true in the Old Testament when he judged Sodom and Gomorrah.”

Diaz said that God shows no partiality.

“But in every nation whoever fears him and works righteousness is accepted by him,” he continued. “So what that tells me is that those who work unrighteousness are not accepted by him.”

Austin, in her own floor speech said the complaint about Biden, which also has played out on a national stage, ignores the fact that Biden has made the same declaration of March 31 for years.

It is Easter, Austin said, which has moved around the calendar, being set in western churches as the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox. In fact, Austin said, Easter will be on April 20 next year.

The state House does begin each day with a prayer. And individual lawmakers of all faiths can ask to deliver it.

But what Diaz did in his four-minutes, Austin said, was not a prayer.

“I want to remind members of this body that this is not a church,” Austin said.

“This is the Arizona House of Representatives,” Austin continued. “And a prayer is not a sermon.”

Diaz, in his comments about the presidential proclamation, said what happened Sunday shows “the contrast of light and darkness.”

“Jesus had to die on the cross for our sins,” he said.

“That means that there is right and wrong,” Diaz continued. “And for our president to go ahead and proclaim yesterday as, and really, really highlight the fact that it was Transgender Day of Visibility, it contrasts that light and darkness.”

And he said that “our nation is declaring itself as an unrighteous nation with this proclamation.”

“We should not be using prayer as a vehicle to condemn people who may not share your views,” Austin responded at the end of the daily session when individuals can give brief floor speeches.

“The Jesus I learned about and the God I learned about was a benevolent one,” said Austin. “It was one that did not condemn others for being who they are but welcome them,” calling Diaz’ comments “disheartening.”

Austin cited a recent study from the Public Religion Research Institute.

It said about two thirds of those who leave a faith tradition said they did so because they stopped believing in that religion’s teaching. It also said nearly half of those questioned who had left their religion cited negative teaching about the treatment of LGBTQ individuals.

Diaz did not respond to multiple messages asking him to comment about what he said on the House floor.

 

A House Ethics Committee reviewed evidence of a Democratic representative accused of stealing Capitol Bibles and engaging in disorderly behavior.

The committee didn’t recommend any disciplinary action during its hearing regarding a complaint filed against Rep. Stephanie Stahl-Hamilton, D-Tucson, after she was recorded on video removing Bibles from the House’s members’ lounge and hiding them.

Ethics Chairman Rep. Joe Chaplik, R-Scottsdale, said the committee is taking the matter under advisement and will publish a report with recommendations before the Legislature reconvenes on June 12.

Reps. Justin Heap, R-Mesa, David Marshall, R-Snowflake, and Lupe Diaz, R-Benson, filed the complaint on May 1 after news outlets broadcast the footage of Stahl-Hamilton taking Bibles from the members’ lounge. She apologized to her colleagues shortly after the incident became public knowledge and said her actions were a “peaceful” and “playful” demonstration to protest what she felt was a lack of separation of church and state.

Stahl-Hamilton wasn’t present at the hearing May 25, and Republicans on the Ethics Committee expressed frustration that she wasn’t there to answer questions. She was represented by attorneys and Democratic former state lawmakers, Domingo DeGrazia and Diego Rodriguez.

DeGrazia and Rodriguez declined to answer several questions about Stahl-Hamilton’s actions from Republicans and referenced her apology and statements she publicly made about hiding the Bibles.

“I think it would’ve been better for Representative Stahl Hamilton to be here to answer some questions on her own,” Chaplik said during the hearing.

DeGrazia said it was better for Stahl Hamilton to not be present at the hearing and said there was “no reason” for the committee hearing to take place with all the information and factual history of the incident being known to the committee. Because the hearing wasn’t a court hearing, it was up to committee leadership to determine what was relevant to the complaint.

“We don’t have the ability to challenge any of the evidence in contravention of every type of due process that you can imagine,” DeGrazia said.

The attorneys attempted to question House Sergeant at Arms Chuck Fitzgerald about how the video footage was captured, edited and stored, but Chaplik determined their line of questioning was irrelevant to whether Stahl-Hamilton engaged in disorderly behavior. Fitzgerald testified that he first noticed the missing Bibles and was instructed by House Chief of Staff Michael Hunter to find the culprit after Bibles went missing multiple times.

Fitzgerald said he set up the hidden video camera in the members’ lounge and removed it after presenting evidence to Hunter from April 10 of Stahl-Hamilton removing the Bibles, although he didn’t specify exactly when he removed the camera. That same video footage was first broadcast by Arizona’s Family on April 25.

“The only thing we’re here for today is apparently the presentation. So, they can bring it to the public, which follows absolutely in line with when they captured the video,” DeGrazia said. “It shows a pattern of political retribution.”

Stahl-Hamilton filed the complaint earlier in the session that led to the expulsion of former Rep. Liz Harris. Both Marshall and Diaz voted to expel Harris after the Ethics committee determined she lied to the committee and impugned several elected officials by inviting testimony to a legislative hearing that accused them of taking bribes.

Heap voted not to expel Harris, but he told Ethics Chairman Travis Grantham, R-Gilbert, that he would’ve filed the same complaint had Grantham hid the Bibles and he didn’t attempt to “set up” Stahl-Hamilton, only learning about the incident with most other people when it was broadcast on April 25.

“I am not able to file ethics complaints on incidents I’m not aware of before I know the fact,” Heap said. “What was particularly disturbing to me was not simply that the Bibles were removed, but the photos of where these Bibles were placed.”

The House released photos of Bibles underneath couch cushions and one inside a community refrigerator used by members. Heap said he’s disturbed by having to wonder if he sat on his own sacred text and said he felt that his and other members’ beliefs were disrespected.

The Arizona Capitol Times earlier reported that Stahl-Hamilton said her actions were “impulsive” and she said in her apology that she should have spoken to House leadership about her feelings about the Bibles and the separation of church and state before acting.

But Grantham dismissed her apology during the ethics hearing. He called her defense of the actions being a protest of church and state a “red herring” and said he didn’t believe having the Bible or any other religious text be available for members to read coerces them into a particular religion.

“To me this is a total joke decoy,” Grantham said.

Stahl-Hamilton has explained previously that she felt the Bible was being used as a “weapon” by the Legislature, which motivated her to hide the Bibles. The committee also reviewed evidence of Stahl-Hamilton, an ordained Presbyterian minister, discussing Biblical scripture as talking points about the border in 2021, but the committee didn’t discuss it any further.

Rodriguez said the only evidence of Stahl-Hamilton’s intent that the committee has is her public apology and statements she’s made where she said it was a peaceful protest and prank.

After the committee makes a recommendation, an individual member can make a motion to discipline Stahl-Hamilton as they feel necessary. An expulsion is unlikely because it requires two-thirds of the chamber and Democrats support Stahl-Hamilton. Republicans could censure Stahl-Hamilton on a party line vote.

 

 

Three House Republicans filed a complaint Monday against a Democratic lawmaker who was caught hiding Bibles in the members-only lounge of the House of Representatives.

The complaint alleges that Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, D-Tucson, violated state criminal law and brought disrepute to the House of Representatives. Stahl-Hamilton apologized on the House floor the day after video footage was broadcast by Arizona’s Family showing her removing Bibles from the members’ lounge.

According to the complaint filed by Reps. Justin Heap, R-Mesa; David Marshall, R-Snowflake; and Lupe Diaz, R-Benson, Stahl-Hamilton hid Bibles on three separate occasions – on March 23, March 29 and April 10. Stahl-Hamilton explained on April 26 that she intended to demonstrate a “playful protest” of what she said was a lack of separation of church and state at the Legislature and never intended to damage the Bibles or offend other members.

Republicans didn’t view her protest as “playful” and are alleging Stahl-Hamilton committed theft and disorderly behavior and created a hostile work environment. They noted in the complaint that her apology and comments were delivered after she was caught, and the incident was broadcast to the public.

“We, and other Members of the Arizona House who cherish our faith and hold the Bible in reverence, do not see Representative Stahl Hamilton’s disrespect of scripture as playful in any regard,” Republicans wrote in the complaint. “In addition, given that her actions appear to have been carried out entirely in secret, lacking any communication of her actions to other Members or individuals, we are at a loss to see how her behavior could be characterized as a ‘commentary’ or a ‘protest’ of any kind.”

The complaint alleges Stahl-Hamilton’s actions meet the definition of theft under Arizona statute and violate federal and state law that prohibits religious harassment in the workplace. State statute defines theft as a person knowingly controlling another person’s, or government’s, property without lawful authority and with intent to deprive the other person of such property.

During her apology on the House floor on April 26, Stahl-Hamilton, an ordained Presbyterian minister, said in her apology, said she holds scriptures from the Bible “dear to her heart” and it’s what has shaped her as a person. But her respect for all faiths, including no faith, led her to make an “impulsive” decision, she said.

“I acknowledge that a conversation about the separation of church and state should’ve begun with a conversation,” she said in her apology.

Stahl-Hamilton was the representative who filed an ethics complaint against expelled Rep. Liz Harris. Harris was expelled on April 12 for inviting a speaker to make criminal allegations of elected officials and private citizens during a February joint legislative elections hearing to platform election fraud conspiracy. The House Ethics Committee not only determined Harris’ behavior was disorderly, but that she also lied to the committee during her ethics hearing.

House Minority Leader Andrés Cano, D-Tucson, told reporters last week that Democrats saw the handling of releasing the video footage to a media outlet as “political retaliation” for Harris’ expulsion.

“Representative Stahl-Hamilton’s apology speaks for itself,” Cano said in a statement texted to the Arizona Capitol Times on Tuesday. “I will add that I found out about the complaint the same way I found out about the hidden video, which is through Twitter. I continue to have serious questions about how the majority has handled a situation that could have been resolved with a phone call or email.”

The complaint also references a June 2, 2020, post from Stahl-Hamilton’s now-deleted Twitter account criticizing former President Donald Trump for taking a photo holding a Bible in front of a church.

“I’m an ordained minister. I got into politics because I was so angered by the number of Bibles on desks at the Arizona State House. Holding a Bible – or any religious text – doesn’t make you a good person. Nor should you use this (as) a political photo op. This is disgusting,” she wrote in the Tweet.

Republicans wrote in their complaint that these comments were “particularly troubling” because they demonstrate a “strong disdain” for Bibles placed on members’ desks and suggest she entered public service because of it. They also dismissed Stahl-Hamilton’s explanation of her actions being a protest due to the secrecy of her actions.

“Given that her actions appear to have been carried out entirely in secret, lacking any communication of her actions to other Members or individuals, we are at a loss to see how her behavior could be characterized as a ‘commentary’ or ‘protest’ of any kind,” the complaint states.

Just like the ethics complaint against Harris handled earlier in the session, the complaint against Stahl-Hamilton will be up to the House Ethics Committee, chaired by Rep. Joe Chaplik, R-Scottsdale, to further investigate. Chaplik is giving Stahl-Hamilton until May 8 to submit an official response to the complaint, according to letters sent to members from the House’s Rules attorneys.

 

 

A Democratic lawmaker apologized to her colleagues on the House floor Wednesday for removing and hiding Bibles in the members’ lounge, calling the act a protest of a lack of separation of church and state.

The apology from Rep. Stephanie Stahl-Hamilton, D-Tucson, came after video footage from April 10 of her taking Bibles in the lounge was broadcast by Arizona’s Family on April 25, ending a weeks-long internal House investigation of the culprit behind the missing Bibles.

“The intent was never to be destructive, to never desecrate, or to offend,” Stahl-Hamilton, an ordained Presbyterian minister, said in her apology. “I acknowledge that a conversation about the separation of church and state should’ve begun with a conversation.”

Stahl-Hamilton explained to reporters that she’s often felt frustrated that the Bible is used “as a weapon” at the Legislature. One day last month while she was sitting in the members’ lounge, she saw a copy of the Bible and hid it underneath a couch cushion in the lounge. She said she did this because there was no other place to put it out of eyesight in the lounge like a cabinet and because she felt it was inappropriate to only have one religion represented in the lounge.

This continued two days later when she noticed another Bible on the other side of the lounge, and then the week after when the Bibles were returned. Stahl-Hamilton even hid one Bible in the community refrigerator used by House members and staff, which she said was “cheeky.” She admitted that her actions were “impulsive,” but her only intent was to put away the Bibles.

“At the time it felt like a simple little prank,” she said. “In my brain, I felt like it’s a game. It’s just a peaceful, playful, protest of why we have religious books – just one – in a government building,” she added.

Several Republicans didn’t share her opinion. Rep. Travis Grantham, R-Gilbert, said April 26 that the camera placed in the members’ lounge was a direct response to the missing Bibles that was recommended by security and approved by House Speaker Ben Toma, R-Peoria.

Many House Republicans joined Rep. Lupe Diaz, R-Benson, at his desk for his prayer April 26 prior to Stahl-Hamilton’s apology. Diaz delivered a speech about the Bible, explaining its various parts and role in history.

“Over the millennia, tyrants have tried to eliminate it, burn it, bury it, hide it and keep it from people,” Diaz said.

Diaz never referenced Stahl-Hamilton by name as a “tyrant,” but the demonstration from Republicans clearly condemned her actions.

Minority Leader Andrés Cano, D-Tucson, called Stahl Hamilton’s actions a “poor choice in judgment” and said that he addressed it with her. He added that he believes her apology is sincere and commended her for doing it in front of the entire body on the House floor.

“I believe what she was trying to do, which is very consistent, is share that there are many faiths. Not just one,” Cano said.

Grantham said Bibles have been in the members’ lounge for as long as he can remember as a legislator, but other religious texts have been present at times too.

“Anything anybody wants to read, as far as I know, has been in there. I have seen Korans in there. I’ve seen them open to certain pages on tables,” Grantham said. “The Bibles have always been in there. I don’t know what’s regularly in there other text wise.”

The larger issue, Cano said, was how Republicans responded to the issue and how the investigation was handled. According to Cano, Democrats were not informed of the hidden camera in the members’ lounge, and they only learned of the issue on when Arizona’s Family broadcast the footage.

“I had no idea there was an issue with Bibles less than 24 hours ago,” Cano said.

While Cano expressed privacy concerns over Republican leadership’s investigation, Grantham argued theft in the lounge cannot go “uninvestigated.”

“That’s not a safe space for people who are committing crimes or felons. It’s a place where we go to have meetings, so if somebody’s stealing property, we have to find out who’s doing it,” Grantham said.

Other Republicans have discussed filing an ethics complaint against Stahl-Hamilton over the matter. Both Reps. Justin Heap, R-Mesa, and Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, tweeted support for an ethics complaint to be filed after they saw the video footage.

Republican activist Merissa Hamilton told The Arizona Capitol Times on April 26 that she believed Stahl-Hamilton’s actions met the definition of disorderly conduct for disturbing a class of people – Christians. She said she asked House leadership and her House Reps. Judy Schwiebert, D-Phoenix, and Justin Wilmeth, R-Phoenix, to file an ethics complaint against Stahl-Hamilton.

“I felt it was our duty as citizens to not let this go with a simple halfhearted apology. … It is so bizarre what she’s doing and she’s on video making it look like she’s sneaking around so obviously and it’s very, very bizarre, and it’s unbecoming of a legislator,” Hamilton said.

An ethics complaint against Stahl-Hamilton would be the second in the House this session. Stahl-Hamilton filed the first one against expelled Rep. Liz Harris. Toma told Capitol Media Services he has no intention of filing a complaint himself, but another member might.  

Cano criticized the response from Republicans over the issue and said he believes it’s “political retaliation” for Harris’ expulsion. He said Republicans didn’t allow Democrats to handle the issue internally and said he would have navigated the issue much differently.

The hidden camera in the lounge is now gone, Grantham said. But Cano argued the three weeks of “big brother” footage it recorded of all members and lobbyists in the lounge should be released as a public record.

“I think the Republican majority was trying to get a gotcha moment not recognizing that now this exposes how much they want to interfere in our day-to-day lives,” Cano said.

Yellow Sheet Editor Wayne Schutsky and Arizona Capitol Times Legislative Reporter Camryn Sanchez contributed reporting to this article.

 

In what has become a mysterious political struggle, state senators on Thursday debated on how long to allow the Arizona State School for the Deaf and Blind to operate before it must return to the Legislature for approval to continue as a state agency.

A last-minute change in the Senate that may be reversed in the House put the school on course to continue for four years instead of the standard eight given to most state agencies in good standing.

Most of the Senate wants the school to continue for the standard eight years but opposition from a few Republicans nearly brought the continuation down to two years. Four was the compromise that Democrats supported under protest.

After three hours of debate, the Senate finally passed Rep. Beverly Pingerelli’s bill, House Bill 2456, with the four-year amendment from Sen. Ken Bennett, R-Prescott, who said before the 27-1 vote he prefers the eight-year continuation. Sen. Juan Mendez, D-Tempe, voted against the bill.

Sen. David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, said on the floor that he also has an issue with just four years.

“I think this should have been eight years,” he said. With Bennett, Gowan and the Democrats united in agreement that eight years is preferrable to anything less, the Senate had more than enough votes to make that change, but it didn’t happen.

State agencies are subject to a sunset review and the Legislature may continue their existence for up to 10 years. Bills to continue agencies usually smoothly pass through the Legislature and are signed by the governor.

There are exceptions, though, like when an agency has a history of trouble and controversy. Last year, some lawmakers tried to hold the Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation and Reentry to a three-year sunset review.

The department had a long history of failing to provide adequate health care to prisoners, a botched execution and a host of troubles surrounding executions.

The sunset review bill that former Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law gave the department eight years until it’s renewal but requires the state Auditor General to conduct annual reviews of the department on an assortment of areas.

But the school hasn’t been plagued with troubles.

Six weeks ago, the school became concerned when their continuation bill stalled in the Senate Government Committee without a hearing.

The bill had previously passed in the House without opposition, and the committee of reference recommended an eight-year continuation.

Rep. David Cook, R-Globe, used a procedural tactic to revive the continuation bill in the Education Committee and Bennett agreed to hold a hearing for it, but then the Government Committee, led by Sen. Jake Hoffman, Queen Creek, decided to hold a hearing on the original bill.

The bill was amended in the Government Committee to two years and in the Education Committee down to five years in one long confusing day where deaf and blind students, parents and teachers rushed around the Legislature, cried, and pleaded with lawmakers to allow their school to continue longer.

It appeared on the Senate floor Thursday with yet another amendment to continue the school for four years.

Democrats asked repeatedly why the school is getting a different treatment from dozens of other agencies when it seemingly had not done anything wrong. Sen. Priya Sundareshan, D-Tucson, noted that the most damaging finding in the latest Auditor General’s report on the school was self-reported and they worked to resolve it.

Sen. Eva Burch, D-Mesa, said teachers are refusing to sign contracts because of the political controversy surrounding the school.

“Teachers are being lost as we speak because of what we’re doing in here right now,” Burch said.

Hoffman said that shorter continuations are the best way for lawmakers to serve the agency because stricter guidance leads to higher standards.

“In furtherance of that mission, we want to provide the deaf and blind children with the best possible education,” he said.

Sen. David Farnsworth, R-Mesa, was the only other lawmaker to say that short continuations mean better oversight. He said everyone expects the school, which has been in operation since before Arizona was a state, to continue for a very long time.

Senate Minority Leader Mitzi Epstein, D-Tempe, said it is appalling to suggest the school needs more oversight.

“It is simply appallingly curious. It really begs the question of what other motives are going on?” Epstein asked.

Hoffman refused to answer Epstein’s question about whether he has met with the school.

School Superintendent Annette Reichman said that Hoffman never spoke to her.

The floor debate got heated.

Sens. Catherine Miranda and Raquel Teran, both Phoenix Democrats, were reprimanded for referring to a rumor that’s been circulating around the Legislature for the past several weeks, that all this difficulty around the school continuation is because Sen. Justine Wadsack, R-Tucson, has a “vendetta” against the school for opposing one of her bills, which failed.

Wadsack filed a bill that would have required the school to accept students who aren’t deaf or blind but have other disabilities.

Miranda made the accusation and was silenced by Sen. T.J. Shope, R-Coolidge, who was running the floor debate. Wadsack left the room during Miranda’s comments.

“We don’t have direct evidence of that, but yes that is our perception, that that’s accurate, that it’s true,” Reichman said of the rumor.

Wadsack declined to comment. She also wouldn’t answer a question from Epstein on the floor.

Marsh and Miranda criticized the body for not providing adequate accommodations for deaf and blind people in committee or on the floor. There is a livestream available of the proceedings with closed captioning, but no interpreters. Miranda asked whether the Senate is violating the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.

Tensions also ran high when Democrats accused Republicans of ableism. Sundareshan, and Sen. Juan Mendez, D-Tempe, both referred to the process that way and were chastised for impugning the motives of other members, but Reichman said that’s exactly how she sees it too.

Mendez tried to amend the bill to go to 10 years, but the amendment failed on party lines. He voted ‘no’ in protest, making the final vote 27-1.

Mendez noted that the Senate recently voted 21-7 to continue the Arizona Department of Liquor Licenses and Control without any similar pushback. The bill’s opposition came from the same group opposing the eight-year school continuation

A bill from Rep. Lupe Diaz, R-Benson, to continue the Arizona State Parks Board for eight years also passed the Senate on Thursday, but there was no debate. That bill passed 21-6 with Hoffman, Wadsack and four other Republicans opposed.

The last hope for eight-year continuation proponents is that the bill is altered one final time in a conference committee and restored to an eight-year bill. Bill sponsor Pingerelli said she still supports an eight-year continuation, and she’s looking at the best options.

The House will start 2022 with nine new members who were appointed to fill spots that opened due to a slew of resignations after the 2021 session. And that means new faces will be heading a couple of powerful committees. 

Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, will head the House Judiciary Committee next year, replacing Rep. Frank Pratt, who died in September. And the committee’s purview will be expanded to include the sort of bills Blackman pushed during the 2021 session as chairman of the House Criminal Justice Reform Committee. The latter panel is being dissolved and will have its responsibilities folded into Judiciary. 

And House Speaker Pro Tempore Travis Grantham, R-Gilbert, will have his portfolio expanded to include the chairmanship of the House Rules Committee, replacing longtime Rep. Becky Nutt, a southeastern Arizona Republican who resigned a month ago. 

“The last time we had this many resignations was, I think, in 1991, and that’s when AzScam occurred,” said veteran lobbyist Barry Aarons, referring to the gaming scandal that resulted in seven lawmakers being convicted of bribery. 

This year’s resignations have mostly come for more pedestrian reasons – only one, former Sen. Tony Navarrete’s departure, was due to criminal charges. Three lawmakers have left for personal reasons, while two House members left that chamber after being appointed to the Senate, one left to take a job in the Biden administration, and three resigned to focus on bids for higher office. 

(See related story) 

Republican lobbyist and former lawmaker Stan Barnes said, “This is, in my 32 years, the rarest of situations, really, and I’m still surprised when I consider the amount of people resigning simply for a job opportunity or for some other reason that wasn’t compelling in time. To resign to run for another office when you don’t have to is a new phenomenon. The whole thing is one giant surprise to me.” 

Barnes said he doesn’t know what has changed in the Capitol’s culture to prompt more members who are seeking higher offices to resign. He said it “does not make sense to me in the name of fundraising or living up to our obligation to voters who put you in the original office in the first place, or maintaining profile. … There’s not a part of it I understand in terms of strategy.” 

Having so many new members, Barnes said, will make what is already expected to be a tough session even tougher. 

“The problem isn’t so much new members,” he said. “The problem is new members with an attitude. And with an overconfidence. And with a lack of understanding of how things actually work not deterring them from talking too much or engaging in ways that are detrimental to the process.” 

Aarons, who believes lawmakers running for higher offices should resign their current positions, doesn’t think having so many new members will be as disruptive as Barnes does. 

“New members tend to be kind of still finding their way and will tend to rely more on their leadership as far as positions they’re going to take,” Aarons said. 

Aarons thinks a bigger factor in prolonging the 2022 session will be the presence of so many legislators who are running for higher office. Among the legislators expected to return in 2022 are two who are running for Congress, four who are running for secretary of state, three running for state treasurer and one running for state superintendent of public instruction. 

“I think they’re going to have a lot of things that they’re going to want to do so that they can raise their profile, and that’s not necessarily going to make for an easier session,” Aarons said. 

There will be three new Republicans for whom 2022 will be their first session – Lupe Diaz, who was named to Nutt’s seat; Neal Carter, who replaced Pratt; and Teresa Martinez, who was appointed after Bret Roberts resigned.  

Democrats will have six new House members – Christian Solorio, who was appointed when former Rep. Raquel Terán was named to Navarrete’s Senate seat; Brian Fernandez, who was named to his mother Charlene Fernandez’s seat when she left for a job in the U.S. Department of Agriculture; Sarah Liguori, who was appointed to Aaron Lieberman’s seat when he resigned to focus on his gubernatorial run; and two yet-to-be-named members from vacant seats in Tucson and Phoenix. 

Grantham will serve as a key gatekeeper in his new role as Rule Committee chairman. All bills pass through that committee before going to the House floor, effectively letting the GOP leadership which holds the majority on the committee decide whether a bill should move forward or be killed. Barnes said the importance of the Rules chairmanship has grown greatly in recent years. 

“Decades ago, it was somebody that would salute leadership when needed in the way of holding bills, but it was generally just a perfunctory rubber stamp,” Barnes said. “That’s changed in the ensuing time, and different members in the past have exercised tremendous gatekeeping … autonomy, apparently unchallenged by leadership. And, dependent on the personality, that phenomenon remains.” 

Speaking briefly before Grantham’s appointment was announced, Barnes said he expected the GOP leadership to take this into account when naming Nutt’s successor. 

“Speaker (Rusty) Bowers understands the changing dynamics of the role of the Rules chairman, and no doubt will choose someone that he considers a close ally that is cooperative with general majority issues support,” Barnes said. 

There has also been some notable committee reshuffling among the House Democrats, who lost a couple of long-serving members to the wave of resignations and have had to name new ranking members to some committees as a result.  

Reps. Kelli Butler, D-Paradise Valley, Jennifer Longdon, D-Phoenix, and Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, will join House Appropriations to replace three members who resigned, with Butler as the new ranking Democrat. Another notable change is that House Minority Leader Reginald Bolding, D-Laveen, who is running for secretary of state, is joining Government and Elections. 

And if this seems like a lot of changes, just wait a year. Of the House incumbents who are returning for the 2022 session, six have already filed to run for state Senate; eight are seeking higher offices such as Congress or statewide posts; and at least three have publicly announced they plan to leave the Legislature for other reasons after the upcoming session. Others could be squeezed out when redistricting forces them into difficult primaries. 

The picture in the Senate is similar, with several senators running for higher offices, several others who have said they don’t plan to run again and a few who could be forced into primary elections with current colleagues. And even if Republicans keep the majority, the House and Senate both will have new leadership in 2023 – Bowers is term-limited, and Senate President Karen Fann plans to retire. 

“The turnover at the Legislature for the 2023 session is going to be among the largest ever, at least in my 50 years down there,” Aarons said. 

Since the Legislature adjourned sine die on June 30, six new House members have been appointed to fill the seats of members who resigned or, in one case, died. And three seats are still vacant. The new House members are: 

Neal Carter (R) 

Carter, a lawyer with a record of involvement in numerous community organizations in the San Tan Valley area, ran for the Legislative District 8 House seat last year and narrowly lost. He was appointed by Pinal County supervisors to finish the term of Rep. Frank Pratt, who died in September. 

“I have a vested interest in the strength and success of the community and I think my extensive community service and local involvement prove this,” Carter said in an interview with supervisors before his appointment. 

In a letter to supervisors, Carter stressed his interest in water, economic development and transportation-related issues, as well as his opposition to abortion and his previous work as a poll watcher. He will serve on the Commerce and Judiciary committees. 

Lupe Diaz (R) 

Diaz, a Benson city councilman and the pastor of Grace Chapel Benson, was appointed to the LD14 seat Rep. Becky Nutt resigned from a month ago. 

House Republicans said in a statement after Diaz’s appointment that he is “a strong advocate for a pro-business economy, safe communities, and protecting Arizona’s limited water and natural resources.”  

In an interview with Cochise County supervisors before his appointment, Diaz said border security and water issues would be among his focuses in the House. He also talked about how his experiences as a pastor and city councilman would help him. He told of an incident, which took place before he ran for City   Council, about a successful campaign he led to oppose an attempt to rebrand Christmas as “winter fest” in Benson. 

“I can put on my resume that I saved Christmas … I had a Grinch zip-tied to the front of my truck during my campaign,” he said. 

Diaz will serve on the Ways and Means, Education, and Land, Agriculture and Rural Affairs committees. 

Brian Fernandez (D) 

Fernandez, a software entrepreneur from Yuma with a long history of political involvement, was appointed to the LD4 House seat shortly after his mother, former Minority Leader Charlene Fernandez, resigned to take a job with the Biden administration as Arizona state director for rural development. 

Fernandez told Yuma County supervisors when they interviewed him that water, infrastructure and education would be three of his main priorities in office. He will serve on the Transportation and Land, Agriculture and Rural Affairs committees. 

Sarah Liguori (D) 

Liguori, who works in commercial real estate and is a licensed financial adviser, was appointed in October to replace Rep. Aaron Lieberman, who

resigned his LD28 House seat to focus on his gubernatorial campaign. Liguori said in an interview after her swearing-in that she wants to focus on women’s rights, climate change, housing sustainability and social justice issues. She said she plans to run for a full two-year term next year. 

“I’m beginning to campaign for re-election as soon as we start with the session,” she said. 

She will serve on the Commerce and Natural Resources, Energy and Water committees. 

Teresa Martinez (R) 

Martinez, a Pinal County native who works in U.S. Rep. Paul Gosar’s office, was appointed to the LD11 seat that became vacant in September when Bret Roberts resigned for family reasons. 

“I sought to serve in the state Legislature because I want to do the tough work on behalf of the people who live in Pinal County,” Martinez said in a statement after her appointment. “Work that will improve quality of life, promote freedom for all, and make government more accountable to the people it serves. I am ready to do that!” 

She will serve on the Natural Resources, Energy and Water, Military and Public Safety, and Government and Elections committees. 

Christian Solorio (D) 

Solorio, an architect and Alhambra Elementary School District governing board member, was appointed to represent west-central Phoenix’s LD30 when Rep. Raquel Terán was appointed to the Senate. 

Solorio, a lifelong resident of the district, said during his swearing-in ceremony last month that his family, like many others, faced times of unemployment and medical emergencies that resulted in long-term struggles and debt when he was growing up. 

“Because of that, I feel like I carry a burden,” he said. “And I carry that burden because I’m stepping into a role where I’m going to be representing one of the poorest communities in the state … knowing what it feels like to be there.” 

He will serve on the Military and Public Safety and Government and Elections committees. 

Pima and Maricopa County supervisors are expected to vote later this month to fill three vacant House seats, two in Tucson and one in the South Mountain area. 

Democratic precinct committeemen in LD9 have nominated Mathis, Nathan Davis and Anakarina Rodriguez for the House seat that became vacant when Rep. Randy Friese, D-Tucson, resigned. And Democrats in LD10 have nominated Tom Chabin, Morgan Abraham and Mitzi Cowell to the House seat that became vacant when Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, D-Tucson, was appointed to the Senate. 

Democratic precinct committeemen in LD27, which includes south Phoenix and Laveen, met December 1 and nominated Shams Abdussamad, Marcelino Quiñonez and Junelle Cavero Harnal to the House seat Diego Rodriguez, D-Phoenix, resigned from recently to focus on his run for attorney general. 

Yellow Sheet Editor Wayne Schutsky and Arizona Capitol Times reporter Kyra Haas contributed. 

Two new lawmakers have been appointed to the Arizona House, bringing the number of vacancies down to three. 

Cochise County supervisors voted unanimously Friday afternoon to appoint Republican Lupe Diaz, a Benson city councilman and the pastor of Grace Chapel Benson, to the Legislative District 14 seat that became vacant when longtime Rep. Becky Nutt resigned. And on Monday, Yuma County supervisors voted 4-1 to appoint Democrat Brian Fernandez to the Legislative District 4 seat that his mother Rep. Charlene Fernandez vacated earlier this month when she was appointed to a job in the Biden administration. 

Fernandez, Bryan Rasmussen and Carol Smith were the three candidates LD4 Democrats had recommended. Yuma County Supervisor Lynne Pancrazi, who supported Smith and who cast the only vote against Fernandez’ appointment, said she loves Brian Fernandez but “I want a woman to replace a woman.” 

Fernandez, a Yuma native, founded the software company Team Start, LLC, and before that founded and later sold a company that built software that managed all incoming and outgoing communication for members of Congress. His resume includes volunteering for Democratic statewide and House candidates, advising former U.S. Sen. Byron Dorgan and the Congressional Black Caucus on technology and, most recently, working to get U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly and President Biden elected. 

Yuma County Board of Supervisors Chairman Tony Reyes said he likes that Fernandez is Hispanic and said would be able to hit the ground running in Phoenix due to his work in politics, the people he has met through lobbying and campaign work and his family’s political involvement. 

“He will have some connections that probably nobody else would have,” Reyes said. 

Fernandez said during the candidate interviews that preceded the vote that water, infrastructure and education would be three of his main focuses in office. 

On Friday, Cochise County Supervisor Peggy Judd praised all of the candidates and had personally ranked two of them as equally qualified, but the number of citizens who contacted her supporting Diaz broke the tie. 

“I know we’re required to make the appointment, but I think, considering people that had very strong feelings that took the time to contact me in a number of ways, I feel comfortable giving Mr. Diaz my vote,” she said. 

Diaz is a Bisbee native and a former president and CEO of the Benson/San Pedro Valley Chamber of Commerce who “continues to be a strong advocate for a pro-business economy, safe communities, and protecting Arizona’s limited water and natural resources,” according to a news release House Republicans sent out after his appointment. 

Diaz was one of three potential replacements nominated by Cochise County Republican precinct committeemen; the others were county GOP chairman Robert Montgomery and Saint David rancher Brian McKeighen. 

Diaz’ appointment brings the House Republican caucus back up to full strength. There are still three vacant Democratic seats that need to be filled before the session, however. Two are in Tucson, and were vacated when former Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton was appointed to the Senate and Rep. Randy Friese resigned. The third, in Maricopa County, became vacant last week when Rep. Diego Rodriguez resigned to focus on running for attorney general. 

LD10 Democrats have nominated Tom Chabin, Morgan Abraham and Mitzi Cowell to Stahl Hamilton’s former House seat; Pima County supervisors still need to vote to appoint one of them.