Center Square News

(The Center Square) - Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to stop the buildout of an immigration detention facility in the city of Surprise.

Mayes accused the Trump administration of running “roughshod over federal law in its rush to expand detention capacity across the country.”

“We will do everything in our power to demand accountability from the federal government and to protect the health and safety of this community," she said.

Mayes alleged the federal government had neither conducted nor made public environmental reviews before deciding to convert the Phoenix area warehouse into a detention center, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.

Furthermore, she alleged the detention facility violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, which mandates the federal government to find a suitable spot for immigration detention.

“The Surprise Warehouse is not (and will never be) suitable for use as a mass detention facility,” the lawsuit said.

Mayes said the warehouse was built as an industrial distribution facility. The Democratic attorney general added that since the federal government has not conducted any environmental reviews, Arizona does not know how it plans to modify the warehouse for the new detention facility.

“As constructed, the Surprise Warehouse almost certainly does not have the appropriate water and wastewater infrastructure to safely (and humanely) house hundreds of people,” the lawsuit said.

Mayes noted the proposed facility, which can hold between 500 and 1,500 people, is across the street from Rinchem, a facility that stores hazardous chemicals, and is approximately one mile from a high school and a middle school.

“The location of the Surprise Warehouse will increase traffic and negatively impact the municipality and State’s ability to protect public health and provide emergency services, particularly in the event of an accident involving the chemical storage warehouse located across the street,” the lawsuit said.

Regarding Rinchem’s chemical storage, Mayes said the warehouse’s risk management plan was filed on Jan. 1, 2026, which was three weeks before the announcement of the ICE facility.

According to the lawsuit, Rinchem’s risk management plan “does not consider the potential hazards incurred by the presence of a mass detention facility next door, nor does it contemplate risk mitigation measures responding to the same.”

A DHS spokesperson told The Center Square Monday that the lawsuit is “not about the environment, but rather “trying to stop President Trump from making America safe.”

“The flood of illegal aliens at the border under [President Joe] Biden was devastating for ranches and riverbeds, but the left did not lift a finger. They’re feigning concern now because they want to obstruct the President from removing dangerous criminals,” the spokesperson said, answering The Center Square's questions by email.

“Prior to purchasing this site, ICE carefully evaluated the use of existing facilities to help minimize environmental impacts, including potential impacts to protected species, sensitive natural resources, and valued cultural resources,” the spokesperson added.

Brent Peak, the co-chair of Northwest Valley Indivisible, an organization opposing the detention facility, told The Center Square Monday that seeing the lawsuit filed against the DHS was “extremely validating [and] gratifying.”

“There are a whole host of reasons why [Surprise] is a bad place for a mass detention facility. It will never be an appropriate place,” he said.

Due to chemicals being stored near the location of the detention facility, Peak said the “requirements to build out that facility are practically inviable, if not impossible, to make it a safe place, not just for the detainees, but for employees [and] local people who will be working there.”

“ I fully expect that DHS is gonna walk away from this project within the next few months,” he said.

According to Peak, Northwest Valley Indivisible held two meetings with staffers from the attorney general’s office.

“They did not confirm or deny that they were working on it. They simply said, ‘Thank you for bringing this to our attention,’” he noted.

At the next Surprise City Council meeting on May 5, Peak said members of Northwest Valley Indivisible will hold up signs saying “You're Welcome.” He noted they will not be holding a demonstration or protest.

Northwest Valley Indivisible will “continue keeping the issue front and center until it’s confirmed that this ICE warehouse has been abandoned,” Peak said.

(The Center Square) - Arizona’s permitting system is causing delays to finish residential projects, according to a new report.

Common Sense Institute Arizona released a report that showed, on average, the state’s localized permitting system adds an extra 23 days to residential project timelines.

Glenn Farley, the CSI’s policy and research director, told The Center Square that Arizona’s permitting system is “highly decentralized,” noting the state has 106 permitting jurisdictions that work independently of each other.

Arizona gives its local governments a “large amount of autonomy and authority on the things they regulate,” such as permitting, Farley said.

He noted these jurisdictions can “define terms and set processes,” which results in “very little consistency and a lot of uncertainty and time delays for homeowners.”

In the report, CSI analyzed nearly 3 million permit records across 29 permitting jurisdictions, representing almost 75% of the state’s population. It found that these jurisdictions issued permits at different rates.

The report said 50% of permits were issued within four days, while 10% took over a month. Furthermore, the slowest 1% of permits took over four months to get.

In total, project timelines ranged from under 40 days to over 107 days, depending on the jurisdiction's ability to issue permits.

James Ashley, the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona’s municipal affairs director, told The Center Square that Arizona’s permitting system is “inconsistent.”

Ashley said he would like to see more “consistency” in the permitting system with “quicker time frames.”

According to Ashley, one of the biggest complaints members of the HBACA have about the permitting system surrounds standard plan reviews, which are a jurisdiction’s location and design requirements for a home.

He said the association’s members have faced “significant challenges and inconsistency among municipalities.”

“So many of the requirements are subjective,” he added.

He said home builders have “excessive back and forth” with municipalities regarding standard plan reviews.

Ashley called time delays “very costly.”

“Builders want to start building, and there’s a home buyer waiting for that home,” he said. “Any delay in permit or certificate of occupancy issuance will leave buyers in limbo.”

An idea Ashley suggested was to set a fixed number of days for issuing a permit. If it is not issued within that timespan, the permit is automatically approved, according to Ashley's proposal.

On top of this, Farley said the state could standardize codes and definitions. He added that contractors often work across multiple jurisdictions and must stay up to date on various codes.

With so many jurisdictions, Farley said, it “makes it difficult for contractors and homeowners to know what the expectations are or to have a consistent experience.”

Farley said when Arizona jurisdictions have standardized select processes, it has led to “positive results.”

The report noted jurisdictions that used SolarAPP+, which allows contractor self-certification for rooftop solar systems, issued permits in six days, compared to 17 days for jurisdictions that didn’t use it.

Also, the report found that jurisdictions that allowed contractor self-certification reduced project timelines by 40 days.

Farley said affordability has been a topic for the last few years at the Capitol in Phoenix.

“From the veto of the bipartisan Starter Homes Act two years ago, to the failure of policymakers to move meaningful reform this year, the state continues to struggle to fix its housing rules,” he added.

The Starter Homes Act attempted to increase housing supply by limiting local governments' zoning control.

(The Center Square) - Arizona Republicans are seeking to protect the Colorado River as its water supply continues to dwindle.

State Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert; state House Speaker Steve Montenegro, R-Surprise, and other Arizona Republicans recently met with the Trump administration, urging the federal government to use the Colorado River Storage Project Act.

The 1956 law allowed the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to create dams and reservoirs in the Upper Colorado River Basin while also managing its water resources among Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The river also provides water to the lower basin states of Arizona, California and Nevada.

Arizona Senate Republicans asked the Trump administration to release water from the reservoirs to protect hydropower generation and stop low water levels.

According to Montenegro, “Lake Mead and Lake Powell are running dangerously low, at just 25% to 33%, while reservoirs in the Upper Basin are nearly full, between 82% and 97%.”

“It is clearly evident from the dire situation that the water sitting upstream must be released so it can flow downstream to Lake Powell,” he said.

Lake Mead and Lake Powell are the primary water storage sources for Arizona’s water from the Colorado River.

In addition to a request to release the water, the Senate Republicans laid out a plan that included long-term strategies to stabilize the Colorado River, such as $1 billion annually in federal funds for any future agreement to compensate Colorado River users for voluntary conservation.

The plan also proposes that states relying on the Colorado River and Mexico use a reverse auction format rather than a fixed price per acre-foot to maximize water saved per dollar.

Arizona state Republicans’ plan additionally seeks to dedicate federal funding to building a new dam or a desalination project.

The Republicans’ plan “provides options to help stabilize the Colorado River system over time," Petersen said, answering The Center Square's questions by email.

However, he added the “timeline depends on several factors,” such as “how quickly the federal government can act to release or appropriate resources, and how many Colorado River users are willing to voluntarily conserve water.”

Regarding the potential for Arizona to commit state funds to match the $1 billion annual federal investment proposal, Petersen said a “potential state contribution would be evaluated through the normal budget process in partnership with stakeholders and lawmakers.”

“The immediate priority is securing a meaningful federal commitment because the Colorado River is a regional and national resource," the Senate president said. "Arizona has consistently shown a willingness to invest in long-term water security."

Petersen said Arizona will need both long-term and short-term solutions. In the short term, he said Arizona will need to respond to the “Bureau of Reclamation’s latest 24-month outlook, which shows challenges greater than anything we have seen in the history of the Colorado River.”

The outlook shows that Lake Powell will be stabilized through water-level management to avoid low levels, while Lake Mead remains in a shortage, so the bureau will cut water deliveries to Arizona, Nevada and Colorado.

The 24-month outlook also says the Colorado River is at about 40% of its normal yearly inflow.

In the long term, Petersen said, “Responsible leadership means investing in augmentation and new water supplies, including projects like desalination, so we can support continued growth across the Southwest.”

A day after meeting with Arizona Republicans, U.S. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum met with governors from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming to discuss the Colorado River’s water shortage.

“Interior and Reclamation continue to coordinate with the basin states, tribes, Mexico and basin stakeholders as we make the decisions necessary to operate and protect the system, ” Burgum said.

Assistant Secretary-Water and Science Andrea Travnicek said it is “imperative” for the federal government to take “action quickly to protect a resource that supplies water to 40 million people and supports vital agricultural, hydropower production, tribal, wildlife, and recreational uses across the region.”

“The Department of the Interior and Reclamation remain fully committed to taking the actions necessary to reduce impacts on water deliveries, safeguard critical infrastructure, and preserve as much operational flexibility as possible,” she said.

In February, the states that use the Colorado River for water missed a deadline to reach an agreement on water use. Current guidelines will expire at the end of 2026.

(The Center Square) - A new permanent tax deduction will have a big boost on Arizona’s economy, according to a new report.

The National Federation of Independent Business released a report showing that the 20% small business deduction, made permanent in federal law by the Big Beautiful Bill Act, will create an extra 26,000 jobs annually in Arizona over the next 10 years.

The report also said the tax deduction will increase the state’s gross domestic product by $1.4 billion annually over the same time span.

NFIB’s report shows after 2035, Arizona will see an additional 49,000 jobs created annually, and its GDP will increase by $2.9 billion each year.

Chad Heinrich, NFIB’s Arizona state director, said this permanent tax policy is the “greatest, invisible mega project in Arizona history” because of the jobs it will create.

Small businesses can make these investments when they have “tax certainty,” Heinrich told The Center Square this week.

“Business owners can go out, create jobs, expand their business and grow Arizona’s economy collectively,” he noted.

With the tax policy being made permanent at the federal level, it saves Arizona small businesses “from a significant tax increase,” the state director said.

According to Heinrich, the 20% small business deduction is from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which was intended “to level the playing field” for small businesses because “big corporations were getting a lower [tax] rate.”

Glenn Farley, the policy and research director for the Common Sense Institute Arizona, told The Center Square this week that the TCJA lowered the corporate tax rate from 40% to 21%.

Farley said this provided an advantage to big companies filing taxes, but left small businesses at a tax disadvantage because they did not benefit from the tax break.

Small businesses file individual income taxes while big businesses file under the corporate income tax system, Farley said, noting the bill included the tax deduction to help small businesses.

For example, Farley said that if a business made $100,000 in a year, it would get a $20,000 deduction, meaning it would pay individual income taxes on $80,000.

Since the TCJA became law, Farley said, there is ample evidence that manufacturing and commercial activity have increased in Arizona.

“State revenues took off after 2017. A lot of this goes back to the provisions in the TCJA and the state’s decision to conform to them,” he said.

Uncertainty around this tax provision and other tax conformity issues remains unresolved in Arizona, as the state has not yet passed its annual conformity bill, which aligns its tax policies with the federal government’s.

If Arizona passes a tax conformity bill that does not include the tax deduction, the potential new job and GDP growth will go away, Farley said.

However, if Arizona fails to pass a tax conformity bill, the state’s conformity to federal tax law will be left up to the Arizona Department of Revenue, Farley said, noting this year’s interpretation includes the tax deduction.

This session, Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed two tax conformity bills that the Arizona Legislature sent her.

Heinrich said the Republican-controlled Legislature and the Democratic governor need to “follow through and make sure” the state conforms “to the key business provisions in federal law.”

“If I am a business and I have all this uncertainty about how Arizona’s going to treat these investments, that may reduce my likelihood to actually make those purchases in Arizona,” Farley said.

For decades, cynics have used extremely rare cases of government misspending to demonize entire groups using public assistance. In the 1970s, the stereotype was a Cadillac-driving welfare recipient. Now, it’s a school choice parent and Legos. Over time, the “welfare queen” stereotype was found to be rooted in exaggeration and biases. New research questions popular narratives around school choice parents as well.

A new study, which I co-authored with Susan Pendergrass, offers a more rigorous and comprehensive look at the extent of irresponsible spending in Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program than what was previously published in local news or by the Arizona Department of Education (ADE).

We estimate an unallowable spending rate of less than 2%. Most of the unallowable purchases were from relatively innocuous purchases like cleaning supplies or backpacks. When narrowing down unallowable purchases to the expensive items, unallowable spending was just 0.2% of all program spending. These numbers could easily get lower with some strategic administration by ADE.

To understand why these numbers are so much lower than numbers previously circulated, it is helpful to know the channels through which families can spend ESA money.

The largest spending channel is called Direct Pay, which accounts for 54% of total money spent through the program but just 18% of all transactions. The second largest spending channel is Reimbursement, which makes up 37% of money spent despite being only 8% of all transactions.

The smallest spending channel is Marketplace, which effectively is a collection of over 100 state-approved places to shop online. Marketplace makes up just 9% of all program spending but 73% of all transactions that occur. This is predominately where controversial spending stories originate from, and the program’s unallowable spending rate is heavily weighted by Marketplace. But because the average Marketplace purchase is just $59, its unallowable spending is just 1.26% of total program spending.

Altogether, even including the much smaller rates of unallowable spending in Direct Pay and Reimbursement, we estimate unallowable spending would round up to 2% of the total spend.

Our study aids public understanding of Arizona’s ESA program by offering a significantly stronger confidence level and margin of error than in ADE’s self-audit. We also offer a comprehensive picture of program spending rather than limiting our scope to the riskiest categories.

It is crucial to look at unallowable spending rates and not simply unallowable transaction rates. Ultimately, we care about unallowable spending because it is taxpayer dollars getting lost. If one only looks at quantities of transactions, one treats paper towels as consequential to taxpayers as a thousand-dollar computer graphics card.

If ADE tried just getting its unallowable transaction rate as low as possible, it risks losing much of the money it saves to enforcement costs, leading to no ultimate improvement in public benefit. Arizona is seeing that problem right now when it comes to SNAP enforcement. Because federal penalties are based on transactions and not spending, the state has to spend enormous resources focusing on tiny unallowable purchases.

ADE can do better if it focuses on systemic and technological improvements. For one, it should improve clarity. ADE’s allowable and unallowable item lists have large gray areas and are sometimes self-contradicting. Clarity here will make compliance easier both for families and administrators. Additionally, ADE can use technological resources seen in other ESA states that prevent users from selecting clearly noneducational products in the first place.

While there is low-hanging fruit for improving stewardship of taxpayer dollars, evidence suggests public outcry over Arizona’s ESA is dramatically disproportionate to what is actually seen in the transaction data.

(The Center Square) - Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap criticized the Arizona county's Board of Supervisors for voting to appeal a judge’s decision that said Heap's office was in control of critical election functions.

On Wednesday, board members voted 4-1 in favor of appealing a judge’s decision that made the board relinquish control of certain election functions in the state's most populous county.

The Superior Court of Arizona ruled that board members needed to fund Heap’s necessary expenses and not use the county’s budget to force Heap to give up his statutory responsibilities regarding elections.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney said the board’s transfer and continued control of the recorder’s "IT [information technology] staff, servers, databases, software and websites” prevents Heap from carrying out “his statutory duties independently.”

Blaney added that it “constitutes an unlawful usurpation of the Recorder's statutory authority.”

The judge also said Heap “has consistently expressed willingness to cooperate with the Board.”

“The Court does not see the same willingness from the Board,” he noted.

Blaney ruled the board needed to return the recorders’ IT staff, servers, databases, software and websites back to Heap or fund their replacement. Also, he said Heap maintained his authority over statutory election duties unless he delegates them.

The judge said the board could not exercise its election functions without Heap's consent.

Board Chair Kate Brophy McGee said in a statement that the judge’s “ruling contradicts itself and injects uncertainty into the process just weeks before the upcoming elections.”

“As early voting begins this week for the May 19 jurisdictional elections, voters and election officials need clear guidance on how these elections are to be administered,” McGee said. “To protect our staff and the voters they serve, the Board has voted to seek a stay of this harmful order and, if one is not granted, to file an appeal promptly.”

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

Heap called the board's appeal decision “disappointing, but not surprising.”

“The law has always been clear. The Court reaffirmed that clarity after months of deliberation. Further appeals by the Board will only extend this conflict, waste more taxpayer money and further erode voter confidence in the Board's ability to administer elections,” Heap said.

“While the Board delays, the Recorder’s Office remains focused on delivering secure, accessible elections and stands ready to move forward in compliance with the Court’s ruling,” he added.

In an interview with The Center Square before the board’s vote, Heap said he hoped the supervisors would not appeal the ruling because he didn’t think that would be in voters' best interests. “We need clarity as we go into this next election."

The recorder said he is still “ready to work hand in hand with the board.”

“I will do everything I can with the board to make sure they’re successful as we are in delivering safe, secure and lawful elections that the voters can trust,” he noted.

Heap said the board's decision to appeal could delay the case by another six months to one year.

The ongoing legal battle between the board and Heap comes in a county with a history of taking a long time to compile election results.

According to Heap, one factor preventing Maricopa County from releasing its election results on time is an Arizona law that allows people to drop off their mail-in ballots until 7 p.m. on Election Day.

If the county receives a large number of mail-in ballots arriving near the deadline, they will not be processed or verified until the following day, Heap told The Center Square.

To speed up election results, Maricopa County “streamlined the workflow” and added more staff to the signature verification process, he said.

With his new system in place, Heap said he thinks races can be called the day after Election Day rather than face long delays.

“The voters want a more trustworthy system, but they also want results faster," Heap said. "We’re doing everything we can to make sure that we meet both those goals."

(The Center Square) - Arizona local government policies restricting federal immigration enforcement from performing their duties are illegal because state law overrides local law, according to experts.

In recent months, local jurisdictions have passed policies aimed at impeding federal officers from conducting operations.

In February in Southern Arizona, the Pima County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution that banned federal law enforcement from using county-owned property without permission for civil immigration enforcement activities. (Pima is the state's second-most populous county and is home to Tucson.)

The next month, the Phoenix City Council approved an initiative requiring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to obtain the city's permission before conducting operations within it.

State Republicans filed legal complaints with Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office regarding these two local government actions.

Both complaints cite Arizona law that states “no official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.”

John Kincaid, the president of the Center for the Study of Federalism, told The Center Square that “if state law says local governments have to cooperate, then they have to do that because state law is supreme over local law.”

Andrew Arthur, who is the Center for Immigration Studies’ resident fellow in law and policy, also said “state law is going to trump” local law and overrule decisions made at the local level.

According to Kincaid, a professor at Lafayette College in Easton, Pa., if states don’t have a law in effect requiring local governments to enforce federal immigration laws, then local governments are not required to do so.

Kincaid said because of “dual sovereignty” in America’s federal system, “state and local governments are not obligated to assist the federal government in carrying out its functions.”

“They are not obligated to enforce federal law,” he said.

Kincaid noted these entities can’t “interfere with or obstruct the federal government from performing its own functions.”

“That crosses a line. They can simply be non-cooperative,” he said.

Kincaid said one of the earliest foundations for this legal interpretation is the U.S. Supreme Court's 1842 case, Prigg v. Pennsylvania.

Justices said states “did not have to cooperate with the federal government in apprehending fugitive slaves, so many northern states passed personal liberty laws, which said state and local officials would not assist the federal government or anyone else in apprehending fugitive slaves,” the professor said.

This Supreme Court case is the origin of local governments passing resolutions that prevent them from obstructing the federal government but not from cooperating with it, he noted.

Local governments can restrict access to their properties, but if the restriction is specifically directed at federal immigration authorities, it raises constitutional issues, said Arthur, a former immigration judge.

These restrictions are “really questionable because they may run afoul of the anti-discrimination interpretations of the Supremacy Clause,” he added.

The U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause says that federal law takes precedence over state law when they conflict.

Kincaid cited a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court case, Printz v. United States, which said the federal government can’t make state and local officials enforce federal law.

“Under the Printz decision, there’s no way that the federal government could require state and local officials to cooperate with federal ICE agents,” he said.

Jeremy Beck, co-president of NumbersUSA, said local jurisdictions started passing policies pushing back against federal immigration law during the Obama administration.

He said former President Barack Obama inherited a program that started in the George W. Bush administration called “Secure Communities.” The program created “automatic cooperation between local jails and federal agencies,” Beck said.

If people were booked into a jail and had their fingerprints taken, they were run in a federal database, and if the database determined people were in the country illegally, then federal immigration authorities would be notified and have a hold put on them so they could pick them up in jail, according to Beck.

After activists pushed back, the Obama administration ended the program, Beck said.

Since the Trump administration, local jurisdictions have been passing policies that “limit, prohibit or ban cooperation” with federal law enforcement, Beck said.

Beck also noted that more state and local police departments nationwide have joined the federal 287(g) program, which allows state and local law enforcement officers who are trained to perform specific immigration duties.

Since President Donald Trump returned to office, the federal program has seen a 641% increase in partnerships with local and state law enforcement, with more than 1,000 agencies now participating, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

(The Center Square) - The city of Phoenix has broken ground on an affordable housing community for seniors, estimated to cost $30 million.

Helen Drake Village, scheduled for completion in 2027, will house 80 rental units, including 74 one-bedroom units and six two-bedroom units.

Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego, a Democrat, called the village a “significant step forward” in the city’s “commitment to provide Phoenix seniors access to affordable, high-quality housing with essential services.”

“By combining vibrant homes with direct access to programs and activities, we’re building a community where residents can enjoy a stable, connected community,” she said.

Samantha Keating, the city's deputy housing director, told The Center Square that the city is providing $5 million in loans and 40 project-based vouchers to help finance the project.

She added that other funding sources are coming from the Arizona Department of Housing, income housing tax credits and private traditional funding.

To reside in the new housing complex, people must be 55 or older and have an income between 30% and 60% of the area’s median income.

Keating said the city completed a housing needs assessment report in 2024, which showed the greatest need for housing is for Phoenix households at or below 50% of the area’s median income.

Phoenix’s median income is $109,600 as of April 2025, according to the Housing Authority of Maricopa County.

Since the start of the decade, Phoenix has emphasized building more housing.

Keating said the city of Phoenix passed a plan in 2020 with the goal of creating or preserving 50,000 housing units by 2030. She added that the city reached its goal in 2025.

She said nearly 65,000 housing units had been developed by the end of 2025.

Part of the 2020 housing plan aimed to redevelop city-owned property into affordable, mixed-income housing, according to Keating.

The city of Phoenix designated the plot on which Helen Drake Village is being built for affordable housing development.

“Helen Drake Village represents the kind of strategic investment that strengthens Phoenix’s entire housing system,” said Titus Mathew, the city’s housing director.

“By transforming city‑owned land into long‑term affordable housing, we are demonstrating how public resources can be used responsibly and creatively to expand options for seniors across Phoenix,” he added.

The Helen Drake Village will be located adjacent to one of the city’s senior centers, Keating noted.

She said the city is “excited about the synergy of putting senior affordable housing next to a really active senior center.”

The village will include sports courts, garden plots and a walking path that goes through the senior center and the senior housing community, Keating said.

Phoenix has about 140 parcels of land that qualify for redevelopment into housing units, she said.

According to Keating, the city of Phoenix is working with developers to build more multi-family affordable housing.

(The Center Square) - Arizona public universities are not properly teaching American civic courses as outlined by state guidelines, according to a report.

The Goldwater Institute recently released a report showing that Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University and the University of Arizona are incorporating elements of diversity, equity and inclusion into their teaching of American Institutions civic courses.

The report said the Arizona Board of Regents requires these schools’ American Institutions courses to “prepare graduates to pursue careers or advanced degrees, and participate fully as informed citizens in a robust constitutional democracy based in values of individual freedom, self-reliance, and equality under the law, and constructive dialog through civil discourse.”

Timothy Minella, the Goldwater Institute’s director of higher education, told The Center Square that all three Arizona universities are “utterly failing to adequately educate students on American history and American civics.”

The Center Square reached out to the three universities, but they did not respond before press time.

The universities should be required to abide by Arizona state law regarding civics instruction because “part of the historical mission of these institutions [is] to not only prepare students for careers, but to prepare them for thoughtful citizenship,” according to Minella, who authored the report.

At these schools, many of the classes students take don’t look like they will feature DEI or identity politics curriculum, but, when examined more closely, they show “the language and ideology of DEI being inserted into civics,” Minella said.

ASU and NAU claim to have “robust” civic requirements, Minella said, adding that the report shows this is not the case.

They are “pushing DEI and identity politics under the guise of civics,” he said.

At ASU, available courses that meet the American Institutions requirements include “Anthropology of American Democracy” and “Social Services Perspective of Government.”

The report said the class “Anthropology of American Democracy” focuses on “the claim that American society oppresses certain groups.” In the class “Social Services Perspective of Government,” the report found that only four of the 11 units covered topics such as federalism and state constitutionalism.

Of the classes offered at Arizona State University for American Institutions, the report said 59% of them don’t meet American Institutions' requirements.

At Northern Arizona University, the report said the school offered classes for American Institutions courses such as “Sociology of Chicanx and Latinx Communities” and “Indigenizing Museums and the Art World.”

According to Minella, the University of Arizona has not established courses for American Institutions as part of its general education program.

The school said it will implement a civic requirement in the fall of 2026, but Minella said the Goldwater Institute obtained syllabi for these courses and found that they “are completely inadequate.” He cited the focus on identity politics rather than America’s foundational principles.

Minella said it is “completely unacceptable” for UA to be doing this after having years to work out what it needed to do to meet the state’s guidelines. According to Minella, the school “utterly failed.”

To help address the concerns of Arizona’s public universities not following the state’s teaching guidelines, Minella told The Center Square that the Arizona Board of Regents and state Legislature “should consider withholding appropriations for the universities until they get their act together.”

Furthermore, the Arizona Legislature is considering passing House Concurrent Resolution 2044, a proposed constitutional amendment that would go before the voters in November if approved.

Minella described HCR 2044 as eliminating “mandatory DEI coursework in general education programs of Arizona public universities.”

HCR 2044 is a “very important step the Legislature needs to take in order to make it clear once and for all that mandatory DEI is wasteful and does not advance the education of students in Arizona,” Minella said.

(The Center Square) - Arizona utility companies stress they're protecting customers’ electric bills as more data centers come online.

According to Upwind, a cybersecurity company, Phoenix expects its data center capacity to increase by 554%, adding an additional 5,340 megawatts to the state’s electrical grid.

With more data centers anticipated in the state, the Arizona Corporation Commission opened a new docket to examine the influx. ACC held a workshop last week on how the state should address the growing number of large-load customers, such as data centers.

ACC Chairman Kevin Thompson said he believes it's important for the commission to review existing policies and create new ones that will protect ratepayers and ensure large-load customers pay for their infrastructure costs.

Scott Scharli, director of strategic energy management at Salt River Project, told The Center Square that his company currently powers around 20 data centers of varying sizes.

Ann Porter, communications director for Arizona Public Service, said the company’s data center customers use 400 to 500 megawatts of energy. She noted APS did not have an exact number of data centers on its grid.

SRP and APS are the main energy providers in the Phoenix area.

According to Scharli, SRP anticipates adding 10 additional data centers over the next five years.

Porter said APS plans to serve 4,000 megawatts to data centers expected to come online over the next 10 years.

APS is in talks with these types of customers that could see the company serve up to another 19,000 megawatts of energy, Porter said.

Nearly two hours south of Arizona’s biggest city, Joe Barrios, spokesman for Tucson Electric Power, told The Center Square by email that the company does not serve “high-load data centers.”

“Although we provide service to some small data centers, these facilities require less than 1 megawatt of capacity,” he said.

TEP anticipates “serving one or two high-load data center projects over the next five years,” Barrios said.

He noted TEP has “seen interest from other data center developers but has no other agreements in place at this time.”

With Arizona’s three biggest energy providers expecting to add more data centers, they said other customers will not have to pay for them.

SRP's Scharli said data centers, which are categorized as large-load customers, will pay the full cost of their transmission infrastructure, including substation equipment, power lines and power poles.

Transmission infrastructure helps deliver power to data centers and generation infrastructure.

SRP requires data centers that use more than 20 megawatts to pay 80% of the forecasted peak energy demand over 15 years.

Similar to SRP, Porter said APS requires these customers to pay minimum thresholds for energy. The rate plan APS uses to charge data centers makes them pay for “their cost of service” because they use more energy than residents or small businesses, she added.

Barrios told The Center Square that, under TEP’s agreement with Humphrey’s Peak Power to build an incoming data center, the company will need to pay the full cost of service, which helps ensure other customers are not subsidizing it.

Regarding the impact on grid reliability, Scharli said SRP’s energy grid will not be affected by additional data centers.

Porter said APS only brings on data centers when there is enough power generation to support them. She added that the company always ensures its electrical grid has space for other uses, such as home developers and stores.

According to Barrios, TEP will not “connect new customers to the grid unless [it is] confident that they can be served reliably and without impacting reliability to other customers.”

When these large-load customers are added to an energy provider's electric grid, they reportedly can help lower prices for others.

“ For every dollar that it costs [SRP] to serve large industrial customers, they actually are charged $1.14,” Scharli noted.

Barrios said large-load customers “typically support greater affordability for other customers by covering a higher percentage of a utility’s fixed system costs.”

(The Center Square) - A new Arizona law pushes back against local governments attempting to restrict small assisted living homes.

Gov. Katie Hobbs signed Senate Bill 1473 into law, which limits local governments in Arizona from restricting the number of beds at small assisted living homes with fewer than 10 residents.

Arizona Senate Majority Leader John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, introduced SB 1473, which passed the state Senate along party lines, 16-11, and saw bipartisan support in the state House, 49-7.

Under the bill, local governments are prohibited from blocking these facilities in residential areas solely because they are classified as assisted living homes.

Local governments are still allowed to enforce building and fire codes, as well as health and safety regulations and zoning laws, according to the bill.

SB 1473 overrides any Arizona local ordinance that is inconsistent with it.

People can take legal action against a local government if they think it is violating the law, the bill says.

Jason Morris, a founding partner of the Phoenix law firm Withey Morris Baugh PLC, sad that as local governments implement zoning and housing regulations, the Legislature is looking into them to see if they are “necessary” or “harming the state’s economic interests.”

Morris told The Center Square this week that the bill shows the Legislature is “becoming more frustrated with local land use controls and [their] impact.”

“As this continues year after year, I think we’re going to see a continued erosion of local control,” Morris noted.

He said SB 1473 is attempting to help these small assisted living homes “avoid a barrier that was causing them to either not open enough of these facilities or be kept out of neighborhoods.”

According to Morris, the reason these facilities were kept out of certain areas was that residents had concerns about how they would change their neighborhoods.

He said the bill is attempting to give more seniors in Arizona more housing options.

According to Carepatrol, an organization that provides senior advisory services, Arizona is projected to have almost 2 million residents 65 and older by 2030.

Meanwhile, small assisted living facilities have become “more economically feasible,” Morris said.

At a February hearing in the state Senate Regulatory Affairs and Government Efficiency Committee, Liz Goodman from Rose Law Group, who represented the Assisted Living Homes Association of Arizona, said local governments began passing ordinances restricting small assisted living homes to fewer than 10 beds.

She cited Paradise Valley, an Arizona city of over 12,000 people, passing a law that reduced the maximum number of beds in small assisted living homes from 10 to six.

Regardless of whether the homes have 10 beds or six, their overhead costs remain the same, Goodman said.

So the reduction in beds means less revenue, meaning the homes won't be able to stay in business, she noted.

Goodman also pointed out Arizona did not have enough assisted living beds to “meet the need.”

“We can’t meet the need that exists, and with the growing aging population, this is going to exacerbate the problem,” she said.

(The Center Square) - Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne expressed his displeasure with Gov. Katie Hobbs for vetoing a bill that would have provided more transparency into school superintendents’ earnings.

The Democratic governor vetoed House Bill 2075, which would have required Arizona school districts to publicly disclose contracts and compensation data for their superintendents and other top administrators. The bill also mandated that the state create a centralized, searchable and public database containing all this information.

Currently compensation packages for school superintendents "are only publicly available through a public records request," said Chris Thomas, director of legal strategy for education policy at the Phoenix-based Goldwater Institute.

“They are not available online or in some other posting," Thomas told The Center Square.

In a letter explaining her veto, Hobbs said, "Arizona has a robust school choice environment that requires comparable information between options for parents and families to make meaningful choices. This bill fails to ensure that all options in the marketplace are held to the same level of transparency.”

The Center Square reached out to Hobbs and her office for additional explanation, but the staff declined to say anything beyond what was in Hobbs' brief veto letter.

Groups that opposed HB 2075 included AZ School Administrators, which represents superintendents and other school executives, and the Arizona School Board Association.

Republicans control majorities in both houses, but lack enough seats to override Hobbs' vetoes without Democrats' help. Only two Democrats in the Legislature - Reps. Lydia Hernandez of Glendale and Elda Luna-Nájera of Avondale - voted for HB 2075. That's not enough to help Republicans override a veto.

Horne told The Center Square this week the decision of Hobbs to veto HB 2075 was “irrational.”

“I don’t understand why anyone would veto a bill like that,” the superintendent of public instruction said, calling the veto a "bad public policy."

According to Horne, Arizona “has a lot of really good superintendents,” but it also has superintendents who are overpaid.

“Taxpayers have a right to know how their tax money is being used," the Republican official said. "It's outrageous for that to be kept a secret."

All school districts should disclose how much their superintendents earn in total compensation, Horne noted.

The Goldwater Institute is also disappointed that the bill was vetoed, Thomas told The Center Square.

He noted superintendents are public employees and their pay is a “matter of public record.”

“There shouldn’t be any hiding the ball here about what people make," Thomas said. "Superintendents have tough jobs to do; they deserve to be highly compensated. But they ought to be able to defend that."

He noted it was “very difficult to get these contracts and salary amounts" when the Goldwater Institute tried to do research on the school district superintendents' salaries.

Thomas said it was “eye-opening” to see how much school superintendents are compensated.

The Goldwater Institute’s report, “The Hidden Ways Arizona School Superintendents Are Paid,” showed that Jeremy Calles, superintendent of the Tolleson Union High School District in the Phoenix area, had a total compensation package of nearly $500,000.

The report examined 17 school districts and found that the average total compensation for these superintendents was almost $314,000.

"We found varying degrees of resistance in obtaining the contracts, and we quantified that resistance by the letter grades we gave each district for public transparency,” Thomas told The Center Square.

Arizona law does not prevent school districts from posting superintendent contracts online, Thomas said, but noted the Flagstaff Unified School District in Northern Arizona is the only district to do so.

The only public information about how much superintendents make is their base salary, not their total compensation, he said.

While superintendents have massive six-figure salaries, Arizona ranks 29th in the country in average teacher pay at $62,714, according to the National Education Association.

The Arizona auditor general said only 52% of state education spending goes to the classroom. Arizona spent $13.4 billion on education in fiscal year 2025.

Arizona is not maximizing its school funding “by putting the dollars where it could do the most good,” Thomas said.

He added that the Goldwater Institute is not contemplating litigation to obtain more information about the superintendent’s total compensation packages. “If we had received a flat denial of access, we were prepared to litigate and actually had to threaten one school district into compliance,” Thomas said.

(The Center Square) - Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs is threatening to veto nearly all bills unless Republicans publicly release their proposed budget.

Hobbs may get her wish soon. Senate President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, told The Center Square that he hopes to release the budget within the next two weeks.

The two main areas of disagreement between Republicans and Hobbs are Prop. 123 and tax cuts, Petersen said. Petersen previously told The Center Square that Republicans want to fully implement all the tax cuts from the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act, while Hobbs wants to apply half of them.

This week, Hobbs said she would veto every bill besides two safety bills unless she saw the Republicans' budget. But she hasn't been happy with what she's heard so far, noting the GOP proposal is focused on the wrong things.

“Arizonans deserve more than these political games.They deserve a budget that cuts taxes for the middle class, funds our public schools and lowers costs for everyday Arizonans. I’m ready to negotiate. My door is open,” Hobbs said.

“The legislative majority needs to put forward their budget proposal and then join me at the negotiating table so we can pass a bipartisan, balanced budget just like we’ve done the past three years,” she added.

Petersen told The Center Square that Hobbs wants Republicans to “balance the budget using Prop. 123,” which is meant for K-12 education. Arizona voters passed Prop. 123 in 2016, which increased the annual distribution from the state’s land trust fund from 2.5% to 6.9% for 10 years.

The state land trust fund helps support K-12 education by “generating revenues via the sale and use of lands and the investment of proceeds associated with acreage granted to the state,” according to the Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee.

In Hobbs’ Prop. 123 proposal, she calls for increasing its annual distribution to 10.9% over the next two decades.

Petersen said Republicans told the governor that balancing a budget using the proposition would not be responsible because her proposal would bankrupt the trust in 20 years.

He added that once Republicans rejected the idea, Hobbs walked away from negotiations.

The Senate president said Republicans want to see Prop. 123 protect school choice and the money go to the classroom.

Petersen said Republicans have a balanced budget and are currently close to securing the 47 votes needed to pass it in both houses of Legislature.

Once Republicans have those votes, they will move the budget and put it up for a vote, he said.

Republicans “have to work with the governor,” Petersen said, adding that they are “always willing to come to the table to negotiate with her.”

(The Center Square) - A new report dispels the notion that short-term rentals are driving up Arizona's housing prices and instead blames a housing shortage.

Glenn Farley, Common Sense Institute’s policy and research director, told The Center Square there is “no evidence in housing price or short-term rental data” to support the claim that short-term rentals are contributing to housing price increases.

A new CSI report released on Thursday finds that the real cause is the housing shortage.

The report said Arizona faces a housing deficit of nearly 53,000 units. Arizona’s housing construction has nearly been cut in half since the Great Recession.

Between 2003 and 2007, Arizona built over 400,000 homes before the Great Recession occurred, which lasted from December 2007 to June 2009, the report said. From 2010 to 2019, the state built about 211,000 units. This represents a 47% decrease.

The report said the cumulative shortage of housing since the Great Recession exceeds 121,000 homes statewide.

Arizona’s policy response to housing after the Great Recession made it more difficult to “lend money to home buyers” and “made it harder to build new housing,” Farley said.

CSI released a report last year showing that Arizona will continue to face a housing deficit due to the state’s current permitting pace.

According to the report, Arizona has 3.3 million housing units, and only 57,000 of those units are short-term rentals, an estimated 2% of all inventory.

As short-term rental online marketplaces have increased, the number of vacation homes in Arizona has decreased.

The report noted Arizona has lost 55,000 vacation homes since the rise of short-term rentals in 2010.

Arizona's failure to keep up with housing demand has allowed owners of multiple housing units to bring them to market rather than keeping them as vacation homes, the report said.

Farley noted it is “pure coincidence” that home prices increased while the number of online marketplaces for short-term rentals increased as well.

“[Short-term rentals] are easy to blame. The problem here is supply and demand. The only long-term solution to this is building more housing,” he said.

From 2015 to 2019, the report noted that Arizona home prices increased by 33% while Airbnb listings increased by 64%. Between 2020 and 2024, home prices went up 61%, and Airbnb listings increased 56%.

Farely said the “vast majority” of Arizona housing units are available to a full-time owner or full-time renter. Only around 100,000 housing units in the state are short-term rentals or vacation homes.

Farley said even if 25,000 to 50,000 of these short-term rentals were made available as full-time housing units to buy or rent, it would likely decrease housing prices, but only temporarily. He said the offset would not last long because of the ongoing housing shortage.

If policymakers regulate short-term rentals or investor-owned properties, it could cause “perverse incentives for the development market,” Farley said.

“It may encourage less investment in the construction and development of housing, which could make the problem worse,” he said.

Looking ahead, Farley said trends suggest Arizona will be back in the 2010-to-2019 range for the number of homes it is on pace to build over the next five to 10 years.

(The Center Square) – New research shows that Californians are being priced out of the state in growing numbers, mostly due to rising housing costs.

And the decrease in population reportedly could cost the Golden State as many as four seats in Congress.

The report, published by the California Policy Lab in March 2026, shows people who left California for other states paid an average of $2,376 in monthly housing costs in California. After leaving the state, they spent an average of $1,705 a month in housing costs, the report said.

People who moved to different locations in California spent an average of $2,277 a month in housing costs after moving, an increase from $2,263 before moving to a different location in the state. People who moved from other states to California saw a big jump in their average monthly housing costs, spending an average of $1,754 before moving to California and $2,418 after moving here.

“It just further goes to explain that the Legislature in California, the majority party, the governor have not focused on policies that make the cost of living more affordable here for hardworking families,” Sen. Suzette Martinez Valladares, R-Lancaster, said, referring to Democrats and Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“The middle class is leaving because they can’t afford to stay in the communities they grew up in," Valladares told The Center Square. "People who have called California home for decades now calling other states home because they’ve been pushed out.”

The top states Californians are moving to, for a more affordable cost of living, include Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, Arizona, Washington and Montana. Wyoming, Utah and Colorado also are welcoming some Californians.

“In California, people are actually leaving, not because they want to leave, but they’re leaving because they can’t afford to stay,” Assemblymember Tom Lackey, R-Palmdale, told The Center Square.

Lackey said rolling back construction regulations would help to spur new housing and lower costs.

“We all talk about some of the environmental restrictions that make these builders unable to continue to build communities because we have people who are willing and ready,” Lackey said. “The only thing that’s going to moderate prices is building more. The supply has to increase in order to bring prices down.”

The outflow of California’s population to other states could affect the state's tax base, a researcher from California Policy Lab told The Center Square.

“Given the big economic shifts in California over the last decade (the pandemic, several tech booms), it’s difficult to say how much one factor like outmigration has affected the state’s tax base,” said Brett Fischer, researcher at California Policy Lab.

“But over the long term, net outflows from California could have consequences for California’s fiscal outlook and national clout," Fischer said, answering The Center Square's questions by email.

The Golden State’s population loss might not just have financial repercussions for the state’s tax base. Research published by the nonprofit The Brennan Center in 2023 shows that as the population shrinks, California could lose an estimated four seats in Congress in 2030.

The research, which doesn’t address the cost of living, shows California has seen more population losses year on year than any other state since 2020, setting up the country's most populous state to lose congressional seats by 2030.

California is projected to have only 48 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2030 if the state’s population loss continues at its current trajectory, the Brennan Center study shows. The state currently has 52 seats.

Texas is projected to have an increase of four seats, at 42, while Florida is expected to have 32 seats after the next U.S. Census.

The number of congressional seats is decided by the population of a state, which is tracked in the U.S. Census every 10 years. The last census was in 2020.

California’s successful mid-decade redistricting effort in November did not increase the state's total number of seats. But it did redraw the lines of congressional districts. The intent is to allow Democrats to pick up five new seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, which means Republicans would lose five seats at a time when they hold a razor-thin majority.

California’s mid-decade redistricting special election followed Texas’ own mid-decade redistricting push last year, in which Texas Republicans now have the chance to pick up five new seats in the U.S. House.

The new congressional district maps California voters approved in the November 2025 ballot measure are effective not just in the 2026 midterm elections, but the 2028 and 2030 general elections. All U.S. House seats are up for election in even-numbered years.

New maps drawn by the independent California Citizens’ Redistricting Commission would go into effect after the results of the 2030 U.S. Census are released.

The Center Square reached out to 15 Democrats in the California Legislature to get their take on the California Policy Lab study, the state of housing prices in California and their proposals for bringing down housing costs, as well as how the state’s population outflow could affect California’s number of seats in Congress in 2030. All declined to be interviewed for this story or did not respond to The Center Square.

Representatives from the Brennan Center also did not respond to The Center Square on Thursday.

(The Center Square) - Arizona has reached an $7 million settlement with the Phoenix-based utility company known as Arizona Public Service.

State Attorney General Kris Mayes made the announcement Wednesday during a news conference at her office.

Mayes told reporters that “APS has not admitted or agreed to liability or fault through the settlement,” but Mayes said this helps hold the privately- and investor-owned utility accountable to its customers.

The Democratic attorney general noted the settlement delivers real change for families like Kate Korman’s in Sun City, located near Phoenix.

“Kate was an APS customer. She was behind on her electric bill as many people can be, with the ever-increasing cost of living,” Mayes told reporters. “On May 13 of 2024, Arizona Public Service Co. remotely disconnected Kate Corman's power. It was 99 degrees that day. Six days later, she was found dead in her home.”

As part of the settlement, Mayes said APS has agreed to fund a $1 million consumer assistance program with at least $800,000 going directly as bill credits to APS customers who are behind on their bills and at risk of having their power disconnected.

“That help starts right now, and it runs through September of this year,” said Mayes.

APS will also pay $2.75 million to Arizona's Consumer Protection Fund. According to Mayes, those funds come entirely from APS shareholders, not rate payers.

Meanwhile, APS will also spend an additional $3.4 million on reforms to how it communicates with and protects its customers. This will include better notifications, better outreach and better tools for people who are having difficulty paying their bills.

“The most important change, the one that could and I believe will save lives this summer and every summer going forward, is this: APS will no longer disconnect power based on the date on the calendar alone,” said Mayes. “If temperatures are dangerous, the power stays on.”

Mayes told reporters that APS had a voluntary policy of not disconnecting services when temperatures were forecast to reach 95 degrees or higher. However, that policy ended just days before Kate Korman’s power was disconnected.

Under this settlement, that protection is back, and Mayes said it is binding.

“APS must halt residential disconnections for nonpayment whenever the temperature at a customer's location is forecast to reach 95 degrees or above the following day,” said Mayes. “The same protection applies on the cold end of the spectrum. No disconnections when temperatures are forecast to drop to 32 degrees or below.”

APS serves throughout portions of Arizona, including northern Arizona.

Mayes added later that her office is also requiring APS to write to every other major utility in Arizona and encourage them to adopt the same protections.

As Mayes explained, this should not be just an APS policy.

“It should be the standard across our state,” said Mayes.

The Center Square reached out for comment from APS. In response, the utility referred to a statement on its website saying it “disagrees with the Arizona Attorney General’s statement regarding APS’s disconnection policies and customer communications.” APS added that its entire team “prioritizes customer safety and cares deeply about the well-being of our customers and communities.”

APS also lists the various changes to its policies moving forward.

“We remain committed to maintaining best-in-class customer support and education programs and are taking action to further strengthen our policies, assistance initiatives and communications,” said APS on its website. “Our focus is on helping customers stay informed, connected and supported, especially in times of need.”

APS is the principal subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital Corp.

(The Center Square) - Most Southwestern states finished high or in the middle in a state-by-state ranking of tax policies and the economy.

But not California.

The Golden State ranked near the not-so-golden bottom of the “Rich States, Poor States” list.

The American Legislative Exchange Council, a free markets policy organization, released its annual report Wednesday, noting that No. 1-ranked Utah had the best economic outlook of the 50 states. The worst at No. 50 was New York.

At No. 47, California once again ranked near the bottom of ALEC’s list, as one of the most widely known high tax states.

Elsewhere, Arizona (No. 5) broke into the top 10. Nevada (No. 12) sat just outside the top 10 while Colorado (No. 29) and New Mexico (No. 35) were in the middle of the pack with Hawaii among the bottom 10 (No. 43).

Economists explained why taxes and economic outlooks are so closely linked.

“Whether states like it or not, they absolutely have to compete with the other 49 states every single day for businesses and for individuals,” said ALEC Chief Economist Jonathan Williams.

“When businesses and individuals are looking where to invest, they're looking at states that have a more competitive economic climate, including lower taxes, limited regulation, better labor policy, and overall better economic outlook and opportunity," Williams told The Center Square.

Williams said ALEC’s "Rich States, Poor States" list over the last 19 years has ranked states based on their economic outlook. The ranking especially rewards states with low tax rates and tax burdens in ALEC's 15-policy assessment.

“The state with a higher tax rate is going to discourage economic activity compared to the state with a lower tax rate,” economist Wayne Winegarden told The Center Square.

“Now, obviously taxes are not the only consideration, and that's why you still see growth in high tax states. It's a very complicated issue," said Winegarden, a senior fellow in business and economics at the Pasadena-based Pacific Research Institute. "But the basic truth is that when you have an excessively high tax rate, you're discouraging economic activity, or you're encouraging it to occur in other places.”

ALEC ranked state minimum wages in reverse order, with the highest minimum wages, like California earning one of the lowest spots in the category at No. 48.

“I think it’s really important to recognize we're not talking about human value. We're talking about what's the value of their economic contribution. When you force the minimum wage above that, you're going to encourage people not to hire,” said Winegarden. “We actually have seen that in California when they raised the minimum wage … In McDonald's, you now use the kiosk. You don't have somebody taking your order. They hire fewer people and they cut down in hours.”

Winegarden said a low minimum wage allowed for more entry-level jobs for people to build skills that would raise their economic value. He added that while minimum wage is probably too low to live on, the argument for a social responsibility to pay people enough should not burden employers.

Utah has the federal minimum wage of $7.25, which was set in 2009, while Arizona has one of the nation's highest minimum wages at $15.15. California's minimum wage is $16.90.

Another key factor in ALEC’s state economies ranking was the absolute domestic immigration – how many people are moving in or out of other states.

“Some of our states at the top of our rankings are some of the most quickly growing states in America,” said Williams. “States at the bottom like New York, California and Illinois are hemorrhaging people. It means you're losing economic vitality. You're losing your tax base that's going and becoming taxpayers in other states.”

Florida ranked first in ALEC’s domestic migration with over 2.5 million more people moving to the state over the past decade than leaving, followed by Texas at nearly 2 million. On the opposite end, New York saw more than 1.6 million people leave the state, followed by nearly 1.5 million from California.

“I'm showing my bias here, but why would you leave California for Texas?” said Winegarden. “We've got much better weather in California. We don't get hurricanes … It's hard to imagine why you would do that, but the taxes are so punishing here, and the cost of living is so high.”

Recent years have seen consistently high numbers of California residents moving to Nevada, with a Las Vegas Review Journal report finding that the largest share of new Nevada residents came from Los Angeles.

“In recent years, [some] Californians are looking to stay relatively out west but not pay California-styled taxes,” WIlliams said of Nevada.

Southwestern states have generally performed well by ALEC’s metrics, but both New Mexico and Colorado slipped into the bottom half of states this year.

“[Colorado] was the state with the second largest decline in the rankings, going from 17th to 29th this year,” said Williams. “Some of that is workers' compensation costs, sales tax increases, tax burden increases, minimum wage increases.”

But he also added that while Colorado had not made many major economic changes over the past year, other states had reduced taxes in a way that made Colorado fall behind on their ranking.

“ New Mexico has been a state that has been overspending, overtaxing and overregulating and really depending on its oil and gas industry revenue that it generates to try to keep the state afloat,” said Williams.

He added that Hawaii faced a uniquely difficult housing affordability crisis, but praised Democratic lawmakers in the state for reducing some taxes he said would ease the cost of living.

Arizona broke into the top five states for its economic outlook by ALEC, which may come as a surprise to some of the state's economists after a report this week by the economic research organization Common Sense Institute of Arizona ranked the state the seventh least affordable in the country.

The report emphasized how Arizona households keep roughly 5% less of their income after taxes and essentials compared to the U.S. average. CSI found that the average cost of shelter and utilities alone increased by $9,012 between 2019-2025 in the state.

But Williams, the ALEC chief economist, asserted that Arizona faced an optimistic future with “incredibly good-value proposition for businesses and families.” He added that policies generally take three to five years before an impact is seen in data.

(The Center Square) - Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office said it disagreed with a temporary restraining order that blocks Arizona’s laws against predictive market operators and its criminal investigation into the Kalshi company.

“We are evaluating [the] next steps,” Richie Taylor, the communications director for Mayes’ office, said, answering The Center Square's questions by email this week.

An Arizona federal judge said last week that the restraining order will remain in place until April 24.

U.S. District Judge Michael Liburdi’s decision comes after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission filed a complaint against Arizona, requesting an injunction. The federal agency also filed complaints against Connecticut and Illinois for attempting to regulate predictive market operators.

In his decision, Liburdi said the federal government could intervene in the case because Arizona was interfering with federal law. The Commodity Exchange Act gives the CFTC the ability to exercise “exclusive jurisdiction” over financial markets, the judge said.

Before issuing this temporary restraining order, Liburdi denied Kalshi’s request for a temporary restraining order because a federal court can't stop ongoing state proceedings. The judge cited the Anti-Injunction Act.

However, when the federal government became involved, Liburdi could legally intervene.

Liburdi also issued the temporary restraining order because he said CTFC “has made a clear showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that Arizona’s gambling laws are preempted by the Commodity Exchange Act.”

“The CFTC has demonstrated a reasonable chance of success in showing that the Act, at a minimum, field preempts Arizona law,” the judge wrote.

Liburdi also found that Arizona was violating the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, and the federal government showed it would “suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.” The clause says federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws.

“The Court finds that the balance of equities favors the CFTC and that a temporary restraining order is in the public’s interest,” he said.

After the judge’s ruling, CFTC Chairman Michael Selig said the CFTC appreciated “the court’s careful consideration of these important legal questions and the court’s decision to preserve the status quo.”

“Arizona’s decision to weaponize state criminal law against companies that comply with federal law sets a dangerous precedent, and the court’s order sends a clear message that intimidation is not an acceptable tactic to circumvent federal law,” he said.

Robert DeNault, a lawyer for Kalshi, said on social media that the federally-regulated company appreciated CFTC “asserting its exclusive jurisdiction over [its] exchange, and the court’s careful consideration of the issues.”

“Under the U.S. Constitution, federal law is supreme,” DeNault said, calling the ruling “a step in the right direction.”

(The Center Square)- A new report shows Arizona lost 15,000 jobs from January 2025 to January 2026.

The Common Sense Institute Arizona recently released the report, which ranked the state 43rd in the nation for jobs. The report said Arizona is one of 24 states that suffered job losses.

Glenn Farley, CSI’s director of policy and research, said Arizona’s jobs market has been slowing down “for a long time.” He told The Center Square that the state's market peaked in 2022.

For the last year, Farley said, Arizona’s economy has grown at 1%, which is less than the 2% to 3% seen during 2022.

A healthy growth rate for Arizona is between 2.5% and 3%, Farley said.

Arizona has had 22 consecutive months of annual job growth below 2%, according to the report.

The last time Arizona saw a decline in jobs was in 2021, Farley told The Center Square.

Despite year-over-year job losses, Arizona experienced job growth during January, adding 5,100 non-farm jobs. This ranked 25th in the country for job growth.

Farley said the disconnect between Arizona losing jobs year-over-year and gaining jobs month-over-month is due to revisions to the job numbers.

When the federal government revises numbers often, it makes “monthly numbers less reliable than the yearly numbers,” Farley noted.

Doug Walls, the Arizona Office of Economic Opportunity’s labor market information director, told The Center Square that January 2026 was the “fifth consecutive month of year-over-year [job] losses.”

According to Walls, this shows a “slower hiring market” in Arizona, which came sooner than originally anticipated based on preliminary data.

Arizona’s unemployment rate is 4.5%, which is tied for 33rd in America.

Eight of 12 major industry sectors in Arizona posted year-over-year job losses, Walls said.

The report showed that major industries such as manufacturing, construction, leisure and hospitality and professional and business services all lost jobs year over year.

Arizona has a large concentration of jobs in the leisure and hospitality and professional and business services industries, Farley said.

According to Farley, Arizona’s labor market is tighter than the national average.

Chad Heinrich, the Arizona state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, told The Center Square that small businesses are “on the front lines of hiring.” Based on the information he has been receiving from small business owners, Heinrich said it is not surprising to see the report show job losses in Arizona.

Small business owners have job openings that they want to fill, but they can’t because of the lack of qualified applicants, Heinrich noted.

He said he doesn’t see Arizona’s economy turning around quickly.

Wages are rising in Arizona, but the number of jobs is falling, Heinrich said, adding that when this happens, small businesses face “margin compression” because they are “paying more to their employees” and seeing lower profits.

The report found that Arizonans' average hourly wages increased 3.2% year-over-year, ranking 29th in the country. On top of this, Arizona’s labor force participation rate is at 62%, which hasn’t changed since January 2025, the report said.

Looking ahead, Walls said the health care industry will be a big driver of Arizona’s job growth over the next 12 to 18 months. He added this industry has been “one of the fastest growing industry sectors over the last three decades.”

(The Center Square) - A broad consensus exists among Arizona leaders about making the state a national leader in the nuclear industry, according to Maren Mahoney, the director of the Arizona Governor's Office of Resiliency.

The Arizona Energy Promise Taskforce recently released a report outlining 31 policy recommendations to modernize the state’s energy grid.

The task force consisted of 36 members ranging from the private, public sector and nonprofit sectors; universities; experts and the general public.

Gov. Katie Hobbs ordered the report in September via executive order to help address the state’s increasing energy demands. The March 1 report says Arizona utilities could see a peak demand increase of up to 40% over the next 15 years.

“I look forward to continued work on an energy strategy that unleashes Arizona’s energy potential, lowers energy costs for our working families, and empowers businesses to start and grow right here in Arizona," the Democratic governor said.

To help make Arizona a leader in nuclear energy, the task force recommended the state create “pathways for project finance certainty and implement financing guardrails to decrease project costs and protect affordability for Arizonans.”

In addition, it recommended the state “support project development at the state level to accelerate project timelines and decrease costs.”

Currently, Arizona has one nuclear plant: The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.

The station is America’s second biggest nuclear power plant, which the report said is qualified to support advanced nuclear technologies.

According to the report, this type of technology creates the ability to provide emissions-free electricity, support data centers and strengthen the state’s electrical “grid resilience.”

The report said Arizona gets 27% of its energy from nuclear power. However, Mahoney told The Center Square there is no goal for how much it will provide in the future.

Going forward, she said Arizona will have “a lot of collaboration” because there is “a lot of work to be done to get new nuclear power online.”

The report said new nuclear development is in the early stages with a focus on community engagement, funding sources, potential locations and technology options.

Mahoney said the federal government is a “significant actor” regarding nuclear energy, specifically in the regulatory and licensing requirements. She added that the Department of Energy plays a role in developing nuclear energy by funding projects.

National labs, in particular the Idaho National Laboratory, are helping Arizona understand the future of nuclear power as new technologies enter the industry, Mahoney said.

In April 2025, the Arizona Public Service, Salt River Project and Tucson Electric Power submitted an application for a $25 million U.S. Department of Energy grant to locate potential nuclear generation sites. The application is still ongoing.

At the state level, the report said the Arizona Corporation Commission, the state Department of Environmental Quality and the state Department of Water Resources will play key roles in “the siting and permitting of nuclear generation.”

In the Office of Resiliency, the focus is on education and community outreach regarding nuclear energy, Mahoney said.

Arizonans are excited about nuclear power, but there are uncertainties around these new technologies, she said.

Arizona will need to educate people about nuclear energy and how the state plans to approach it in the future, according to Mahoney. She noted that education includes telling people that the industry provides “good-paying, stable jobs.”

The report noted that Arizona has an “existing talent base” for workers in the nuclear sector, but said “proactive investment” across all education levels is needed.

Mahoney said the state government will continue outreach and have conversations regarding implementing the task force's recommendations because “there’s a lot of work to be done" in areas such as workforce development, site selection and funding resources for construction.