IT’S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD LEGISLATURE!

After using the usual process for submitting a bill amendments may be offered.  A ‘normal’ amendment might change a few words in the language of a bill after it’s been assigned to a committee. It can change a date, an appropriation or many other factors having to do with the intent of the underlying bill. Sometimes amendments make a bill better sometimes not so much.

A "striker amendment" (also known as a "strike-everything amendment") is a type of amendment that replaces the entire text of a bill with new language, effectively making it a completely different bill. It can turn a bill addressing horse breeding into one restricting fireworks, or one addressing the water crisis into one on cosmetology rules.

Why is a striker amendment needed?  There is a cutoff date each session, after which a new bill cannot be submitted. If a lawmaker sponsored a bill that did not get a hearing or if he/she did not get a bill submitted before the cutoff they might use the striker amendment maneuver. A striker amendment can be offered in any committee except Rules.  It needs to attach itself to another bill already in the process. Striker amendments can be hostile or proposed with permission of a bill sponsor.

The two examples given below attempt to explain this stratagem and give a glimpse into just two of the many strikers offered last week.

SB1543  started it’s legislative journey in the senate as a bill addressing bankruptcy and a debtor’s homestead exception. It unanimously passed it’s senate committee and the senate floor vote. 

The bill then crossed over to the House of Representatives to go through the process again. It was assigned to the Commerce Committee, then withdrawn and reassigned. (that was the first alert that something was cookin') The bill was then reassigned to the International Trade committee. When it came up for a vote on Wednesday it was presented with a striker amendment. The bill now addresses the Scottsdale Axon debacle.

At issue, well known to Scottsdale residents, is a decision made by the previous Scottsdale City Council to allow the Axon Company to build a large multi-use complex in Scottsdale along Rte. 101. A citizens’ group then formed to collect signatures to halt the development until Scottsdale residents could vote on the issue in Nov. 2026. However, there were those

not willing to let Scottsdale residents take a vote.  Pressure was put on a few GOP members of the legislature to change state law in order to stop the issue from going to the ballot.  Lawmakers started with a proposal to prohibit any Arizonan from putting forth a ballot measure addressing zoning changes. That idea did not get enough traction.

The striker amendment, as presented, would change state law to prevent building restrictions to a very narrow list of criteria. Currently the criteria apply only to the Axon project. If SB1543 passes the full House vote and is signed by the governor, the mixed use 70 acre project can proceed without a vote at the ballot.

HCR2037 started it’s journey through the legislative process in the House of Representatives as a resolution by Alex Kolodin repealing Arizona’s prohibited weapons statute. It passed out of the House on a party line vote giving concern to the real possibility we could see sawed off shotguns and automatic weapons on our street corners. (while federal law prohibitions would still apply, local law enforcement would not be required to enforce the federal law).

After crossing over to the senate the resolution was heard in its senate committee where it contained a striker amendment. The “striker” gutted the bill and inserted completely new language addressing lobbyists running for office. The new language would not allow anyone who had been a paid lobbyist during the two years prior to an election to serve in a state elected office, or state legislature if they were the election winner. It has carefully crafted wording.

If passed by the senate HCR2037 would be voted in 2026. Because of the wording a candidate who had lobbied two years prior to the election could run and win, but not be sworn in. ( the new law would not be in effect prior to election but would be state statute at swearing in time)

Why does this matter? The “striker’ sponsor, Jake Hoffman is not a fan of Karrin Taylor Robson, a declared candidate for governor. Hoffman is backing Andy Biggs and is using his legislative muscle to pass legislation which would prevent  Robson from serving and could entice he to halt her campaign. Yes, Hoffman is that petty.

The good news it that for some reason Alex Kolodin gave up his bill on unrestricted weapons of war and allowed Hoffman to hijack his resolution.

Both examples given above had the permission of the sponsor.