A bill to exempt retirement savings from the state income tax is being considered by the Arizona House of Representatives.
SB 1371, sponsored by Sen. JD Mesnard (LD-13), would exempt all retirement investment savings, including 401Ks, IRAs, Roth IRAs, and pensions from state income tax for distributions made after an individual is 59 and a half years old.
As explained by the Arizona Senate Republicans in a post to X, the bill “works to reduce financial burdens on Arizonans who are over the age of 59.5 by exempting retirement income from taxation.”
ICYMI: Senator @JDMesnard advances legislation that works to reduce financial burdens on Arizonans who are over the age of 59.5 by exempting retirement income from taxation.
SB 1371 passed out of the Finance Committee yesterday with all Democrats voting no. pic.twitter.com/DZhjqYaFPj
The bill passed the Arizona Senate on March 6th along party lines.
In a press release from the Arizona Senate Republicans, Senator Mesnard stated, “Arizonans deserve to keep more of what they earn so they can plan for retirement at an appropriate age. This bill allows retirees to enjoy their responsible savings while securing a comfortable and stable life in their golden years, free from unnecessary financial burdens.”
He continued, “In a world where the cost of living continues to rise, we need to prioritize the needs of our citizens, making sure they have what they need to succeed. I remain committed to fostering a pro-growth, taxpayer-friendly environment for all Arizonans and look forward to seeing this legislation advance to the governor.”
The bill had its second reading in the Arizona House of Representatives on March 17th and is pending reports from the Rules and Appropriations committees.
A bill requring schools to use students’ real names and biological pronouns is making its way through the Arizona legislature.
SB 1002, sponsored by Arizona Senator John Kavanagh (LD-3), would prohibit school districts, charter schools employees, or independent contractors from referring to any student by a pronoun differing from their biological sex or a name other than their legal name without parental consent. It also prevents a school district or charter school from requiring an employee or independent contractor to use a pronoun that differs from a person’s biological sex, if doing so is contrary to their convictions.
The bill has moved to the Arizona House of Representatives where it awaits approval by the caucuses and a final vote.
Explaining the bill in a video, Sen. Kavanagh said that his bill “has to do with school staff and teachers using a pronoun or a nickname for a student that is not aligned with that student’s biological sex. The bill says that no school personnel can call a student by such an inappropriate pronoun or nickname unless the parents consent. And in addition when the parents do consent, no school employee can be forced to call the person by the pronoun that does not align with their biological sex if it violates the employee’s religious or moral beliefs.”
He continued, “This is important because students that want to be called by a different name or pronoun than their biological sex, or so-called transgendered students, many of them have a condition called gender dysphoria, which causes a lot of anxiety, sometimes even suicidal thoughts. So, the parents may know about this and may have the child under psychiatric care and the child’s doctor may have told the parents do not entertain a different pronoun or name that’s different from the from the child’s real sex because it could harm the child. So, we certainly don’t want school personnel harming children and threatening their psychological well-being or driving them to suicide. So, we’re going to require parental permission because also it’s a matter of parents’ rights. Parents determine what’s good for their children, not a school staff member or a school teacher, however well-meaning they may be.”
As noted in the text of the bill, Arizona’s Parental Bill of Rights “reserves parental rights to a parent of a minor child without interference from the state, a political subdivision or other governmental entity or any other institution.” Among the rights enshrined in the laws A.R.S. §§ 1-601 and 1-602 are parental rights to direct their children’s “education, upbringing and moral or religious training,” and making healthcare decisions on their behalf.
On Monday, Common Sense Institute (CSI) Arizona released a new report on Arizona’s water resources. In the report, CSI made a determination that contrasts wildly with commonly preconceived notions that a supply scarcity issue is Arizona’s largest problem. Instead, the group called out gaps in “infrastructure and ingenuity.”
In a press release, CSI advised, “If Arizona opts to address its water future by ending growth and limiting development, rather than investing in infrastructure and addressing water policies, the Grand Canyon state faces the potential of billions in lost economic activity and thousands of new jobs.“
Glenn Farley, CSI Arizona’s Director of Policy & Research explained, “In general, Arizona’s water challenges are not just about scarcity; they are about infrastructure and ingenuity. For centuries, Arizona’s dry central valley has thrived through engineering solutions that move water from areas of plenty to areas of need. Leaders today have options that could lead to very different outcomes for the future economy of our state. Our data finds that investing in innovative infrastructure and giving property owners the legal and physical flexibility they need to access the water our economy demands, will result in increased economic growth for the state of Arizona.”
In particular, the report took aim at the home-building moratorium in the Phoenix Active Management Area (AMA) imposed by Governor Katie Hobbs’ administration. According to CSI, should the moratorium be maintained for the next decade, Arizona could see a catastrophic $2 billion in lost GDP. However, the report adds, “Augmenting water supply by 300,000 acre-feet could create $4.7 billion in net state product.”
The report details that the expansion of “legal and physical infrastructure to move and trade water can help increase water availability without forced cuts or forced reallocation.”
CSI Arizona highlighted a 2018 controversial water deal between an investment firm representing the owners of farmland in Cibola, Arizona, near the Colorado River, and the town of Queen Creek that enabled Queen Creek to pay a private landowner $24 million for an annual allotment of 2,033 acre-feet of water. In other words: “the voluntary retirement of legacy agricultural farmland” through a private sale allowed a city without assured water rights through the Phoenix AMA to obtain the water needed to grow.
The report found: “Political and legal structures that acknowledge and facilitate, rather than impede, these kinds of transactions can help manage Arizona’s ongoing transition and continued growth. Furthermore, the ensuing injection of money and capital into the rural sources can be used for local economic development, creating a win-win.”
The think tank also called upon Arizona lawmakers to seek out alternative external sources of water citing the potential for desalination operations in Mexico at the Sea of Cortez, just 250 miles from Phoenix.
Citing the successes of Israel and Singapore to develop such systems, CSI noted, “While existing studies suggest the cost of desalination is high, approximately $2,000/acre-foot, costs may decline as the technology matures. Additionally, consumers may be more willing to pay if existing scarcity issues are not resolved.” Indeed, Israel currently relies upon desalination from the Mediterranean and Red Seas for over half of its fresh water supply.
According to a USA Todaystory from 2021, officials from Arizona, Nevada, California and Mexico have been exploring collaboration on such a project in exchange for trading some of the drinking water produced for a portion of Mexico’s allocation of the Colorado River.
A motion to urge President Donald Trump and the United States Congress to eliminate the “Vision Zero” transportation framework is making its way through the Arizona legislature.
Senate Concurrent Memorial (SCM) 1002, introduced by State Senator Carine Werner, and cosponsored by Sens. Angius, Carroll, Gowan, and Shope, asserts that the “Vision Zero” doctrine “diverts from sound transportation engineering methodologies and instead employs a one-size-fits-all approach that requires the adoption in all circumstances of lower speed limits, fewer and narrower roads and draconian traffic enforcement measures.” It also observes that while major cities within the U.S. have implemented these policies with the goal of eliminating traffic fatalities, experience has proven that they achieve the opposite.
The drafters of the bill note: “New York City experienced the highest traffic fatalities in a decade, Los Angeles sustained a 22-year record high in fatalities in 2023 and Seattle has been subject to a steady increase in fatalities.”
The City of Phoenix approved the implementation of such a plan in September 2022 and has reintroduced and re-approved them since, with the most recent approved of in October 2024. The original plan was unanimously approved by the Phoenix City Council and allocated $10 million in annual funding.
As reported by ABC15, the Phoenix Department of Street Transportation reported in May of last year that although the city saw a decrease in serious traffic accidents, there was also an increase… in deadly crashes. The city plan proposes to reduce traffic deaths to zero by 2050 with Street Transportation Director Joe Brown saying, “It’s ambitious as it should be. Some places we’re hitting the mark and some places we have some work to do.”
As previously reported by AZ Free News, the Fountain Hills Town Council rejected the ‘Vision Zero Road Diet Plan’ in January by a 5-2 vote. Councilman Allen Skillicorn, joined by fellow councilors Gayle Earle, Rick Watts, Vice Mayor Hannah Toth, and Mayor Gerry Friedel, voted to reject the Resolution and terminate the plan, citing that it was rife with DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) policies unrelated to traffic safety.
“How is this plan racially equitable? Climate change, how does that relate to streets?” Councilwoman Earle asked.
In the text of the measure, Werner notes that “after adopting Vision Zero, Denver, Colorado’s traffic fatalities increased by 33% in the next five years compared to the previous five years, with motorcyclists, pedestrians and cyclists experiencing the highest fatality rates.” She added, “Portland, Oregon’s 2024 city auditor report attributed a doubling of fatalities to Vision Zero policies, despite reduced speed limits, stricter enforcement, intersection reconfigurations and improved lighting, raising concerns about its real-world safety outcomes.”
Concluding the memorandum to the Federal government, the Senate asked “that the President and Congress of the United States eliminate Vision Zero and the safe systems approach to transportation planning and funding, and instead promote transportation solutions that prioritize sound engineering methods, reliable safety outcomes, flexibility and engineering innovation without compromising individual freedoms or economic efficiency.”
Following a statement from President Donald Trump condemning a series of injunctions from “Radical Left Judges” blocking wide-reaching policy decisions, Arizona Republican Congressman Andy Biggs posted to X to draw attention to his Injunctive Authority Clarification Act. If enacted, the act will significantly curtail the ability of U.S. District Court Judges to impose their decisions nationwide.
My Injunctive Authority Clarification Act would prohibit rogue judges from making sweeping decisions that affect the whole country.
In a post from President Trump on Truth Social, he wrote:
“Unlawful Nationwide Injunctions by Radical Left Judges could very well lead to the destruction of our Country! These people are Lunatics, who do not care, even a little bit, about the repercussions from their very dangerous and incorrect Decisions and Rulings. Lawyers endlessly search the United States for these Judges, and file lawsuits as quickly as they find them. It is then the obligation of Law abiding Agencies of Government to have these ‘Orders’ overturned.
“The danger is unparalleled! These Judges want to assume the Powers of the Presidency, without having to attain 80 Million Votes. They want all of the advantages with none of the risks. Again, a President has to be allowed to act quickly and decisively about such matters as returning murderers, drug lords, rapists, and other such type criminals back to their Homeland, or to other locations that will allow our Country to be SAFE.
“It is our goal to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, and such a high aspiration can never be done if Radical and Highly Partisan Judges are allowed to stand in the way of JUSTICE. STOP NATIONWIDE INJUNCTIONS NOW, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. If Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble!”
Congressman Biggs’ bill, H.R. 97, will forbid any court of the United States to “issue an order that purports to restrain the enforcement against a non-party of any statute, regulation, order, or similar authority, unless the non-party is represented by a party acting in a representative capacity pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia James Boasberg issued an injunction ordering the Department of Homeland Security to cease deportation of criminal members of the foreign terrorist organizations Tren de Aragua and MS-13 to a prison in El Salvador.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, also of the District of Columbia appointed by President Joe Biden, issued an injunction against the Department of Defense implementing a direct order from the Commander-in-Chief barring ‘transgender’ individuals suffering from gender dysphoria from serving in the military and hindering combat effectiveness.
U.S. District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California issued a wide-reaching order, requiring the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury and Veterans Affairs to reinstate terminated probationary employees in direct contravention of President Trump’s orders firing them.
U.S. District Judge John McConnell of Rhode Island also issued an inunction against the Trump administration’s order to freeze payments of federal grants pending the results of a fiscal examination.
According to a press release from Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), the Senator announced that he will introduce his own measure that is also designed to “restrict local district court judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions and therefore stymie President Donald Trump’s agenda.” Writing in a post to X Hawley said, “District Court judges have issued RECORD numbers of national injunctions against the Trump administration – a dramatic abuse of judicial authority. I will introduce legislation to stop this abuse for good.”
District Court judges have issued RECORD numbers of national injunctions against the Trump administration – a dramatic abuse of judicial authority. I will introduce legislation to stop this abuse for good
