[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6343766,"mediaKeyId","2251732-b5441f599f4cc6e33a819b48497b84ab","parentId",2251732,"title","Committee advances bill banning solicitation or congregating on medians, ramps and other unsafe locations","audioSeconds",1423,"startMs",1678000,"endMs",3101000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2251732-b5441f599f4cc6e33a819b48497b84ab&start=1678&end=3101","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2251732-b5441f599f4cc6e33a819b48497b84ab/thumbnail_1678000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6343766/Arizona/Committee-advances-bill-banning-solicitation-or-congregating-on-medians-ramps-and-other-unsafe-locations","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6343766-7a0cf4ad67ba8b3c96609550ffb3655c/orig.mp4?Expires=1774961879&Signature=TAXpOX5yMSnRdjA8ztHBAES1DSM8KX3PWlAnwLqIMZXrQ5IAi4KzmLtXDK0aIwaaW39tZZCN9R4E-LL1G~avVGlphGfwUO00I4X10hhUnVMjm9R8zreIBWGCGqmSeCq7L~Cyf3bbekBFkGT54OqTG9CMual5t1jr4jvWT5fyPlkEDw5DXnU7krdTsSgJ~KvZVA~-gFqrzDiVM8J8AnJd67XjbNIn-M5bHjG0na8kfWBKF0xF0K-LGxuk5HT0v6Jqsy3G2hqCY0k-5TZy6XvNsp4~8YcErmJNy3~8HWyvRR74hhLeep5Cdz9PhA7qWJykhPyX8kp7p6J99RJ3XqOeUQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Arizona State Legislature","date","2025-02-04T00:00:00Z","article","The Arizona House Committee on Regulatory Oversight voted 3-2 to advance House Bill 2684, a measure that would prohibit pedestrians from congregating or soliciting on painted or raised traffic islands or medians, on exit or entry ramps of controlled-access highways, or in other locations where there is no sidewalk or safe corridor for pedestrian traffic.

Sponsor Representative Collin, who said the bill was revised after a prior veto by the governor, described the measure as a public-safety effort. Committee staff briefed members that the bill sets graduated penalties: a first offense may receive a warning at officer discretion, a second offense would be a civil traffic violation, and a third offense would be a class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500.

Representative Collin framed the bill as targeting unsafe locations — for example, freeway exit ramps, gravel shoulders, or narrow painted medians where pedestrians have no safe place to stand. “You shouldn’t be allowed to stand on the overbridal of a freeway on the exit ramp in traffic,” the sponsor said, adding that he had reduced penalties after the governor vetoed a prior version. He cited national pedestrian-fatality data from the Governor’s Highway Safety Association showing rising pedestrian deaths and Arizona’s elevated rates as context for the proposal.

Opponents, including Natalia Brown of Rural Arizona Action and Gael Esposito speaking for the ACLU of Arizona, told the committee the bill is overbroad and raises First Amendment and equity concerns. Brown said the measure would “criminalize poverty” and disproportionately affect unhoused people and veterans in rural communities that lack shelter capacity. Esposito said courts have treated streets, sidewalks and similar spaces as traditional public forums and cited decisions including McCraw v. City of Oklahoma, Cutting v. City of Portland, Reynolds v. Middleton, Martin v. City of Albuquerque and Frisbie v. Schultz as authorities finding medians and streets to be protected public fora; she argued the bill is a content-based restriction because it singles out solicitation and therefore would face strict judicial scrutiny.

Committee members asked both legal and practical questions. One member asked whether the bill would prohibit standing on a median only momentarily to cross at a crosswalk; staff and the sponsor reiterated that sidewalks and safe corridors remain lawful places for speech and solicitation, and that the bill targets painted or raised medians, ramps and locations without sidewalks. Another member asked staff to confirm whether a parade permit or permitted protest would be unaffected; the chair requested technical review from committee counsel before floor consideration.

The committee returned HB 2684 with a due-pass recommendation by a recorded vote that resulted in three ayes and two nays. The sponsor said he expects the bill to be sent to the governor and hopes for executive approval; opponents said they expect legal challenges if the bill becomes law.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","02/04/2025 - House Regulatory Oversight","oneSentenceSummary","The Arizona House Committee on Regulatory Oversight voted 3-2 to advance House Bill 2684, which would make it unlawful for pedestrians to congregate or solicit on traffic medians, freeway ramps or other locations lacking sidewalks.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature Arizona, Arizona","taxId",78572,"location","Arizona","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6343769,"Committee backs bill to allow jury trials in appeals of administrative agency decisions",597,1068000,1665000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2251732-b5441f599f4cc6e33a819b48497b84ab&start=1068&end=1665","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2251732-b5441f599f4cc6e33a819b48497b84ab/thumbnail_1068000.jpg","/articles/6343769/Arizona/Committee-backs-bill-to-allow-jury-trials-in-appeals-of-administrative-agency-decisions","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6343769-96710a0b16f4df73e6dab01ed474dadb/orig.mp4?Expires=1774961879&Signature=PXmBFRIfIZdUd8i1CgB5vrRn3MmRRV7Fr5669o1xwLVFg~RENfg~lcLb7GRzwziVlbneNr2T1DMBfiKda-a1YjKVrUsolKzD8R0x~~weC3KcGowDwawgwBm~TkfMFqEpOSOxCkLCE6ZweM~4tVnW5wpcHh2R7BO2b6XjTfnAbCO7bG98erbhlRD0fatvGMSklMuYsHZ4b2Ww7gGo63M85UxbwARvW-hYNK9NOaH467mXXzCqC2bp7YR4SgG0ySXARD1AQVYZtNcO5lya5W5N~0tfFcxINZUv7watoGhgA9r-i0LnCk0Si1zhKmdgLEQ7l2QAlgIE4sTLt~ZwCE9W~A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Arizona House Committee on Regulatory Oversight voted to advance House Bill 2049, a measure to permit jury trials in certain appeals of final administrative decisions, following sponsor remarks emphasizing recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Representative Collin, the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure responds to a recent U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Securities and Exchange Commission in which litigants sought a jury trial and the Court reaffirmed the Seventh Amendment’s role in providing a jury where monetary or significant liberty interests are at stake. The bill would require that the right to trial by jury be available and exercisable for a defendant appealing a final administrative decision when the judgment or order sought by the appellant seeks payment from the other party. The bill would also remove a statutory exemption for public service corporations that issue stocks and bonds from appeals of final administrative decisions before judicial review.

Collin described jury trials as an “injection of common sense” and part of the Constitution’s safeguard against unfair adjudication by administrative law judges, who are employed by the agencies bringing enforcement actions. Committee discussion included questions about the potential fiscal and logistical impact on county courts and whether the number of additional jury trials would be substantial. Committee staff responded that most civil cases do not go to trial — civil trials occur in roughly 2% of cases — and estimated a worst-case fiscal impact across agencies on the order of $1 million to $2 million annually, stressing that many matters are resolved before trial.

Representative Contreras said he remained concerned about the possible increase in jury trials and the effect on jurors and counties; he stated he would vote no in committee but reserved the right to reconsider on the floor pending further information. Representative Kessel and Representative Chaplec voted aye; Representatives Contreras and Hernandez voted no. The committee returned HB 2049 with a due-pass recommendation.

The bill sponsor framed the measure as restoring a Seventh Amendment protection in administrative appeals when monetary relief or substantial liberty interests are at stake; the committee advanced the bill to the full House where further debate and possible amendments could occur.","House Bill 2049, which would make the right to a jury available in appeals of final administrative decisions where the appellant seeks payment from another party, received a due-pass recommendation from the Committee on Regulatory Oversight by a 3-2 vote.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6343771,"Committee advances ballot referral to let legislature overturn costly agency rules",978,67000,1045000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2251732-b5441f599f4cc6e33a819b48497b84ab&start=67&end=1045","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2251732-b5441f599f4cc6e33a819b48497b84ab/thumbnail_67000.jpg","/articles/6343771/Arizona/Committee-advances-ballot-referral-to-let-legislature-overturn-costly-agency-rules","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6343771-03ac205af1acbe61c14d591b18965654/orig.mp4?Expires=1774961879&Signature=gSN-MJd6hO50xQa39N6hxp2hrXAXAZj4hXoVMOvknevZbrC6QJlCb37JN~ePAVxz3NM7tTCuaoP6je9o4t3m79oovan~GRAw2bqvBcLB6fcNTyddjG~CXV2R0P5AhdT6FyR3PSzm9F50AK6DO1T4adU3FmQ9ElUwrfTU6AkFiFrO97dBXhXofcWgBbFxTYjS~NF5t1puseKebKX4tiGUQ5yleXcnmlxpROKJ4YlDCUIYriHvGAO4yEtnFO9VRAze9j6OhHg0t6QxwLD4YmenBmhSvsmzwy8s8OaTCYtb9Z2tamo~ePvNZ7ifG6Hlx5yyZNe~HTBNkgzHNRF93TIFcg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Concurrent Resolution 2038, a proposal to let the Legislature revoke administrative rules that impose large costs on taxpayers, was advanced out of the Arizona House Committee on Regulatory Oversight on a 3-2 vote after members adopted a committee amendment.

The measure, sponsored by Representative Collin, would direct the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) to assess whether a proposed administrative rule would increase regulatory costs by more than $500,000 over five years; if so, the rule could not take effect unless the Legislature ratified it. The resolution also authorizes the Legislature, by concurrent resolution, to eliminate any rule it finds will cost taxpayers more than $1,000,000 annually and contains a separability clause and direction to the Secretary of State to submit the proposition to voters at the next general election.

The Culloden committee amendment removed the bill’s first section and was offered to streamline language; Representative Collin told the committee the prior ballot referral in 2024 failed in part because its text was “written for lawyers” and confused many voters. “When in doubt, when confused, vote no,” Collin said, arguing the rewritten language is shorter and clearer.

Matt Furidi, who identified himself as representing the Opportunity Solutions Project, testified in favor of both the bill and the Culloden amendment. Furidi said the resolution would allow the Legislature to act on “costly regulations after they’re in effect” and gave the example of a Department of Agriculture rule requiring large egg producers to convert to cage-free operations as the sort of regulation that could exceed a $1,000,000 impact threshold.

Opponents on the committee pressed a separate point: several members said voters had already considered a similar referral in 2024 and that returning the question to the ballot — even with clarified language — raises questions about when the Legislature should override prior voter referrals. Representative Contreras argued the prior referral had been to the voters and cautioned about changing voters’ decisions. Representative Collin responded that the prior referral’s failure by a narrow margin suggested confusing language, not lack of public support for the underlying concept.

The committee recorded roll call on the final motion to return the resolution with a due-pass recommendation. The roll call shows Representative Contreras voted Nay and Representative Hernandez voted Nay; Representatives Kessel, Vice Chairman Culloden and Chairman Chaplec voted Aye. The committee report to the full House will reflect HCR 2038 as amended and recommended for a due pass.

The amendment adoption and the committee’s due-pass recommendation are procedural steps that send the referral onward; the resolution itself would still require additional legislative steps and, if passed, voter approval to become functionally operative.","The Arizona House Committee on Regulatory Oversight voted to send House Concurrent Resolution 2038, as amended, out of committee with a due-pass recommendation. The measure would require legislative ratification of agency rules that impose large costs on taxpayers and place a related question on the next general-election ballot.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee advances bill banning solicitation or congregating on medians, ramps and other unsafe locations

Committee backs bill to allow jury trials in appeals of administrative agency decisions

Committee advances ballot referral to let legislature overturn costly agency rules