A bipartisan bill aimed at expanding Arizona’s emergency medical workforce has been sent to Gov. Katie Hobbs for consideration.
SB 1235, sponsored by Senate Majority Leader John Kavanagh, passed both chambers with bipartisan support.
The legislation didn’t receive unanimous support from Kavanagh’s party, however. 13 Republicans (three in the state senate, 10 in the state house) voted against the bill. There were no floor or committee discussions on the bill to explain opposition.
SB 1235 would enter Arizona into the Emergency Medical Services Personnel Licensure Interstate Compact, which would allow non-Arizona emergency medical service (EMS) personnel the privilege to practice in Arizona, and Arizona EMS personnel the privilege to practice across state lines in compact states without a requirement to engage in the licensure process for each state.
25 states have adopted the compact, representing approximately 400,000 providers: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
If approved by the governor, Arizona would agree to standardized EMS licensure requirements and oversight by the Interstate Commission for EMS Personnel Practice.
Any state or states in which an EMS worker maintains active licensure would become a home state or home states. Privilege to practice would only extend to “remote” states: those states where an EMS worker doesn’t have a license. The state license trumps the privilege to practice, and the compact can’t expand the scope of an existing license.
Remote states may investigate and impose restrictions for violations of laws and regulations, but ultimately the compact only allows home states to retain control over an individual’s license. If one state suspends an individual’s privilege to practice, that automatically extends to all other member states until resolved.
The compact would also require FBI-compliant background checks for new licenses.
Kavanagh said during the Senate committee hearing on the bill that the legislation afforded something similar to the reciprocity enjoyed currently by doctors and nurses. Reciprocity requires applications for licenses in other states based on an individual’s existing license, while the compact doesn’t require licensure for other states.
Kavanagh also shared that he was one of the country’s first EMTs at 17 years old while living in New York City. At the time, communities funded their own volunteer ambulance corps.
Among those who signed on in support of the bill were representatives of the Department of Defense, Arizona Ambulance Association, American Medical Response, Healthcare Innovations, and Republican Liberty Caucus of Arizona.
In a press release, Kavanagh said the bill allowed for the reduction of bureaucracy in order to save lives in emergency medical situations. Further, Kavanagh said the legislation would enhance licensure opportunities for military members, veterans, and their spouses.
“When seconds matter, government red tape should never stand in the way of qualified emergency medical professionals helping people in need,” said Kavanagh. “By cutting unnecessary barriers without lowering standards, Arizona is taking a responsible step toward a stronger, more flexible, and more prepared emergency medical system.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona’s Republican state lawmakers are challenging Gov. Katie Hobbs to sign into law a government transparency bill amid the ongoing “pay-to-play” scandal involving the governor.
This past week, the Republican-led legislature sent SB 1186 to Hobbs’ desk. The legislation was inspired partly by ongoing legal challenges to the legality of the Arizona Medicaid program’s contract award system, and partly by ongoing allegations that Hobbs arranged for a unique rate increase to one of her top campaign donors.
Sunshine Residential Homes, a group home operator, donated more than $400,000 collectively to Hobbs’ gubernatorial campaign, Hobbs’ inaugural fund, and the Arizona Democratic Party.
Once Hobbs took office, the Arizona Department of Child Safety gave Sunshine Residential Homes a 30% rate increase, though no other group homes received rate increases and over a dozen contracts were terminated. This was reported initially by the Arizona Republic in 2024, along with another key detail indicating a close relationship between the governor and the company: Hobbs fine dining at the mansion of Sunshine Residential Homes CEO Simon Kottoor.
Hobbs’ inaugural fund — which reached nearly $2 million — was another funding source that was shrouded in secrecy. The inauguration event cost about $200,000, leaving the million-plus as a nonprofit source of funds to be spent at Hobbs’ discretion.
Attorney General Kris Mayes, a fellow Democrat, has maintained that her investigation into the alleged pay-to-play arrangement remains ongoing. Hobbs has yet to take Mayes up on her request for an interview.
The proposed legislation from Arizona’s Republican lawmakers would require companies that obtain state contracts or certain state grants to disclose anything of value provided in the previous five years to the governor, campaign-related entities, inaugural funds, and organizations making independent expenditures supporting or opposing the governor or their political opponents.
The legislation would also prohibit state agencies and employees from destroying notes created during the evaluation
The bill sponsor, State Sen. T.J. Shope (R-LD16), said financial disclosures should come before the state awards any contracts and grants, in order to ensure transparency and fairness in the process.
“Arizonans have watched one contracting controversy after another and are rightly asking whether political connections are influencing decisions involving billions of taxpayer dollars,” said Shope. “Governor Hobbs now has an opportunity to show Arizonans she supports transparency in government by signing this legislation.”
An advisory team was formed in the House to address this alleged pay-to-play scheme by Hobbs, and they also have their own investigation underway. The lawmakers hired outside counsel from out of state — Justin Smith with the Missouri-based James Otis Law Group — to conduct an independent investigation.
Smith led a battery and defamation lawsuit against E. Jean Carroll, an accuser of President Donald Trump.
That independent investigation initiated by lawmakers is ongoing. All findings from the outside counsel go to the advisory team and House leadership.
Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell and Auditor General Lindsey Perry are also coordinating on an investigation into the matter involving Hobbs and Sunshine Residential Homes. The House advisory team announced last year it would coordinate with Mitchell and Perry on their investigation.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Arizona Supreme Court has agreed to take on a case determining whether Arizona State University (ASU) can mandate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) trainings for its employees.
Professor Owen Anderson sued the Arizona Board of Regents in 2024 after ASU required him to take a DEI training called “Inclusive Communities” (ASU referred to their version of DEI as “DEIB,” or “diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging”).
ASU requires the Inclusive Communities training as a condition of employment upon hire and every two years.
The Goldwater Institute, a Phoenix-based public policy and litigation organization, filed on Anderson’s behalf. Goldwater Institute attorney Stacy Skankey said the case represented Arizonans’ right to hold government agencies accountable for violating the law.
Arizona law prohibits any mandatory trainings which impart “blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity or sex.”
“No one should be forced to participate in divisive DEI training or endorse race-based ideology as a condition for holding a government job,” said Skankey. “That’s exactly why Arizona lawmakers banned mandatory trainings that teach discriminatory ideas about race, ethnicity, or sex. But a law without enforcement is no law at all.”
The Inclusive Communities training included materials which taught that white supremacy exists as a structural phenomenon, minority faculty don’t have authority or control due to structural inequalities like racism and sexism, white privilege and white fragility exist and impact communities, white people have a duty to combat their privilege, racism can be implicit even if not intended, and sexual identities yield power.
Transcript examples from the training materials were included in the Goldwater Institute’s filing within the Arizona Supreme Court.
Along with the training, ASU formerly required employees to pass an accompanying module quiz. This exam graded certain answers as correct which served to advance DEIB ideology; the Goldwater Institute argued this final test further proved the training served as an impermissible mandate for employees to accept blame or judgment on the basis of race, ethnicity, and sex.
Anderson said ASU’s mandate violated state law because the training assigned “race blame” based on skin color.
Anderson added that ASU’s training was rooted in a Marxist dichotomy reducing the world to oppressor versus oppressed, and that the training imparted impermissibly discriminatory teachings that conflicted with his religious and political beliefs. Anderson is a tenured faculty member who teaches philosophy and religious studies.
“Arizona State leaders broke the law when they forced me and every other employee to take part in an ideological training that taught that it’s okay to judge people on their race, ethnicity, religion, and sex. I simply refuse to do that,” said Anderson. “Ultimately, the question before the Arizona Supreme Court isn’t a left or right issue — it’s about whether a state employee has the right to hold their employer accountable when it violates the law.”
The Arizona Court of Appeals previously rejected Anderson’s lawsuit. The court ruled that the law doesn’t have a provision allowing individuals like Anderson to seek legal recourse.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
The Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) exceeded its authority under state law, the Maricopa County Superior Court ruled Monday.
The court determined in an under advisement ruling in this ongoing case that, again, ADWR lacked authority under state law to impose a new obligation on home developers to secure additional water supply.
The Home Builders Association of Central Arizona and Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14) have challenged this and other ADWR policies initiated at the behest of Gov. Katie Hobbs.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Scott Blaney said this additional requirement by ADWR went beyond what state law required. Per Blaney, the law only requires developers to show 100 years of continuous availability of water sufficient to satisfy water needs for the use proposed by the developer.
State law limited ADWR to two pathways: either developers could obtain a certificate of assured water supply from ADWR or they could obtain a commitment of service from a municipal provider such as a city, town, or private company with an ADWR assurance of water supply designation.
However, under a new rule pushed by the Hobbs administration, R12-15-710(H), ADWR limited developers to a third, new pathway for assured water supply designation. This pathway involved a newly created category of water availability ADWR called “New Alternative Water Supplies,” and required developers to secure an additional 25% of this new category beyond their proposed usage needs.
The ADWR changes under Hobbs resulted in what effectively became a housing moratorium. New building progress in the Valley ground to a halt.
Blaney ruled ADWR lacked the authority to create this third, new pathway. He declared that the plain language of the statute only requires a 100-year guarantee of water needs satisfaction.
“The Legislature created two paths to establish an assured water supply to develop a subdivision: obtain a certificate; or obtain a designation,” said Blaney. “Through the implementation of its moratorium and its nearly simultaneous promulgation of a rule that demands more water than the statute requires, ADWR has in effect attempted to rewrite the governing statute at the agency level.”
Blaney also rejected ADWR’s argument that this third pathway was a voluntary, alternative path out of several for developers. He sided with the developer’s assessment that ADWR had unlawfully restricted developers to a single pathway.
The court ruling on Monday blocked ADWR from enforcing the rule.
In April, the Maricopa County Superior Court struck down ADWR’s housing moratorium articulated in several rules pertaining to unmet water demand and depth-to-water limits.
Similar to this most recent ruling, Blaney found that ADWR sought to break necessary limitations on administrative agency powers and had unlawfully implemented two agency rules without following the Administrative Procedures Act.
AZ Free Newsreported last month that the ADWR-spurred housing moratorium may put taxpayers on the hook for more than $1 billion, due to ongoing and potential future builder compensation claims.
ADWR plans to appeal pending the final ruling.
When Hobbs took office, she formed a Water Policy Council to overhaul the state’s approach to groundwater management. Two committees were formed, one of which addressed assured water supply.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
A local church filed suit against the city of Phoenix for its new ordinance requiring permits to feed and provide medical care to the homeless in public parks.
The city ordinance, “Phoenix Medical Treatment and Food Distribution in Parks,” impacts any individual or organization with a charitable or humanitarian purpose from distributing food or medical care to the general public, not just the homeless — though it is those seeking to provide resources to the homeless that are most impacted by the policy.
The city emphasized the prohibition on the sale, distribution, or exchange of syringes or needles, needle exchange programs, and distribution of needle/intramuscular naloxone in public communications discussing the new ordinance.
The ordinance exempts those distributing food or medical care for non-charitable purposes, such as food distributed at events not open to the general public, like birthday parties, or medical aid rendered to address a sudden medical event. Water and electrolyte beverage distribution was also exempted from the permitting process.
The council passed the ordinance last month, and it took effect last wek week. Starting Friday, the city provides a limited number of permits: two per month, per park made available on a tri-annual basis. The two permits combine both food and medical, not two food and two medical permits.
Those seeking permits must submit the names, food handler certificates, and medical certifications for all providing food and/or medical care, along with proof of a $2 million liability insurance policy.
Lance Brace, a Phoenix real estate agent, and his nonprofit St. Herman’s Table filed the lawsuit challenging the ordinance through Provident Law in the Arizona District Court this week.
St. Herman’s Table provides a meal, water, Bibles, and small hygiene products to the homeless at Cave Creek Park at Cactus once a week. The nonprofit is part of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross Orthodox Church.
Brace argued that the ordinance violates the First Amendment and the Arizona Free Exercise of Religion Act, claiming that it extends favorable treatment to secular activities, like wedding and birthday parties, by not holding them to the same permitting requirements as religious organizations engaging in charitable endeavors.
Advocates for the city ordinance say the homeless have made the public parks unsafe for children and families.
In its presentation of the ordinance during a formal council meeting last month, the city included photos taken by city staff and submitted by residents as examples of the pervasive problems occurring in park systems due to unfettered services rendered to the homeless: mass crowding, littering, drug usage, drug paraphernalia, and contamination with biological hazards.
As an example of the safety hazards presented by charitable organization presence without government oversight, officials referenced several recent city cleanup efforts that yielded the collection of hundreds of needles at South Mountain Park and Preserve, John F. & Mary P. Long Homestead Park, and Margaret T. Hance Park.
Critics of the city ordinance argued that the charitable services shouldn’t be limited by a permitting process due to the outsized needs of the homeless community.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
