Senate | Arizona Capitol Times

Bill requiring local cops to notify ICE of an immigrant arrest advances

Key Points:

ICE would be alerted as an arrest is taking place
Democrats express concerns the measure could trigger violence
Republicans say SB1055 will make Arizona streets safer

Republican lawmakers are moving to force state and local police to take a more active role in reporting people who are not in the country legally.

Legislation approved earlier this week by the Senate on a party-line vote would require any agency arresting a possible illegal immigrant to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement. And that would be “immediately,” before any adjudication of guilt. That amounts to ICE being called to come to the location where an arrest is being made.

But Democrats fear that what’s in SB1055 would not just sweep up others but actually result in dangerous confrontations on the street with what Sen. Analise Ortiz, D-Phoenix, calls “a murderous force” of agents and what Sen. Lauren Kuby, D-Tempe, called a “lawless agency.”

That, in turn, brought a sharp retort from Sen. Jake Hoffman. The Queen Creek Republican read off a list of people killed by those not here legally, calling them “the actual murderous force.”

“Democrats in this chamber are arguing that those illegal alien criminals should be allowed to roam free on our streets,” Hoffman said. “Anyone who stands up for those people, you’re disgusting.”

Senate Majority Leader John Kavanagh said the concerns of foes are overblown.

“All it does is require cooperation between different levels of government, something that makes government effective,” said the Fountain Hills Republican. “People who are accused of being here illegally need to be brought to justice.”

That, he said, means bringing people before a hearing officer, saying they will receive “due process.”

“And whatever the result is, that’s what we do,” Kavanagh said. “And this facilitates it.”

Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan said her problems with SB1055 begin with the fact that it is just the arrest that triggers a call to ICE.

“So there has been no evidence provided, jury trial provided, or anything that proves that anyone that might have been arrested is, in fact, guilty,” said the Tucson Democrat.

Ortiz said it’s also important to remember that any “arrest” would trigger that call to ICE to show up. And that, she said, even could include a citation for jaywalking, with cities like Phoenix now issuing them to offenders.

Hoffman said he sees it from a different perspective.

“This is once someone has been arrested, then, yes, we do want our law enforcement in Arizona to coordinate with ICE if they’re an illegal alien,” he said. “Even if you support illegal immigration, it’s absurd that you would not want the criminals who come over illegally removed from this country.”

But it’s the mechanics of how the measure would work, Ortiz said, that could create a hazardous situation.

It starts, she said, with that requirement for immediate notification of ICE. That, she said, means agents showing up at the arrest scene.

“Anyone in the surrounding community is then put in danger by masked, armed, Call of Duty ‘cosplayers’ who are eager to use their weapons,” she said. “We have seen that happen, whether it’s a gun, whether it is chemical irritants, whether it’s beating somebody to a pulp on the concrete.”

Hoffman, however, insisted that the legislation would create safer communities.

“The safest place for a transfer to occur is, statistically, when they’re already in custody,” he said.

“It’s Looney Tunes for anyone to think otherwise,” Hoffman said. “It poses the least risk to the rioters, activists who are protesting and getting in the way of and trying to run over ICE agents.”

He also said nothing in the legislation would overturn “longstanding professional practices of law enforcement” which say that transfers of arrested people should occur “at the time most safe to the public.”

And Hoffman lashed out at Ortiz and her description of federal immigration agents as a “murderous force.”

“The actual ‘murderous force’ are the dangerous illegal criminal aliens coming into the country,” he said.

But Kuby said the record suggests otherwise.

“They’re using illegal, excessive use of force, often against U.S. citizens who are denied due process,” she said, citing what she called were the “murders” of Alex Pretti and Renee Goode in Minneapolis.

“Killing people in the streets, this is what we are seeing,” Kuby said. “So, by empowering a lawless agency such as ICE this bill … would make our public less safe, not more, safe.”

She also cited the decision last month by the Tucson City Council which voted to limit immigration enforcement on city-owned and city-controlled property and buildings, to prevent agents from using them as a staging area for mass arrests. That decision, said Kuby, was “due to the glut of untrained, undisciplined federal agents who are terrorizing communities across our country.”

Hoffman responded by saying that Kuby cited only two people in her complaints against ICE. And he argued that even in those cases their killings were justified.

He said Pretti “was armed and attempting to obstruct ICE operations,” though the multiple videos of his killing appear to tell a different story, with Pretti, licensed to carry a concealed weapon holding only a cell phone in his hand. And Hoffman said that Goode “was attempting to run over an ICE agent with their vehicle.”

“In the real world, that’s called attempted murder with a vehicle,” Hoffman said.

Then he listed a series of names of individuals who were killed by people not here legally, people he called “the actual murderous force.”

“And yet we’ve got people over here arguing that they should stay on our streets,” Hoffman said.

Ortiz said there’s another problem with the bill, saying it might deter some crime victims who are not here legally from calling police.

Consider, she said, a restaurant owner who was robbed but then sees the suspect. And if the suspect turns out to lack legal status, then it would trigger SB1055.

“ICE is then going to show up, which then puts the business owner in danger and anybody eating at the establishment in danger, people who are innocent and have nothing to do with the crime,” Ortiz said.

Ditto, she said, of domestic violence survivors.

“Oftentimes, what we’re seeing is that abusers will use your status as a way to scare you out of calling the police,” Ortiz said.

“This bill will only lead to increased instances of ICE either showing up at somebody’s home because they called the police needing help or a business in our community,” she said. “We know no one patronizing that business is going to be safe if ICE is called to deal with a potential crime.”

In some ways, what is in SB1055 is an extension of what lawmakers approved in 2010 as part of the controversial SB1070 from that year.

That measure was designed to give state and local police more power to detain those who are not in this country legally.

Many provisions were voided in a historic 2012 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court said the state lacks the authority to prosecute those seeking work in Arizona without being in this country legally and those failing to carry federally issued registration cards.

It also ruled that Arizona cannot allow warrantless arrests if there is “probable cause” that a person committed an offense that makes them removable from the country under federal law. The justices said all three provisions illegally conflict with – and are preempted by federal law.

However, the court said there was nothing inherently wrong with SB1070’s requirement that police make a reasonable attempt, “when practicable,” to check the immigration status of those they have stopped. That part of the law remains on the books.

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

Key Points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nothing in the law permits the use in public spaces.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But there’s more.

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

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

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

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

Mesnard said legislative intervention is necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

And there’s something else.

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

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

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

Less clear is whether voters will have any say.

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

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

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

Hobbs’ executive budget focuses on federal uncertainty, affordability and efficiency

Key Points:

Gov. Katie Hobbs’ executive budget focuses on House Resolution 1, affordability initiatives and government efficiency
The budget hinges on creating new revenue streams and a reimbursement for border spending from the federal government
Hobbs’ proposal kicks off the budget process during what will likely be a tense legislative session

Gov. Katie Hobbs released her $17.7 billion budget proposal today with a focus on affordability and mitigating impacts from federal budget cuts, kicking off what will likely be another tense year for budget negotiations with Republican leaders.

Hobbs’ budget proposal comes amid an early fight between her office and Republican lawmakers over conforming the state’s tax code to federal tax cuts enacted by President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” formally known as H.R. 1. Hobbs vetoed the Republicans’ tax conformity bill on Jan. 16.

“I have a plan to balance our budget and cut taxes for the middle class by $200 million,” Hobbs told reporters at a press conference before her budget was released. “Republicans won’t show you their plan because they don’t have one.”

The governor’s budget focuses in large part on conforming the state’s distribution of Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to new requirements in H.R. 1, as well as backfilling federal funding cuts to other programs.

Hobbs’ budget and her tax cuts rely on generating new revenue and saving money through a new tiered fee structure for event wagering, an elimination of tax incentives for data centers, increased advertising for the state lottery and funding two state agencies through a fee-based model rather than the general fund.

Under Hobbs’ plan, the budget would create a new 45% tax for large gambling companies who earn more than $75 million in monthly revenue. Currently, all operators in the state pay up to 10% taxes on gross wagering revenue. Her budget also hinges on the federal government reimbursing the state around $760 million in border security costs incurred since 2021, a grant program included in H.R. 1 but not expected to get under way until later this year.

“We have bipartisan agreement among our state Republican state legislators, Governor Hobbs, and Democratic state legislators that this is going to be something that we fight for, and we feel very confident that we are going to be able to get that,” said Christian Slater, Hobbs’ communications director.

Hobbs is also proposing spending $339 million on affordability initiatives, ranging from investments in affordable housing construction and child care to utility bill assistance and school meal grants. The governor’s budget suggests using a combination of federal COVID-19 recovery funds, general fund dollars and revenue from a new nightly fee on short-term rentals to pay for her affordability agenda.

The budget also makes nearly $45 million in one time funding from last year’s budget for child care ongoing, as families continue to struggle with high child care costs.

The governor also wants to create an Arizona version of the Trump administration’s controversial Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE. Hobbs’ iteration, dubbed Arizona Capacity and Efficiency, would save the state around $100 million by fiscal year 2029 though her budget is not dependent on those savings.

Hobbs’ ACE plan does not rely on mass layoffs of state employees the way Trump’s DOGE did, but instead will focus on selling off unused land and state vehicles, training employees in artificial intelligence usage and standardizing contract procurement processes.

Hobbs also wants to create a new Cost Containment Analytics team and add more resources to the Office of the Inspector General to identify areas for improved efficiency and prosecute fraud, waste and abuse. Those proposals come after months of scrutiny from Republicans over an alleged pay-to-play scheme at the Department of Child Safety and reports of fraud impacting the agencies distributing Medicaid and SNAP funding.

“I think it just reflects the governor’s ongoing commitment to efficiency in state government, and … we’re going to do it very differently from the federal government, we’re going to show the federal government how to do it right,” Slater said. “We’re not going to slash and burn indiscriminately. We’re not going to slash vital programs that are going to end up impacting Arizona in a negative way.”

The Governor’s Office is also pushing for reforms to the Empowerment Scholarship Accounts program for the fourth year in a row, arguing those reforms will allow for more wiggle room in the state budget. Hobbs is also proposing a $250,000 or more income cap and the elimination of the carryforward balances which allow students to spend one year’s unused funds in the next year.

She is also pushing for “programmatic reforms” in government such as fingerprint verification for private school employees and banning the purchases of luxury items. Hobbs’ proposals would not impact the pre-universal ESA program, which primarily gives funding to students with disabilities who need additional support.

Hobbs’ office is also proposing a 6.9% distribution to public schools from the state land trust through the extension of Proposition 123. The governor’s budget would also extend the nearly $300 million backfill lawmakers approved in last year’s budget in lieu of a Prop. 123 renewal.

Due to new federal Medicaid requirements as a result of H.R. 1, the governor is proposing $14 million in one time funding and 150 new full-time staff positions for the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System to implement the requirements.

H.R. 1 would also impose penalties to states that have a payment error rate greater than 6% in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs and Hobbs is planning on using $7.5 million in American Rescue Plan Funds to address the workload in lowering the state’s error rate of 8.8%. If Arizona doesn’t lower its error rate below 6%, the federal government would issue a penalty of nearly $200 million in 2027.

Much of the governor’s proposed budget is expected to be dead on arrival in the Republican-controlled Legislature, but it serves as a starting point for negotiations that are expected to truly begin in late May.

Legislation to permanently hold primary elections in July will face early debate

Key Points:

Arizona counties want to permanently move the state’s primary date from the first week of August to the final week of July
Federal law shortens the time Arizona has to submit primary election results before the general election
Counties say the change likely has to be enacted during February

Just as in 2024, one of the first issues lawmakers must tackle in the upcoming legislative session will be the state’s primary election date.

Arizona did move its primary election date from the first week of August to the final week of July in 2024, but that was a temporary measure. Now, with another upcoming midterm election, lawmakers will attempt to move the state’s primary election date to July permanently.

The 2024 law resulted from the Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022, which changed the procedure for the counting of electoral votes.

Under those changes, election officials across the state worry that they could miss federal deadlines to submit election results if a recount is triggered. A recount is required if the race is within one-half of a percent, instead of one-tenth of a percent, which was the requirement before a 2022 law went into effect.

Rep. Alex Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, prefiled House Bill 2022 for the upcoming legislative session. His measure would permanently move the primary date to the last week of July while also allowing county party chairs to designate observers at voting locations.

“This is another commonsense measure that recent election cycles have demonstrated is critical to clean elections in Arizona,” Kolodin said in a statement. “The bill ensures that Arizonans will not be disenfranchised by Congress’ mistakes and clarifies that independent observers are permitted at all voting locations.”

Getting observers at voting locations has been a goal for Kolodin and other Republican members of the Legislature in recent years under Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs. In 2024, Hobbs vetoed a bill from Rep. Rachel Keshel, R-Tucson, which would have established the practice into law.

The governor wrote in her veto letter of House Bill 2153 that she didn’t object to uniform laws regarding political party observers but wasn’t sure whether counties could implement them.

“I am concerned this bill will strain the resources of counties that already struggle with recruiting poll workers by adding additional responsibilities to manage observers who would be required to act as challengers,” Hobbs wrote in her letter.

Jen Marson, executive director of the Arizona Association of Counties, told the Arizona Capitol Times that the counties have not yet taken a position on whether to include the ballot observer language in the bill.

The counties plan to run their own mirror bills through both House and Senate election committee chairs, Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff; and Rep. John Gillette, R-Kingman, Marson said. Those bills were not drafted to include the language about ballot observers.

Lawmakers had to act quickly with the 2024 temporary measure. Hobbs signed the bill in early February of that legislative session after the counties warned the Legislature that they might not have enough time to secure polling places and voting locations before the primary election if the bill remained in session.

This year, the counties have run into the same problem.

“We tried to do it last (session) and we had what we thought was a pretty good vote count, but then we got word that we should not move forward this year and we should wait and do it first out of the gate in 2026, so that’s what we’re doing,” Marson said. “We did take a lot of heat for changing the primary in the year of the primary and I did not want to do that again, but here we are so that’s what we’re going to need to do.”

Kolodin was one of the key negotiators of the 2024 temporary measure with former Democratic state Rep. Laura Terech. Both he and Terech described the negotiations over the bill as an exhausting ordeal, leaving some lawmakers in tears of triumph when they knew the bill would become law.

It was also an opportunity for Kolodin and other Republicans affiliated with the Arizona Freedom Caucus to negotiate election policies they had previously been unsuccessful in getting signed by Hobbs, including requiring county election officials to compare voters’ signatures from their voter records with a list of specific characteristics. Many election workers were already doing that, but the law established it as a required practice.

Kolodin’s bill for the 2026 legislative session would also change the amount of time voters have to correct any problems with their mail-in ballot signatures from five business days to five calendar days, which was also implemented in the 2024 measure.

Some Democrats opposed going to five calendar days because they believed it could disenfranchise voters who rely on public Wi-Fi and public transportation which have reduced service on weekends.

Marson said the counties requested that change because it helps give election workers enough time to gain days before federal deadlines if a recount is triggered.

Senate president Petersen calls for investigation after Sen. Ortiz’s ICE alert

Key Points:

Sen. Analise Ortiz faces social media backlash for posting the location of ICE agents
Senate President Warren Petersen referred the issue to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona
Ortiz’s supporters praised her for protecting the community and defending her First Amendment rights

An Instagram story shared by Sen. Analise Ortiz alerting residents to the presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in a Phoenix neighborhood sparked a viral war of words on social media and calls for an investigation from the Senate president.

Ortiz posted on her Instagram account on Aug. 5 that ICE agents were in the area near Southwest Elementary School in South Phoenix.

That prompted a response from social media account Libs of TikTok, which posted on X that Ortiz was impeding and doxing ICE agents and should be charged.

The issue then exploded on X, with critics condemning Ortiz for sharing the locations of the agents and supporters defending her First Amendment rights and praising her for protecting the community.

Ortiz said on X she would not be intimidated by President Donald Trump’s “masked goons.”

Senate President Warren Petersen released a statement disapproving of Ortiz’s comments and saying he referred the issue to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona for investigation.

“Senator Ortiz is fortunate the Legislature is not currently in session, as her remarks would no doubt face significant scrutiny from her colleagues,” Petersen said in the statement. “Public servants have a duty to uphold the law and respect those who enforce it, not undermine them.”

Sen. Jake Hoffman said on X that he would file an ethics complaint against Ortiz.

Petersen’s comments drew a response from Attorney General Kris Mayes, who criticized him for using his position to “threaten and intimidate” Ortiz.

“That’s not leadership—it’s bullying. I know he’s only been a lawyer for a year and a half but he needs a CLE on the Bill of Rights,” Mayes said on X.

Mayes launched an inquiry of her own on August 8 when she sent a letter to Pinal County Attorney Brad Miller after he said on a radio show that he was willing to serve as a special prosecutor if the state legislature launched an investigation into Ortiz for obstruction of justice.

Miller said Thursday on “The Afternoon Addiction with Garret Lewis” that posting ICE’s location wasn’t protected by the First Amendment because Ortiz was aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime.

He then said he would’ve investigated Ortiz if the incident had happened in Pinal County.

“But I will also offer this … if our Arizona state legislators would like an investigation into this particular matter, let them know I’m free,” he said.

Mayes responded in the letter by posing a series of questions to Miller regarding why he thought he could volunteer himself to the legislature and investigate crimes in another county, and on what basis he concluded Ortiz was obstructing justice.

Mayes also reminded Miller that she’s the “chief legal officer of the state” with supervisory powers over the county attorneys.

“I find it concerning that you expressed a willingness to use your office to prosecute an elected Arizona State Senator in what appears to be in excess of your constitutional and statutory authority,” Mayes said in the letter.

She wants Miller to provide a report with answers to her questions by Aug. 15.

Miller said in a statement on X that he would respond to Mayes’ letter next week.

“I cannot and will not stay silent when anyone makes the dangerous job of being a law enforcement officer more dangerous. The First Amendment was never meant to protect criminal activity or aiding criminal activity,” he said on X.

Ortiz’s posts also caught the attention of the federal government, with the Department of Homeland Security’s Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin saying in a statement to the Arizona Capitol Times that Ortiz’s actions were weakening national security and “certainly looks like obstruction of justice.”

Ortiz said the reactions from Petersen, Hoffman and others who oppose her are just intimidation tactics intended to deter her from speaking out against ICE activity in neighborhoods.

“I feel as though it’s pathetic that they are pandering to these far right extremist trolls on Twitter,” she said. “That’s the only reason they’re doing this is because Libs of TikTok put this out and got 5,000 likes, and they thought, ‘Oh, we can capitalize off this too.’”

Ortiz said she’s had to take precautions to protect herself and her family due to threats she received, but will continue to notify residents of the presence of ICE agents in their neighborhoods.

She has been among the most outspoken critics of the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts and the tactics of ICE agents who wear masks during arrests.

In May, Ortiz joined a group of Democratic lawmakers and activists at the Phoenix immigration court to protest the arrests of people who arrived for court hearings. She also worked with groups such as Puente Arizona and the Borderlands Resource Initiative to train volunteers, inform individuals of their rights, and accompany them to their hearings.

“My intention has always been alerting my community about ICE activity so people who are at risk can stay home and keep themselves safe,” she said. “This is especially important when Trump’s masked thugs are terrorizing people, both documented and undocumented.”

Session Wrap: Speaker Montenegro and the pulse of the House

House Republicans expanded their majority in the chamber after the 2024 election, but faced ire from the governor’s office, legislative Democrats and some Senate Republicans over critical issues at the Legislature this session. In his first session leading the chamber as Speaker, Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Goodyear, reflected on the 57th Legislative session in an interview with the Arizona Capitol Times.

The questions and answers have been edited lightly for style and clarity.

What were the biggest wins for House Republicans this session?

We started off the session with a very robust majority agenda centered around three major themes: Preserving the American Dream, promoting public safety and protecting individual rights and liberties. We want to focus on those areas, and, for the most part, we have. We did have major achievements when it comes to reforms. We were able to fully fund the Division of Developmental Disabilities and pass the supplemental budget, and, at the same time, advance some reforms that protect the vulnerable and ensure that the money is going where it should be.

How is the relationship between the House and Senate after the budget played out the way it did?

The relationship between the House and the Senate is fine. Historically, I think the founders have always intended there to be a certain healthy, friendly legislative tension between the House and Senate. The relationship is fine, and we’re going to continue doing the people’s work.

What were the biggest challenges of the session?

Understanding what some of the federal impacts are going to be on the state, whether it’s in Medicaid impacts, whether it’s in tax cuts, understanding how some of those decisions are going to impact the state. Not in a negative way, but just in how we should prepare and be wise stewards of the state.

The JLBC is expecting a $381 million cost to Arizona if it conforms to federal tax changes. Do you see that as a bad thing?

Well, tax cuts for Americans are never a bad thing. Republicans want people to have more of their own money in their pockets. We trust Arizonans to spend their money more wisely than the government spends its money. The larger the government, the smaller the individual. The smaller the government, the larger the individual. We want the individual to be more prosperous. Government has to learn to live within its means, just like we as citizens do.

We saw a lot of frustration from Republicans this year toward the governor’s office, particularly with DDD, vetoed bills, and her executive budget proposal. How do Republicans feel about that office right now?

We obviously don’t agree on much or how she’s running the state. We’ve seen some challenges throughout the session. As Arizonans, we have a decision to make about the direction of the state. We’re going to work together because we have to make sure that we’re governing the state. At the same time, there’s much that is at a standstill. If you take a look at the job creation numbers, the state fell dramatically in line with the rest of the states in our standing. That is due to the decisions made by the governor. We sent up great bills to help us maintain economic soundness in the state. If we want to be stronger economically, we’re going to have to change direction in the governor’s office.

How important was it for Republicans to get a resolution to designate drug cartels as terrorist organizations on the ballot?

Arizona is unique from most of the country because we are a southern state. And as of the last few years, we’ve always had a problem with drug trafficking, with human trafficking, but it’s intensified in the last few years. If it weren’t for President Trump coming in and strongly securing that border, we’d continue to be in serious trouble. We’re talking about the safety of our citizens. We’re talking about the ability for our children to play in our front yard without the fear of human trafficking, without the fear of child abduction. I think we’ve gotten to a point where citizens understand that the border has very strong dangers and the way that these cartels are operating, they are a danger to our citizens and we need to do everything possible to protect our citizens. The impact that this measure will have is that it is going to designate these drug cartels correctly and we’re going to make sure that law enforcement has every tool to go after these individuals that pose a great danger.

This was your first session as speaker. What does this position mean to you, and what have you learned this session?

The most sacred thing about being a speaker is that we have the responsibility to maintain and uphold the integrity of the institution. That’s the institution that our founders gave us to protect the individual rights of our citizens and their ability to achieve their American Dream. Arizonans send legislators to the Capitol to be their voice, and the Arizona House of Representatives is the place where those voices are heard. It doesn’t matter what side of the aisle you’re on. Disagreement is an American value. We must welcome it, and we understand that iron sharpens iron.

This session had some pressing issues. DDD, Axon, the budget. Each faced significant challenges but they were handled. How does that reflect on the caucus?

There were high challenges, and our members stood up to them, and they came through. I am very grateful to our caucus. We have a group of talented legislators, and when it was needed most, they came together. Like I said, there’s disagreements, of course, but in the end, we see the challenges and we see the needs and we were able to step up and do what was best in the eyes of the majority for the state. It turns out, we got some really important things done and we’re ready for the challenges that pop up and we have the leadership required to tackle those issues and govern adequately as Republicans and as conservatives.

What are your plans for the interim and what is priority one next session?

Of course, it’s going to continue to be the budget and continue to make sure that we have a sound economy in the state to prepare Arizona for our future and every individual to have an opportunity to prosper. That’s going to continue to be our constitutional duty in passing a balanced and sound budget that’s helping our families forward. At the same time, we want to make sure that every member has the tools they need to be successful and show their constituents that they were able to be an adequate voice for Arizonans. In the interim, we’re all back in our districts with our families, our communities, our citizens, meeting with moms and dads and teachers so when we come back to the Legislature, we are in tune with our constituents. That’s certainly my number one responsibility.

Session Wrap: Rep. De Los Santos and the ‘dysfunctional’ GOP

In his first year as House minority leader, Rep. Oscar De Los Santos, D-Laveen, helped lead his caucus to gather the most votes for a budget negotiated under Gov. Katie Hobbs among House Democrats. In a recent interview with the Arizona Capitol Times, De Los Santos discussed the recent legislative session and the challenges it presented.

The questions and answers have been edited lightly for style and clarity.

What were the biggest wins for House Democrats this session?

I think the two biggest issues that the state Legislature saw this year were the Division of Developmental Disabilities fight and the budget. On both of those issues, House Democrats were the power players and the power brokers and we got extremely big wins in both. I mean, without House Democrats, you don’t have DDD being saved. You don’t have hundreds of millions of dollars going into some of the most vulnerable human beings in the state and their health care. And then on the budget, you have the biggest investment in child care and making child care affordable in the past 10 years for working families. You have the Aggregate Expenditure Limit lifted for two years, which has never happened before. You have opportunity weight funding, District Additional Assistance, you have access to free school meals, and you have the largest investment in the Arizona Promise program in Arizona’s history. We’re funding the Community College Promise Program for the first time. We’re drawing down over $200 million for tribal health care in the budget. We’re expanding access to cover treatment for patients with neck and head cancer. These are some huge wins, especially in this revenue environment that we’re in, which is tough. I think it’s a remarkable success for the caucus.

More House Democrats voted for the budget this year than the last two budgets that have been negotiated with Gov. Katie Hobbs. How involved were Democrats with this budget and what was different this year?

You had a supermajority of the House Democratic caucus on the budget and that’s for a reason. We were involved in the budget process from day one, engaging with Republicans and the Governor’s Office, and ultimately influencing the final product. As I mentioned, there are some significant wins for Arizona’s working families in there. But after two years of the relationship with the Governor’s Office, I think we’ve sort of on both sides figured it out a bit and understood how to work better together. When you also have a House Republican caucus that is dysfunctional and in disarray, you’re going to need Democratic votes to get this thing passed and that’s one of the first things I said on opening day was that you will not get a budget without Democratic votes. And, you know, that’s exactly what we did.

Why is waiving the AEL for two years instead of just one year such a big deal?

It’s a big deal on a policy level because schools are on the brink of financial calamity every year, which is insane. This is money that obviously has already been appropriated. It’s been approved. There’s an artificial limit here that makes no sense. It’s outdated, and yet the Republicans politicize it and jeopardize the education of hundreds to thousands of public school students and they sort of use it as a bargaining tool here at the Legislature and it’s ridiculous. So, we avoid this fight for the next two years. On a political level, though, it’s incredibly important because it takes away one of the bargaining chips that the Republicans have to extract concessions from us.

JLBC estimates that the federal budget reconciliation package will cost Arizona approximately $381 million to conform to the tax policy changes. What do Arizonans need to know about what’s going on federally?

That number is a massive understatement because it doesn’t take into account the cost shifts on SNAP, Medicaid, and the job cuts. When you have job cuts, you’re going to see a decline in income statewide. A decline in income means a decline in revenue for the state. You’re just gutting the health care economy in particular. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce is saying that we’re looking at at least 36,000 jobs lost because of this. Experts are predicting five critical access hospitals in rural Arizona are going to close. These are hospitals in rural areas where it’s the only hospital in that area. If they close, people are going to die. If you’re a pregnant woman who is having an emergency late during your pregnancy, where are you going to go? If you’re having a heart attack or a stroke that needs immediate care, what are you going to do? And so I think the most important thing is understanding the human cost of this, and the reason it happened is because Republicans want to give tax cuts to the billionaires. Every single Republican in Congress owns it, and every single Republican in the House and Senate here in Arizona owns it because they cheered it on. So, I think Arizonans need to know who to blame and it’s squarely the fault of the Republicans.

What’s next for Prop 123?

House Republicans need to stop using this as a political football. They’re trying to attach ESAs to Prop. 123, which has never happened before. And what they’re trying to do is enshrine ESAs into the Constitution. This is ridiculous for two reasons. One of them is they know the program is unpopular. If you recall, voters rejected ESAs at the ballot box by a massive margin just a couple of years ago. They know they can’t win on the issue alone, so they’re tying it to funding for public schools. It’s a stunning admission about how unpopular ESAs are that they can’t fight it on their own terms. But second of all, we just need a clean extension of Prop. 123 at this point. I mean, this is hundreds of millions of dollars that public schools depend on. We are ranked 49th in the country in per pupil funding for education. Meanwhile, you’ve seen the reports, it’s like hundreds of millions of dollars sitting in ESA accounts. It’s ridiculous, and so we need to do what we did with the budget and with DDD, which is to strike a commonsense compromise that sends a responsible Prop. 123 package to the ballot.

What was the most disappointing part of the session?

I think it’s the failure again to address ESAs. I mean, this is a billion-dollar boondoggle that is robbing public schools and is just rife with waste, fraud, and abuse. The fact that Republicans here are looking the other way toward this disaster is extremely disappointing.

There were a lot of real pressing issues this session. DDD, the budget, even Axon. Why did it feel like all of these came down to the wire?

It’s because the House Republicans don’t know how to govern. Frankly, the House Republican caucus is rife with incompetence and irresponsibility. I mean, the budget that passed was basically identical to the budget deal that was struck weeks beforehand. It’s just tantrums and games, and then we wind up where we started, and I don’t understand the theater that happens in the middle because the end result is effectively the same. Same thing with DDD. We drove families to the brink of calamity here. I mean, the number of moms I talked to who were in tears and who were having panic attacks. Somebody spoke about having suicidal ideations because they didn’t know whether that money and that support were going to be there. It’s insane, and it’s solely because the Republicans just don’t want to govern in a bipartisan manner. They throw a fit and a tantrum, and then at the end of the day, they fold like a cheap suit, and we’re back to where we were, square one.

What will your focus be in the interim, and what is priority one in the upcoming session?

House Democrats are going to be traveling all over Arizona to examine the impacts of the state budget. We’re going to head to the Navajo Nation, for example, to look at the new dialysis treatment center at Sage Memorial Hospital. We’re going to plan visits to things like veteran treatment courts that we funded in this budget. So, we’re going to go out into the community and show that Democrats are delivering for our constituents, and also to hear from people and learn about what we should be prioritizing in the coming session. All over the state. Rural and urban, red districts and blue districts, to learn about what the people expect from their leaders. The second thing that we’re going to be working on is understanding the impacts of Trump’s billionaire bill on Arizona and particularly on our state budget, and what it means for next year.

Session Wrap: Sen. Sundareshan, policy priorities and partisanship

For Senate Minority Leader Priya Sundareshan, the legislative session contained its share of accomplishments and challenges for the Democratic caucus.

Some of the victories included working with Gov. Katie Hobbs and Republicans to ensure the Division of Developmental Disabilities program was fully funded, securing some of their funding priorities in the state budget and remaining unified in opposition to Republican bills they considered extreme.

However, many of the caucus’ priorities were unaddressed, including affordable housing, curtailing the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program and passing legislation to address rural groundwater shortages in the state.

Sundareshan spoke with the Arizona Capitol Times about these issues and future priorities.

What would you consider some of the biggest accomplishments from this session for you and your caucus?

A major accomplishment for my caucus was in sticking together on issues of value to the Democratic Party and our members, including on many of the extreme pieces of legislation that the Republicans put forward. Our caucus often was the caucus holding together. We were able to show the unity of our opposition, and when those bills then made it to the governor’s desk, that made it pretty clear to the governor that those were easy to veto because those were not in line with our Democratic values.

You supported the Ag-to-Urban bill, which had bipartisan support, despite concerns from some Democratic lawmakers regarding groundwater replenishment obligations. Why did you believe it was a good bill?

So ultimately, I felt comfortable voting for the language in the Ag-to-Urban bill. For one thing, and I think this is reflective of many of my caucus, as well as the House Democratic caucuses’ concerns, is that we should be addressing the big problem, which is rural groundwater. This had nothing to do with that. That problem remains outstanding, and there continues to be no solution, thanks to the intransigency of the Republicans who control the committees. So that’s one major issue. Two, there remains a significant concern about the ability for the Central Arizona Groundwater Replenishment District (CAGRD) to fulfill its existing obligations in replenishing groundwater that has been pumped through because of development up to now, and they are in the process of submitting their 2025 plan of operations for the next 10 years and the Department of Water Resources still has to evaluate it. There already are concerns about where they’re going to find that replenishment water, because we know that the Colorado River is dwindling. There are significant parts of their plan that are no longer able to be counted on. And then, on top of it, what further impact does the Ag-to-Urban bill have on their replenishment obligations? And I think that’s a significant concern that I was raising during the negotiations of the Ag-to-Urban bill, and I continue to have concerns about the groundwater replenishment district.

I was glad to see the involvement of the Gila River Indian Community in this process, because…as part of this negotiation, they are willing and interested to enter into negotiations to sell some of their water rights to the (CAGRD) in order to support those replenishment obligations. Will that be sufficient? That’s an outstanding question that we’re going to have to keep an eye on. But, for now, I was able to support the bill because I felt that the compromise that was reached included a significant number of necessary guardrails to ensure the land that was converting from farm to development to single family housing would altogether — with all of the guardrails, there would be something that could result in groundwater savings over the next 100 years.

So what were some of the biggest challenges from this session?

So many things left unresolved yet again by the Republican majority in the Legislature. We can just rattle them off. For example, we were just talking about water. Rural groundwater remains unaddressed and it was very clear mid-session that there was no desire on the part of the committee chairs to continue negotiating any kind of bill that would do that. That is a huge disappointment and really tragic because there are people in rural Arizona who continue to face the issues of finding their wells running dry thanks to the unlimited ability for large corporate pumpers to just come in and leave the residents high and dry, literally.

Another thing that was left undone is Prop. 123. We had a lot of back and forth over the course of this session about how to ensure a ballot referral to the voters to renew Prop. 123 in a way that would support our education system. And that got bogged down unnecessarily by partisan bickering. I will again say that the House and Senate Republicans had decided that they wanted to start attaching unrelated policies to the Prop. 123 proposal, like voucher protections and other things, when we already have a very, extremely permissive voucher program in Arizona.

Why has it been so hard to address the rural groundwater issue?

What I’ve come to realize is that the reality of rural Arizona residents is just not being represented by even their own elected officials in this Legislature. I represent a suburban-to-urban district, but I have compassion for the people who are not my constituents, who are facing these water crises, and yet their own representatives are seemingly unmoved. Rep. Mathis and I introduced a bill that had Republican support from Republican elected officials in these rural areas across the state. This was something that was a bipartisan effort that we knew was reflective of the negotiations we had had with Republican legislators from last year. We worked together with other Republican elected officials from rural Arizona to put forward this proposal, and yet, that still could not get any hearing by the chairs of the committees.

Were you surprised by the budget process?

Certainly, it is a bit surprising to see the fractures within the Republican parties and the Republican caucuses display themselves so openly. I think what we observed with this budget process was to what extent the Freedom Caucus is willing to take everyone hostage — the entire state hostage — in order to achieve some of their goals, and how much of a hold they have over the Republican Party, because … they were flexing their power, and they showed that they are making demands of the broader Republican caucuses that needed to be addressed before we could move forward.

What enabled the Senate Democrats to be able to work with the Senate Republicans and the governor to reach some of the compromises in the budget?

Senate Democrats had significant concerns with the budget process, as we have for many years, because Republicans do not directly negotiate with us and so we worked with Governor Hobbs and her team to ensure that our Democratic priorities were reflected in the budget. I think we were able to significantly achieve a lot of what we were asking for by working with the governor, but we also were very dissatisfied with the failure to again address universal vouchers, which has a huge impact on the budget. Over $1 billion in the next year that is just going again to this unaccountable, fraudulent program and wasteful because it’s going to people who do not even need educational support and have simply sent their kids to private schools.

But, on the other hand, we also had a number of wins by negotiating for the budget. I’ll point to things like the Area Agencies on Aging that support seniors as they age and provide meals on wheels for seniors. That was a significant point that our caucus was fighting for. Another point is other services broadly for those who need it the most … refugee support and homelessness issues, there was very little funding available to put towards that. And I know many in my caucus would have loved to see a lot more go towards that but what we did see go towards that was due to the engagement of my caucus.

So what do you anticipate as the biggest democratic priorities for the next session?

So much of our affordability agenda was left untouched. We put forward many bills that would have helped Arizonans with affordable housing, with affording everyday necessities and none of those bills received hearings. So I anticipate that our focus on affordability will continue. So that’s one major thing we’ll focus on next session. In the water space, like I said, so much remains unaddressed in protecting our water and protecting our security to live here in Arizona.

Child care investments (were) a huge priority for our caucus, as was for the governor, and there was an investment in this year’s budget, but not to the extent that had been proposed. I think about less than half of that investment was funded. So we will continue to be pushing for that investment and … things that support everyday Arizonans.

Session Wrap: Gov. Hobbs on 2025’s victories and ongoing battles

Gov. Katie Hobbs managed to score legislative wins and sign a bipartisan budget during her third legislative session on the Ninth Floor, but not without lengthy battles with Republicans and a new veto record.

Hobbs sat down with the Arizona Capitol Times to recap what she calls a “very successful session” that saw movement on groundwater legislation, extended funding for individuals with developmental disabilities and the passage of a $17.6 billion budget.

But several issues were left on the table when lawmakers adjourned at the end of June, like school voucher reform, education funding and affordable housing initiatives. The governor hopes more can be done to address those areas when the Legislature reconvenes in 2026.

What do you consider your biggest wins of this session?

When we saved the funding for the developmentally disabled population, I think that set a really good tone for the budget. But in and of itself, it was a huge win. And we all watched these families come to the Capitol day after day, and the House Republicans refusing to give them a chance to speak in committee. I had a round table and just heard their stories. It was gut wrenching, and that’s why it was such a priority to save that program, and we did. I think my best day of the session was when we had that bill signing.

Some of your priorities weren’t addressed this session, which are you hoping to keep working on?

First of all, I’m really focused on what we did get done. If you look at the budget that we passed, and what I talked about in my State of the State — laying out the “Arizona Promise” — we covered a lot of those priorities. Giving state police and firefighters a much needed raise, continuing local border support and efforts on border security, investing in child care, Homes for Heroes. So there’s certainly a lot we can build on. Obviously, we didn’t get any reforms on ESAs, and that’s still going to be a priority, as well as getting a Prop. 123 to the voters that invests in public education and gives teachers a raise, I think that’s a huge priority. And then we have more to do on housing. Housing is a big one, and Low Income Housing Tax Credits. It was really unfortunate that we couldn’t get a champion there but we’re not giving up. And the rural groundwater reform is also still critical. I certainly am really proud of the work we did on the urban groundwater with the Ag-to-Urban bill, but making sure that we’re not taking that as a win and going away because rural groundwater is still a really critical issue.

What kind of changes are you hoping to see in the state’s ESA program?

Everything’s on the table. I think the plan we proposed this year was very reasonable, and something that even supporters of the program could get behind. We’re not trying to eliminate the program. We want it to go back to its original purpose and help kids with disabilities, kids in low-performing schools. The more reporting we see on the abuses, the more ammunition, for lack of a better word, it gives a reasonable proposal. It’s really mind boggling to me that Republicans want to continue to defend these abuses.

It seemed like groundwater was also going to go unaddressed this session, but the Ag-to-Urban bill came in at the last minute. What did it take to get that to the finish line?

I think it was having Senator (T.J.) Shope as the champion, and him being willing to usher that through. Last year, the bill that got to my desk … it was rushed through, and it wasn’t the right compromise. And so we came back to the table. The legislative process is always weird, and sometimes things just sail through, and sometimes they stop, and then at the end is when you see the flurry of activity. I’m really glad we got the compromise that worked to make this a good program, and I think it just took the leadership of Senator Shope to get it done.

A few of the bills you signed this session had Democratic opposition and aligned with policies proposed by conservative groups. What was the reasoning there?

I have focused on not looking at the partisan solutions, but things that are addressing problems. An example is the age verification for online content. I vetoed a similar bill last year, and I’ve heard from more and more parents who are really concerned about content that their kids are exposed to. And this seemed like the right balance, and I have no idea that it was possibly aligned with right-wing things. To me, it’s something that’s addressing an issue that a lot of parents are struggling with.

I have to ask about the veto record. Why do you feel like that isn’t the best way to measure your legislative effectiveness?

There was definitely an orchestrated attempt to run up the score on that veto record. Like I vetoed bills this year that I vetoed one or two times before, and nothing’s changed about the bill or my position on it. I’ve been really clear, I’m going to be a backstop against extreme legislation that attacks fundamental freedoms of Arizonans. And a lot of those bills did that. But I think if you point to the work that we did, when people are willing to come to the table and compromise, we can get big things done. Ag-to-Urban, the DDD funding, the Axon bill, the Diamondbacks bill, the bipartisan budget — those are all things that have impact and and those are fewer and further between than the partisan stuff that goes on. Being willing to stay at the table is a lot harder than just ramming something through that you know is going to get vetoed. And I didn’t come here to veto bills, but I’m going to continue to be the backstop when I need to.

You had to play hardball this session with your bill moratorium and vetoing two different budgets. How do you feel about those decisions looking back?

What we saw with the developmental disability funding and with the two House rogue budgets (was) that they decided that they didn’t have to work together and that they could just do whatever they wanted and not need my support. But I’m the person that signs bills into law, and it seemed like they weren’t willing to understand that. Hopefully now they do.

What lessons did you learn from this session and what lessons do you hope the Legislature learned?

We had a very successful session, and I think it’s because we’ve been willing to do the hard work of staying at the table, not just our office, but legislators on both sides of the aisle. We worked really hard to have support on both sides of the aisle for our budget. I think this may be the most successful budget we’ve had of the three. It’s just that compromise is important and it’s important to stay at the table even when it gets really hard. And I don’t know that those are lessons that were learned or just reconfirmed again this year.

Session Wrap: Warren Petersen’s priorities ahead of AG race

For Senate President Warren Petersen, the next legislative session will likely be his last opportunity to help advance the Republican caucus’ legislative policy priorities.

Petersen is running for state attorney general in 2026, so he will look to work with his Senate Republican colleagues to revive legislation that either stalled or was previously vetoed, support the federal government on policies affecting Arizona and solidify the Senate’s relationship with House Republican leadership after the two chambers clashed during budget negotiations.

The following are responses provided by Petersen after inquiry from the Arizona Capitol Times. Answers have been edited slightly for clarity.

What do you consider some of the biggest accomplishments from this session?

Power and water are foundational elements that contribute to our population and business growth here in Arizona. We were able to pass meaningful legislation to help us keep up with the demand, which was shown with our historic water policy, enabling us to conserve and grow, using less water even with our growing population. In response to projections showing a 60% increase in power demand over the next 30 years, we passed legislation to strengthen our infrastructure and ensure Arizona families and businesses continue to have access to reliable and affordable energy. We made significant investments in public safety to keep Arizona communities secure and delivered tax cuts to support small business owners.

What were some of the biggest challenges?

One of the biggest challenges this session was the lack of efficiency, particularly with how long it took to pass the budget. There was clear frustration over the delays, and unnecessary division within the party made the process more difficult than it needed to be. In the end, the budget that passed was the Senate’s initial budget plan with some extra spending amended on by the other chamber.

Were you surprised that House leadership didn’t engage in the budget negotiations and instead released their own budget?

It was par for the course for this session. We saw the chaos unfold with the (Division of Developmental Disabilities) bill and how that was handled, so I’m not necessarily surprised, but I’m disappointed that the session was drawn out with unnecessary division in our party. Two years ago, we put a budget on Hobbs desk in February. The hope is we get back to that level of efficiency.

Where did some of that disagreement come from, especially during the budget?

I’ll just leave it at my (previous) statement. It’s the normal stuff. I think human nature can creep in. But there’s other things too. Anybody that was there … if you ask five people what it was, I think five people would probably all say similar things. So I’ll just leave it where it’s at. I mean, we’ve shown what we can do with divided government. Two years ago, we had budgets up on the governor’s desk in February with divided government. So (we can) be efficient, and hopefully, we’ll return to that next session.

What will it take for the House and Senate Republicans to solidify that relationship in time for next year’s budget?

I‘m confident the next session will look different. By bringing on Grant Hanna as the new Chief of Staff, the House is positioned to operate with significantly greater effectiveness.

Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a number of border bills, including the AZ ICE Act that you sponsored. You mentioned that you could bring the bill back as a ballot measure or wait to see if a new governor is elected. Is that still a possibility?

That’s a discussion we will have early on next session as a caucus, to see if it’s something we want to put on the ballot. I do feel confident that we will have a new governor in 2026 who will sign the legislation.

What were some of the other big issues that went unaddressed this session?

Two major issues that were left unaddressed are immigration and election reforms. We sent the AZ ICE Act to the governor’s desk, a bill that would have empowered local law enforcement to remove dangerous criminals from our streets, but she chose to veto it, putting both public safety and ICE agents in a more vulnerable position. She also vetoed our Florida-style election system bill which would have ensured faster, more transparent results on election night. Because of that veto, Arizonans will continue to face delays and uncertainty in our election process.

There were a number of bills that were introduced this session with the intention of expediting election results. Can those bills return next session?
We would definitely like to see those bills come back. We’re monitoring. All eyes are on 2026, and we’ll see how things are progressing. I think we’ll have a Republican governor. And you know, it may be best to just put our energy into making sure we get a Republican governor. And then 300 bills a session that are getting vetoed will get signed.

So anyway, we’ll look at it. I think it was close to a signature. So maybe … the bill gets tweaked a little bit and gets a signature, but we’ll see. We’ll have those discussions as we head into next session with the numbers.

What made this such an abnormal session?

The length. There’s absolutely no reason to be wrapping up the session on June 25. So mainly the budget.

What do you anticipate will be the most significant Republican priorities for the next legislative session?

Water will definitely be a key topic in the next session, but our primary focus will remain on protecting individual rights, supporting small businesses, and upholding core conservative values. A top priority will also be addressing staffing shortages in public safety, especially within the Department of Corrections, to ensure we can add and retain the people we need to keep Arizona safe. We’re also committed to advancing Prop 123 and working with the Trump Administration on federal regulations that impact our state. Additionally, we will continue to step in and defend laws that our current AG refuses to defend.

This will be your last session as Senate President before you run for attorney general. Is there anything you want to accomplish before you focus on that campaign?

We have the Arizona ICE Act, the Florida style elections. I have an SCR that I worked on that I would like to see passed that protects the taxpayer by a higher threshold for counties and cities to pass taxes. All three of those are important. Of course, we also have just the overarching issues that are important for Arizona: water, power. I’m sure I’ll get very involved with the water discussions as we go forward, continuing to deal with that. I don’t know that I’ll point to one bill that has to happen before I leave the Legislature. But those are things I’ll probably work on next session if there’s a path for a signature. I do like to spend my time on bills that have a good chance … that will be signed. Really, really, really, good chance of being signed. We’ll see what happens as we move forward.

Conflict defined the 2025 legislative session, will it set the stage for 2026?

Key Points:

House left adrift by loss of chief of staff
Conflicts followed, but likely won’t stick
Election cycle to flare tensions next session

Conflict — whether between lawmakers, caucuses or chambers — is a natural fact of any legislative session, and this session was no exception.

Beyond intraparty splits and squabbles over bills, some observers noted key events colored this session and stand to shift the next. One of the most prominent events was the loss of the House of Representatives majority chief of staff and the ousting of the Senate majority leader after a series of seconds on unwelcome budget amendments.

But, despite pointed press releases, barbed floor speeches, failed bills, a particularly fiery budget process and a last minute change in leadership, lobbyists, consultants and a lawmaker say any wreckage left after the end of session typically becomes long forgotten by the time lawmakers convene again in January.

Still, 2025 created a point of reflection for political analysts. Which lawmakers fared well? Which stoked proverbial fires? What factors came to impact legislation and budget negotiations? And how does all of that stack up for the future?

And with the election approaching, tensions are likely to flare again, mirroring the national political landscape as lawmakers polish their portfolios for voters.

“I don’t know that I’m going to observe anything earth shattering, beyond common sense here, that both sides are going to get dug in even more,” consultant Jason Rose said. “So the sausage making might be even more colorful next year because of the election than it was this year.”

The session started out standard. But in February, longtime House Chief of Staff Michael Hunter departed his post, leaving a key position in the chamber vacant.

Nick Ponder, senior director of Government Affairs at High Ground Consulting, said Hunter’s departure effectively left the House a “ship without a rudder.”

“The abrupt departure of Michael Hunter remained a challenge for the House,” Ponder said. “It would be for almost any legislative body, because of his depth of knowledge and experience.”

The House persisted without a chief of staff, but not without its share of obstacles.

Members clashed over supplemental funding to the Division of Developmental Disabilities, specifically after stonewalling from Rep. Matt Gress, R-Scottsdale, and Rep. David Livingston, R-Peoria. That only ended after Rep. Julie Willoughby, R-Chandler, cut out of the caucus and worked across the aisle to get a clean continuation passed.

There were also some terse exchanges between Republicans over legislation to impose higher penalties for stolen valor, and the Axon saga, a conflict spawned by the business’s efforts to create a massive headquarters in Scottsdale, drew further lines in the sand between lawmakers.

And then came the budget — marked by a House head start, fractured fiscal approaches, some knock-down, drag-out soliloquies against the opposing chamber, an Italian wedding and a premature sine die.

But it all led to a budget with the blessing of both chambers and the governor.

“Two thirds of chambers voted for the budget. Not everyone’s happy. But how many budgets are people really happy (with)? Especially when you have divided government,” consultant Barrett Marson said.

Though Gress missed the final budget vote, he said the end of the year sparring is par for the course.

“Every legislative session ends with tension. Bills die, bills get voted down. Bills never get heard,” Gress said. “The interim is a healing time for members. They go back to their districts, they can decompress from activity at the Capitol, and then we all rally again on opening day. We’re excited to see each other and regroup.”

Marson similarly noted the need to have some semblance of a bounce back in the Legislature.

“If every little slight is going to be the armageddon for you, you’re not going to live a productive legislative career,” Marson said.

At the end of the session, though, the powers that be saw a shift, specifically with Senate majority leader Janae Shamp booted and replaced with Sen. John Kavanagh — a change consultants say could alter the dynamics of the Senate and create new tension.

“It doesn’t matter if you’re in the Arizona State Senate or you’re working at Circle K, demotions are not wonderful for the locker room, so it’ll be interesting to see her approach with the team over the next year,” consultant Jason Rose said. “When you look at someone like John Kavanagh, who is both very conservative but also sagacious and practical, you clearly see a chamber and a body that’s looking to and leaning on that.”

The next session also brings lawmakers closer to an election, which could change the dynamics among elected officials, especially those seeking higher office.

Rose pointed to Senate President Warren Petersen as one example, noting that he is running for attorney general while concurrently serving as the Senate President.

“(Attorney General Kris) Mayes is among the most talented elected officials, like her, or not, in the last 20 years in Arizona, and that positioning battle between those two is really going to be something,” Rose said. “That’s Pay Per View political Arizona television, right there.”

In reflecting on the legislative session as a whole, Rose said, like any legislative session, the results ranged from “good to goofy to outrageous” but said neither Republicans, Democrats nor Gov. Katie Hobbs is unlikely to see any real impact politically.

“I don’t think the Governor and the Democrats or the Republicans did anything earth shattering that’s going to affect their prospects,” Rose said.

Gov. Hobbs looking to 2026 for action on housing, water and education

Key Points:

Governor believes this year’s session was successful
Law enforcement pay, urban groundwater and budget shortfalls
Some of Hobbs’ priorities still unaddressed

With Arizona in its third year of divided government, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs was forced once again to work alongside the Republican-controlled Legislature to advance her policy and budget goals. Despite months of contention, the governor managed to eke out a few wins.

Despite uneasy compromises, Hobbs told the Arizona Capitol Times that she thought the 2025 session was particularly productive, and even hailed the recently passed $17.6 billion budget as “the most successful budget we’ve had” in her time as governor.

“I’m really focused on what we did get done…” Hobbs said. “There’s certainly a lot we can build on.”

The governor cited approval of emergency funding for the Division of Developmental Disabilities, a process which included nearly a month of heated negotiations with Republicans, partisan attacks on her fiscal responsibility, and a mini-crisis which nearly halted payments to parents of children with disabilities, as her best day of the session.

Her office also touted a few more legislative victories, including the passage of an Ag-to-Urban groundwater bill, a bipartisan compromise on foreign adversaries owning land in the state, a funding bill for the Arizona Diamondbacks stadium and legislation allowing local company Axon to build its new headquarters in Scottsdale.

But Hobbs and legislative Democrats failed to make progress on several key priorities, like oversight for the Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Program and the repeal of several unenforceable abortion restrictions still in law after voter approval of Prop. 139. Those areas were both outlined in the governor’s State of the State speech in January, but did not see any movement.

Hobbs’ office proposed an income cap on the ESA program to reduce its cost, but that provision wasn’t implemented via legislation or through the budget. Hobbs said she isn’t planning on giving up on reform for the program and will come back to the table with similar ideas in 2026.

The session also lacked meaningful legislation in the areas of affordable housing and rural groundwater management, though not for lack of trying on both the part of the governor’s office and the Legislature. Hobbs said conversations in those areas stalled late in the session and have not yet picked back up.

The governor also signed several bills that put her at odds with her own party members and activists who have argued she capitulated to right-wing interests. The two most contentious bills for fellow Democrats involved a public utility company financing measure and an age verification requirement for explicit online content.

“Certainly a lot of legislation is political, and I certainly don’t think about it through that lens,” Hobbs said. “I’m looking at what’s going to address issues that Arizonans are concerned about.”

The governor did score wins in budget negotiations and secured funding in many of the areas she outlined in her executive budget proposal. However, due to the size of the state’s revenue streams and uncertainty at the federal level, many of her initiatives did not receive nearly the amount of funding she proposed.

The bipartisan budget included funding for law enforcement raises, drug smuggling and human trafficking prevention at the southern border, expanded child care access, the DDD program and Colorado River litigation. But it didn’t extend the Low Income Housing Tax Credit or provide nearly as much funding as Hobbs proposed for housing initiatives.

“When we first passed the Low Income Housing Tax Credits, that had bipartisan support and we really need a Republican champion to get that done again,” Hobbs said. “I’m not sure why it wasn’t there this session.”

The final budget also left out smaller, niche proposals the governor included, like $7 million in funding for the University of Arizona to speed up efforts to return the remains of Native American ancestors to their tribes.

The governor also made headlines this session for implementing her first-ever bill moratorium during the funding battle for the DDD program and for setting a new state veto record. Hobbs said she hopes both moves show Republicans that she means business when it comes to standing up for Arizonans.

Hobbs did score some wins in another area: director nominations. Twelve of her nominees to lead state agencies were confirmed this session after many faced difficulties in the Senate in 2023.

She still has six director positions to fill after several were rejected by the Senate or its Director Nominations Committee or withdrawn because they would not be confirmed. Hobbs said, “it continues to be frustrating” that the confirmation process will extend into the final year of her first term as governor.

Both Hobbs and the Legislature will have a lot to focus on when the body reconvenes in January 2026, including Proposition 123 funding and federal Medicaid cuts. And they will do it all while staring down the barrel of the midterm election season, during which Republicans hope to oust the governor.

Key Points:

ICE would be alerted as an arrest is taking place

Democrats express concerns the measure could trigger violence

Republicans say SB1055 will make Arizona streets safer

Key Points:

Arizona Senator J.D. Mesnard proposes legislation to expand nuisance laws to include excessive marijuana smoke and odor

The bill aims to address the impact of marijuana smoke on families, including restricting its use on residential properties

The legislation would allow judges to issue orders to abate marijuana nuisances

Key Points:

Gov. Katie Hobbs’ executive budget focuses on House Resolution 1, affordability initiatives and government efficiency

The budget hinges on creating new revenue streams and a reimbursement for border spending from the federal government

Hobbs’ proposal kicks off the budget process during what will likely be a tense legislative session

Key Points:

Arizona counties want to permanently move the state’s primary date from the first week of August to the final week of July

Federal law shortens the time Arizona has to submit primary election results before the general election

Counties say the change likely has to be enacted during February

Key Points:

Sen. Analise Ortiz faces social media backlash for posting the location of ICE agents

Senate President Warren Petersen referred the issue to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona

Ortiz’s supporters praised her for protecting the community and defending her First Amendment rights

Key Points:

House left adrift by loss of chief of staff

Conflicts followed, but likely won’t stick

Election cycle to flare tensions next session

Key Points:

Governor believes this year’s session was successful

Law enforcement pay, urban groundwater and budget shortfalls

Some of Hobbs’ priorities still unaddressed