Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs has vetoed a Republican-sponsored immigration enforcement bill, drawing sharp criticism from Senator John Kavanagh and other GOP lawmakers who say the legislation was a necessary step toward protecting public safety.
SB 1610, introduced by Kavanagh, would have required county detention facilities to cooperate with federal immigration authorities by providing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with access to information about non-citizen individuals arrested for certain serious crimes, including aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, burglary, and offenses resulting in serious bodily injury or death.
Governor Hobbs vetoed the bill, saying it would have undermined trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement and could have led to racial profiling. Hobbs has previously said that Arizona should not be in the business of enforcing federal immigration law — a view aligned with many Democrats who argue that local entanglement in immigration enforcement can have unintended legal and social consequences.
Senator Kavanagh sharply disagreed, framing the veto as a dereliction of duty.
“Hobbs continues to give her veto stamp more attention than the citizens she’s required to protect,” Kavanagh said in a statement. “People are fed up with the massive tsunami of dangerous criminals who have entered this country illegally.”
He added that the bill was a way to align Arizona with federal deportation efforts and referenced the recent Laken Riley Act, a congressional proposal with bipartisan support that also centers on deportation of illegal immigrants convicted of violent crimes.
The bill comes at a time when immigration remains a political issue in Arizona, a border state that has long wrestled with foreign nationals attempting to enter illegally into the U.S. Republican lawmakers have increasingly advocated for state-level legislation to fill what they see as gaps in federal immigration enforcement. Democrats, however, claim that such bills often cast too wide a net and risk violating constitutional protections.
Governor Hobbs has issued more than 100 vetoes since taking office in 2023 — a record-setting pace that reflects the divided government in Arizona, where Republicans control the Legislature and Democrats hold the governor’s office.
With the latest veto, the clash between state lawmakers and the governor over immigration policy is likely to continue into the next legislative session and could become a focal point in upcoming elections.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Under the direction of Governor Katie Hobbs, the Arizona Department of Administration (ADA) sold the state’s first private prison rather than repurposing it for illegal alien detainment.
The State House overwhelmingly rejected a bill last Thursday to lease the prison, Marana Community Correctional Treatment Facility adjacent to Tucson, to the federal government for illegal aliens and other violators of immigration law for just $1 a year. The bill failed due to bipartisan rejection despite its party-line passage in the Senate.
“The federal government should have access to the empty Marana Prison to house these dangerous criminal illegal aliens so that Arizonans are protected from further threats,” said the bill’s author, Senator John Kavanaugh.
One Republican lawmaker representing Marana, Rep. Rachel Keshel, rejected repurposing the prison for immigration violations over concerns of bringing criminal illegal aliens into their community.
Keshel and fellow lawmaker to the area, Democratic Rep. Kevin Volk, alleged in remarks to Capitol Media Services that Kavanaugh failed to consult with local leaders about his proposed plan.
“Now, I do agree that something needs to happen with it instead of it just sitting there. But why was I not consulted with?” Keshel asked. “Why wasn’t I able to go to the mayor, the vice mayor, the town council of Marana, and figure out what their desires were for their community?”
The prison’s buyer, Management and Training Corporation (MTC) out of Utah, had operated and managed the prison. MTC purchased the 500-bed facility for about $15 million last Wednesday.
MTC owns nearly 40 correctional facilities, community release centers, and treatment programs across the nation.
The Marana prison was the state’s first private prison, established over 30 years ago. The minimum-security facility housed around up to 500 prisoners requiring substance abuse intervention. The declining prison population in the state prompted the prison’s closing and its recent sale.
The sale comes less than two years after Governor Katie Hobbs announced the prison’s closure in late 2023. The prison closed with under half of the number of prisoners that would constitute capacity.
Hobbs said the closure was a means of saving taxpayer dollars and eliminating government waste. The governor projected a savings of $15 million between the 2024 and 2025 fiscal years.
Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation and Reentry (ADCRR) absorbed the Marana inmates into other prisons throughout the state. ADCRR operates 15 prisons, six of which are private.
“So not only are we demonstrating significant savings, we’re demonstrating, with actions, our ability to be more efficient with the resources already provided to us,” said ADCRR Director Ryan Thornell.
The move by the Hobbs administration put off some local leaders. Marana Mayor Ed Honea said Hobbs gave notice to nearly 90 prison employees and staff of their impending job loss just three weeks before Christmas. The prison had the capability of employing over 200 individuals at full capacity.
Per Honea, the Marana inmates also provided affordable labor for the town. The inmates managed and cleared roadways, and during storm seasons would also clear debris.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
An Arizona legislator has put out the call: he needs a second job. Arizona Representative Nick Kupper (R-LD25) put out posts to LinkedIn and X on Tuesday announcing that he is seeking to start a new role in addition to his work as a lawmaker.
Writing in a post to X, Kupper explained, “If you’re wondering, state reps make ~$35k with base pay/per diem. Once I got elected I was laid off for being a legislator. That sucks, but I’d rather go bankrupt than give up on my constituents. That being said 4 kids eat a lot, so if you know of any remote jobs I’m all ears.”
If you’re wondering, state reps make ~$35k with base pay/per diem. Once I got elected I was laid off for being a legislator.
That sucks, but I’d rather go bankrupt than give up on my constituents.
That being said 4 kids eat a lot, so if you know of any remote jobs I’m all ears. pic.twitter.com/Hu5UUV9vkD
In his post to LinkedIn, he wrote, “My role as State Rep is great, but pays very little and timing wise effectively only allows me to work remote roles.”
In Arizona, the state legislature has been traditionally viewed as a part-time job. With the session running from January often through June or even July, it’s easy to see why. And while strange compared to more populous states, this is a very common system.
In Texas for example, the legislature is only convened for a maximum of 140 days every odd-numbered year, barring special sessions called by the Governor for 30-day stretches. Montana, Nevada, and North Dakota, have similar odd-numbered-year arrangements.
Salary-wise, Arizona ranks near the middle of the pack with its $24k plus per diem ranking 24th out of the fifty states. In neighboring New Mexico, the legislature receives no salary at all, only earning a $161 per diem during session. By contrast, a New York legislator earns a salary of $110k per year with per diem, totaling approximately $142k annually.
As reported in early March by AZ Free News, Arizona Legislators have taken considerable heat over Senate Concurrent Resolution 1003, a measure to effectively double their salaries to $48k along with increases in per diem payments and benefits.
One major point of contention is a disparity in pay between members who live within Maricopa County versus outside of it.
“I think there’s discrimination happening currently (with) the way members of this body and Senate are paid, when you have members that literally could get three times the total pay package because they live outside of Maricopa versus inside,” Representative David Livingston (R-LD28) told AZ Capitol Times. “This needs to be fixed.”
Sen. John Kavanagh (R-LD3) proposed a salary plan linked to inflation and dating back to 1998 in its calculations explaining, “We’re not asking the voters to really in real dollars increase our pay. We’re asking them to keep our pay at the same real dollar amount that they thought it was worth in 1998.”
The bill has passed the Senate and House Appropriations Committee and will now go to the floor of the House before potentially going to the voters in November.
A bill to strengthen the prohibition on using public resources to influence an election is winding through the Arizona legislature.
Sponsored by Sen. John Kavanagh (R-LD3), SB 1036 was passed by the Arizona State Senate last month. The bill clarifies penalties for violations and grants residents the ability to file lawsuits against government entities accused of misusing taxpayer funds for political purposes.
SB 1036 expands Arizona’s existing laws prohibiting public entities—including cities, towns, counties, and school districts—from using government resources to sway election outcomes. Under the bill, a resident of a jurisdiction where a violation occurs can file a lawsuit in superior court. If the court rules in favor of the resident, any civil penalties collected would be paid directly to the resident. The definition of “influencing an election” is broadened to include any presentation of information that is not neutral or impartial, and courts may impose fines of up to $5,000 per violation, plus additional penalties equal to the value of misused public resources.
Arizona law has long prohibited public entities from using government resources—such as taxpayer funds, public facilities, and government personnel—to support or oppose candidates or ballot measures. However, concerns over enforcement and legal loopholes have led lawmakers to introduce additional measures like SB 1036.
Supporters argue that the bill strengthens accountability by giving residents the power to challenge government misuse in court. They believe it will deter public officials from using taxpayer money for political purposes.
SB 1036 passed through the Senate’s Government Committee with a 4-3 vote. The bill now sits in the House for further debate.
Senator Kavanagh has emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of taxpayer-funded resources, stating, “This bill ensures that public funds are not used to tip the scales in elections. Voters should have confidence that their tax dollars are not being used for political agendas.”
As the legislation progresses, Arizona lawmakers and voters will continue to debate the balance between election transparency and government communications.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
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.
