Arizonans who were under the impression that a Democrat governor in office would tip the scale in favor of more progressive policies are readjusting their expectations after the new state budget was signed into law.
On Friday, Governor Katie Hobbs signed the budget sent to her earlier in the week by the Republican-led Arizona Legislature. The $17.8 billion budget was approved in both the House and Senate with broad bipartisan support, though several Democrats refused to back the compromise.
Many observers thought that with Arizona’s divided government and with the political animosity between state Republicans and Democrats, this budget wouldn’t become a reality until June or later. Veteran communicator Barrett Marson tweeted, “A lot of people said it couldn’t be done. A lot of pundits (me included) said there’d be no budget deal until June/July. We were wrong. Governor Hobbs, President Petersen and Speaker Toma came together to craft a budget with broad bipartisan support. There’s a lot to like. Let’s celebrate.”
A lot of people said it couldn't be done. A lot of pundits (me included) said there'd be no budget deal until June/July. We were wrong. @GovernorHobbs@votewarren@RepBenToma came together to craft a budget with broad bipartisan support. There's a lot to like. Let's celebrate!
Though both sides received concessions in the budget, it appears that Republicans were the significant winners in the deal thanks to the shrewd negotiations employed by Petersen, Toma, and members of their staff. Both chiefs of staff, Josh Kredit (Senate) and Michael Hunter (House), have dealt with the state budget for a number of years and gave their bosses an extreme advantage when coming to terms with Arizona’s chief executive.
Petersen took a victory lap after the governor’s signature ended the budget saga for this fiscal year, stating, “We’re able to do this for our citizens, while also reducing government spending by $300 million. In fact, this is the first budget since 2017 where we have not added any new ongoing spending above formula increases. Additionally, Senate Republicans prevented the Governor and Democrat Legislators from advancing their extremist agenda. State-funded abortions and tuition-free college education for undocumented immigrants will not happen in Arizona. We are not getting rid of state-funded border security resources to keep our communities safe, especially as the Biden Administration foolishly lifts Title 42. We’re also not capping, cutting or eliminating the historic universal school choice program that now has more than 50,000 participants. Needless to say, your Republican Majority at the Legislature will continue to fight to protect Arizona from turning into California at the hands of the radical left.”
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Senate Republicans Reduce Spending, Provide Historic Tax Rebates to Families, Protect School Choice and Stop Democrats' Extremist Agenda with 2023-2024 Budget pic.twitter.com/1nJvW6hehc
After the House cleared the budget on Wednesday, Speaker Toma also championed this major achievement for his chamber and caucus: “From day one, our Majority has been focused on getting the job done for our constituents: putting Arizona families first, protecting the vulnerable, and growing opportunity and freedom. We’re conservatives. We believe you should keep more of your money and the government should spend less. That’s why we believe this is Arizona’s Budget — a budget that reflects our needs, gives back, spends smart, and addresses real issues. We needed a budget that the Governor would sign that accomplishes our goal of putting Arizona families first. This budget accomplishes both.”
🚨BREAKING NEWS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE🚨
‘Arizona’s Budget’ Approved by House of Representatives Puts Families First, Gives Back, Spends Smart, and Addresses Real Issues
House Republican Leaders hailed the budget’s passage as a huge win for Arizona families and the state:
— Arizona House Republicans (@AZHouseGOP) May 10, 2023
Cathi Herrod, President of the Center for Arizona Policy, also praised Republican leaders for protecting the future of family values in the budget. She wrote, “I credit Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Ben Toma for standing strong against any pro-abortion funding or other measures. The popular universal Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program did not get a cap or any restrictions, which is great news for all Arizona families who want to choose the best educational environment for their children.”
The Senate Republicans shared additional highlights from the Fiscal Year 2023 budget:
Education: $680 million in new education investments, including a $300 million infusion into K-12, an $88 million ongoing increase to per pupil funding, and $183 million for school capital funding
Public Safety: $256 million, including operational investments for the Departments of Corrections, Public Safety, and Emergency and Military Affairs, as well as $36 million in local sheriff and police department support
Transportation: $610 million in state and local transportation projects, including $89 million to expand lanes on the I-10, $76 million to expand lanes on the I-17, as well as $54 million in pavement rehabilitation for roads affected by winter weather
Tax Cuts: $260 million for the Arizona Families Tax Rebate, which will provide up to $750 to taxpayers with children and adult dependents
Health and Welfare: $342 million, including $150 million for the Housing Trust Fund to develop more affordable housing, $60 million for emergency homeless services and temporary shelters, as well as $14 million specifically allocated for veteran housing and employment services
Natural Resources: $174 million in natural resource investments, including $143 million in reallocated funding for targeted water-related projects
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
On Tuesday, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled against the state’s mask mandate ban challenged by the Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA). The court noted that while it didn’t agree with the lower court’s reasoning completely, it did concur with the judgment. An opinion will be issued in the near future. Justice Kathryn King recused herself; Court of Appeals Judge Randall Howe took her place. Roopali Desai argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, ASBA, while Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s Solicitor General Beau Roysden argued on behalf of the defense, the State of Arizona.
In September, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Katherin Cooper ruled that ASBA had standing to challenge the mask mandate ban of SB 1819. The court also ruled that the SB 1819 was entirely unconstitutional and therefore invalid because it contained more than a single subject. In addition to SB 1819, the court also invalidated certain provisions in HB 2898, SB 1824, and SB 1825 on the grounds that they violated the Arizona Constitution’s title requirement: the titles of those bills didn’t accurately reflect the content of the legislation. As a result, 58 provisions of state law were invalidated prior to their start date on September 29.
During the hearing, the judges went back and forth with Roysden over whether the challenged laws truly did violate the single subject and title requirements. Their questions to Desali largely indicated a concern with how they were going to uphold Cooper’s prior ruling without overstepping into their bounds as the judiciary.
Roysden argued that plaintiffs weren’t showing a concrete and particularized injury from SB 1819. Vice Chief Justice Ann Timmer challenged that repeatedly, saying plaintiffs merely had to show they were affected by the issue at hand.
Roysden then argued that the court’s ruling on SB 1819 would be historic because no other laws in state history were struck down based on an interpretation of single subject and title requirements like the superior court gave.
“I think this is a watershed moment in Arizona Constitutional law because I’ve surveyed the case law […] – there is no case in Arizona law where this court has struck down a provision because the substantive provisions were not sufficiently interrelated. This would be uncharted territory by the court,” said Roysden. “What the court has enforced uniformly – going back to 1916 all the way up through the late 1970s cases – is the title requirement, and that is what the court must consider and limit its judicial review. The purpose of the title requirement is a procedural rule to put the public on notice of the potential contents of an act may be.”
Roysden also argued that the questions decided on by the superior court weren’t within the court’s function anyway. He said that the courts could decide whether legislation abided by the single subject and title rules – but not whether the provisions within the legislation were interrelated enough to qualify within those single subject and title rules. Roysden cited the intent of the constitutional convention delegates.
Desai argued that the legislature didn’t offer adequate notice or proper information on legislative content to the public. She characterized the state’s argument as requesting sole discretion on deciding what abides by the title and single subject rule.
“That could lead to some very problematic results. What’s to say the legislature doesn’t say that about every act that they pass?” asked Desai.
Timmer asked how the court could rule on this issue without overstepping their constitutionally-drawn bounds as the judicial branch. Justice William Montgomery echoed that question.
“Just how strict do you expect us to be in this regard? Because this does affect the legislature going forward?” asked Montgomery.
Desai responded that the term “budget reconciliation” was a “term of art” – a narrow, concrete definition – and that the legislature shouldn’t get to decide the standards for satisfying title requirements and the single subject rule. She said that the legislature was “throwing the Constitution out the window.”
“The test is not whether it relates to the budget. The test is whether it’s a budget reconciliation provision,” said Desai. “[B]udget reconciliation is a provision that is necessary to carry out and effectuate the budget.”
Montgomery challenged Desai on this point, asking whether that was what the state legislature did when issuing limitations for use of the budget funds. Desai responded that it wasn’t a budget reconciliation provision.
“In this case, the legislature chose a very narrow title,” asserted Desai. “We have to decide what these things mean. The court doesn’t have to come up with its own definition or adopt the stretch of an argument the state is advocating for because budget reconciliation is a term of art that is clearly understood.”
Desai then further argued that the court shouldn’t attempt to salvage certain provisions of SB 1819 because there was no way of knowing if the legislature would’ve passed them on their own, sans the logrolling. This is something that Chief Justice Robert Brutinel vocalized as Desai was making the argument; her agreement prompted a pleased look and chuckle from Brutinel.
In closing arguments, Roysden clarified that the original purpose and intention of the title requirement was to notify and not intentionally mislead the public. Howe challenged him several times on this argument, stating that Roysden’s position was that it was only for the state legislature to decide what constituted compliance with the constitutional rules on single subject and title requirements for bills.
Roysden urged the judges to not apply their ruling retroactively, but rather to allow the legislature to adjust accordingly in the future.
“The history here is that the legislature in good faith has followed what the court has suggested, and that should continue,” said Roysden.
In a statement after the hearing, Governor Doug Ducey expressed that he was “extremely disappointed” with the ruling.
“There are three separate co-equal branches of government and we respect the role of the judiciary, but the court should give the same respect to the separate authority of the legislature,” stated Ducey.
