Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Sovereignty topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Federalism Committee approves HCR 2049 asserting Arizona sovereignty under 10th Amendment
Summary
The Arizona Legislature Federalism Committee approved House Concurrent Resolution 2049 on March 10, 2025, by a 4-3 vote. The nonbinding resolution expresses the state's intent to reassert authority under the Tenth Amendment, cites the Ninth Amendment and Article II of the Arizona Constitution, and references anti‑commandeering case law.
The Arizona Legislature Federalism Committee on March 10, 2025, approved House Concurrent Resolution 2049 on a 4-3 vote. The resolution states the legislature's intent to reassert and exercise state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment and demands that federal mandates that, in the committee's view, exceed constitutionally delegated powers cease immediately.
Daniel, a committee presenter, told members that “HCR 2,049 expresses the state's intent to reassert and exercise the state sovereignty under the tenth amendment of The US constitution” and that the text also cites the Ninth Amendment and Article II of the Arizona Constitution. Daniel said the resolution “serves as notice and demand to the federal government to cease and desist … mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.”
Senator Angus moved approval of the resolution with a due-pass recommendation. The sponsor was not present; Daniel told the panel the sponsor was “actually in committee over at the house.” The committee adopted the motion on a recorded roll call and immediately adjourned.
Opponents raised legal and practical concerns during debate. Senator Sundarichsen said she understood the stated aim but questioned the need for a resolution, asking, “I'm not sure why we need a resolution to do so,” and warned that language in the measure could be read as encouraging private legal actions. “It's not clear what exactly that looks like. Are we encouraging private actions and lawsuits?” she asked, concluding she would vote no.
Supporters framed the measure as a response to perceived federal overreach. Senator Henshaw, explaining his aye vote, acknowledged existing federal law and said that while the Supremacy Clause remains operative, states are the entities that originally ceded certain powers to the federal government; he voted yes.
The committee's description of the resolution referenced the anti‑commandeering legal principle; a member explicitly cited Printz v. United States during the discussion.
Votes at a glance: the committee approved HCR 2049 by a tally of 4 ayes and 3 nays. The roll call in committee recorded Senator Carroll—aye; Senator Diaz—no; Senator Ortiz—no; Senator Payne—aye; Senator Sundarichsen—no; Senator Angus—aye; Senator Henshaw—aye.
Because HCR 2049 is a concurrent resolution, it expresses the legislature's position but does not by itself change federal law. The measure will proceed per legislative rules; the sponsor was not present in committee to answer additional questions.
