The first piece of legislation in the Arizona House of Representatives for the upcoming 57th Regular Session was introduced by a soon-to-be second-term Republican lawmaker.
Last week, state Representative Matthew Gress announced that he had introduced his chamber’s first bill, stating that “this constituent-inspired legislation will help address the regulatory lag that is disrupting access to mental healthcare professionals.”
Today, I introduced the first House Bill of what will be the 57th Arizona Legislature.
An Arizona resident responded to the news, saying, “I absolutely love this. I never knew what an issue mental health could be until I saw some of my friends in the Army struggling with it after encountering horrible things. We lose more vets to mental health issues than combat. Access to care is an issue that must be addressed.”
I absolutely love this. I never knew what an issue mental health could be until I saw some of my friends in the Army struggling with it after encountering horrible things. We lose more vets to mental health issues than combat. Access to care is an issue that must be addressed. https://t.co/fLgNMA2MzQ
Not everyone on the X platform was on board with the proposal, however. One account asked, “What is the problem to solve here? This bill problematically gives an out of state counselor who has committed an act that would be cause for discipline, or has had their license revoked, or is under investigation for misconduct – a free pass to work in AZ. Health professions are regulated precisely to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public – no one’s guaranteed a license unconditionally.”
Gress fired back at the detractor of his bill, saying, “Right now, if you go to school to become a social worker, counselor, marriage and family therapist, or addiction counselor, you are required to build clinical hours by having patients. In order to do this, the student must undergo a background check. Here’s the problem: Under the status quo, once someone graduates, that individual must stop working and patients are shown the door. Many patients don’t or can’t find an alternative despite developing a trusting relationship with the therapist who just graduated.”
Right now, if you go to school to become a social worker, counselor, marriage and family therapist, or addiction counselor, you are required to build clinical hours by having patients. In order to do this, the student must undergo a background check.
The Republican lawmaker added, “This is an outdated and unexplainable piece of red tape that inhibits people who’ve gotten their degrees and their experience to start working sooner. HB 2001 is a simple reform. If you’ve completed the hours and work, they count. We need good people and more people going into this field, especially with rising suicide rates and the worst mental health crisis we’ve ever seen.”
Legislators will be officially back in action in just over a month as Arizona returns to its status of a divided government for at least another two years.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Arizona’s Senate President recently highlighted the exorbitant cost of illegal immigration to his state.
Last week, state Senator Warren Petersen shared a recent study on what the city of Denver, Colorado was spending on illegal immigration. He contrasted Denver’s “sanctuary city” approach to that just experienced by the State of Arizona, where voters passed a border security ballot measure, Proposition 314.
Petersen said, “And the media in AZ was pushing a false narrative that it would cost us money to enforce immigration laws. When in fact we save money. The cost of illegal immigration to AZ is 2 Billion. Cost of enforcement is significantly less. The voters didn’t buy the false media narrative. They passed our border security act by nearly 2 to 1.”
And the media in AZ was pushing a false narrative that it would cost us money to enforce immigration laws. When in fact we save money. The cost of illegal immigration to AZ is 2 Billion. Cost of enforcement is significantly less. The voters didn't buy the false media… https://t.co/yXwUBtvGZR
The study promoted by the Arizona legislator was from the Common Sense Institute, which showed that Denver had expended $356 million of taxpayer dollars on illegal immigrants – almost $8,000 per foreign national purportedly in the municipality, which amounts to eight percent of its 2025 budget.
According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), illegal immigration cost Arizona taxpayers around $3.19 billion in 2023 – an annual burden of $1,189 for each state household (or each illegal alien costing the state $5,230). As in Denver, a large share of that financial total was for educational expenses ($1.36 billion). More than half a billion dollars was shelled out for police, legal, and corrections in the Grand Canyon State.
In 2023, it was estimated that 453,000 illegal immigrants lived in Arizona, with their households sending 109,602 students to local schools.
Last month, Arizona voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 314, which was referred to the ballot by Republican legislators earlier this year – with almost 63% of voters supporting the measure. Prop 314, which mostly is in effect now, gives local law enforcement and communities more resources to combat illegal immigration in their state and to protect innocent men, women, and children from the dangers that the open border has increasingly presented over the past four years of the Biden-Harris administration.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A southern Arizona elections official is facing a potential investigation over her jurisdiction’s execution of the recent November General Election.
On Monday, state Representatives Teresa Martinez and Rachel Jones sent a request to Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, asking her office to conduct an investigation “into the Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cazares-Kelly’s handling of the 2024 General Election.”
🚨State Representatives Teresa Martinez & Rachel Jones Request Attorney General Investigation Into Pima County Election Administration
“Election integrity is the foundation of our democracy, and voters deserve to know their elections are being administered fairly, lawfully, and… pic.twitter.com/BJFmLiloSK
The Republican lawmakers raised a number of issues stemming from the election in Pima County, including “shutting down of early ballot request portal, inmate voter registration program, [and] handling of undeliverable and returned ballots.”
“Election integrity is the foundation of our democracy, and voters deserve to know their elections are being administered fairly, lawfully, and transparently,” said Representative Martinez. “The numerous irregularities and lack of accountability from the Pima County Recorder’s Office demand a full investigation.”
“When nearly 4,000 voters face barriers to requesting a ballot, and when questions about unlawful voting and ballot processing are met with silence, it’s clear that immediate action is needed to restore public trust,” added Representative Jones.
In their letter to Mayes, the two legislators wrote, “Arizonans deserve free, fair, and transparent elections. In light of your recent decision to immediately investigate President-Elect Donald Trump over his speech (although you later determined his remarks were protected by the First Amendment), we hope you will agree that Recorder Cázares-Kelly’s alarming conduct administering the 2024 General Election warrants a thorough investigation.”
The Pima County Recorder appears to be a proud Democrat activist alongside her nonpartisan position as an election official. During this just-completed elections cycle, Cázares-Kelly posted a picture with Jane Fonda, and boasted about shaking former President Barack Obama’s hand at a political event.
Love this photo of me & goddess @Janefonda during her recent visit to Tucson w/ @janeclimatepac. She was making a joke out of the side of her mouth as I laughed in delight. She talked about her decades of enviro activism, even recalling getting arrested alongside @standwithraul! pic.twitter.com/MDWvOAplJC
Cázares-Kelly also shared a video of Mayes dancing at a political rally in October.
Lol. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes twirling away to @tigresdelnorte is exactly what I needed to see on my timeline as I inhaled my lunch finally.
The Arizona Department of Health Services (AZDHS) called for the removal of guns from all homes with children.
AZDHS made the recommendation for family homes to have their firearms removed in their latest Arizona Child Fatality Review Program (CFRP) report, released last month. This annual report is submitted to the governor and leaders of both the House and Senate for the purpose of guiding policy and even influencing state intervention.
“CFRP believes that the most effective way to prevent firearm-related deaths in children is to remove all firearms in households with children because the presence of firearms in a household increases the risk of suicide among adolescents,” stated the opening letter of the report. “Parents of all adolescents should remove all guns from their homes, especially if there is a history of mental health issues or substance use issues. In addition, CFRP recommends that all gun owners should practice safe storage of their firearms by keeping guns unloaded and locked in a safe separate from the ammunition.”
The report recommended that the state should require mental health screening and gun safety training as prerequisites to purchasing firearms, license and track all firearms, and punish people for failing to report stolen firearms.
The report also recommended that policy makers, participating agencies, and schools launch public awareness campaigns advising the removal of all firearms from their households.
According to that report, nearly 70 minors died from preventable firearm injuries last year. Of those deaths, 44 percent (30 deaths) were suicides. 75 percent occurred in children ages 15-17 years, and 84 percent of firearm injury deaths were among males.
The leading risk factors of firearm injury deaths were: access to firearms (60 percent), CPS history with the family (59 percent), substance use (56 percent), history of violence or trauma (46 percent), and an unlocked firearm (40 percent).
Firearms were not the leading cause of preventable deaths for Arizona minors.
The top leading cause of preventable deaths among minors occurred from motor vehicle crashes (81 deaths, 20 percent), followed by firearm injury (68 deaths, 16 percent), then suffocation (52 deaths, 13 percent), poisoning (34 deaths, eight percent), and drowning (31 deaths, seven percent).
Founding member and chairwoman Mary Rimsza authored the opening letter which recommended the total removal of guns from homes with children, and the unloading and locking up of guns in all other homes.
Rimsza is a pediatrician, fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, professor of pediatrics at Mayo Graduate School of Medicine, and research professor of Health Management and Policy at Arizona State University.
Rimsza advocated for mandatory masking and vaccinations throughout the COVID-19 pandemic in the media while serving as the advocacy committee chair for the Arizona chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
You can help prevent your child and others from getting Covid. Wear a mask https://t.co/8MkBix5Z8o
— Mary Ellen Rimsza MD FAAP (@RimszaMd) June 17, 2020
According to her X profile, Rimsza has also advocated for eating less meat and indicated her support for Democrats across the board, expressing avid support for Joe Biden’s presidential candidacy and opposition to the reelection of Donald Trump in 2020.
In a separate X profile, Rimsza shared a statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics claiming that racism impacts the physical health of children.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
During a city council meeting this week, Mayor John Giles and the Mesa City Council voted to approve across-the-board increases in the city’s utility rates and fees covering solid waste removal, electricity, gas, water, and wastewater. Over two-dozen Mesa citizens spoke during the meeting, which stretched over two-hours. Mesa, lacking a primary property tax, derives much of its funding from utility rates and fees.
The city is facing increases in electric rates of up to 39% for Winter Tier 2 usage charges for residents and a $2.75 per month service charge increase according to the council report. Non-residential users will face increases from 2-6 percent. Solid waste residential barrel rates will increase 5.5%, with commercial roll-off rates jumping 6.5%. Gas rates are increasing 6-15% for residences and from 9-25% for non-residential users. Water rates are increasing 4-9% for residents, 5.5% for non-residential, 8.5% for commercial users, and 19.5% for large commercial or industrial users. Finally wastewater service and usage components charges will increase by 7.5% for residents and 8.5% for non-residential.
City staffers told The Mesa Tribune that the typical residential bill for water, wastewater, and solid waste will see an increase of about $5.60, from the current average of $100.21 to $105.81
As reported by the Tribune, Giles answered criticism at a meeting in late November telling the frustrated residents, “This proposed water-rate increase of less than 5% in Mesa is dramatically less than you see in every other community,” said Giles, zeroing in on the water utility increase.
“Cities around the Valley are increasing water 25%, talking about increasing wastewater charges 95%. We’re not doing anything remotely like that in the City of Mesa.“
“So if you’re upset about the increasing price of water, I’m with you. But if you want to vent those feelings, probably every other city council in the state would be a more appropriate place to do that because the increases are less than what you’re seeing in other cities.”
Kevin Medema, a Mesa resident who led the organization of a petition opposing the utility increases reportedly signed by 2,000 people, stressed, “We have citizens that are hurting financially. The city shoots for that 20% reserve (in the utility accounts). Well, you know a lot of residents won’t have that in themselves. So, please consider voting ‘no.’’’
Medema suggested that residents have offered to help the city find ways to reduce spending.
During the November 18th meeting, one Mesa resident, Lynda Patrick-Hayes poignantly called upon the council to “entertain the idea of cutting the utility rates and encourage the city manager to eliminate government waste. The City of Mesa has no revenue problems. It has a spending problem.”
Citing the city’s reliance on utility charges and sales tax due to lacking a property tax, Giles told the citizens, “There’s not an apples-to-apples comparison because the City of Mesa has a different model. We’re going to use utilities to help subsidize city services.”
Multiple attempts to reinstate a primary property tax, eliminated in 1945, have failed over the years.
“Now if you don’t like that model…the answer is not to come to the City of Mesa and say, ‘We don’t want you to raise utilities because that’s denying the reality of math.’”
Responding to calls to reduce city spending, Giles told the gathered objectors, “What your proposal is, you’re saying, ‘I want to dramatically cut spending on public safety in the City of Mesa.’ That’s what you’re asking us to do.”
Republican State Representative Barbara Parker spoke on behalf of her constituents in the area and told the council, “They call me when they lose their homes. They call the state when they can’t afford their insurance. And on behalf of them, I am telling you they are hurting and even one dollar makes a huge difference.”
Parker castigated the mayor and council for suggesting the city cut public safety spending, “The fact that we use the threat of fear and emotion that we are going to cut police and fire is so disingenuous and inappropriate. And to all the gentlemen and women in uniform tonight: I am one of you and I have trained many of the firefighters, and I want you to know we have your backs. And we need to elect people who will fund you first and then find funding for everything else. We are never going to cut funding to police and fire. That is always a tactic. It’s disingenuous, it is inappropriate, it lacks accountability, it is intellectually dishonest, and they are not pawns and you deserve better. Don’t let them use you as a pawn police and fire. It’s inappropriate to have a bond and then immediately after that election to suddenly have a tax increase or a rate payers increase.”
She concluded, “One of the things I was able to communicate to the legislature as a member of the Appropriations Committee is that: EVERY. SINGLE. DOLLAR. IS. SACRED. Every single penny is sacred. And when I’ve asked the citizens would they rather have one more penny in their pocket than have it go to waste or redundancies or excesses. Absolutely they say yes. I hope you’ll have the courage to do the right thing tonight. I can tell you on behalf of the state: we were able to cut budget, balance our budget, give money back to the taxpayers and fund every single program. And if the state of Arizona can do it, Mesa can do it better.”
The rate increases were passed by the city council unanimously with Giles stating, “I know all of that is not appreciated by this crowd to the extent that we’d like it to be, but it’s the facts. For those reasons I am compelled by math and the reality of the situation to support this increase.”
Republicans in the Arizona Legislature scored another legal victory with the nation’s high court granting cert on a case they had intervened in earlier this year.
On November 22, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear FCC v. Consumers’ Research in its current term. The case will be consolidated with SHLB Coalition v. Consumers’ Research. This case involves a question of the nondelegation doctrine, which, according to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell, is “the principle that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers or lawmaking ability to other entities.”
Great news! The Arizona Legislature joined the states’ amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review this case. @AZHouseGOP@AZSenateGOP
The decision from the U.S. Supreme Court represents a significant victory for Republicans in the Arizona Legislature, who had joined an amicus brief from state attorneys general from around the country to urge the justices to hear arguments in this case.
On its X account, Consumers’ Research reacted to the order, writing, “American citizens and consumers alike deserve basic accountability in government and in the marketplace. Americans currently are forced to pay a tax with every phone bill, set by unelected bureaucrats, at the recommendation by the same private corporation that receives the revenue. This is absurd and we believe SCOTUS will agree as the 5th circuit did.”
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has granted certiorari on our lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
Consumers' Research v. FCC is headed to the Supreme Court.
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen, who was instrumental in the Arizona Legislature joining the efforts to support Consumers’ Research, told AZ Free News that, “These carriers are unlawfully taxing the public to the tune of billions of dollars. Congress should instead determine what taxes our citizens are to pay and by how much, not unelected Washington bureaucrats.”
The brief that the Arizona Legislature signed onto was joined by 15 other states, led by the West Virginia attorney general. The other states were Alabama, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
In their brief, the attorneys general argued that “the states – and our country – need guidance on the nondelegation doctrine,” that “those who mean to scare the court away from these issues are wrong,” that “preserving Congress’s legislative power protects the states’ interests,” and that “this court should evaluate this statute.”
They wrote, “Every year, the Federal Communications Commission extracts billions from American consumers based on a vague statute that says telecommunications providers ‘should make an equitable and nondiscriminatory contribution to the perseveration and advancement of universal service.’ The only limits on this multi-billion-dollar fee are vague notions like ‘quality’ service. And the Commission – an independent agency already shielded from accountability in its own right – doesn’t even set these rates itself. Instead, a private company picks a number that the Commission rubberstamps later.”
The attorneys general added, “Make no mistake: Amici States recognize the goal of securing universal telecommunications service is laudable. Congress can and should find a way to provide these services for everyone. But it’s a ‘fundamental principle that, no matter how laudable its purposes, the actions of our government are always subject to the limitations of the Constitution.’ Congress needs to be the one to act here, not a private band of unaccountable industry participants. The Court should grant the Petition to say so.”
The Court’s decision to hear arguments in this matter follows an opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in July, which found that “this misbegotten tax violates Article I, Section I of the Constitution.” The appeals court stated, “The Q1 2022 USF Tax is not only difficult to square with the Supreme Court’s public nondelegation precedents. It was also formulated by private entities. That raises independent but equally serious questions about its compatibility with Article 1, Section 1, which requires ‘[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress.’ We (1) explain that the scope of FCC’s delegation to private entities may violate the Legislative Vesting Clause by allowing private entities to exercise government power. Then we (2) explain that even if FCC’s delegation could be constitutionally justified, FCC may have violated the Legislative Vesting Clause by delegating government power to private entities without express congressional authorization.”
According to SCOTUSblog, this case will likely be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the spring of 2025. The justices’ opinion will be rendered in June or July at the conclusion of their term.
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
