[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-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],{"_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",6103559,"mediaKeyId","2794323-dd3c33d78bd56b53ac5cc363b5329f56","parentId",2794323,"title","Committee Advances Some Military and Elections Measures, Rejects Others; Multiple Roll Calls Recorded","audioSeconds",2112,"startMs",5888000,"endMs",8000000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2794323-dd3c33d78bd56b53ac5cc363b5329f56&start=5888&end=8000","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2794323-dd3c33d78bd56b53ac5cc363b5329f56/thumbnail_5888000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6103559/Arizona/Committee-Advances-Some-Military-and-Elections-Measures-Rejects-Others-Multiple-Roll-Calls-Recorded","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6103559-c04c9ed1a26245349e06bf8c6c3acb6f/orig.mp4?Expires=1775577430&Signature=j~j0cnyUFHnjXcekz-2A~Id4HuY8Q4uU9YcTPjFWmNFNEmiBF9FQnBShBTe63P2lpf7A1FvJM21TeQkj~oBkohg2J5VNxj6gn3pFJmuXYBmeis3wqxatrkFAKBtjsRoXd3cyaerRFlapkBlFwP2O4z7Fk3M2OpLxBPtmJYZBG3dmcmJFdq~osK2xeq4qIEHmo6xcVLqtUdFbX3VXV1qQJK0-ph33mDqnSY60VhjpqcyFvyb~ydoYsBhUtytym87nQOPZmmaBCpxYnlTpsqONlEHjPv62cuTw8W-2b45GvTzRCheBvSbEdt70siUNlx3LXSTU1UD8jKWu22fN0idBGA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Arizona Legislature","date","2025-03-26T00:00:00Z","article","The Arizona House Committee on Federalism, Military Affairs and Elections considered several bills spanning National Guard authority, initiative‑description disclosures, municipal vacancy procedures and multiple election‑administration reforms. The panel approved several measures with close roll‑calls, defeated at least one election‑related proposal, and recorded roll calls on transparency and voter‑file access bills.

Key actions and context

- SB 12‑81: The committee gave Senate Bill 12‑81 a “due pass” recommendation. Staff said the bill authorizes the Adjutant General to enter into specified contracts and allows the adjutant general to establish a “Project Challenge” program subject to appropriation and gubernatorial approval. A late amendment broadened the pool of eligible adjutants general that the executive branch may select by allowing any general officer (one‑ through four‑star) who meets other requirements rather than limiting the office to a state‑recognized two‑star selection. Witness John Mendibles of the League of Veterans testified in support. The committee recorded 7 ayes, 0 nays.

- SB 14‑63: The committee approved an amendment requiring initiative summaries to list statutes that a proposed ballot measure could conflict with or affect. Sponsor testimony said the change is intended to give possible signers more context about an initiative’s potential legal impacts. The committee recorded 4 ayes, 3 nays.

- SB 15‑36 (municipal vacancies): Senator Kavanaugh sponsored a bill aimed at preventing a municipal council from filling an interim vacancy with someone other than a candidate who had already won an election majority for that seat prior to taking office. The sponsor said the bill addresses an instance in Fountain Hills where a council selected an appointee rather than the known election winner. The committee gave the bill a due pass recommendation after the sponsor agreed to work with members on technical language; the committee recorded 4 ayes, 3 nays.

- SB 14‑55 (prohibition on election officials who are candidates): The bill would have barred public officers and employees who have any role in conducting elections from performing election duties if they were candidates on the ballot for that election. County associations told the committee they opposed the bill because the term “public officer” is broad and could prevent small counties from staffing election operations. The measure failed on committee roll call.

- SB 10‑63 (jury duty and poll work): The committee adopted an amendment and approved a bill allowing certain potential jurors to serve as temporary election workers during specified timeframes and have that service count toward their jury commitment; the committee recorded 4 ayes, 3 nays.

- SB 12‑80 (cast vote record transparency): The committee approved a bill that requires an officer in charge of elections to transmit an unaltered cast‑vote record (defined in the bill) within 48 hours of transmitting the county canvas, and designates that record as a public record. Recorders’ offices had raised definitional questions; the committee adopted a one‑page, 22‑line friendly amendment clarifying the officer in charge of elections and procedures for small precincts. The committee recorded 4 ayes, 3 nays.

- SB 13‑75 (voter‑registration portal and expanded post‑election counting): The committee approved a bill to expand web access to voter‑registration roles, allow pre‑registration lists to be shared for noncommercial uses, add some inspector reporting requirements and permit expanded post‑election manual counts up to a percent threshold at a county board’s discretion. County staff supported parts of the bill but raised concerns about rural connectivity and implementation of large manual counts. The committee recorded 4 ayes, 3 nays.

Why this matters

Taken together, the measures show the committee balancing two objectives: providing more transparency and options in elections while addressing operational burdens raised by county officials. On military matters, the committee was comfortable moving forward with a bill to revive the Project Challenge program and to clarify adjutant general appointment eligibility; supporters said the program benefits at‑risk youth and state military recruiting and leadership development.

Votes at a glance

- SB 12‑81 (Adjutant General authorities, Project Challenge): Motion — due pass recommendation; outcome — passed in committee; tally: 7 ayes, 0 nays.
- SB 14‑63 (initiative descriptions to list affected statutes): Motion — due pass recommendation; outcome — passed in committee; tally: 4 ayes, 3 nays.
- SB 15‑36 (municipal vacancy selection when an earlier election produced a winner): Motion — due pass recommendation; outcome — passed in committee; tally: 4 ayes, 3 nays.
- SB 14‑55 (bar public officers involved in elections from serving election duties while on ballot): Motion — due pass recommendation (considered); outcome — failed in committee; tally: 0 ayes, 7 nays (committee did not advance the measure).
- SB 10‑63 (allow certain jurors to serve as temporary election workers): Motion — due pass recommendation as amended; outcome — passed in committee; tally: 4 ayes, 3 nays.
- SB 12‑80 (cast‑vote‑record transmission, designate as public record): Motion — due pass recommendation as amended; outcome — passed in committee; tally: 4 ayes, 3 nays.
- SB 13‑75 (public portal for voter registration rolls; expanded post‑election counts): Motion — due pass recommendation; outcome — passed in committee; tally: 4 ayes, 3 nays.

Committee comments and next steps

Members who voted for the election bills said they wanted to preserve flexibility for small counties while improving transparency; members who voted against cited operational and legal concerns raised by county recorders and election directors. Sponsors and county representatives agreed to continue technical discussions on implementation details and to refine language before any floor consideration.

Sources: staff bill explanations, witness testimony and committee roll calls recorded during the March 24 hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","03/26/2025 - House Federalism, Military Affairs & Elections #1","oneSentenceSummary","The committee voted on several bills concerning the National Guard, initiative summaries, municipal vacancy procedures, and election transparency. Some measures passed with committee support, others failed or drew opposition from county election officials.","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},6103564,"Bill to Regulate For‑Profit Veteran‑Benefit Counselors Fails After Extended Testimony",4348,875000,5223000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2794323-dd3c33d78bd56b53ac5cc363b5329f56&start=875&end=5223","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2794323-dd3c33d78bd56b53ac5cc363b5329f56/thumbnail_875000.jpg","/articles/6103564/Arizona/Bill-to-Regulate-ForProfit-VeteranBenefit-Counselors-Fails-After-Extended-Testimony","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6103564-ba374bf8d324c7f8d4735f2e2e9d28df/orig.mp4?Expires=1775577430&Signature=M80-hGUGMZ5RuuPS1ZZWcSGLT-5naP8-V6F2CE3I9GR7a4rZcbHmNYr38D8zc8Sj21~IRvWf1tNfZhETPLa14bOMK~9ZmlQn2AKGsFNSh4RgfBDdgGXZAHbiZXsyLE~o50s0muAVzOML4K~5mY8-O5URR50tN2FeD1-CQ7cHokFjzJN-6ourpiAKk~64JD2UrtOHP8wn8X3eUpHamXGOlfThzgq79VB4dkgD2b3d95OgC3DyUIALdkAoVqLiYLl6XfO4Abxni17jvPk4jYSTwSU3RGJnAbvkM6NWXRW8B9kTbilbfg8TTFgNxHstsdFmMkASYTY0MkV-L-2Av5N0Kg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A bill that would have restricted how for‑profit companies and non‑attorneys charge veterans for help with VA benefit claims failed in the House Committee on Federalism, Military Affairs and Elections on a 3‑to‑4 vote after a day of testimony from veterans, attorneys and industry representatives.

Sponsor remarks and amendment

Sen. (sponsor) introduced SB 17‑03, saying the bill was intended to curb “bad actors” who exploit veterans by charging upfront or nonrefundable fees and by using aggressive solicitation. Staff explained the bill would prohibit charging an initial fee for advising a veteran on a VA benefit matter unless the provider is licensed or accredited to do so; it would require a written agreement and set limits and disclosure requirements on contingent fees. The committee adopted a three‑page amendment in the chairman’s name (dated March 20) that clarified some initial‑fee prohibitions, removed language classifying violations as unfair or deceptive practices, and exempted licensed attorneys and certain advertising platforms.

Why supporters backed the bill

Proponents said the bill seeks to protect veterans who can be targeted by unscrupulous actors. Ray Colas of Veterans Benefit Guide told the panel the bill aims to create federally compliant, transparent services for veterans and that supporters had worked with stakeholders to incorporate protections. Senator Gowen, speaking in support, said Arizona has a large veteran population and that parameters are needed so veterans are not taken advantage of when seeking help accessing benefits.

Opposition and practical concerns

Opponents included accredited VA attorneys and some tribal veteran representatives, who raised concerns about consumer protection, enforcement, and access. Derek Debas, an accredited VA attorney, said he opposed the bill as introduced because it lacked accountability, liability and transparency mechanisms comparable to those that bind accredited representatives and attorneys. He described cases where unaccredited third parties submitted medical evidence that later triggered fraud investigations, leaving veterans to defend themselves. Demetria Semmes, Navajo Nation veteran liaison, testified she used free VA services and opposed any cost to file claims, saying many veterans are vulnerable to exploitation.

Industry witnesses and veterans

Representatives of for‑profit firms that assist veterans described their business models and said many clients are aware of free alternatives but choose paid services for convenience or speed. Mark Christiansen, chief of staff of Veterans Guardian, and other industry witnesses said veteran service organizations cannot meet current demand and that private firms fill a gap. Veterans who used paid services described positive experiences and urged the committee to preserve consumer choice.

Committee action and outcome

The committee adopted the sponsor amendment and considered the amended bill. After extended discussion and a roll call, SB 17‑03 failed on a 3 ayes, 4 nays vote.

Nut graf

The debate exposed a policy fault line: veterans’ advocates seeking guardrails against exploitation versus for‑profit providers and some veterans who said paid services fill gaps in an overburdened VA system. Committee members and witnesses repeatedly described the federal accreditation framework as central to the problem because accreditation governs who may legally represent claimants before the VA.

Ending

Members asked stakeholders to continue negotiations. Several committee members said they were open to further amendment language that would add enforceable fiduciary duties, disclosure and liability protections while preserving consumer choice; others said the committee should not move forward without stronger consumer protections.

Votes at a glance

- SB 17‑03 (as amended): Outcome — failed; tally: 3 ayes, 4 nays.

(For clarity: the committee adopted the three‑page amendment dated March 20, 11:59 a.m.; following debate the full bill as amended failed on a 3‑to‑4 vote.)

Sources: committee testimony and on‑record roll call.","After several hours of testimony and a floor amendment, the committee narrowly rejected SB 17-03, a bill that would have limited fee structures and banned certain upfront payments by for‑profit entities that assist veterans with Department of Veterans Affairs benefit claims.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee Advances Some Military and Elections Measures, Rejects Others; Multiple Roll Calls Recorded

Bill to Regulate For‑Profit Veteran‑Benefit Counselors Fails After Extended Testimony