Center Square News

(The Center Square) - A new Arizona bill seeks to protect tenants by establishing temperature standards for rental properties.

State Sen. Lauren Kuby, D-Scottsdale, has introduced Senate Bill 1608, which requires rental properties statewide to keep their indoor temperatures between 68 and 82 degrees Fahrenheit.

Attorney General Kris Mayes collaborated with Kuby on SB 1608.

Mayes said Arizonans should not have to “suffer in dangerous heat or cold because their landlord fails to maintain safe living conditions.”

"This legislation establishes common-sense protections that recognize that landlords have a responsibility to provide safe and habitable housing even in rural parts of our state. It's far past time we provide these protections to every tenant in Arizona,” she added.

Kuby told The Center Square that the attorney general believed improvements to Arizona law were needed to “take these cases to court.”

The bill sets “enforceable standards,” said Kuby, who introduced SB 1608 last week.

She said she has received calls from constituents reporting that their landlords or property managers are not addressing air-conditioning issues.

“This isn’t an abstract issue. Delaying repairs costs lives,” Kuby explained.

Temperatures over 82 degrees can “be really dangerous” for seniors, babies, and people with disabilities and chronic issues, she noted.

“Air conditioning in Arizona is not optional. It is essential,” she said.

SB 1608 is attempting “to protect public health [and] respond to heat emergencies,” Kuby said.

Richie Taylor, the communications director for Mayes, told The Center Square that SB 1608 is “modeled after protections for renters in municipal city code in cities like Phoenix, as well as other municipalities around the nation.”

Cities may set temperature standards between 68 and 82 degrees Fahrenheit, but remain within that range, Kuby said.

For example, a city could require that the highest temperature be 80 degrees and the lowest 70 degrees.

SB 1608 would also change Arizona law to allow tenants to break their lease in two days if landlords fail to “provide functioning air conditioning or heating.” Current state law allows tenants to do it within five days.

If landlords can’t resolve the issue within that timeframe, they will need to offer alternative accommodations, such as a hotel or another apartment, until the issue is resolved, Kuby said.

The senator told The Center Square that SB 1608 is “trying to tighten up the law and make it so that the courts could take action.”

According to Kuby, the attorney general has worked on “tenant protections” during her tenure.

In 2025, Mayes filed three lawsuits against companies for endangering residents during the hot summers. Arizona desert areas such as Phoenix are known for their highs exceeding 100 degrees.

(The Center Square) - Arizona public schools could lose federal funds if they fail to protect religious liberties, according to a state official.

The U.S. Department of Education issued new guidance earlier this month to protect prayer in public schools.

“No public school, teacher, or school official should ever coerce or pressure a student to engage in speech or affirm a viewpoint that would violate the student’s sincere religious beliefs,” the federal government’s guidance said.

“A public school cannot require a student group to adopt a particular viewpoint in order to be recognized by the school if the viewpoint violates the student members’ religious beliefs,” the guidance added. “School officials also cannot express hostility toward religious student groups by demeaning their beliefs.”

Arizona public schools that don’t take these rule changes seriously are “risking” the “withdrawal of federal funds,” Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne told The Center Square.

He added that if a school district loses federal funds, it would be "devastating” for that district.

Horne said he recently spoke by phone with federal officials. He noted they will send written materials discussing these rule changes, which he will pass along to Arizona school districts and charter schools.

According to Horne, many diversity, equity and inclusion elements “violate widespread religious beliefs, such as urging students to change genders, age-inappropriate sexual lessons, and other elements that may demean a student’s religious beliefs.”

DEI is an issue because rather than dealing with people as individuals, it deals “with what race people were born into that they have no control over," Horne said.

“Instead of judging by individual merit, they judge by racial entitlements,” which does not encourage “hard work, conscientiousness or creativity,” he added.

Arizona public schools still have DEI initiatives, Horne told The Center Square.

To help public schools comply with the guidelines, Horne noted that the Arizona Department of Education will add a question about continually protected prayer to its public school reporting, which parents can use to help determine the best school for their child.

State departments of education are required by the U.S. Department of Education to submit annual reports to see how well school districts are following these updated guidelines.

Editor's note: This story has been updated to include comments from Arizona Corporation Commission Nick Myers.

(The Center Square) - Tucson Electric Power spokesman Joe Barrios said a proposal by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes would hurt the company’s ability to raise funds it needs for investment in its energy grid.

Last week, Mayes’s office filed expert testimony with the Arizona Corporation Commission to object to TEP’s proposed 14% rate increase.

Mayes said the company’s proposal was “blatant corporate greed.”

"Our expert analysis proves that customers are being asked to pay far more than is needed," the attorney general said. "Instead of a 14% rate hike, the expert testimony we just filed with the ACC shows that TEP can achieve the same reliability with just a 4% increase by aligning what customers pay with TEP's actual costs."

The attorney general’s testimony said a 4% rate increase could fully compensate investors and preserve the company’s current investment-grade credit rating.

According to Barrios, the attorney general’s filing is “out of line” compared to other intervenors’ recommendations.

The TEP’s 14% rate proposal increase would result in a return on equity of 10.5%. According to Harvard Business School, ROE is a “financial ratio that indicates how efficiently a business generates profit from its shareholders’ equity.”

The state Residential Utility Consumer Office, which represents the interests of Arizona residential utility customers, recommended an ROE of 9.2%, and ACC recommended an ROE of 9.75%, Barrios noted.

He added that Mayes’ ROE recommendation was 6.07%.

Under Mayes’ proposal, TEP customers would save $148 million annually, amounting to an estimated $200 per person.

"This case is fundamentally about whether Tucson families should be forced to pay more than necessary to enrich TEP's shareholders," Mayes said. "At the end of the day, it’s just a transfer of wealth from Arizonans struggling to make ends meet to TEP’s shareholders."

Barrios said the attorney general’s testimony noted that “an increase in rates is necessary."

Barrios said the rates TEP customers pay are based on 2021 costs. He added that the company is basing the rate increase in its current application on 2024 costs.

Since 2021, Barrios said, TEP has “invested” $1.7 billion in its energy grid, including upgrades to equipment and substations and maintenance at generating stations.

Barrios said TEP needs to continue to make improvements to its energy

TEP’s energy grid is becoming “increasingly sustainable and very reliable,” Barrios said.

He added that TEP will “have an opportunity to respond in more detail” in its own testimony in early March.

Any changes to customers' rates must be reviewed by a judge, Barrios said, adding that the ACC will make a final determination on TEP’s rate proposal increase.

He noted there is “still a way to go in the process,” saying additional rounds of testimony will be filed by intervenors and TEP.

Regardless of the outcome of its rate proposal application, Barrios said TEP will maintain its systems and continue its “ongoing resource planning process.”

TEP understands that any rate increase may affect customers’ bills, he said.

“It’s not something we take lightly. When we file these applications, we do feel we are justified in making this request based on all of the improvements and maintenance that we performed on our energy grid,” the TEP spokesman explained.

TEP customers with questions are welcome to call the company, he said, adding that the company frequently works with customers who “face financial hardship.”

Arizona Corporation Commission Chair Nick Myers said nothing in the agreement with TEP gives away the panel's constitutional authority.

"I find it odd that the Attorney General is opposing a Commission decision that protects ratepayers from cost shift from data centers," Myers told The Center Square in an email.

(The Center Square) - Gov. Katie Hobbs signed a bill that will provide tax relief to Arizona's disabled veterans.

Last week, the governor signed House Bill 2792, which exempts disabled veterans in Arizona from paying property taxes on their primary residence. The exemption also extends to the surviving spouses of disabled veterans.

The bill applies to tax years starting “from and after December 31, 2025.”

State Rep. Michael Carbone, R-Buckeye, who is HB 2792’s sponsor, told The Center Square that giving tax breaks to disabled veterans “is a very big deal.”

Carbone said Arizona has 600,000 veterans, with 23,000 of them being 100% disabled.

Of those 23,000 disabled veterans, 16,000 own homes, he noted.

These people served America “honorably,” and it’s the least Arizona “should be doing,” he said.

“I believe in our veterans and our military. Everything we have [is] because of them,” Carbone said.

He said the bill took nearly two years to develop, noting that some of its language needed to be revised.

The Republican legislator said he was not surprised the Democratic governor signed the bill.

“I’m grateful that she signed it. She did a great job, and I think she understands this is important for Arizonans,” he said.

Carbone said the disabled veterans he has discussed the bill with said the property tax relief will help them.

For example, he noted that in Maricopa County, the average property tax on a home is approximately $2,500. He explained this could save disabled veterans approximately $200 per month.

If a person’s bill is able to be lowered by $200 a month, that is “huge,” Carbone said.

At a press conference last week, Fernando Monarrez, who is a combat-wounded veteran, said seeing disabled veterans have an extra $2,500 annually would help them.

Danielle Stranik, an Army veteran, said this bill means a lot to her. Her dad was a 100% disabled veteran who almost became homeless.

“This bill would prevent homelessness for all of our veterans across the state and also welcome the opportunity for veterans to want to retire in our state and know our state supports them,” she said.

Even with this additional help for Arizona veterans, Carbone told The Center Square that Arizona ranks near the bottom in its support for veterans.

“I think there’s a lot more work that we can do in this area,” he said.

(The Center Square) - The Arizona Senate has passed four bills seeking to tackle waste, fraud and abuse in the state’s management of the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

The Senate last week passed Senate Bill 1002, SB 1331, SB 1333 and SB 1334, all by a vote of 17 to 13 along party lines. Senate Majority Leader John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, introduced these bills, which were supported by Republicans and are now headed to the Arizona House. Republicans hold majorities in both chambers.

According to Kavanagh, SB 1002 is attempting to “root out fraud” in Arizona’s SNAP program.

To verify eligibility, the bill would authorize the Arizona Department of Economic Security to review multiple sources, including out-of-state food stamp activity, incarceration records, death records, child support data and lottery winnings records.

Kavanagh told The Center Square that Arizona’s SNAP payment error rate is “extremely high.” The Center Square reported Arizona’s payment error rate is around 10%.

If Arizona doesn’t get its SNAP payment error rate below 6% by fiscal year 2028, the state will pay between $150 million and $200 million, according to Glenn Farley, Common Sense Institute Arizona's director of policy and research.

The amount Arizona may need to pay is the result of the federal government's adjustments to SNAP operations under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Kavanagh said he does not think the Department of Economic Security is adequately verifying SNAP eligibility.

However, he said he is not blaming the department entirely because the agency was not provided with all the tools needed to verify people’s status.

The state senator added that the DES probably lacks sufficient staff to keep up with these potential changes, so he is seeking additional funding to address this.

SB 1331 adds a work requirement for individuals 60 or younger to receive food assistance. Exceptions include individuals who meet federal work registration requirements, caregivers, students and individuals in rehabilitation programs.

Another bill, SB 1333, aims to reduce Arizona's SNAP payment error rate to below 3% by Dec. 30, 2030. Beginning in fiscal year 2026-2027, the state Legislature would need to submit quarterly reports on the status of reducing the state’s SNAP payment error rate. If Arizona fails to meet its annual target goals or the 3% mark, a corrective action plan would be required to explain why the goals were not met and how the issue will be addressed.

Regarding SNAP work requirements, SB 1334 proposes to limit the Department of Economic Security's ability to waive them for able-bodied adults without dependents. The state agency wouldn't be able to seek, renew or accept a federal waiver without Arizona law authorizing it or federal law requiring it.

Furthermore, the bill prevents the department from using Arizona’s option of issuing work requirement exemptions.

SB 1334 would shift the power for Arizona to seek SNAP work requirement exemptions from the executive branch to the legislative branch.

Kavanagh told The Center Square that it is important for the Legislature to have veto power over the executive branch because the executive branch does not control how Arizona taxpayers' money is spent.

Every person who receives a work exemption costs the government more money, Kavanagh noted. “We have a duty to taxpayers to keep the budget within limits."

When these four bills reach the state House, they will pass, Kavanagh said, adding that there is consensus behind the legislation.

Last year, Kavanagh noted he thought Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs would immediately veto these bills. However, he said that, given Arizona's high SNAP payment error rate, which could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars, he hopes she will sign them. The Republican majority in the Legislature lacks enough seats to override Hobbs' vetoes.

(The Center Square) - Southwestern states ranked among the lowest in the U.S. for property tax rates in a new report, giving homeowners some relief amid widespread housing affordability issues.

And the state with the best tax rate, according to the report?

Hawaii.

The report by WalletHub ranked all 50 states and Washington, D.C., by real estate and vehicle property tax rates. The findings provide cost-of-living information for potential inter-state movers.

“Every penny counts,” WalletHub analyst Chip Lupo told The Center Square. “If you're looking at relocating, it's a good idea to not just focus on the home price, but take a look at how much your property taxes are going to be, because that's going to be part of the overall mortgage bill for the next 30 years of your life.”

In 2026, Hawaii had the lowest effective real-estate tax rate (0.27%), according to the WalletHub report. But with the highest median home value of any state ($839,100), the median annual property tax payment ($2,239) was not far off of the national average of $3,119.

The second-lowest property tax is in Alabama (0.38%), where below-average home values ($209,900) make the average person’s annual real-estate property taxes the lowest in the U.S. at $788.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, New Jersey (2.11%) and Illinois (2.01%) were the only states with property tax rates above 2%. These highest taxed states resulted in well-above-average annual property taxes for residents of $9,590 in New Jersey and $5,298 in Illinois.

“Taxes are always a hot button issue nationwide, regardless of what state you live in,” said Lupo. “You can view them either as just a minor irritant, or in some cases, depending where you live, a significant financial burden.”

Nevada (ranked third, 0.47%) has the lowest real-estate property tax rate of Southwestern states the continental U.S., followed by Arizona (fourth, 0.48%), Colorado (fourth, 0.48%), Utah (10, 0.52%), New Mexico (17th, 0.7%) and California (17th, 0.7%).

All of the Southwestern states were in the lower-half of tax rates, despite above-average home values.

“There's hot real estate markets in these states too. The prices of homes are skyrocketing,” said Lupo. “For example, Colorado – Denver is a hot real estate market. A lot of people are getting priced out, with the average house price of a little over $539,000. It’s the same thing in Utah ($489,000), Idaho ($418,000), Nevada ($435,000), Arizona ($395,000).

“You have these hot real estate markets, but they've been traditionally low tax,” Lupo added. “So yes, you're going to be shelling out probably some inflated prices for homes, but you have the benefit of a somewhat lower tax rate to offset that.”

Results were more mixed for property taxes on vehicles in the Southwest. Nevada (44th, 2.12%), Colorado (39th, 1.79%) and Arizona (38th, 1.68%) were among the most taxed states. California (28th, 0.65%) was beat out in the Southwest only by New Mexico and Utah, which joined the 22 other states and D.C. in not adding taxes to vehicles.

“About half the states will tax you property taxes on your vehicle,” said Lupo. “That can be a burden, particularly if you have multiple vehicles.”

Virginia (3.97%) had the highest vehicle property tax rate in the country. The average car owner there paid $1,156. The survey found the average vehicle property tax rate by comparing the nation’s most popular car in 2025, the $29,100 Toyota Camry.

(The Center Square) - A new ballot initiative’s income cap could remove approximately 15% of current participants in Arizona’s school choice program, according to Katie Ratlief, the executive director of Common Sense Institute Arizona.

The Arizona Education Association, Arizona’s largest teacher union, and Save Our Schools Arizona, an organization that supports public schools, filed paperwork last week to restrict the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Account program.

“This initiative — led by educators and parents who care deeply about our kids — is Arizona's chance to address the waste, fraud and safety concerns that have plagued the ESA voucher program on the state's watch,” said Marisol Garcia, president of the AEA.

“Bringing this reform to the ballot is about making sure that every child in Arizona gets a high-quality education, no matter what kind of school they attend,” she added.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne told The Center Square that the ballot initiative “seeks to punish ESA families who are just trying to ensure their child’s needs are being met.”

“Imagine a family with three children. Two of the children are doing just fine in district schools," Horne said in a statement. "The third child’s needs are not being met. With ESA, the parents can find another school that meets the child’s needs."

He added he did not “understand how anyone can say the parents do not have a right to find a school that meets their child’s needs, unless people are so immersed in ideology that they lose sight of what is best for students.”

One of the measures the ballot initiative proposes is an income cap of $150,000, meaning only Arizona families earning below this threshold would be eligible for the program.

Ratlief told The Center Square that the income cap would “lock out” around 25% of “Arizona families from participating in the program.”

Not all families earning more than $150,000 currently participate in the program, but they would be prevented from joining in the future, she noted.

“ The average income of families in Arizona - that's two parents and kids at home - is about $120,000,” Ratlief said.

Factoring in inflation and the rise in Arizona wages over the past several years, Ratlief said the average Arizona income could soon approach $150,000.

Matt Beienburg, director of education policy at the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute, said the income limit “creates a double standard” for Arizona taxpayers by forcing them to fund students “regardless of how wealthy they are if they go to public school, but if that same family were to try to seek an education through an ESA, they would be denied the program.”

The income limit is “artificially” pushing students to go to public schools, “many of which are failing to meet these kids’ needs,” Beienburg told The Center Square.

“It’s a completely disingenuous and bad-faith attempt to lock kids out of the program,” he noted.

In addition to an income cap, the ballot initiative seeks to ban the use of ESA funds for non-educational and luxury items and to provide greater transparency into ESA funds.

The Arizona Department of Education uses risk-based auditing for ESA accounts, as the Internal Revenue Service does for tax returns, Ratlief said.

The state DOE used to review every ESA transaction before approving it, but the program got behind “in terms of payments to families, schools and other providers,” she said.

Ratlief noted families waited several months to be reimbursed for expenses, which led them to pay out of pocket and wait for the DOE to approve transactions and reimburse them.

According to Ratlief, an unintended consequence of a policy like this is that poorer families who use the program will have a “harder time” because they will have to pay out of pocket and wait for reimbursement.

She said these families “may not be able to bear those upfront costs.”

Regarding luxury and non-educational items, Arizona law prohibits the use of ESA funds for these items, Ratlief said. She added the state lists the items eligible for purchase with ESA funds.

Furthermore, the Arizona State Board of Education adopts an annual handbook outlining permissible ESA fund purchases, she noted.

On public school funding, the ballot initiative seeks to reclaim millions of dollars in unused funds for public schools.

Students in the ESA program receive a fixed dollar amount each year, set by the school district to which they are assigned, Ratlief explained.

The dollar amount these students receive is 90% of the amount the school district “they are assigned to by their zip code would receive if they were in public school,” Ratlief said.

If funds in an ESA account are not spent in a given year, they roll over to the next year,” she added.

The voter initiative aims to prevent money from rolling over by requiring that unused funds be returned to public schools, she said.

Ratlief noted downsides to a policy like that.

“You don’t want to encourage parents to just spend money for the sake of spending money. They may be anticipating future costs,” she explained.

Ratlief said parents may be rolling over funds to save for their children’s high school.

If the voter initiative passes, private schools would be required to administer assessments similar to those used for public school students or by a nationally recognized accrediting organization.

Beienburg said proponents of the ballot initiative “want control over private schools and over families who are doing homeschooling.”

The effort to put guardrails on the program is “deeply disingenuous,” according to Beienburg.

Arizona families leaving public schools for private schools are doing so because “they believe they’re getting a superior education for their kids,” he explained.

Beienburg told The Center Square that this provision gives the state control over “how the private schools are measured, meaning they get to determine what is deemed important.”

“The argument that somehow we're going to improve private schools by grafting on public testing requirements that the public schools themselves are doing in many cases terribly on is nonsensical,” he noted.

Beienburg added the proponents of the ballot initiative are “not about trying to improve outcomes for students” but rather “trying to punish private schools” by making them “operate the same way” as public schools.

If the ballot initiative gets approved by the Arizona secretary of state and gets 383,923 signatures, Arizonans will vote on it during the Nov. 3 general election.

Beienburg called the initiative “an ideologically driven attack on students, families and educational opportunity in Arizona.”

He said polling has continued to show that school choice in Arizona is very popular.

Charter schools and the ESA program are popular among Arizona parents because “they serve the needs of their kids in ways the traditional public school system has often failed to do,” he explained.

Ratlief said the ESA program has continued to grow since becoming universal in 2022.

“ The more people learn about these programs and learn that they have access to them, the more they want to use them,” she told The Center Square.

The ESA program has reached over 100,000 participants in it.

Beienburg said he thinks the more voters learn about the ballot initiative, the more “they will recognize this is not something that's intended to protect or improve education.

“It's something that is intended to strike a blow against an extremely successful program,” he noted.

Ratlief said, “Once something is passed by the voters, it can only be changed by the voters.”

“It’s very difficult for lawmakers to respond to changing conditions when only the voters can make changes to those laws,” she said.

(The Center Square) - A judge’s recent decision overturning Arizona's abortion laws “shows the long-term impact of ballot initiatives,” according to a pro-life attorney.

Last week, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gregory Como stopped numerous Arizona abortion laws, including the state’s reason ban, two-trip requirement law and telemedicine ban.

Como said in his ruling that these laws violated Proposition 139, which is an amendment Arizona voters passed in 2024 that provides a constitutional guarantee for a right to an abortion.

The judge wrote that “virtually every regulation of abortion ‘interferes’ with a woman’s right to seek an abortion.”

“The state’s interest in protecting potential life is not a legitimate justification for a law that interferes with a woman’s right to seek a pre-viability abortion,” Como said.

“Each of these laws infringes on a woman’s ‘autonomous decision making’ by mandating medical procedures and disclosure of information regardless of the patient’s needs and wishes,” he added.

Katie Glenn Daniel, director of legal affairs and policy counsel for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, told The Center Square this week that the judge said “virtually every regulation of abortion would violate this amendment.”

Glenn Daniel said cases like this show amendments are sweeping and are getting rid of every health and safety law.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes sees it differently. She told The Center Square that the court’s ruling was a “major victory for Arizona women, families, and their doctors.”

“The court has affirmed what we've known all along: The abortion restrictions challenged in this case are unconstitutional,” the Democratic official said this week.

Mayes said the judge’s ruling “affirms that Arizona women have a constitutional right to access the reproductive healthcare they need without unnecessary government interference.”

“Doctors must be allowed to provide care based on their medical judgment, not on the beliefs of anti-abortion politicians,” she added.

Now that abortion drugs are able to be legally sent through the mail, Glenn Daniel said the number of abortions occurring in Arizona is likely to go up.

She added that the abortion drugs would be “increasingly likely” to be used as a “tool to harm women.” As an example, she said people could get hold of abortion drugs and use them for criminal activity rather than for personal use.

What is happening in Arizona is what has occurred in other states that have passed constitutional amendments guaranteeing a right to abortion, Glenn Daniel said.

To illustrate, she gave the example of Michigan, which passed a constitutional amendment guaranteeing a right to abortion in 2022. She noted after the constitutional amendment passed, state lawmakers went after the regulatory structure surrounding abortion.

Glenn Daniel said it is only a matter of time before the abortion industry goes after Arizona’s other protective laws, such as the law against taxpayer funding of abortion.

To help fight back against these law changes occurring in states that have passed constitutional amendments guaranteeing the right to an abortion, the pro-life movement needs to be “vocal and say, ‘This was not what many people voted for,' ” she said.

“The long-term vision of the pro-life movement is to help expose how extreme these policies are and show that they’re not popular with voters once they understand what they got, which is not how these initiatives were sold to them,” Glenn Daniel explained.

She added that the pro-life movement needs to do the “hard work of going back and reinstating pro-life protections.”

Glenn Daniel pointed to Missouri, which passed one of these constitutional amendments in 2024 but will have another ballot proposal this year to try to repeal it.

Due to Proposition 139, the abortion situation in Arizona is worse than what it was under the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Glenn Daniel noted.

The Roe decision made abortion legal in all states. The Casey decision upheld Roe v. Wade but permitted states to implement certain restrictions.

“These initiatives were sold as ‘back to Roe,’ and that’s not what voters got,” Glenn Daniel said.

(The Center Square) - The Arizona House Committee on Artificial Intelligence and Innovation passed a bill on Thursday seeking to develop school instruction surrounding AI.

Committee members voted 4-2, with one member voting present, on House Bill 4005, which was introduced by Rep. Nick Kupper, R-Yuma.

HB 4005 would require school districts and charter schools to give instruction on the “ethical, moral and educational uses” of AI.

The instruction would need to be based on “basic techniques for AI prompts” and “ethical considerations for using AI in learning and in daily life.”

The bill defines AI as a “machine-based system that is able to make predictions, recommendations or decisions,” including “generative systems that produce content in response to prompts.”

School districts or charter schools would be allowed to implement the instruction into existing curricula or create a whole new separate course, HB 4005 states.

On Oct. 15 of each year, the bill would require school districts and charter schools to submit a report to the Arizona Department of Education describing the type of AI instruction they provide to students.

The state DOE can offer guidelines, resources or grants to help schools implement AI instruction, HB 4005 notes.

At the bill’s hearing, Kupper said if Arizona schools are not giving “some level of AI instruction” to their students, then schools are failing to prepare them “for the new real world.”

Kupper said he wrote the bill to allow school districts to implement AI instruction “as they see fit.”

Also, the state representative said he delayed the bill's start to the 2027-2028 school year to allow school districts to determine whether they need more funding and, if necessary, request it from the Legislature.

During deliberations on the bill proposal, Rep. Junelle Cavero, D-Phoenix, said she appreciated Kupper bringing the bill forward, calling it “quite important.”

However, she said she would vote “present” on the bill to “look more deeply into the ethical, moral and educational uses” of AI.

State Reps. Anastasia Travers, D-Chandler, and Betty Villegas, D-Tucson, voted “no” on HB 4005.

Travers said she liked the idea of the bill, but noted she did not think the Legislature could force the state Department of Education to “create a curriculum, train up teachers or hire more people” to teach AI at this time.

“ I can't mandate for public schools to do something. I can't even get special needs teachers for my kids,” she explained.

Along with Kupper, Reps. James Taylor, R-Surprise; Julie Willoughby, R-Chandler; and Justin Wilmeth, R-Deer Valley, voted "yes."

(The Center Square) - A new bill proposes giving Arizonans the chance to vote on whether the right of refusal in medical situations should be guaranteed in the state Constitution.

State Rep. Nick Kupper, R-Yuma, introduced House Concurrent Resolution 2056, which will prevent government entities from forcing people “to accept, receive or administer any medical product or treatment” as a condition for work, school or public access. Kupper proposed the amendment following his experience with being required to accept what he called an unapproved version of the COVID-19 vaccine when he was in the Air Force.

Kupper's resolution provides exceptions for court order treatments, people in the criminal justice system, life-saving medical care, parental authority and state diagnostic requirements.

The resolution also states the constitutional amendment will not override federal legal requirements.

If the bill passes the Republican-controlled Arizona Legislature, it will be put to a vote by Arizonans in November. Under the state Constitution, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs doesn't have veto power over the placement of ballot measures.

Kupper told The Center Square that the resolution comes down to whether a “government in most scenarios” should mandate that people put a medical product in their bodies or allow them to choose.

Kupper said he wants to give Arizonans “the opportunity to decide for themselves.”

“ Do they want the state to have the authority to mandate what they put in their bodies, or do they want to have that decision-making capability themselves?” Kupper asked.

“It’s a basic human right to decide what goes into your own body,” he added.

The resolution doesn’t specify any damages for a violation because a court will need to make those determinations, Kupper said.

The notion the constitutional amendment would undermine the rule of law is “completely wrong,” the legislator noted.

Whatever is in the state Constitution is the law and “overrides” state laws, he noted.

”Some people seem to think a state law can override the [state] Constitution. They clearly can't. There's a hierarchy here,” he said.

Furthermore, Kupper said the constitutional amendment proposal does not tell private industry what to do. He added that it also has nothing to do with abortion or the death penalty.

This issue is close to Kupper, as he almost lost his Air Force career for not taking what he called an unapproved version of the COVID-19 vaccine.

While in the Air Force, Kupper said Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin during the Biden administration issued a lawful mandate requiring military members to take a “fully-approved [COVID-19] vaccine with approved labeling.”

However, the Air Force veteran said the problem in his case was how the mandate was implemented. Kupper explained “the lower level commanders” implemented the mandate “incorrectly” by requiring him to take an “unapproved version of the vaccine.”

Kupper said when he raised this with his commander, the commander told him the fully approved and unapproved vaccines were “the same thing.”

The military’s mandate was legal, whereas the implementation was illegal, Kupper explained.

Kupper joined a federal lawsuit challenging the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. He told The Center Square that the day after he received his discharge papers, a court issued an injunction that prevented him from being removed from the Air Force.

Kupper said he retired from the Air Force after 20 years to avoid retaliation.

(The Center Square) - The Arizona state Senate Government Committee advanced a bill to rename a Phoenix plaza in honor of conservative leader Charlie Kirk.

The committee members voted 4-3 to pass Senate Bill 1686, which renames the Wesley Bolin Plaza as the Wesley Bolin and Charlie Kirk Freedom Plaza.

In addition, SB 1686 will create memorials to Kirk and journalist Don Bolles.

Kirk, a Scottsdale, Ariz., resident who was cofounder and CEO of Turning Point USA, was killed Sept. 10, 2025, while speaking at his organization's rally at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah. Bolles was a reporter for The Arizona Republic who died in 1976 after a bomb exploded underneath his car in retaliation for his investigative work.

State Sen. Jake Hoffman, the sponsor of SB 1686, said he had been friends with Kirk for 11 years. Hoffman called Kirk an “incredible man and the civil rights leader of the 21st century.”

Kirk’s assassination was “tragic” and “heartbreaking,” Hoffman, R-Queen Creek, told The Center Square.

“He was assassinated standing up for civil debate,” which is “protected by the First Amendment,” the state senator added.

Bolles is also someone who died exercising his First Amendment rights, Hoffman said, noting having memorials for Bolles and Kirk “makes a lot of sense.”

The senator said Bolles and Kirk “were killed because of their work and their willingness to speak freely.”

The bill says Arizona taxpayer money will not be used for either memorial. Hoffman said all memorials at Wesley Boland Plaza are “privately funded.”

To get a memorial placed at the plaza, a law must be passed authorizing it because the memorial would be on state property, Hoffman explained.

Once a memorial is privately financed, the donations are transferred over to Arizona, he said.

Then the state “allows the placement of the memorial," Hoffman explained.

Hoffman said he chose to rename Wesley Buller Plaza because it is known as a “town square in our state for free speech.”

“Organizations and the causes on the right and left utilize the plaza to engage in free speech," he told The Center Square. "Given the nexus between Charlie and free speech, I felt naming this the Freedom Plaza was befitting."

(The Center Square) - A bill to permanently end DEI through constitutional reform is now going to the Arizona House of Representatives for a floor vote.

Sponsored by House Speaker Steve Montenegro, R-Surprise, HCR2044 was approved on Wednesday by the chamber's Committee on Government. All four of the panel's Republicans voted yes. The three Democrats voted no.

If the bill passes the full House and Senate, HCR2044 will be referred to voters in the Nov. 3, 2026 general election to amend the Arizona Constitution.

Before the committee vote on Wednesday, members heard testimony from people such as Matt Beienburg, director of education policy at the Goldwater Institute. The Phoenix-based think tank supports HCR2044.

“Members, in 2010, Arizona voters approved — by a 19-point margin — a state constitutional amendment to ban racial discrimination in public employment, public education and public contracting,” said Beienburg. “In 2023, the United States Supreme Court ruled that university admissions practices based upon racial discrimination are illegal under the Constitution, and this past year, through his executive order, President Trump rescinded the federal government’s decades-long support for racial discrimination that have operated under the banners of diversity, equity, and inclusion and affirmative action.”

As a result, Beienburg said, HCR2044 “builds upon these victories” and reaffirms the state’s protections against what Beienburg called state-sponsored race-based discrimination.

“This measure is not only grounded firmly in the principles of the U.S. Constitution, but reflects the values held by overwhelming majorities of the American people and the voters of Arizona,” said Beienburg. “Not only have state and national polls repeatedly shown support for prohibiting state-sponsored racial discrimination, but even in deep blue California, as recently as 2020, voters overwhelmingly rejected an effort by DEI activists to repeal the state’s affirmative action ban, upholding the state’s protections against racial discrimination by 14 points, despite activists spending nearly 20 times as much in their campaign to promote race based discrimination.”

In Arizona, Beienburg said, “over three-quarters of voters support provisions prohibiting race-based discrimination.”

“While the U.S. Supreme Court has given a clear signal that racial discrimination by institutions such as universities is illegal, this decision pertained narrowly to admissions,” said Beienburg. “The measure before you will ensure that the same protections are upheld throughout our public institutions, no matter who sits in the White House, and that Arizona will choose the Constitution, not an ideology of discrimination.”

In January 2023, Goldwater published a report stating that Arizona’s public universities compel job applicants to endorse progressive politics. At the time, Goldwater said that up to 80% of faculty job openings “force applicants to pledge support for progressive, racialized notions” of diversity, equity and inclusion and critical race theory terminology in order to be hired.

“DEI, or CRT, affirmative action essentially equates to endorsing, giving preferential treatment to, and classifying people differently based upon their race,” Beienburg told The Center Square Wednesday after the committee hearing. “So all of these essentially amount to state-sponsored racial discrimination.”

The Center Square sought comments from Montenegro and the committee members, but did not get a response before press time.

(The Center Square) - The Arizona state Senate Finance Committee advanced a bill to protect Arizonans selling their homes.

The panel approved Senate Bill 1633, introduced by state Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, which would eliminate the state’s income tax on capital gains from selling a home.

SB 1633 would not impose a tax penalty on long-term homeowners seeking to sell their homes.

Mesnard told The Center Square this week that he introduced the bill to address Arizona’s housing crisis.

He said he got the idea after listening to discussions about it on the federal level.

One of the ways to help Arizona’s housing market is to remove the “incentive to stay in your home solely because of the tax liability,” Mesnard said.

He added he doesn’t think taxing a person’s home is “appropriate.”

If the bill becomes law, Mesnard said it would have a positive effect on the state’s housing market.

When people do not face a tax liability for selling their home, it gives them “one more reason” to consider selling, the senator noted.

"Taxing gains on a primary residence can trap people in homes that no longer work for them," he said.

Mesnard added that capital gains taxes may prompt seniors to delay downsizing their homes or keep families in a house that no longer works for them.

“By removing this tax barrier, SB 1633 allows families to make decisions based on real life needs, not fear of a tax hit," Mesnard told The Center Square. "When someone sells their home, the state should not take a cut of the equity they worked years to build."

To qualify for the tax break, SB 1633 applies to homeowners who have lived in their primary residence for at least five years.

Regarding Arizona’s housing market, Mesnard said, “Houses are becoming harder to afford.”

He added it is more difficult to buy a home than it was 10 years ago.

In 2015, the median home price in Arizona was $265,000. In December 2025, the median cost had risen to $417,121. That's a 57% hike.

Despite high prices, Mesnard said he thinks the state’s housing market is showing signs of improvement.

(The Center Square) - A new report shows Arizona could save billions of dollars if it lowered the number of residents who smoke.

Common Sense Institute Arizona released a report on Wednesday morning showing the effects that cigarette smoking has on Arizona’s fiscal costs. CSI discussed the report and smoking's impact on Medicaid costs with The Center Square during an exclusive interview.

The report found cigarette smoking represents up to $11 billion in yearly total health care expenditures in the state.

Arizonans who smoke have fallen from 19.3% in 2011 to 10.2% in 2026, which ranks the state as the 17th lowest rate in America, the report found.

According to the report, 18.9% of Arizonans enrolled in the state's Medicaid smoke.

Zachary Milne, a senior economist for CSI, told The Center Square that nationwide smoking rates are higher among Medicaid enrollees compared to the rest of the population.

Milne said the report is “as much about Medicaid costs as it is about cigarette smoking.”

The report is in the context of the federal and state governments seeking ways to reduce Medicaid spending, he said during the exclusive interview.

Milne referenced the changes in H.R. 1, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, to Medicaid eligibility rules, including who is eligible for the program, how people remain eligible and how states pay for the program.

He added it is becoming “increasingly important” for states to “find ways to limit” Medicaid costs.

Extensive research shows “that medical costs associated with cigarette smoking are quite significant,” Milne noted.

”Given the higher prevalence of cigarette smoking among Arizona's Medicaid enrollees, it means those costs are disproportionately borne by the Medicaid system,” the economist stated.

Milne told The Center Square if Arizona can reduce its smoking population by 1 percentage point, it could save the state between $257 million and $1.1 billion in personal health care expenditures and decrease productivity losses by nearly $151 million.

On top of this, the report said if Arizona could get its smoking population below 5%, it could save the state $1.2 billion annually.

Milne said “smoking contributes about $182 million annually in excess Medicaid costs from Arizona’s general fund.”

To contextualize this number, he said the $182 million “could fund nearly 7%” of Arizona’s state Medicaid general fund budget.

The report said this excess money spent on Medicaid is around 22% of the average annual increase in Arizona’s general fund “spending over the past decade.”

According to Milne, a concern exists that Arizona’s Medicaid budget will continue to increase, given the numerous expansions over the last two decades.

Enrollment in Arizona’s state Medicaid has increased from 45 per 1,000 residents in 1985 to 260 per 1,000 residents in 2026, Milne noted.

As the number of people being enrolled in state Medicaid increased, its budget has nearly “quintupled in the last 20 years,” he said.

The report stated spending on state Medicaid accounts for almost one-third of Arizona’s total spending and nearly 12% of its general fund.

Based on fiscal year 2026 expenditures, Arizona’s seven Medicaid line items “would yield $3.8 billion in Medicaid expenditures tied to smoking related health care costs,” the report estimated.

(The Center Square) - A Valero Energy refinery in the Bay Area that provides about 9% of California’s gasoline supply began shutting down at the end of January, earlier than some anticipated, with potential knock-on effects on gas and motor fuels prices in Nevada, Arizona and other western states.

A former manager at Valero Energy, Mike Aziza, said the San Antonio-based oil company started idling the Benicia, Calif. refinery on Jan. 31, and thermal imaging reports show it is not emitting heat, according to a report in the California Globe.

Californians paid the nation’s highest gas prices as of early Wednesday morning at $4.50 per gallon, according to the American Automobile Association. That's well above the national average of $2.92.

Drivers in neighboring states Nevada and Arizona, some of them supplied by gasoline produced at California’s refineries, paid the fifth and ninth highest fuel prices in the nation.

Philipps 66 closed its Los Angeles refinery in October. Now Valero has begun shutting down production at Benicia, potentially reducing California’s gasoline production by a combined 20% in less than a year’s time.

The closure of the two California refineries could cause prices to rise to $8.44 a gallon by the end of 2026, according to a study by University of Southern California professor Michael A. Mische published in April of last year, as the Center Square reported in September.

In early January, California Gov. Gavin Newsom said Valero confirmed it would continue to supply the state’s gasoline markets with imports as a phased shutdown began at the company’s 144,000-barrel-per-day Benicia refinery in February.

“This marked a constructive development from an earlier announcement that included the possibility of full closure and exit from the Northern California market in early 2026,” Newsom said on Jan. 6.

Newsom's office said operations remain unchanged at Valero's other refinery in California, a 135,000-barrel-per-day facility in Wilmington. Valero said the Wilmington refinery will "maintain normal operations."

Valero said in a statement that it "remains committed to fulfilling its contractual supply obligations in the California market and anticipates importing additional gasoline volumes to the Bay Area in the near term."

Benicia Mayor Steve Young said the refining facility will likely become a "tank farm" where Valero will continue to import, store, and distribute gasoline. The city anticipates losing annual tax revenues of approximately $7.7 million to $8 million — about 12% of its general fund, Young told KPIX CBS news.

Because California refineries provide approximately 86% of Nevada’s and one-third of Arizona’s motor fuel, these states are also highly vulnerable to significant price increases and supply disruptions.

University of Houston Energy Fellow Ed Hirs said the closure of the Benicia refinery is another step in California’s transition to cleaner fuels that pushes fossil fuels companies to relocate production outside the state. Oil refiner Union 76, Phillips 66 and Valero have all shut down refineries in the state in recent years, Hirs noted.

“In California, it is expensive to produce the oil. It’s difficult to transport the oil, and it's increasingly more expensive to refine it,” said Hirs. “The refineries must operate under environmental restrictions that it doesn't compensate anyone to rebuild, refurbish them, because in some cases because they are as much as a hundred years old and it would be expensive."

Hirs said higher prices paid by California’s drivers will be borne disproportionately by the working poor, who need their vehicles to get to work and farm their lands. The costs of gasoline make up a large percentage of the expenditures of those with low incomes, and their personal finances are sensitive to higher gasoline prices, he said.

Refiners now supplying motor fuels in California will be able to raise their prices to match the higher prices that consumers will pay for gasoline imports, Hirs said.

Phillips 66 and midstream oil and gas company Kinder Morgan are considering a joint venture, called the Western Gateway Pipeline Project, that would pair a 1,300-mile-long pipeline running from Borger, Texas, to Phoenix with a reversed segment of the existing Santa Fe Pacific West system, which could deliver refined fuels to Southern California, according to Industrial Information Resources, an industry publication.

Brian Mandell, head of marketing and commercial operations at Phillips 66, said in a recent quarterly earnings call that his company will continue to import barrels into California by sea. But he added the Western Gateway project could serve the California market. “All our Mid-Continent refineries can make Arizona-grade gasoline and California-grade gasoline. So we see the pipeline as a great opportunity for California, for Arizona, for Nevada and for all the potential shippers."

California may not reduce pollution overall by adopting policies that lead refiners to process oil outside the state and then import by pipeline, said Hirs. “Through the state’s policies, California isn’t reducing pollution much, they're just outsourcing it to someplace else."

California’s drivers pay the nation’s highest taxes and fees on gasoline, which amount to approximately $1.30 of each gallon purchased. This compares with 20 to 30 cents per gallon in most states in the South and Midwest.

(The Center Square) – Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes on Tuesday announced the largest settlement against a home warranty company in the state's history.

The nearly $12 million settlement involves Choice Home Warranty, a New Jersey-based service contract company operating in Arizona and other states.

The Democratic attorney general began a Phoenix news conference by saying that “Choice Home Warranty denies the allegations and has not admitted any wrongdoing as part of this settlement agreement." She went on to tell reporters the settlement stems from a 2019 lawsuit alleging the company “spent years exploiting Arizona families, veterans, and senior citizens.”

That, said Mayes, is something she will not allow as attorney general.

“Companies that prey on our most vulnerable residents hide behind the fine print and pocket millions while leaving hardworking Arizonans without the protection that they've paid for and desperately needed,” said Mayes. “These were not simple misunderstandings or a few isolated incidents.”

According to Mayes, since 2013, more than 1,500 Arizona consumers have filed complaints against this company with the Attorney General’s Office, the Arizona Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions, and the Better Business Bureau.

“They paid for warranties believing they would cover major repairs or replacements when air conditioning units failed in the brutal Arizona heat, or when their water heaters gave out, or when their appliances broke down. But when they [consumers] needed that coverage the most, Choice Home Warranty was not there for them,” said Mayes. “Instead, we heard from customers who told us that they found themselves on the phone with sales representatives who had failed to disclose critical exclusions and limitations, and in some cases, these representatives had apparently outright lied about what the warranties would cover.”

One of the Arizonans featured at Tuesday’s press conference was homeowner and Choice Home Warranty customer Roger Pencek. In June 2019, when temperatures in Phoenix reached 108 degrees, his air conditioning compressor failed.

“I filed a claim, but what followed was not the process designed to help,” Pencek told reporters. “It was a process allegedly designed to avoid paying.”

Choice Home Warranty’s technician determined “clearly and unequivocally that the compressor had failed due to normal wear and tear,” which the warranty is supposed to cover, Pencek said.

But he added, “Choice Home Warranty authorization department took that technician’s honest diagnosis and re-characterized it as language that conveniently converted that covered claim to a denied claim.”

Pencek said that while in his presence, the technician called Choice Home Warranty three times in a single day to reaffirm that his diagnosis was normal wear and tear. Even so, Pencek said, “Choice ignored him.”

Mayes also told reporters Tuesday that “Choice Home Warranty had already been investigated and settled with the New Jersey Attorney General's Office in 2015 for $789,000” before “expanding their operations and selling policies to consumers all across the country,” including Arizona.

When approached for comment, Choice Home Warranty told The Center Square that it is pleased to have reached a resolution with the Arizona Attorney General’s Office regarding these claims.

“Importantly, the resolution includes no finding of wrongdoing, no admission of liability, and no civil penalties,” James E. Mostofi, CEO of Choice Home Warranty, told The Center Square Tuesday. “While we strongly believe our practices have always been fair and compliant, we agreed to reimburse the State of Arizona for certain legal costs in order to put this long-running matter fully behind us and avoid further expense and distraction.”

Mostofi added that, for more than a decade, Choice Home Warranty has focused on delivering reliable service and peace of mind to homeowners nationwide.

“We appreciate the opportunity to close this chapter and remain committed to serving our customers with integrity, clarity and accountability,” said Mostofi.

The lawsuit was filed in October 2019 by then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich.

During Tuesday's press conference, Mayes didn't answer questions about the Republican-controlled Legislature's resolutions calling for her resignation following her comments about federal immigration officers. Mayes has refused to resign, as reported previously by The Center Square.

Editor's note: This story has been updated since its original publication.

(The Center Square) - Attorney General Kris Mayes will not resign from office after the state House and state Senate both passed resolutions condemning her and calling for her resignation, according to Richie Taylor, her communications director.

“She will not stop defending the Constitution she swore an oath to uphold,” Taylor told The Center Square, answering questions by email this week.

Last week, the Republican-controlled state House passed House Resolution 2004, 33 to 25, censuring Mayes and calling for her resignation after the Democratic attorney general’s comments about people legally being able to shoot masked federal law enforcement including immigration officers. Mayes cited Arizona's Stand Your Ground law, but later denied she was encouraging people to shoot the officers.

The state House’s action follows the Republican-controlled state Senate's passage of a resolution condemning Mayes and urging her to resign.

“An attorney general who speaks carelessly about deadly force against police officers has no business holding that office," Rep. Joseph Chaplik, R-Fountain Hills, said.

He added that Mayes’ remarks were not a “slip of the tongue.”

“These reckless statements, which she has refused to retract, put officers in danger. When the top law enforcement official in the state fuels confusion, criminals listen and peace officers pay the price,” Chaplik stated.

Taylor told The Center Square that “Republicans in the legislature are attacking Attorney General Mayes because she is one of the most effective attorneys general in the nation.”

“For weeks, they have twisted her words to deflect from what we can all see — that Donald Trump's lawless immigration enforcement is trampling our Constitution and making everyone, including law enforcement, less safe,” Taylor said.

The communications director said Republicans “know Arizonans don't support this administration's shredding of our Constitution, so they've resorted to passing meaningless resolutions to avoid talking about ICE's abuses of power.”

“They know Attorney General Mayes speaks for the people of this state in rejecting the tactics used by the Trump administration,” Taylor said.

Senate Majority Leader John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, told The Center Square this week that he supports the state House's action to pass a resolution censuring Mayes.

Kavanagh, who sponsored Senate Resolution 1036, said the “misstatements the attorney general made endangered law enforcement and misled the public.”

“Her refusal to retract and correct compounded that problem, so she needed to be condemned and urged to resign,” he noted.

The senator told The Center Square that Taylor's comment “does not address any of the legal criticisms directed at her.”

“She [Mayes] can’t defend her erroneous statements,” he noted.

Kavanagh said the Arizona Legislature has the option of impeaching Mayes, but it requires a two-thirds majority vote, which is something the Republicans “could never get.”

He added that impeaching Mayes is a “useless endeavor.”

The Arizona Constitution authorizes the state House to bring impeachment charges against an elected official. The state House would only need a simple majority vote to have an elected official tried for impeachment in the state Senate, where a two-thirds vote is required to convict.

In the state Senate, Republicans hold 17 seats and Democrats 13. If Mayes were impeached, it would require 20 state senators to convict her and remove her from office. That means Republicans would need three Democrats to vote with them, which Kavanagh said wouldn't happen.

Mayes didn't answer any questions about the call for her resignation during a news conference Tuesday morning in Phoenix on an unrelated matter.

(The Center Square) - Officials negotiating to protect and redefine use of the Colorado River face a major deadline approaching on Feb. 14.

And experts said an agreement is unlikely to come in time for the river, which is a major source of drinking water, irrigation and hydropower in seven western states.

The deadline on a new Colorado River water use deal was set for last November, but got pushed back after an initial agreement was not reached. As the second deadline looms, the U.S. government has retained the right to impose a contract on the states.

"Water fundamentally underscores all aspects of life in the American Southwest,” said John Berggren, regional policy manager at Western Resource Advocates, an environmental policy group.

“It's such a diverse and complicated system that it’s a challenge to manage or create new guidelines," Berggren told The Center Square.

The Colorado River provides drinking water for roughly 40 million people across seven states, over 30 Indigenous tribes and Mexico. The river has been consistently depleted for the last quarter of a century amid droughts and overuse by people, largely for agriculture. River usage has been negotiated for decades, with the current 2007 agreement set to expire this year.

Governors from six Colorado River Basin states (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming) and a high-level California representative met late January in Washington, D.C., for an unprecedented crunch-time negotiation. The meeting with the U.S. Department of Interior took place behind closed doors, but no agreement was made, with no indication that the Feb. 14 deadline will be met.

Several governors expressed cautious optimism after the meeting. “Today’s discussion was productive and reflected the seriousness this moment requires,” Colorado Gov. Jared Polis said in a news release.

“I leave today hopeful that we’ll avoid the path of litigation,” said Utah Gov. Spencer Cox. “No one wins going down that path.”

But litigation could soon be on the table. Current negotiations have been ongoing for the last two and a half years, with state leaders agreeing if negotiations went to court it would be a failure.

“We're hearing about states building up their litigation funds, and that's really concerning because that means that they're not close to a deal, which is catastrophic for the basin,” said Berggren. “It puts us into a whole bunch of uncertainty and most likely means one or more states are going to sue. That will drive the system, which is already in a pretty dire situation, just off the cliff.”

Hang-ups around the negotiations start with the original 1922 Colorado River Compact, or “Law of the River,” which allocated 15 million acre-feet of water to be drawn per year, despite there never being that much water in the river. Today, there is even less, between 12 and 11 million acre-feet.

While Mexico was later allocated a relatively small portion of the river rights, Indigenous tribes have historically been, and continue to be, left out of the negotiations. Tribal inclusion in the negotiations has slightly increased in recent years.

But “it’s nowhere near what it needs to be,” said Berggren. “These are sovereign nations that have water rights claims or water rights settlements that the United States has a responsibility to uphold, and they're not at the decision-making table. That's a huge wrong and it needs to be righted.”

Many Colorado River experts agree a large part of the overall Colorado River negotiation issue is how outdated some of the laws and regulations are today. The original water usage regulations came out of 1800s' first-come, first-served rights mining laws. The dams and other river infrastructure were built in the 1900s, but continue to be used by a population facing today's issues including climate change.

“What that all means is we're having to find creative ways to use less water everywhere,” Berggren told The Center Square.

At the moment, each state argues it has sacrificed more than its fair share. Much of the debate between states falls along an upper-lower basin boundary.

Upper Basin Colorado River states are required to allow a certain amount of water to flow to Lower Basin states each year, but the two groups do not agree how much that is. Meanwhile, Lower Basin states like Nevada, California and Arizona have grown drastically over recent decades and consumed far more water than Upper-Basin states.

“The solution is everyone needs to use less water,” said Berggren. “And so people just need to accept that. Let's start being constructive with how we are going to find ways to use less water across the basin.”

Despite the gravity of the situation, experts have said there is reason for optimism by improved water efficiency. Perhaps the best example of this is Las Vegas, which has become the poster child of Colorado River water conservation in recent years.

Las Vegas’ population increased by roughly 829,000 residents between 2002 and 2024, but the city used 38 billion less gallons in 2024 – a 55% per capita decline in water usage, according to the Las Vegas Valley Water District. Much of this has been attributed to water recycling initiatives and regulations around watering lawns and other spaces. Further water usage cuts for the area are set for 2027 that include irrigation bans for unused medians and roundabouts with Colorado River water.

“We have solutions, and we just need to implement them,” said Berggren. “We can have a thriving river in the American Southwest with the recreational, agricultural and all the other economies also thriving – if we're smarter about the way we manage our limited water supplies.”

The federal government has not yet indicated if it will delay the deadline again or begin to exercise its authority on the Colorado River. Berggren said he thought the Trump administration would take action if the states miss the Feb. 14 deadline. “That's incredibly unfortunate, and that just shows that the feds will just have to move forward the best they can.”

Berggren predicted the dispute over water will end up before the nation's highest court.

“Because it's an interstate compact, it'll go before the Supreme Court,” said Berggren. “And so instead of communities here in the Colorado River Basin deciding how we're going to use less water, it's going to be the Supreme Court justices saying who's going to be the winner and loser. And I don't know anyone who feels confident that they will be a winner in that situation, because there's a risk for everyone to be a loser.”

The Colorado River is a waterway with countless ecosystems and species that rely on its flow. At the delta of the river in Mexico, the river has dried up from decades of overuse, where Berggren said he has stood in the dried up river bed.

“I think rivers are the coolest thing I've ever experienced,” Berggren said. “There's nothing like doing a multi-day rafting trip on a river like the Colorado River – it's life changing. You really get to experience that this is a living, breathing thing.”

(The Center Square) - Gov. Katie Hobbs signed a bill on Friday into law that will move up Arizona’s primary.

Alex Kolodin, R-Fountain Hills, introduced House Bill 2022, which changes the election from the first Tuesday in August to the last Tuesday in July.

The new primary election date is set for July 21 this year. The change was made to allow more time to process ballots from voters who are in the military.

The Arizona House passed it 56-4, and the Senate passed it 27-1.

In addition to changing the primary election date, HB 2022 changes the language from “business days” to “calendar days” for the review of provisional ballots.

In federal elections, provisional ballots must be reviewed within seven calendar days; in other elections, within five calendar days, the new law states.

HB 2022 allows county party chairs to name official party observers at ballot replacement locations. Observers must be Arizona residents registered to vote.

The law also allows political parties to place challengers at voting centers, including in-person voting and emergency voting locations.

HB 2022 permits petitions listing the old August primary date to remain valid, including paper petitions and electronic signature collection.

After the bill passed, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said his office will “work diligently to ensure candidates and voters alike are made aware of the new timeline this election year.”

"I am grateful for the swift work of the legislature in ushering this bill's ultimate passage. It is a solid reminder that bipartisan efforts can still benefit every Arizona voter,” he noted.

In the Senate, Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, introduced SB 1425, the companion bill to HB 2022.

The new primary election date is intended to ensure military service members' ballots are mailed in on time.

Rogers, who is a U.S. Air Force veteran, told The Center Square by email that “it is vital our right to vote as military serving away from home is protected, even as laws change.”

Arizona has moved its primary election date a few times up in the last decade. Rogers said the changes "did not impact turnout in any real way.” She noted the reasons are that Arizonans primarily vote by mail and primaries traditionally have low voter turnout.

With Arizona now allowing political party observers to be at voting locations, “transparency is key to ensuring confidence in any government function, especially so with elections," Rogers said.

“Voters must be reassured by the system and thus confident in its outcome,” she added.

Rogers told The Center Square that her bill and HB 2022 were designed to permit "enough time in the election calendar for all necessary administrative steps of an election to occur.”

(The Center Square) - Arizona needs to pursue free market solutions to remain a leader in the data center industry, according to a new report.

The Goldwater Institute presented that conclusion when it released a report titled “Data Centers: A Free Market Model for the Digital Future."

William Beard, a municipal affairs liaison at the Goldwater Institute, told The Center Square that data centers are digital information sources.

Phoenix, Arizona’s largest city, is one of the top places in America for data centers, the report noted. Upwind, a cybersecurity company, said Phoenix is projected to see a 553% increase in data center capacity.

Beard noted Arizona is thriving as a leader in data centers and policymakers must take steps to ensure that continues.

The report said Arizona has been a place people have wanted to locate data centers due to its “safety and stability”, “favorable economics” and “strategic position.” The state’s location is sought after by data center companies because Arizona does not experience severe weather events, the report said.

It also stated Arizona provides strong tax incentives, affordable land lot developments and a free enterprise environment.

To continue its success in the data center industry, Arizona needs to keep regulatory barriers to entry low, Beard said.

The report recommended the Arizona state government set clear zoning and permitting rules so that investment “can move forward predictably and efficiently.”

As data centers have become more prevalent in Arizona, local jurisdictions have tried to regulate them. The report noted Phoenix and other cities have used “regulatory backlash” against data centers.

Last year, Phoenix implemented new zoning regulations around data centers. The city now requires them to have special permits for noise, grid impacts, fire safety and power demands.

Cities such as Mesa and Chandler have also passed zoning regulations. Mesa implemented zoning standards around water usage, location, electricity and noise levels. Chandler included zoning standards for location and noise levels.

The report stated the backlash for these areas is “driven not by evidence, but by persistent myths — particularly surrounding electricity and water usage — that mischaracterize how modern data centers actually operate.”

The conversation policy people, politicians and public members are having surrounding data centers across the country, including in Arizona, is one based on fear, Beard said.

The topics of free markets, lower regulation and private property rights are missing from these conversations, he added.

When it comes to data centers, many politicians at the state and local levels are forgetting these principles, especially private property rights, Beard explained.

When private rights are violated, especially in Arizona, the consequences are serious, he noted.

Arizona passed Proposition 207 in 2006, which allows property owners to receive just compensation if their property declines in value due to regulatory changes. It also prevents the seizure of people’s property for economic development.

The report said cities that attempt to violate the proposition expose themselves to “significant” legal risk.

Two concerns surrounding data centers are water usage and power.

The centers have “one of the highest efficiency rates” of “inputs versus outputs” of power and water, Beard told The Center Square.

The concerns about water usage and increased power consumption are no different than when a new technology came along in the past and “revolutionized things,” Beard said.

“ The resource allocation changed. But the ability to use those resources and use them more effectively and efficiently was dramatically increased,” Beard explained.

The report stated rising electricity prices are the result of state policy choices rather than data centers. Electricity prices since 2021 have gone up nearly 30% nationwide, the report said.

“The real pressure comes from energy mandates and regulatory regimes that sideline reliable power and discourage infrastructure expansion,” the report explained.

From a power perspective, many data centers generate on-site power while also using solar and wind, Beard said. He added the centers also have battery storage onsite to maintain “peak power consumption throughout the day.”

For example, he highlighted the Tucson data center known as Project Blue. Beard said critics warned this project would increase consumers' electric bills.

However, he said, when a large consumer in any market puts out consistent power daily, it will subsidize the average consumer, such as small businesses or residential customers.

Data centers have long existed, but they are now becoming more efficient and larger, he explained.

Regarding water usage, current technology allows data centers to recycle water for reuse, Beard said.

The report noted market-driven solutions such as “closed loop cooling, aircooled designs and reclaimed water” have “reduced or eliminated portable water use.”

To illustrate, Meta’s data center in Mesa is going to be “60% more water efficient than the average data center,” said David Williams, Meta’s community development manager for the Mesa data center, according to SiteSelection.

Williams also said the facility would be “supported by 100% renewable energy.”

Looking ahead, the report said, “Arizona’s success has never come from fear-driven regulation, but from predictable rules, respect for property rights, and a willingness to let innovation work within an economic environment that supports free enterprise.”