Center Square News

(The Center Square) - Arizona disabled veterans will now have access to some of the strongest property tax relief benefits in America, according to state House Majority Leader Michael Carbone, R-Buckeye.

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs signed House Bill 4168 into law, which means disabled veterans will now receive greater access to property tax relief.

Under HB 4168, disabled veterans with a 100% service-connected disability rating can avoid paying property taxes on their primary residence.

Carbone, who cosponsored HB 4168, said at a press conference on Wednesday that veterans with lower disability ratings will receive property tax discounts “based on their disability ratings.”

Starting in tax year 2027, Carbone said disabled veterans are no longer subject to income and home value caps.

He explained under Arizona’s old system, disabled veterans lost benefits for earning “too much or because their home value increased.”

In addition to the property tax relief for disabled veterans, HB 4168 provides extra protection for surviving spouses.

HB 4168 allows widows or widowers of a deceased disabled veteran to continue to receive the property tax relief from their primary residence.

With these new property tax measures, Arizona is ranked first in America for property exemption for veterans, Carbone said, noting that before the bill, the state ranked 48th in the category.

“Many disabled veterans continue to work hard, build careers, start businesses, support their families and strengthen their communities,” the majority leader said. “We want veterans working, building businesses, putting down their roots and raising their families right here in Arizona."

Carbone said the reforms “are not just about tax policy but about helping veterans stay in their homes.”

The state representative said a foundation of the American dream is homeownership, adding that veterans who defend Americans’ “rights and freedoms deserve every opportunity to share in that dream.”

According to Sen. David Gowan, R-Tucson, if people are willing to sign up to die for Americans’ freedoms, then Americans should do all they can to help them.

Gowan said at the press conference that 600,000 veterans live full time in Arizona, adding that when the snowbirds come to stay for a couple of months in the winter, Arizona’s veteran population exceeds California’s.

Robert Garcia, who is a veteran, said veterans have been asking for this type of legislation for a long time. He noted it will help veterans stay in their homes and attract veterans to Arizona who are looking for jobs.

"The property tax exemption will help considerably," said Cheryl Schmidt, who teaches nursing at Arizona State University and is a disabled veteran of the Vietnam War.

Schmidt, 77, said most disabled veterans around her age are not working, so “they really need that property tax exemption.”

State House Democratic Whip Stacey Travers told The Center Square Wednesday that “disabled veterans' property tax relief helps ease the financial burden on veterans with service-connected disabilities.”

“This support recognizes their service and sacrifice, helps make homeownership more affordable, and frees up income for essential expenses like healthcare, home modifications and daily living costs, contributing to greater financial stability and quality of life,” said Travers, a U.S. Army veteran.

“I was glad we could get it done this year especially as inflation continues to drive up costs all around the country,” she added.

(The Center Square) - The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors approved an election plan for this year’s primary and general elections.

The Phoenix-based board OK'd the plan without consulting Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap, who is in a legal battle with the board over who controls certain election functions.

Supervisor Mark Stewart told The Center Square on Monday that Heap “understands the importance of the operation of the elections, and he’s not going to thwart that.”

“He wants a great election just like we do,” he noted.

The dispute between the board and Heap is about “who gets to tell who what to do” rather than how the elections will actually run, the supervisor said.

“ It's important for the voter to know that [the dispute]is not going to affect the ability for [the county] to run the election. It's just about who's in charge of it and the reporting structure,” he explained.

Even though the board did not consult with Heap personally on the election plan, Stewart said the board’s staff worked with Heap’s office on items such as early voting centers and election locations.

He noted the board’s staff is in “constant communication with the recorder’s staff on operational best practices.”

Staff from both sides are “working together brilliantly,” Stewart added.

He said, despite the ongoing court case, the board will move forward with the election plan.

The Center Square reached out to Heap’s office, but it did not respond before publication time.

The board's plan includes 236 vote centers for the primary election and up to 260 for the general election, Stewart said.

He noted Maricopa County expects the July 21 primary election to draw almost 1 million voters, while the county anticipates between 1.4 million and 1.6 million voters in the Nov. 3 general election.

Stewart said a new option is available for voters to bring their early ballots to an early voting or day-of voting location and have them tabulated on the spot. He added that voters need to bring their ID to confirm their identity before this takes place.

Maricopa County, which has been known for election delays in the past, aims to limit the time people wait in line to vote to no more than 15 minutes, according to the supervisor.

Early voting in county has already begun for the state’s upcoming primaries. Stewart said an estimated 200 people have voted so far and that elections in the county were “doing well.”

The Arizona Supreme Court will let groups argue a recent state law that shines a light on outside spending in political races violates free speech concerns, though the court rejected other arguments.

The court issued its ruling in the closely watched case on Monday, sending it back for Maricopa County judge Scott McCoy to decide whether the compelled disclosure of donors to groups that spend on candidates is unconstitutional.

Currently, donors who give at least $5,000 to groups that spend more than $50,000 on a statewide race or $25,000 on other races must be identified, and they can opt out of having their money spent on ads to preserve their privacy.

It’s all part of the Voters Right to Know Act, which passed with heavy support from Arizonans in 2022. An appeals court had dismissed all challenges to it before the Supreme Court opened the door for one of them to proceed.

“This is an important victory for every Arizonan who believes people should be free to support the causes they care about without fear of government-compelled disclosure,” said Scott Freeman, Senior Attorney at the Goldwater Institute, which represented the plaintiffs.

“The Arizona Supreme Court recognized that our state constitution independently protects free speech and that citizens are entitled to prove that compelled donor disclosure violates those protections.”

The plaintiffs are the Center for Arizona Policy, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and two anonymous individuals who fear retaliation if their identities are revealed. The Institute for Free Speech, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry and Americans for Prosperity were among the groups that filed amicus briefs in the case.

Chief Justice Ann Timmer authored the majority opinion, which held the plaintiffs and their supporters failed to show the act is facially unconstitutional under Arizona’s Speak Freely Clause, similar but not identical to the First Amendment.

The unnamed plaintiffs worried people would not be able to “speak freely” with their political support.

“The amended complaint includes no factual allegations about donors to other organizations, about charities or advocacy groups subject to the Act, about upstream contributors, or about whether the Act’s application to most campaign media spending would expose contributors to harassment or intimidation,” Timmer wrote.

“Plaintiffs’ bare assertion that the Act ‘penalizes and deters speech’ by Plaintiffs ‘and other similar organizations [to CAP and FEC]’ is both limited and conclusory.”

But an “as-applied” challenge under the Speak Freely Clause does survive for a ruling by the trial court. There, plaintiffs will argue the disclosure requirements subject the plaintiff groups’ supporters to harassment and retaliation.

(The Center Square) – Following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that upheld the constitutionality of barring transgender athletes from competing in female sports, various advocacy groups and elected officials reacted Tuesday. They were sharply divided.

In a 6-3 decision, justices on Tuesday ruled that the states' laws banning transgender athletes in women’s and girls' school sports do not violate Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in education. The decision, in which the court upheld bans in Idaho and West Virginia, leaves it up to states to decide whether to permit transgender athletes on female teams.

Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Title IX permits schools to maintain separate athletic teams based on biological sex.

“Title IX allows schools to provide separate women’s and men’s sports teams defined by biological sex, and West Virginia has permissibly maintained female sports for biological females consistent with Title IX,” Kavanaugh wrote.

Supporters of the ruling called it a victory for women's athletics.

Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen, who helped sponsor Arizona's Save Women's Sports Act, called the Supreme Court ruling "a win for common sense and, more importantly, a win for girls."

"Every young woman deserves the opportunity to compete on a level playing field and earn a roster spot, a championship, a record, or a scholarship based on her hard work," said Petersen, R-Gilbert, who attended oral arguments in the case at the Supreme Court. The Arizona legislation that he co-sponsored was signed into law in 2022 and banned transgender athletes on female teams.

"Girls shouldn't have to lose those opportunities because adults are afraid to acknowledge biological reality," Petersen said.

When the case came to the Supreme Court, the Republican majority in the Arizona Legislature filed amicus briefs in support of the bans in Idaho and West Virginia.

On Tuesday, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne joined Petersen in praising the Supreme Court decision. Horne argued it protects girls from competing against athletes who were born male.

“The news has been full of stories about girls who worked hard on their sports, hoping to make the team, or even earn a college scholarship or qualify for the Olympics,” Horne, a Republican, said. “But then they had to compete against biological boys and their advantages in birth in size, speed and strength. The girls’ dreams were shattered and they were devastated.“

Horne highlighted that girls have been injured from competing against larger and stronger biological males and that “the fight is over,” as Arizona will follow state law and protect girls' sports.

The California Family Council, a conservative nonprofit and major advocacy group that continues to protest against California policies on transgender athletes, celebrated the Supreme Court ruling but emphasized that the fight is not over in the Golden State and other parts of the nation.

"We celebrate today’s Supreme Court decision, even though it does not change California law," Sophia Lorey, CFC outreach director, told The Center Square.

“This ruling gives us momentum, not closure,” Lorey added. “We believe it will also accelerate the federal cases already moving against California over girls' sports, and we intend to use every bit of that pressure. We celebrate today. The fight is not over. We will not stop until girls' sports are protected for every girl, in every state, including California.”

However, California lawmakers and officials are disappointed with Tuesday's ruling.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office said it is reviewing the ruling and evaluating its impact on California schools and the state's ongoing litigation with the Trump administration over transgender students' participation in school sports.

"We are disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision," the Democratic attorney general's press office told The Center Square.

California Assemblymember Alex Lee, D-Milpitas, said the ruling means “another win in the political culture wars for President Trump because there's not a single day in the White House that President Trump doesn't blame oil prices, inflation or any bad thing that he has caused on the transgender community or transgender individuals.”

“This is a blow to equal rights,” Lee told The Center Square at the Capitol in Sacramento. “We really want to make sure that kids are able to participate in sports. That is the important crux of it. All people of all genders ought to participate in sports. It's team bonding, athleticism. This is about further subjecting people to oppression and further stigmatizing them.”

The Center Square also reached out to Republican legislators in Sacramento but was not able to get interviews before publication time.

On the other side of the country, Maine state Rep. Laurel Libby, R-Auburn, called the ruling "a victory for common sense, for fairness, and for every girl who has worked hard to earn her place on the field, the court, or the podium.”

Civil rights and LGBTQ advocacy organizations condemned the decision, arguing it undermines protections for transgender athletes.

Advocates for Trans Equality called the ruling "a devastating departure from decades of civil rights progress."

Chief Strategic Programs Officer Anya Marino said the decision threatens "the rights, dignity, and safety of trans people across the country" and warned it could encourage invasive sex-verification practices affecting both transgender and cisgender female athletes.

“No court decision can erase trans people or extinguish the movement for equality and dignity,” Marino added in a statement sent to The Center Square. "The Supreme Court doesn’t have the final say on this. Many states and schools do support their transgender athletes, with inclusive policies that have been working for decades. Those policies remain intact despite today’s ruling.”

Melanie Willingham-Jaggers, CEO of Glisten, a human rights organization, also criticized the decision, saying it limits transgender students' ability to fully participate in school life.

"School sports are much more than competition," Willingham-Jaggers said. "They are about belonging, forming a community, and the opportunity to grow and thrive alongside peers."

The core issue is about protecting the dignity and safety of transgender youth and urging policymakers to support them through inclusive policies and legal action, Willingham-Jaggers added.

Center Square staff reporter Madeline Shannon contributed to this story.

(The Center Square) - The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a slew of cases on Monday on issues including immigration, energy and voting rights as it prepares for the upcoming term.

The nation’s highest court will hear arguments in cases for its next term beginning in October. Supreme Court terms typically run from October to June.

Here is a look at a few of the cases the court granted on Monday.

Asylum Termination

The high court agreed to hear Wassily v. Blanche, a case challenging whether noncitizens who were granted asylum into the United States are eligible for adjustments to their lawful permanent resident status even if their asylum was terminated.

The case focuses on two immigrants, Tamer Wassily and Byron Velasquez Arreaga, individuals from Egypt and Guatemala, respectively. The two men were admitted to the United States on asylum and later convicted of crimes.

Once they were convicted, immigration authorities began separate removal proceedings and focused on stripping them of their asylum rights. However, the two men sought to adjust to a lawful permanent resident status, which would allow them to remain in the United States.

The men cited persecution and poor conditions in their home countries to remain in the United States. An immigration judge granted Wassily’s request to adjust his status and become a lawful permanent resident, citing humanitarian concerns in Egypt.

However, a lower court ruled that the men cannot adjust their immigration status once asylum has been terminated, contrary to rulings in other lower courts across the country.

“The Attorney General may terminate asylum for a host of reasons – several of which rest entirely outside an asylee’s control,” lawyers for the two immigrants wrote in a petition to the high court. “Many of these former asylees and derivative spouses and children may have established strong ties to the United States over a long period of time.”

The Trump administration urged the high court to declare that the Immigration and Nationality Act rightfully gives the attorney general authority to regulate asylum in the United States. Lawyers said convictions of the two men warranted removal of asylum status.

“[The] statutory language authorizes adjustment of status only for an alien who currently has asylum status,” lawyers for the government wrote.

Election Integrity

The high court will also hear a case out of Arizona focused on the state’s election integrity laws, including a requirement to show proof of citizenship for the state’s voter registration form.

Justices on the high court will examine whether the National Voter Registration Act prohibits states from requiring proof of citizenship when registering people to vote. The case, Republican National Committee v. Mi Famila Vota, will also examine whether the NVRA prevents Arizona from canceling the registrations of voters who are not U.S. citizens.

Arizona implemented laws in 2022 to require proof of citizenship when registering to vote and for election officials to remove individuals from voter rolls who cannot provide proof of citizenship.

Lawyers for the RNC said the NVRA requires states to adhere to federal laws on the administration of elections.

“Arizona has taken common-sense steps to enforce its citizenship qualification and secure its elections,” lawyers for the RNC wrote. “Each time, it has had to defend those steps from federal lawsuits.”

Lawyers for Mi Famila Vota said Arizona’s requirements to prove citizenship go beyond what is necessary in the federal statute to allow individuals an opportunity to vote.

“No other State has considered such measures to be necessary or appropriate components of a proof of citizenship law,” the lawyers wrote.

Pipeline Seizure Compensation

Justices on the nation’s highest court also agreed to hear a case challenging oil and gas companies from using land of farmers and ranchers to develop gas pipelines in North Dakota.

Len Hoffman and other ranch owners in North Dakota said WBI Energy Transmissions offered a rate that was too low in order to buy parts of their land for an oil pipeline.

A lower court judge ruled that the ranchers would be able to introduce evidence regarding whether they were offered a fair market value for the land sale. The judge also said the energy company would need to pay legal fees for the ranchers.

However, another court ruled that the energy company did not need to pay the ranchers' legal fees.

“North Dakota law authorizes the payment of a property owner’s reasonable fees and costs as part of a compensation award,” lawyers for the ranchers argued in a petition to the high court.

However, lawyers for WBI Energy Transmissions argued that just compensation in North Dakota should not be defined to include attorneys fees.

“Unlike certain other states, North Dakota does not define just compensation to include those fees – it merely has a separate fee-shifting provision applicable in condemnation proceedings that gives courts discretion to award costs and fees, distinct from the compensation owed for the value of the property,” lawyers for WBI wrote.

Justices on the high court will hear arguments in these cases and many others beginning in October.

(The Center Square) - Arizona gained 21,200 jobs year over year in May, according to a new report.

Common Sense Institute Arizona released a report showing the state experienced year-over-year job growth for the second consecutive month, following eight straight months of year-over-year job decline.

The report noted Arizona’s 0.65% year-over-year job growth ranked 10th in America, more than doubling the national average of 0.32%.

Doug Walls, the labor market information director for the Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity, told The Center Square that eight of the 12 major industries in Arizona saw job growth.

Walls said job gains in Arizona continue to be dominated by the healthcare industry, which saw the sixth-best year-over-year job growth in America.

On top of this, he pointed out that Arizona’s information and mining sectors grew at the second-largest and fourth-fastest rates in America, year over year, respectively.

According to the report, Arizona gained 500 manufacturing jobs year over year, ranking 11th in America.

Zach Milne, a senior economist for CSI, told The Center Square that manufacturing is an important sector in Arizona, noting it has many high-paying jobs such as in aerospace, chip and high-tech manufacturing.

The report also showed Arizona’s construction industry experienced year-over-year job growth of 0.18%.

Milne said the construction growth is a good sign because it shows that things are being built that could contribute to economic output.

May was the first month in more than a year that the state’s manufacturing and construction industry saw year-over-year job creation, Walls said.

Arizona’s year-over-year job growth was “driven entirely by the private sector,” Walls said.

From April to May, Arizona added 2,000 jobs, with its largest industry, trade, transportation and utilities, adding 600 jobs. The state’s mining industry added 200 jobs in the same period.

According to the report, Arizona’s mining industry employs 47% more people than it did in December 2020.

Even with month-over-month and year-over-year job growth, Arizona’s unemployment rate increased slightly from 4.7% to 4.8%, ranking 40th in the country.

Arizona’s unemployment rate is above the national average of 4.3%. Walls said the state’s current jobless rate is still lower than the average jobless rate between 2017 and 2019 of 4.9%.

The report noted Arizona’s labor force participation rate fell to 60.7%, the state’s lowest level since 2020.

Milne said the rise in unemployment and the decline in labor force participation show Arizona has a “slowed labor market.”

The economic data showing Arizona with employment gains, rising unemployment rate and falling labor force participation rate is “a bit odd,” Milne noted.

To get a better idea of what is happening in Arizona’s job numbers, Milne said long-term economic data will need to be examined.

(The Center Square) - A bipartisan housing bill waiting to be signed by President Donald Trump preserves one of Arizona’s biggest housing industries, according to a land-use attorney.

This week, Congress passed the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which limits institutional investors' ability to buy certain homes, streamlines aspects of the regulatory process, modernizes federal housing programs, expands housing financing options and supports the expansion of manufactured housing.

The bill was sponsored by U.S. Sens. Tim Scott, R-South Carolina, and Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, in the Senate and U.S. Reps. French Hill, R-Arkansas, and Maxine Waters, D-California, in the House.

“This bicameral product reflects meaningful House equities – including community banking provisions, protections against institutional investors crowding families out of the housing market,” Hill said.

According to Waters, “housing is the gateway to opportunity, stability and economic prosperity.”

“If we want to build a stronger nation where working families can succeed, it starts with taking our housing crisis head-on by expanding affordability, increasing access, boosting supply and creating pathways to homeownership,” she said.

Meanwhile, Trump said he would not sign it into law until Congress passed the SAVE America Act, which requires proof of citizenship before registering to vote in federal elections and restricts mail-in voting.

Once Trump receives the bill, he will have 10 days to act on it. If he does not take any action, the bill automatically becomes law.

Adam Baugh, a partner of the Phoenix law firm Withey Morris Baugh PLC, told The Center Square on Thursday that Arizona’s build-to-rent industry is protected in the bill.

When the bill was first being discussed, it included limits on the build-to-rent industry, Baugh said, adding that he was worried it would eliminate “the one asset class that was capable of solving Arizona’s housing shortage.”

Build-to-rent communities feature cottage-like housing intended for long-term rental rather than ownership.

A previous version of the bill would have required owners of build-to-rent communities to sell their rentals within seven years if they owned more than 350 units.

However, as the bill got tweaked and the build-to-rent restrictions were removed, Baugh said the bill now maintains a “viable and long-term strategy in Arizona” for housing.

“Housing affordability will not be solved by taking options off the table,” he said.

If the build-to-rent industry regulations had been in place, they would have put a stop to one of the most successful asset classes in Arizona over the last decade, according to Baugh.

The removal of the restrictions allows people in this industry in Arizona to proceed with “confidence” in the product going forward, the land-use attorney noted.

Baugh said these investors will wait until Trump signs the bill.

He explained Arizona’s build-to-rent industry will remain the status quo, noting the bill will not bring “new interest in [the] asset class.”

Regarding the bill as a whole, the land-use attorney said it has the potential to “reduce house prices as more inventory is able to come back on the market” and also “reduce rents.”

“For Arizona, this is a win for housing choice and a win for economic growth and ultimately a win for families who are looking for a place to call home,” he said.

According to Baugh, the ban on institutional investors will not have a major impact on Arizona’s housing industry.

He noted many of these investors have been selling off their homes in recent years.

“They have not been on a buying spree,” he said.

(The Center Square) - Arizonans will vote on a constitutional amendment that restricts state institutions from using diversity, equity and inclusion for hiring practices and training programs.

In June, the Arizona Legislature passed House Concurrent Resolution 2044, a proposed constitutional amendment that prohibits public institutions from requiring employees, students or contractors to support or participate in DEI-related initiatives as a condition for admission, employment or certification.

House Speaker Steve Montenegro, R-Surprise, sponsored HCR 2044.

Matt Beienburg, director of education policy at the Goldwater Institute, told The Center Square this week that HCR 2044 presents a “groundbreaking opportunity” for Arizonans to “enshrine permanent protection against race-based discrimination” in the state Constitution.

HCR 2044 would prevent public institutions from having “discriminatory policies that treat students or applicants differently based upon race” or “compel students or [state] employees to endorse race-based discrimination or tenets of these discriminatory ideologies,” Beienburg said.

The Goldwater Institute, which supports HCR 2044, is involved in a legal case on behalf of Owen Anderson, a professor who teaches philosophy and religious studies at Arizona State University.

Anderson sued the Arizona Board of Regents after he said he was forced to attend mandatory DEI training. The case is currently at the Arizona Supreme Court to determine if he has legal standing to sue the board.

In 2010, Arizona voters passed Proposition 107, which banned state institutions from using affirmative action in hiring practices. Nearly 60% of Arizona voters supported the proposition. Montenegro also sponsored this resolution.

Even with this proposition, Beienburg said, the Arizona Constitution still allows for discrimination based on race when working with the federal government.

Having this clause allowed Arizona to remain eligible for federal funds, he added.

Beienburg said the constitutional amendment would close the existing loophole.

According to the Goldwater Institute education expert, HCR 2044 does not affect private entities or people’s First Amendment rights.

HCR 2044 does not prohibit students from taking a DEI course or prevent a school from offering one, Beienburg noted. But he added that schools can’t force students to take these classes as a graduation requirement.

Schools will still be allowed to teach students about slavery, the Holocaust and the removal American Indians from their native lands, Beienburg said.

“Arizonans don’t want to be segregated, divided, classified and treated differently based upon race,” he said.

The Center Square reached out to the Arizona Education Association, the state’s biggest teachers’ union, but did not hear back before publication time.

(The Center Square) - Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill that would have strengthened the state’s protections against Sharia law.

The Arizona Legislature passed Senate Bill 1018 along partisan lines in June, with the Republican majority supporting it.SB 1018 sought to define Sharia law as a foreign law, ensuring that Arizona courts and other authorities do not enforce it when it conflicts with state and federal laws.The bill also expanded the foreign law definition to include foreign religious or cultural laws, customs and practices that allow honor killings, coerced marriages, illegal child marriages, female genital mutilation, child abuse and other conduct that violates state law.This would have prevented these practices from overriding state and federal law if they came into conflict.In her veto letter of SB 1018, Hobbs said, “Sharia law, and the abhorrent practices found within it, do not and will not exist in Arizona.”She added that “Sharia law has already been outlawed by existing statute at the state and federal levels.”“The practical effects of this unconstitutional legislation will be a lawsuit that the state of Arizona will lose, costing taxpayers millions of dollars,” Hobbs said.According to the Texas-based Yaqeen Institute for Islamic Research, Sharia law is the “set of Islamic laws that encompass both the religious and secular practices of Muslims.”State Sen. Janae Shamp, R-Surprise, said the governor “vetoed a bill that simply reaffirmed that Arizona law comes first.”“Arizonans should never have to question whether forced marriage, marriage with a minor, the honor killing of a person, female genital mutilation or other abusive practices will be unequivocally rejected by our legal system,” Shamp told The Center Square, answering questions by email this week.“Arizona’s Constitution is the standard — not foreign customs, not foreign laws and not political excuses. I will continue fighting to ensure our laws protect women, children and the fundamental rights of every Arizonan,” she added.Azza Abuseif, the executive director for the Arizona chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said the organization welcomed Hobbs’ “decision to veto this unnecessary and discriminatory legislation.”“Bills targeting so-called ‘Sharia law’ are not about protecting anyone’s rights or safety. They are about exploiting fear and promoting harmful stereotypes about Islam and Muslims,” Abuseif said.The executive director said these bills “send a message that Muslim Arizonans are somehow suspect or unwelcome in their own communities.”“Arizona’s Muslim community contributes to every aspect of our state’s civic, economic and cultural life. Public officials should focus on bringing people together and addressing the real challenges facing Arizona families, rather than advancing legislation rooted in prejudice and misinformation,” Abuseif added.

(The Center Square) - Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap filed an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court after a state Court of Appeals issued a stay motion favoring the county Board of Supervisors in the ongoing lawsuit about who controls certain election functions.

The Arizona appeals court for Division One favored the Phoenix-based board in a 2-1 decision. That means an Arizona Superior Court’s decision that gave Heap control over disputed election functions in the county is on hold while the case continues.

The appeals court’s decision relied on the Purcell principle, which states “courts are reluctant to order last-minute changes in election rules and procedures because they can burden election workers and complicate and create confusion in the voting experience.”

“The practical impacts of these changes, and even the injunction’s claim to mitigate practical harms for the voter, all demonstrate that this is no mere backroom dispute over accounting principles or organizational charts. It is, by everyone’s assessment, a live conflict hurtling toward real-world consequences in elections about to begin,” according to the appeals court's majority opinion.

Early voting in Maricopa County for the July 21 primary election starts on Wednesday.

Heap told The Center Square on Monday that the issue with the appeals court’s ruling is that “no Arizona court has ever adopted the Purcell principle as a rule.”

The claim with the appeals court ruling about it being too close to the election has an issue because the Arizona Superior Court ruling came down in April, Heap said.

“The board had almost eight weeks to try to implement this and for us to make changes. They largely ignored that ruling and continued forward, seeking a stay until that point,” he added.

Heap said the board has “created the crisis in which they’re now asking the court to remedy.”

“We don’t think it’s valuable to create a precedent where government bodies can just ignore court orders for an extended period until it’s a crisis situation and then use the crisis they created as grounds to get the ruling stayed,” Heap explained.

He added that he is asking the Supreme Court to lift the stay issued by the lower court.

The recorder noted he did not have a timeline for his appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Supervisor Mark Stewart told The Center Square on Monday that the appeals court's ruling “was not a judgment about the case,” but rather a decision to settle the case after the elections were over.

Stewart said he has empathy for both sides in the dispute, noting ambiguity exists in local statute about who is responsible for certain election functions.

“I think most people think the recorder has a legitimate argument,” Stewart said. But he added the board also has an “operational argument” because “the ruling would create some confusion for how [Maricopa County runs] elections this fall.”

Stewart said he supports “restoration of the recorder’s authority based on what the statute says.” He added that he also favors mediation between the two sides.

Stewart requested a professional mediator in May, but a judge denied his request.

Heap and the board were scheduled for a court-ordered mediation hearing on Monday, but the board later withdrew its request after the appeals court granted the stay motion last week.

The recorder said he was interested in having a court-ordered mediation despite the appeals court ruling.

Instead of having court-ordered mediation, the board said it is interested in having public hearings, Heap noted.

Stewart said the board is “open to mediation, but the format in which that mediation would take place is where there’s some consternation and some disagreement about how that’ll be handled.”

Heap told The Center Square that he thinks mediation would be more effective in settling the dispute between the two sides because of the dispute's legal complexity.

According to Stewart, the tone between the two sides has “damaged trust.”

The board member said his goal since the beginning of the dispute has been to follow the law, protect the election calendar and “give staff clear direction to resolve” the dispute without endless litigation.

“Voters cannot be collateral damage in this fight, and that’s what’s happening,” Stewart explained.

(The Center Square) - Arizona voters will get to vote on a constitutional amendment to protect military families who rely on the state’s school choice program.

State lawmakers approved House Concurrent Resolution 2048, which will be on the Nov. 3 ballot. Voters will decide whether to amend the state Constitution to protect state-run scholarship and savings accounts for children of military families. The amendment is intended to protect school choice accounts from a potential initiative to impose new regulations, which, if it qualifies, would be on the same ballot.

HCR 2048, also known as the Military Families College Savings and Scholarship Protection Act, would prevent the state government from taking away these funds from children of military families.

Matt Beienburg, director of education policy at the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, told The Center Square that the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts would be protected.

Currently, supporters of regulating school choice are attempting to qualify a teachers union-backed ballot initiative of the Nov. 3 general election. The initiative would impose additional regulations.

The initiative, also known as the Protect Education Act, would “run afoul of” HCR 2048 because it includes a provision that “would confiscate funds from military kids,” according to Beienburg.

As a constitutional amendment, HCR 2048 would, if it passes, overrule any provisions in the Protect Education Act, which seeks to change state law, Beienburg said.

Military families using the ESA funds would be able to continue using them if both HCR 2048 and the Protect Education Act pass with voters, the education expert explained.

Olivia Fierro, the communications director for the Protect Education Act, told The Center Square by email that “Arizonans are smart enough to see through these deceptive tactics and vote yes on the Protect Education Act, and no on this misleading legislation that will maintain a program that is costing our state over $1 billion taxpayer dollars.”

Fierro added that the ESA program “is endlessly funneling public funds to private schools and personal bank accounts.”

State Rep. Nick Kupper, R-Yuma, who served in the Air Force for 20 years, told The Center Square that all four of his kids have used the ESA account at one point in Arizona.

Kupper has two children enrolled in Arizona’s ESA program under the military eligibility category and another child using the disability eligibility category. His oldest child child graduated from high school and is no longer able to use it.

If the ESA funds are removed from his family, it would be “devastating,” the military veteran said.

“The only reason that we can educate our children in the way that we best see fit is because of the ESA program. We literally could not financially afford it otherwise,” he said.

Kupper noted the military moved him from New Jersey to Arizona because of the school choice program.

He added that the ESA program is a “nice soft landing spot” for new military families in Arizona because of how often they move.

If Arizona voters don’t approve the constitutional amendment, potential bad actors can come in and attempt to remove something the state promised military families, Kupper said.

“We can’t be going back on our word,” he said.

(The Center Square) - Arizona’s new law allowing for easier financing for developers will help lower housing costs, according to experts.

Gov. Katie Hobbs signed House Bill 2999 into law, allowing developers to finance public infrastructure projects through bonds.

HB 2999 creates State Affordability Infrastructure Districts, which allow developers to access lower financing for projects such as roads and transportation, water and wastewater systems, broadband infrastructure and utilities.

Tyler Cobb, a Taft Law Firm public finance attorney, worked on HB 2999, which was sponsored by state Rep. Jeff Weninger, R-Chandler. Cobb told The Center Square that the bill will help with housing affordability in the state.

If Arizona can increase its housing supply, it will make homes more affordable, Cobb said.

Many Arizona infrastructure projects have “lain dormant for years in search of an infrastructure solution, and this is going to allow a lot of these projects to move forward,” Cobb said.

If developers can access cheaper capital, it means homeowners will pay “less up front for the cost of the home,” he noted.

Jason Morris, a founding partner of the Phoenix law firm Withey Morris Baugh PLC, told The Center Square that Arizona’s new law will help lower housing prices in Arizona.

“If you look at the impediments to being able to build an affordable home or even be able to stay within the budget, the biggest single factor is the public infrastructure that’s necessary before the first home gets built,” he said.

Before the piece of legislation, Morris said a developer would need to finance all public infrastructure costs.

He noted the developers would have to borrow money to finance these projects, which was then factored into home prices.

The financing for public infrastructure projects is short-term, relying on construction loans, which are “very costly,” the land-use attorney said.

Morris explained Arizona is seeing the effects of not having this legislation and the negative effects on the “streets and infrastructure because developers can’t necessarily afford everything at the onset of development.”

“It’s been detrimental overall to the state to not have this,” he added.

Morris said Arizona’s new law does not mean homes will be built faster, but rather the bill “opens up areas that previously haven’t been able to be developed because the financial burden of developing certain areas was so great.”

According to Cobb, to form a State Affordability Infrastructure District, 100% of landowners in an area must support it. When an area has buy-in from all the landowners, he said the group will request its district be formed with the Arizona Finance Authority.

Cobb noted for a district to be formed, it must plan to finance more than $5 million in infrastructure costs.

If the district is approved by the Arizona Finance Authority and the district wants to issue bonds, it will need to hold an election, the public finance attorney said.

He added that if the bond is approved by voters, the district will create a feasibility report for the Arizona Finance Authority outlining its “repayment burden."

The Arizona Finance Authority will review the bond's financing plan, Cobb explained. If approved, the district can start issuing bonds.

Districts can’t levy additional taxes after the debt is paid off, Cobb said.

“Nobody is ever going to be forced into” a district,” he noted.

People who do not live in these districts will not be impacted, the public finance attorney said.

Morris said there is a “strict amount of borrowing a district can do so that it’s never beyond the capability or the value of the underlying property.” These districts can only tax to finance public infrastructure, he added.

According to the land-use attorney, the new law provides transparency about the potential tax burden homeowners will pay. He noted all the information is online for people to view.

(The Center Square) - Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a bill attempting to stop the spread of child pornography and revenge porn, citing free speech concerns.

Hobbs on Friday vetoed House Bill 2133, which would have required websites hosting sexual material, including artificial intelligence-generated sexual depictions, to verify that each person depicted in the material is of legal age and consented to it.

HB 2133, also known as the Protect Act, would have required these websites to keep verification records for seven years.

Republicans, who have majorities in both houses of the Legislature, backed the measure but lack enough seats to override the Democratic governor's veto

The legislation provided exemptions to news organizations, public-interest publications, scientific materials, educational materials, search engines and others.

On top of this, the bill exempted digitally altered material made for the purposes of parody, comedy, artistic expression and criticism of matters of public concern.

In Hobbs’ veto letter to House Speaker Steve Montenegro, R-Surprise, the governor said HB 2133 “has a chilling effect on free speech and would violate First Amendment rights to engage in satirical discourse about elected officials."

Furthermore, the governor said state law already “covers AI-generated images for revenge porn” and the Take It Down Act, a federal law, ensures “Arizonans are not victimized online.”

The Take It Down Act requires online websites to remove intimate photos or videos shared on their platform without victims’ consent. The legislation requires the removal if victims ask for photos or videos to be taken down.

“My office attempted to work with the [bill] sponsor on ways to further protect victims without shielding politicians from criticism as HB 2133 does," Hobbs said. "Although the sponsor rebuffed those efforts in favor of a partisan approach that attempts to make political satire illegal, I remain committed to finding real bipartisan solutions to protecting Arizonans."

State Rep. Nick Kupper, R-Yuma, the sponsor for HB 2133, told The Center Square on Saturday that the veto of his bill was “disheartening.”

Kupper said the governor made “misleading statements” in her veto letter about his bill, adding that Arizona law and the Take It Down Act “do not do what [his] bill does.”

He noted these laws allow for the material to be uploaded to online platforms before anything happens.

“The problem is, and this was the whole need for my bill, once it's uploaded, the harm has been done to the individual who's in the content,” the state representative said.

According to Kupper, Hobbs' explanation in her veto letter about free speech concerns is a “bald-faced lie.”

The bill's exemption for satire is “airtight,” he said.

The state representative said when he attempted to work with Hobbs on the legislation, her office wrote a “completely different bill.”

“That’s not working in good faith. That’s not trying to find a way to make this bill work,” he said.

Uldouz Wallace, the movie and TV actress who proposed the legislation to Kupper, told The Center Square on Saturday that she was “very disappointed” in the governor for vetoing HB 2133.

Wallace said Hobbs vetoing the bill is a “slap in the face” to victims of revenge porn and child pornography.

“It’s really disheartening because she’s a woman herself, so she should know better. Politicians like her should not be in any kind of power position,” she said.

The only people that would be impacted by HB 2133 are “pedophiles and predators that are trying to upload non-consensual content and child sexual abuse material,” said Wallace, who, in addition to acting, is a writer, producer and social media influencer.

She added that federal law does not include components of requiring “age verification and consent for uploaders.”

She said victims of child pornography and revenge porn still have to submit takedown requests after material has been uploaded to the internet.

Wallace previously told The Center Square that she was a victim of the 2014 iCloud hack/leak, in which hackers leaked private images of her and other celebrities online.

The actress said she spent millions of dollars attempting to get her private images removed from the internet.

Wallace, who runs a nonprofit called Foundation Ra, said her organization has done more than 200,000 takedown requests this year.

Kupper, meanwhile, said he plans to reintroduce the bill in the 2027 legislative session.

He told The Center Square that if Hobbs gets reelected as governor, she will “stop trying to even pretend to be moderate. She is going to go extremely far left on everything she does because it won’t hurt her election chances because she can’t be reelected” for a third term because of term limits.

The only way for this bill to become law is for Hobbs to lose to U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, in the gubernatorial election, Kupper said. In recent polls, Biggs has been ahead of U.S. Rep. David Schweikert, R-Scottsdale, in the July 21 Republican primary and is seen likely to run against Hobbs in the Nov. 3 general election.

(The Center Square) - The Arizona Department of Education received a $300,000 grant to address the state’s teacher shortage.

The department will receive the money over the next two years from the nonprofit Ascendium Education Group. The money will go toward expanding the department’s teacher apprenticeship program, including supporting 100 apprentices.

The money will help pay teachers and train them, Tom Horne, the Arizona superintendent of public instruction, told The Center Square on Thursday.

Horne said the apprenticeship program is one of numerous alternative pathways through which people can become a teacher in Arizona.

Such pathways allow people who are “knowledgeable and want to teach” to become teachers, he added.

The money from the grant is important because Arizona has a “terrible teacher shortage,” Horne noted.

Arizona continues to lose more teachers than it hires, the superintendent said. “Recruiting, training and supporting teachers is vital and the teacher shortage has reached catastrophic proportions."

“These funds will be used to expand our already robust efforts to help bring more teachers into the profession and retain those valuable educators currently in the classroom,” he added.

Between July 2025 and November 2025, Arizona saw over 1,000 teachers quit their jobs.

Horne noted Arizona needs to “continue to push for more help for educators by increasing teacher pay using State Land Trust funds with no new taxes, and ensuring school administrators support teachers on classroom discipline.”

He added that these are the two main issues teachers mention “as reasons to leave the profession.”

Last week, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs signed a new $18.29 billion budget into law. It did not include funding to raise teacher pay, according to Horne.

For the 2024-2025 school year, the National Education Association reported the average teacher salary in Arizona was $64,291, ranking 31st in the country. Arizona teachers saw a 2.5% increase in average pay from the 2023-2024 school year, when it was $62,714.

All the states bordering Arizona had higher average teacher salaries for the 2024-2025 school year.

The Center Square reached out to the Arizona Education Association, the state’s largest teacher union, but did not hear back before publication time.

(The Center Square) - The fate of additional protection against ballot fraud remains pending in Arizona as Gov. Katie Hobbs determines whether to sign a bill into law.

The Arizona Legislature passed Senate Bill 1057 along partisan lines, which will add at least three anti-fraud countermeasures to ballots such as watermarks, customized holograms and forensic ink technology. Republicans, who control both houses of the Legislature but lack enough seats to override the Democratic governor's vetoes, voted for the legislation.

Sen. Mark Finchem, R-Prescott, the bill’s sponsor, told The Center Square on Thursday that if Arizona is going to “protect the franchise of every legitimate American voter,” it needs to “have a robust fraud countermeasures program to go on the ballots.”

"Arizona voters deserve confidence that every legitimate ballot cast is protected from fraud, counterfeiting and tampering," Finchem said.

“We use advanced security features to protect currency, financial documents and other sensitive materials. There's no reason election ballots should be held to a lower standard,” he added. “This legislation brings additional layers of verification and accountability to the election process while helping strengthen public trust in our system."

Finchem said people seeking to tamper with Arizona elections “are always looking for new and unique ways” to do so.

He noted the disenfranchisement of voters occurs in Arizona if the state “can’t rely” on a voting system “to exclude people” who misrepresent who they are when they “cast a ballot.”

“That’s unacceptable,” Finchem noted.

The idea with these types of bills, according to Finchem, is to “put as many things up” to “enhance voters’ standing so somebody else won’t disenfranchise their election.”

But Finchem told The Center Square he thought Hobbs would veto it. In the past, Hobbs has vetoed numerous bills Finchem has introduced about strengthening Arizona’s election laws.

“She doesn’t want election security,” the state senator noted, calling Hobbs a "typical Democrat."

SB 1057 is “good public policy to secure elections,” Finchem added.

Looking ahead, Finchem said he was not sure whether he would pursue introducing these election security provisions as a resolution to be voted on as a constitutional amendment.

The senator said constitutional amendments need to be broader and “higher level in scope” than fraud countermeasures on ballots.

If a Republican becomes Arizona’s governor in November, Finchem said he would potentially revisit this idea. He added that he would also look at the vulnerabilities in Arizona’s election system and offer solutions.

(The Center Square) - A new congressional bill would give patients with life-threatening diseases access to customized gene therapies and medicines.

The Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act, whose sponsors include U.S. House members from Arizona and Tennessee, would allow patients a pathway to access individualized investigational treatments when no other approved options are available. The bill defines “individualized investigational treatments” as “a drug or biological product for the patient based on an analysis of the patient’s unique genomic profile.” It would allow for medicines and gene therapies, both tailored specifically for the patient.

Treatment must be administered by an eligible healthcare facility “operating under federal assurance for protection of human subjects,” according to the bill.

Doctors or healthcare facilities are not required to offer these treatments, the bill noted.

The legislation has support from people such as a mother who has seen one daughter end up in hospice care and another daughter, who received special treatment in Italy, now thriving in the classroom. The young girls had the same disease. The mother spoke to The Center Square, and more about the family is reported later in this story.

U.S. Reps. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, Ariz., and Diana Harshbarger, R-Morristown, Tenn., are introducing the Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act in the House. U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, is introducing the bill in the Senate.

“We are entering a new era of medicine where breakthroughs in genomics and precision therapies can create treatments designed specifically for an individual patient," said Harshbarger, a licensed pharmacist. "But our regulatory system was built for a different time and simply hasn't kept up.

“This legislation makes sure patients have a clear, durable path to pursue individualized treatments when all other options have failed,” she said.

Biggs noted Congress passed the first Right to Try bill in 2018, which allowed terminally ill people to obtain access to investigational drugs that were not completely approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

“Our coalition was unwilling to let one more American die without this chance, and we are motivated to build on this original bill with the Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act,” Biggs said.

Johnson said the bill builds upon the success of the first Right to Try bill. He added that the bill is “about medical freedom and putting doctors and patients at the top of the treatment pyramid.”

Kendra Riley, an Arizona mother of three, told The Center Square this week that her family is “living proof of what happens when you have access to a treatment you need and what happens when you don’t.”

For patients dealing with rare diseases, “timing is everything,” according to Riley.

Kendra Riley’s daughters, Olivia Riley and Keira Riley, were both diagnosed with a rare and aggressive genetic disorder called metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD) in 2020.

According to the Goldwater Institute, Olivia Riley started to show signs of MLD, such as losing her ability to walk and talk. Doctors told her family that Olivia Riley’s MLD would cause her to deteriorate and that she would need hospice care.

Keira Riley had not yet started showing symptoms even after being diagnosed, the Goldwater Institute said.

To get Keira Riley’s treatment, Kendra Riley told The Center Square that her family needed to raise $500,000 and move to Italy to get the life-saving treatment.

Keira Riley received the treatment in Italy, whereas her older sister was unable to.

Kendra Riley said Olivia Riley, who is 8 years old, is currently in hospice, and Keira Riley is a healthy 6-year-old with zero symptoms.

"Under the legislation, my family would not have needed to move to Italy to get treatment," Kendra Riley told The Center Square.

The Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act would allow a patient to get a treatment in the U.S. if a doctor and facility are “willing and able to offer it,” she said.

The bill would give "rare-disease patients a chance before an illness becomes an irreversible loss,” Kendra Riley noted.

The mother of three said she thinks the FDA “is behind science and technology that’s moving at the speed of light.”

“No one should have to wait on government red tape to try and save their life,” she added.

The bill is an attempt to give “families a chance before a rare disease becomes an irreversible loss,” Kendra Riley said.

“We see right in front of us every day with our two girls what happens if you have it and what happens if you don’t,” she explained. “It’s the difference between a child in hospice and a child in the classroom.”

(The Center Square) - The Arizona Legislature is waiting for Gov. Katie Hobbs to sign a bill designed to notify taxpayers before their taxes go up.

Senate Bill 1221, which passed recently along party lines in the state House and Senate, requires the Arizona Department of Revenue to inform the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee of new interpretations of tax law that will adversely affect taxpayers.

State Sen. J.D. Mesnard, the Chandler Republican who introduced the bill, told The Center Square on Tuesday that since he has been a senator, “every couple of years,” the Arizona Department of Revenue issues new interpretations of state tax laws.

When this happens, he said, Arizona residents reach out to him, saying they owe taxes on something that previously wasn't taxed.

For these situations, Mesnard said, it would be “better for policymakers to be looped in on the front end” rather “than the back end” so they can engage with the Department of Revenue on its new interpretation.

It is always “frustrating to be in a reactive environment rather than a proactive one," Mesnard said.

"Taxpayers should not wake up one day and discover a state agency has quietly changed the rules in a way that costs them money," he said.

"If the Department of Revenue wants to adopt a new interpretation of tax law that negatively impacts Arizona families, job creators or small businesses, there ought to be transparency, public scrutiny and accountability first,” the senator added.

Mesnard said a bill similar to SB 1221, which he introduced in 2025, passed the Legislature but was vetoed by Hobbs.

Despite what happened last year, the state senator said he is hopeful Hobbs will sign this year's bill.

Mesnard's legislation does not give legislative tax committees any power to influence the Department of Revenue’s new interpretations.

But it does allow the committees' chairs to decide whether to hold a hearing. If the hearing is held, the Department of Revenue would need to testify and explain its new interpretation.

Holding the committee hearings before new tax interpretations are implemented is an effort to provide transparency for Arizona taxpayers who may be affected, Mesnard said.

He noted the tax committees in the Arizona Legislature have a good working relationship with the Department of Revenue.

Mesnard said this bill is not a criticism of the Department of Revenue.

The department is “going to interpret statute as best [it] can,” he added.

(The Center Square) - If Arizona keeps spending a lot of taxpayers' money, it will face financial problems, according to an economist.

On Saturday, Gov. Katie Hobbs signed Arizona’s new $18.29 billion budget for Fiscal Year 2027, which includes approximately $1.45 billion in tax relief for Arizonans over the next four years.

“I’m thrilled to sign the bipartisan Arizona First budget into law,” Hobbs said.

“Starting on July 1, Arizonans will have no taxes on tips and overtime, a higher standard deduction, a deduction for seniors, and next year, an expanded child tax credit,” the Democratic governor added.

However, Zach Milne, a senior economist and research analyst for Common Sense Institute Arizona, told The Center Square on Monday that “spending has really gone through the roof.”

The FY 2027 budget is 86% larger than it was in FY 2019, Milne said. He added that Arizona has increased its spending by about 8% on average over this period.

Milne noted Arizona policymakers are “finding themselves in a crunch.”

“They like to point to tax cuts and other things that have been implemented, but the reality is [policymakers] can’t increase spending 8% per year for almost a decade and expect to have a solvent financial situation for the state,” Milne said.

The economist said Arizona’s budget includes increased health care expenses for its state Medicaid program and Arizona Department of Economic Security.

Costs for these programs have “skyrocketed,” he said.

Milne noted Arizona’s FY 2015 budget spent $1.2 billion on its state Medicaid program, while FY 2027’s budget will allocate nearly $3 billion to it. This represents a 150% increase in spending for its Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System.

On top of this, Arizona’s spending on the Division of Developmental Disabilities program within the DES has increased from $400 million to $1.8 billion over the same period, representing a 350% increase.

Milne told The Center Square that this type of healthcare spending is “relatively unsustainable.”

As COVID-era federal policies have ended, spending growth in these programs has slowed, but it is not yet back to pre-pandemic levels, the economist said.

Furthermore, Milne said numerous one-time spending items included in Arizona’s budget have also contributed to the state’s spending increase.

With the new budget passed, Arizona is projected to have less than $41 million in cash reserves from its FY 2027 general budget, Milne said, which he described as being “pretty low.” He noted for FY 2028, Arizona is projected to have $24 million in cash reserves.

State revenues grew quickly during the COVID-era, and policymakers increased Arizona’s expenditures rather than keeping the cash reserves the state had built up, Milne explained. In 2022, Arizona had $202 million in cash reserves for its general fund, according to the Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee.

Regarding tax conformity, the economist said Arizona’s budget conformed to most provisions of the tax cuts included in H.R. 1, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill, except for the State and Local Tax (SALT) deduction.

Glenn Farley, CSI’s director of policy and research, previously told The Center Square that the SALT deduction is the “subtraction of your federal income taxes for your state and local taxes paid in the prior year."

Arizona’s SALT deduction will remain $10,000 while the federal one is $40,000.

Chad Heinrich, the Arizona state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, told The Center Square on Monday that the tax conformity items included in the FY 2027 budget will make it easier for Arizona small businesses.

Arizona lawmakers “conformed key business expense provisions that will align Arizona’s income tax with the federal changes that were adopted,” Heinrich said.

These changes will make “tax filing season for Arizona small business owners much easier because the state rules for most of the business expensing provisions match those at the federal level,” he said.

Heinrich added that H.R. 1’s tax conformity transcends Arizona’s income tax code so “small business owners are going to be able to invest in their business with confidence.”

Arizona’s alignment with the federal tax code will enable small businesses to create more jobs and attract investment, he noted.

(The Center Square) – While former Vice President and presidential hopeful Kamala Harris remains the Democratic frontrunner for 2028, according to new polling, her support, and that for California Gov. Gavin Newsom, may be shifting to other members of the Democratic Party.

In the latest The Center Square Voters’ Voice Poll conducted from June 4-6 among registered voters who identify as Democrats and left-leaning Independents, Harris maintained a strong lead, capturing the support of 27% of the 1,224 polled. Newsom was a distant second among the names listed, with 14% support.

But both Harris and Newsom have slipped from where they landed in October and March Voters’ Voice Polls. Harris was at 33% in the fall, 31% in March and is now at 27%; Newsom had 21% in the fall, then 16% in March, and now, 14%.

Support for former Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg broke into the double digits for the first time, jumping 4 points from the 7% he held in both of the earlier polls. New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lost a couple points in March but regained them to finish with 8% support.

Seventeen percent of voters surveyed indicated they were unsure who they would vote for in the 2028 primary – the same amount of uncertainty among Republicans and right-leaning independents polled in the GOP primary.

Harris performed best among Black and young voters: 49% of Black voters polled said they would vote for Harris in 2028, and 48% of voters ages 18-29.

Among voters grouped by education level, Harris drew the most support from those without a college education, at 35%. And though whites supported her the least of any racial group, she still led all the other candidates there, with 17%, followed by Newsom and Buttigieg at 16% and 15%, respectively.

Harris topped every demographic category except two: voters 65 and older and respondents with postgraduate degrees. Among seniors, Newsom led with 23% support, followed by Buttigieg at 15%, while Harris received 11% support. Postgraduates also favored Newsom, who edged Harris 19% to 18%, with Buttigieg close behind at 16%.

Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro performed best among those remaining, capturing a combined 9% of respondents. Other names polled were the Illinois and Maryland governors, J.B. Pritzker and Wes Moore, Democratic senators from New Jersey, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Connecticut — Cory Booker, Andy Beshear, Amy Klobuchar, Chris Murphy – and California Rep. Ro Khanna.

The poll was conducted nationally by Noble Predictive Insights using an opt-in online panel and text-to-web cell phone messages to survey registered voters. The sample consisted of 1,013 Democrats and 211 left-leaning Independents. It is among the most comprehensive tracking polls in the country.

(The Center Square) - Maricopa County voters in Arizona are growing tired of a federal oversight program costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, according to a new poll.

Noble Predictive Insights released a report showing that 53% of Maricopa County voters think federal oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has gone on too long. The county is Arizona's most populous and is home to Phoenix.

In 2013, a federal judge ruled the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office violated Latino drivers’ constitutional rights after the office used racial profiling and illegal traffic stops.

To implement policy reforms, the office was placed under federal oversight with a court-appointed monitor.

Maricopa County Supervisor Thomas Galvin previously told The Center Square that by this year, the ongoing federal oversight program will have cost taxpayers $353 million. According to ProPublica, auditors of the fund found that 72% of all the money the sheriff’s office had spent was “misattributed or misappropriated.”

The Center Square reached out to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors but did not hear back before publication time.

The poll found knowledge of the federal oversight is limited. The poll showed that 62% of county voters had heard little to nothing about the program, while 32% had heard at least some information about it.

When Maricopa County voters were asked about federal oversight without being told about the financial costs, 43% supported it, 27% opposed it and 30% were unsure.

However, after voters were told about the financial strain on Maricopa County taxpayers, 53% said the oversight is lasting too long and is too expensive.

“Maricopa County voters say federal oversight has gone on too long," NPI CEO Mike Noble told The Center Square this week.

“The taxpayer cost clearly breaks through,” Noble said. “Voters may support accountability in theory. But when they hear this has cost hundreds of millions of dollars over more than a decade, they start asking whether the current arrangement still makes sense.”

Joseph Popolizio and John Masterson, attorneys representing the sheriff’s office, told The Center Square in a statement this week that the office “continues to educate the public about the substantial progress it has made and its significant compliance with the Court's orders, as well as the dramatic cultural transformation that has taken place since 2013.”

“Sheriff [Jerry] Sheridan understands the public's frustration and recognizes the importance of these issues to the community. He remains fully committed to achieving full and effective compliance with every aspect of the Court's orders,” said Popolizio and Masterson, who are with the law firm Jones, Skelton & Hochuli PLC.

U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert, told The Center Square this week that he thinks the federal oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has “gone on far too long.”

Biggs, who's running for governor, said he introduced a bill called the Monitor Accountability Act, which put guardrails on the monitor positions nationwide.

The act places limits on the hourly rates and fees that federally appointed monitors may charge. The act also prevents monitors from overseeing more than one monitorship, with the monitor allowed to serve only five years at one place.

Biggs pointed out that Robert Warshaw, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office monitor since 2014, is monitoring several other jurisdictions.

Biggs’ bill passed the House in May by a vote of 219 - 204 and was assigned to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

Jon Riches, vice president for litigation at Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, said there are two “fundamental problems” with the current federal oversight.

The first issue concerns federalism, which Riches said “law enforcement and local spending decisions are a state and local function.”

“They shouldn’t be administered indefinitely by federal officials,” he said.

The second issue is taxpayer transparency. “When massive amounts of taxpayer dollars are being spent to operate a local law enforcement agency, taxpayers have a right to know how that money is being spent,” Riches explained.

The attorney said the problem with Warshaw is that he is an “unaccountable federal official” managing a local law enforcement agency.

He added that the monitor has spent tens of millions of dollars and “has not provided taxpayers any kind of transparency regarding how the money is being spent.”

“Every time the county gets close to 100% compliance, there’s some change or the monitor will find some area where the county has fallen short,” the attorney noted.

“[Warshaw] is incentivized financially to keep the case open,” Riches said.

America’s federalism system “exists to ensure local law enforcement and spending decisions by local governments are locally and democratically accountable,” according to Roth.

“Having the federal government oversee the minutiae of [how] local law enforcement spend [taxpayer] money and then not provide details to [voters] about how that money is being spent raises federalism and transparency concerns,” he noted.