by Matthew Holloway | Feb 16, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona lawmakers approved a Republican-sponsored bill granting full property tax exemptions to veterans with a 100% service-connected disability, advancing the measure with bipartisan support before it was signed into law last week.
The bill, HB 2792, was approved unanimously by the Arizona House and moved through the Senate as SB 1268 with near-unanimous support before reaching the governor’s desk. The House measure was sponsored by Majority Leader Carbone (R-LD25). Senator David Gowan (R-LD19) sponsored the corresponding legislation in the Senate.
According to Senate records, the sole dissenting vote was cast by Democratic Senator Sally Ann Gonzales, who represents Legislative District 20.
Under the legislation, a veteran determined by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to have a 100% service-connected disability will qualify for a full property tax exemption on their primary home. The exemption also extends to surviving spouses, provided they remain in the residence and do not remarry.
“This bill keeps a simple promise,” Carbone said in a statement. “If a veteran sacrifices their health in service to America, the government should not tax them out of their home. We worked directly with county assessors to ensure the law is clear and properly implemented. Preserving homeownership for those who earned it is central to the House Republican Majority Plan and to preserving the American Dream. This law delivers direct relief, limits government reach, and stands up for veterans and their families.”
The change codifies and expands existing law that previously provided partial exemptions based on disability percentage and income limits. State personal exemption programs already allow a reduction in assessed value for certain disabled veterans, widows, and widowers, and can result in full relief in some cases.
In a post to X, Senate GOP leaders wrote, “Arizona Republicans are fighting to eliminate property taxes for veterans with 100% service-connected disabilities. SB 1268 and HB 2792 deliver full property tax relief on their primary residence. These men and women gave everything for our country. The least we can do is make sure they can stay in their homes.”
County assessors across the state have begun notifying eligible residents of the change and encouraging veterans and surviving spouses to file applications for the exemption through their local assessor’s offices. For example, the Santa Cruz County Assessor’s Office states that the new law is effective for the 2026 tax year and details documentation requirements, including VA disability certification and proof of property ownership.
Applications for individual exemption programs generally must be filed with county assessor offices by the February 28 deadline, according to the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office. This deadline may be extended to September 1 with an approved Exemption Deadline Waiver.
Speaking to reporters on Thursday, Carbone said, “This is about fairness. It’s about honoring service, and it’s about ensuring the most vulnerable among us can remain in their homes with dignity and integrity.”
The legislation brings Arizona in line with property tax relief policies in several other states that offer full or partial exemptions for disabled veterans on their primary residences.
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.
by Matthew Holloway | Feb 15, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona State Representative Nick Kupper (R-LD25) has introduced a constitutional measure that would ask Arizona voters to decide whether the right to refuse medical mandates should be enshrined in the state Constitution.
Last week, Kupper filed House Concurrent Resolution 2056 (HCR 2056), which, if approved by the Legislature and later by voters, would place a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot for the next general election.
The resolution would prohibit government entities from “mandating, requiring, coercing, or compelling an individual to accept or receive a medical product or treatment” as a condition of employment, education, access to public facilities, participation in services, or the exercise of any right or benefit.
The proposal defines coercion or compulsion to include penalties, denial of benefits, or other adverse consequences tied to refusing a medical mandate. It also includes exceptions preserving existing authorities, such as court-ordered treatment when a person poses a danger to themselves or others; parental rights in making medical decisions for minors; emergency medical care when consent cannot be obtained; lawful criminal investigations; compliance with federal law; and existing state requirements for diagnostic tests and procedures.
The text of the resolution states directly: “The right to refuse medical mandates is hereby recognized and protected as a fundamental and inherent right of every individual.”
In a statement included with the release, Kupper said the resolution is intended to give voters the opportunity to decide whether medical mandates should remain within the government’s authority. He also stated that the resolution would not prevent the state from “promoting vaccines, offering treatment, responding to emergencies, or providing care,” but said it would “draw a firm line against force and punishment.”
“Across multiple administrations and on both sides of the political divide, we have seen government officials assert sweeping authority over individual medical choices through threats to livelihoods, careers, and basic freedoms,” Kupper explained. “I nearly lost my career and Air Force retirement for refusing an unapproved medical mandate. No elected official or bureaucrat should ever have the authority to force a medical procedure on a free citizen. This resolution gives the people of Arizona the opportunity to decide for themselves whether that power should exist.”
He added, “This is about freedom and informed consent. Adults should be able to make decisions about their own bodies, and parents should have the final say for their children. That principle should not change based on who is in power or what crisis is being used to justify control.”
In a post to X, Kupper wrote, “Arizonans deserve the opportunity to decide for themselves if they want the government to continue controlling their medical decisions or if they want to reclaim their bodily autonomy.”
If HCR 2056 is approved by the Arizona Legislature, the measure would be placed on the ballot for a statewide vote at the next general election.
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.
by Matthew Holloway | Feb 14, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
In a 5-4 party-line vote Tuesday, the Republican-led Arizona House Ways and Means Committee advanced legislation that would temporarily freeze most municipal and county tax, fee, and utility rate increases for four years.
House Bill 4030 and House Concurrent Resolution 2052, sponsored by Committee Chair Justin Olson (R-LD10), would limit local government charges to levels approved in fiscal year 2025–2026 budgets for a four-year period beginning July 1, 2026, and ending June 30, 2030.
Under the proposal, cities and counties would be prohibited from raising existing fees or tax rates, creating new tax classifications, or expanding tax bases during the moratorium period. The measures would preserve voters’ authority to approve increases at the ballot box. HB 4030 would enact the moratorium through statute. HCR 2052 would refer the policy to voters at the next general election.
The legislation includes enforcement provisions aimed at preventing local governments from restructuring or renaming charges, altering rate schedules, or modifying classifications in a way that would effectively increase revenues beyond fiscal year 2025–2026 levels.
In a statement, Olson said the measures are intended to provide cost certainty for residents amid ongoing inflationary pressures.
“These bills do exactly what families expect when the cost of living keeps climbing: they stop government from reaching deeper into their pockets,” Olson said. “While Arizona families are cutting back, local governments should not be hiking fees, raising taxes, or quietly inflating utility bills. HB 4030 and HCR 2052 put a hard check on that behavior and give taxpayers certainty and relief.”
“This comes down to discipline and fairness,” Olson explained. “Local governments already approved their budgets. This bill just requires them to live within the revenues generated by existing tax rates. If a city or county wants more money, they can make their case to voters and earn the support of a strong supermajority. What they cannot do is quietly raise costs on families whose budgets are already stretched thin.”
The proposal also follows recent disputes between state lawmakers and municipal governments over local authority, including 2025 legislation involving Axon’s planned headquarters development in Scottsdale that resulted in the Legislature preempting certain local actions.
Arizona’s Constitution grants charter cities broad authority over local affairs, including taxation and fee structures, under its home-rule provisions (Arizona Constitution, Article XIII, Section 2). Arizona courts have historically recognized broad municipal autonomy in matters deemed “purely local,” as the Arizona Supreme Court noted in State ex rel. Brnovich v. City of Tucson (2017).
In recent years, several Arizona municipalities have approved utility and service rate increases, citing infrastructure needs and inflationary pressures. For example, the City of Phoenix approved water and wastewater rate adjustments in 2023 and 2024 to address infrastructure and operational costs, according to the City of Phoenix Water Services Department. Tucson Water has also adopted phased rate increases in recent budget cycles, per city rate information.
If approved by both chambers and signed by the governor, HB 4030 would take effect as statute. As a concurrent resolution, HCR 2052 would bypass the governor and instead be placed on the ballot for voter consideration. Both measures now advance to the full House.
Supporters argue the measure would provide temporary cost certainty for residents, while opponents of similar proposals in past sessions have raised concerns about potential constraints on municipal budgeting and infrastructure funding.
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.
by Matthew Holloway | Feb 12, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona House of Representatives passed a bill unanimously on Monday to intensify prison sentences for fentanyl traffickers. Supporters say it will strengthen law enforcement’s tools against the opioid crisis.
House Bill 2132, sponsored by Rep. Quang Nguyen (R-LD1), lowers the amount of fentanyl that triggers enhanced prison terms in state law. Under current law, mandatory enhanced sentences apply at the 200-gram threshold; the measure approved by the House would apply those penalties at 100 grams.
The bill passed the chamber with unanimous support and now advances to the Arizona Senate for further consideration.
“Fentanyl is killing Arizonans, destroying families, and driving crime across our state,” Nguyen said in a statement following the Monday vote. “HB 2132 targets the dealers who profit from death and puts serious prison time on the table. This bill backs law enforcement, protects our communities, and makes clear that Arizona will not tolerate fentanyl trafficking.”
According to the Arizona House GOP leadership, enhanced sentence ranges under existing law carry mandatory terms of five to 15 years, with longer terms for repeat offenders. Nguyen’s office says applying those penalties at a lower fentanyl threshold better reflects how the drug is moved and sold in real-world trafficking cases.
Critics of stricter sentencing, such as Rep. Alma Hernandez (D-LD20), have argued that enhanced penalties alone may not significantly deter addiction or drug distribution. She told the Judicial Committee in January, “I am just concerned that we continue to move the goal posts,” as reported by the AZ Mirror.
Yavapai County Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Jeff Newnum described fentanyl as “a drug of mass destruction,” speaking to the committee. He explained that 100 grams amounts to approximately 1,000 pills, adding that an average sale in his county involves about 30 grams.
“I would love an amendment that lowers it to 30 grams, but I’ll take 100 grams today,” Newnum said per the Mirror. “These are not people, in my opinion, that need to be placed on probation. They need to be put in prison.”
“Public safety is non-negotiable,” Nguyen said in his statement. “House Republicans are taking direct action against fentanyl dealers because Arizona families deserve safe streets, strong laws, and accountability for those who profit from destruction.”
The next stop for HB 2132 is the state Senate, where it will be assigned to a committee before a potential floor vote. A similar measure from Sen. Wendy Rogers (R-LD7), Senate Bill 1061, would lower the enhanced sentencing threshold to nine grams. The bill passed the Senate Judicial Committee in January and is pending a floor vote.
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.
by Matthew Holloway | Feb 11, 2026 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona lawmakers advanced a constitutional proposal last week that would set a firm deadline for ending the Legislature’s regular session, a major procedural change supporters say would provide a clearer structure for what is currently an open-ended calendar.
Under the state’s current system, the Arizona Constitution requires lawmakers to convene the regular session on the second Monday in January each year, but does not set a deadline for when that session must end. Regular sessions in recent years have stretched into late spring or early summer, with the 2025 session adjourned on June 27 after roughly 169 days in session.
The absence of a constitutional adjournment deadline means lawmakers can continue legislative work beyond traditional spring months, even though state law governs per diem reimbursements for extended sessions.
By contrast, other states employ more rigid schedules. Texas lawmakers meet in regular session once every two years for a constitutionally limited period, and adjourn by a set date unless a special session is called. In 2025, for example, the Texas Legislature concluded its most recent regular session in early June as the statutory timeline expired.
The House Government Committee on Wednesday passed House Concurrent Resolution 2005 (HCR 2005), sponsored by State Representative Justin Wilmeth (R-LD2) of North Phoenix. The resolution would amend the Arizona Constitution to mandate that the Legislature adjourn its regular session sine die no later than April 30 each year.
Under the proposal, lawmakers could still convene special sessions after April 30, but those would be subject to the subjects specified in the Governor’s call. If HCR 2005 clears both chambers of the Legislature, it would be placed on the ballot at the next general election for voter approval.
Wilmeth said the measure is aimed at restoring discipline and accountability to the legislative calendar. “I appreciate the committee moving this measure forward, allowing the discussion to continue,” he said in a statement.
“This proposal is about accountability and discipline. Arizonans expect the Legislature to do its job, pass a budget, and finish its work on time. President Ronald Reagan kept a sign on his desk in the Oval Office that said, ‘It CAN be done.’ I agree with that. Finishing our work by April 30 is achievable, and it should be the standard.”
Wilmeth, a Republican member of the Arizona House of Representatives and Chairman of the House Committee on Artificial Intelligence & Innovation, introduced the constitutional adjournment proposal earlier this year.
Supporters of the resolution have pointed to frequently extended sessions, which in recent years have stretched deep into spring and summer, as justification for a defined end date. In several recent cycles, lawmakers did not adjourn until June, well past traditional deadlines for bill passage and budget agreement.
In a post to X on January 23, Wilmeth wrote, “Decades ago, we told the people we’d have a part-time legislature conducted by citizen-legislators. Nowadays, the legislative session basically goes seven months! That’s unacceptable to me. It’s just responsible government to stick to our part-time commitment.”
If voters approve a constitutional amendment, Arizona would become one of the states with a fixed legislative deadline, rather than relying on internal legislative rules and per diem incentives to guide the calendar. That model differs from states like Texas, where sessions are inherently limited by statute or constitution and extend only through specified time windows.
HCR 2005 now moves to further consideration in the Arizona House as it continues through the legislative process.
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.
