By Matthew Holloway |
The ongoing disagreement between the City of Scottsdale and Axon Enterprise, Inc. has taken on a new dimension after the city issued a clarification of its position on last week. Regardless of whether the controversial “Axon Bill,” SB 1543, remains in effect, the city stated that Scottsdale City Code Section 2-5 requires a referendum to be placed on the ballot at the next general election, scheduled for Nov. 3, 2026.
In a statement issued October 3rd, the city stated that the timetable for a referendum could be shortened, noting, “The city could, if directed by the City Council, place that referendum question on a city election ballot before Nov. 3, 2026, by calling a Spring 2026 Special Election or placing the item on the Aug. 4, 2026, primary election ballot.”
Responding to the enactment of SB 1543 in April, the City Council voted to authorize filing a notice of claim/notice of unconstitutionality in a special meeting on September 12th. The claim filed on September 15th serves as formal notice to the State of Arizona that potential legal action from the city may follow. As reported by AZ Free News at the time, SB 1543 strips residents in cities of certain sizes, including Scottsdale, of their ability to challenge zoning decisions through ballot initiatives. The law applies retroactively and nullified a referendum effort by nearly 27,000 Scottsdale residents who had petitioned to challenge a city council-approved expansion of Axon’s Scottsdale headquarters, which included almost 2,000 multifamily residential units, over 400 hotel rooms, and approximately 47,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space.
City leaders pleaded with Governor Katie Hobbs to veto the bill, citing local concerns over increased traffic and infrastructure strain. They wrote in their plea, “These are not abstract issues—they impact the daily lives of our residents.”
Scottsdale Mayor Lisa Borowsky and the City Council warned that SB 1543 “undermines the principles of local control that are foundational to Scottsdale’s governance,” adding that it “sets a dangerous precedent.”
Borowsky told KTAR 92.3 host Mike Broomhead last week that, before “going to the state legislature,” Axon was negotiating with the city, and the 2000-apartment plan could have been reduced to 750. She added, “Let me be clear, I’m opposed to that high density of housing units,” referring to the initial 2,000 unit plan, but added there are three members of the council who are “vehemently” opposed to negotiation.
Public Affairs Supervisor Holly Peralta wrote, “The City Council’s vote did not authorize litigation, but that step could be taken by a separate Council action in the future.” She further added that a political action committee filed suit against the state and the city regarding Senate Bill 1543.
The lawsuit filed by Taxpayers Against Awful Apartment Zoning Exemptions, or TAAAZE, claims that SB1543 violates both the “special laws” ban in the Arizona Constitution, as well as the right of referendum enshrined there.
Alexis Danneman, a Perkins Coie, LLP, partner and lead counsel for TAAAZE, said in a statement. “This lawsuit is about two of our State Constitution’s most important principles. First, it’s about the right of Arizona voters to hold referenda and vote directly on legislation passed by their city councils but with which they disagree. Second, it’s about the Constitution’s ban on so-called ‘special laws,’ like the Axon Bill, that confer special privileges and benefits on a specific company or group. The Axon bill passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor is the very definition of special interest legislation and it is illegal in the state of Arizona.”
As a separate matter, the city is “evaluating that lawsuit,” according to Peralta.
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
