Arizona Legislation 2023

Arizona’s 56th Legislature – 1st Regular Session is now in full swing. Below is a brief guide to following legislation in Arizona… For the nuts-and-bolts of how a bill becomes law, the multiple “readings”, and the COW, and so forth, see e.g. this document from

List of Current Bills

…as of Spring 2023 that may be of particular interest to Arizona bicyclists.

  • SB1697 / Hoffman; prohibits ADOT from building bicycle paths
    [PASSED Senate TAT committee 2/13. FAILED to pass full Senate (by one vote!) 3/1 ]

Senator Hoffman, explaining his no bike/ped path bill SB1697 (~ 4:57:30) at the 2/13 TAT committee hearing: “if there are pathways that need to go OVER a freeway… you know, if there are bike paths that want to run alongside a freeway, walking paths that want to run alongside a freeway; ah, you know, bridges that go over the freeway for pedestrian traffic, things like that; they can absolutely still be done but they have to be done by either regional partners or by the municipality in that jurisdiction. ADOT as a state function should be focused on moving people from point A to point B with the least amount of congestion and the lowest commute times possible”

  • SB1312 / Hoffman; would prohibit the state or any municipality from setting goals or plans that seek to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). This is intended to dis-allow Vision Zero. It also prohibits collection of VMT data or imposition of fees based on VMT
    [PASSED Senate TAT committee 2/13; PASSED full Senate, both by one vote  ]
    [PASSED House TI committee 3/8 by one vote]
    Unfortunately at the TI committee, the bill’s sponsor, Sen Hoffman described his bill only as “this is a very simple bill it is it’s basically says that we do not believe [chuckles] that the government should track you or tax you based on your vehicle miles driven.  It is nothing more complex than that”.  He neglected to mention the first provision which would have the effect of outlawing traffic safety improvements that might incidentally reduce total VMT on any particular project or plan.
  • SB1313 / Hoffman; specifically removes requirement that bicycling be included city’s mandated General Plan. More generally this bill is intended to prevent cities from adopting “Vision Zero” by preventing any plan that would reduce motor vehicle traffic.
    [PASSED Senate TAT committee 2/13; PASSED full Senate; both by one vote]
    [House TI committee 3/16 passed by one vote
    see comment below for selected excerpt from committee hearing
  • SB1122 Farnsworth; changes funding rules relating to Maricopa County SALES tax, and would allocate by state diktat, a large majority of the of the county sales tax monies to freeways, and only 5% to public transit.
    [FAILED Senate TAT committee 2/13]… failed/dead but resurrected as a striker:
    SB1246 Farnsworth; A striker re-starts the process over from scratch, this time in House
    [3/16 House TI committee DPA  ]
  • SB1234 Wendy Rodgers; Bans Photo-enforcement of traffic law by a city or town. Background: Despite evidence photo enforcement improved safety, the state DPS discontinued photo-enforcement on freeways in 2010, and subsequently legislated a ban on the entire state highway system in 2016. The legislature has, year after year for more than a decade, proposed total bans, which would prevent cities and towns from enforcing traffic laws by photo; this year’s SB1234 is the current incarnation.
    [PASSED Senate GOV committee and full senate and House MAPS committee 3/6;
    all by a single vote margin; awaits full House vote]
  • HB2914 / Gress; “Kong’s Law” Modifies 28-672 to stiffen penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony if certain moving violations result in the death or serious injury of a pedestrian, motorcyclist or bicyclist. Adds mandatory educational information relating to the rights of pedestrians, motorcycle operators and bicycle operators
    [HELD (“killed”) by House TI committee chairperson 2/1]

Take Action

Review the LAB’s action alert and/or the People For Bikes action alert. Both contain sample correspondence and a tool to connect with your state legislators.

Additionally, another way is via “request to speak”, RTS, mentioned above, at a committee hearing. Requesting to speak can also simply be registering your support/opposition, without actually speaking, on a bill. You can only register an opinion, or request to speak in person, when the bill is on an agenda to be heard ; your position will be visible to anyone.

You can also find your state elected officials; the rosters can be found under house/senate at the home page. Or, to locate all your elected officials, you can use LAB’s page and enter your zip at “Find Officials”. You have one state senator, and two state representatives.

Sample Letters

Here are letters in opposition written by Kyler Blodgett, State & Local Policy Analyst, PeopleForBikes Coalition

Sample letters in opposition from Arizona Alliance for Livable Communities, includes list of email addresses of House TI committee members


Finding Bills, Generally

Bills are labeled as either HBxxxx or SBxxxx, depending on whether they originated in the House or the Senate, and ‘x’ a 4 digit number; and note that the numbers get “reused” and are only valid for a particular Session. You can directly search all bills at . This usually isn’t particularly fruitful; other ways are by looking at various interest groups, like the Coalition, or by reading about them in the news, where they will normally mention the bill number.

Tracking Bills with

Most bill-followers will want to set up an account on; though it is not necessary. With an account, you can create lists of bills to track so you won’t have to remember bill numbers; and receive status alerts on those bills.

You also need an account if you ever want to speak (or just formally register your views) at a committee hearing, the “request to speak”. This requires a one-time in-person visit to the capitol to enable your account. Once there, you will simply log in to your account at a kiosk.


14 Responses to “Arizona Legislation 2023”
  1. max says:

    it’s HB 2419 not 2914

  2. max says:

    what do you mean, “this bill is being held in committee”? is it going to be talked about or going to be killed ?

    This bill is being held in committee as of Feb 1, 2023:

    HB2914 / Gress; “Kong’s Law” Modifies 28-672 to stiffen penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony if certain moving violations result in the death or serious injury of a pedestrian, motorcyclist or bicyclist. Adds mandatory educational information relating to the rights of pedestrians, motorcycle operators and bicycle operators

    • admin says:

      It just means that the chairperson of the committee decided to not hear it at that time.
      Without insider knowledge, no way to know why, or if it’s being killed or just deferred

  3. admin says:

    These azcentral articles may be behind a paywall; but they are the most detailed coverage availalbe.

    Good backgrounder on SB1122:
    “Farnsworth’s legislation would direct almost all money raised by a tax extension to freeways and roads; only 5% would fund transit. The transit expenditures could go only for Dial-a-Ride services and new bus routes. Funding for light-rail operations is specifically forbidden”
    “A Queen Creek Republican, Hoffman has suggested that it’s more cost efficient to pay for ride-share services for everyone who otherwise hops on a bus or train. That idea, however, is not in SB1122”

    Failure in Senate Committee:
    Although there were no fewer than three GOP amendments to change the funding formulas (the so-called ‘buckets’); they ALL prohibit any spending on light rail, regardless of the public transit bucket
    Much talk by the GOP members, particularly Sen Hoffman, about “Freedom to travel” which time and again seemed to only refer to travel by private automobile, allowing a few scraps for buses.

    Here’s another news article detailing the senate committee hearing:
    “State lawmakers are moving to wrest control of transportation planning from local officials to instead represent their own political philosophies.”

    (Democrat) Sen Marsh did point out GOP’s hypocrisy about cramming down rules. The GOP complains about the federal government cramming down rules on them (the state); while here we have the GOP state legislators cramming down rules on Maricopa County.
    The tax in question is a county sales tax; would have to be approved by county voters in a very transparent direct proposition — and here we have state legislators feel like they have a right to imply their own rules and feelings.

  4. Michael says:

    How do I tell when the two passed bills will go for a vote within the house/senate?

    • max says:

      Most bill-followers will want to set up an account on; though it is not necessary. With an account, you can create lists of bills to track so you won’t have to remember bill numbers; and receive status alerts on those bills.

  5. Gordon says:

    The problem with Hoffman’s bills is they may very well pass both houses on party line votes.
    Hoffman is an election denier and so there is no reasoning with people like him.
    The only realistic chance to stop these bills is to get the Governor to veto them.

  6. Anthony says:

    Is there any reasonable possibility of these getting passed and signed, or is this merely political posturing by an anti-bike legislator(s)?

  7. admin says:

    accepting federal money for roadways that requires inclusion of bicycles is necessary because if we do not, we will be in violation of federal law; or we (Arizona) cannot accept the funds.
    Any DOT, has a duty under 23 U.S.C. 109 and in particular (m) to protect non-motorized traffic.

    (m) Protection of Nonmotorized Transportation Traffic.–The Secretary shall not approve any project or take any regulatory action under this title that will result in the severance of an existing major route or have significant adverse impact on the safety for nonmotorized transportation traffic and light motorcycles, unless such project or regulatory action provides for a reasonable alternate route or such a route exists.

  8. capitol watcher says:

    SB1697. It did fail (but just by one vote) and it’s worth reviewing what happened on the final read, 3/1 failed to pass the Senate by the smallest of margins, during voting
    Senate Majority Leader, Republican Sonny Borelli of lake Havasu City remark was particularly startling: “In the spirit of cutting down bicycle traffic i vote aye” 3:06:30
    Sen Mitzi Epstein (Democrat) rose to extoll the virtues of the newish multi-use path in her district which is adjacent to the new SR202; and voted nay (of course).
    Sen Hoffman (Republican), the sponsor, gave an animated brief speech: federal overreach, Biden administration, etc.
    the final vote was 15-13 with 2 not voting; It requires 16 votes to pass.
    Anyways, the floor vote was interesting, only a few minutes long; begins around 3:03:30

  9. Capitol Watcher says:

    excerpts from Opinion piece:
    “…Hoffman is a Queen Creek Republican best known for his role as one of 11 fake electors who tried to hijack Arizona’s vote after the 2020 presidential election.

    That, and the internet troll farm (“Rally Forge”) he ran in the months during the 2020 campaign, paying teenagers to blanket social media with fake posts on conservative talking points and baseless conspiracy theories aimed at getting Trump reelected.

    Hoffman – whose company (“1Ten”) was paid more than $2 million to help Lake get elected last year – also is the guy grinding up Gov. Katie Hobbs’ appointees in his role as chairman of the newly formed Senate Committee on Director Nominations…

    With his (Rusty Bowers) absence a gusher of unhinged ideas are flowing forth in the Legislature, many of them centered on the far-right’s desperate attempt to hang onto their diminishing grip on the state.

    Which brings me to Senate Bill 1137.

    Hoffman couches his proposal not as political payback – or planning for future elections – but as a good government measure, arguing that Maricopa County is simply too big and getting bigger.

    “We must be able to have counties that accurately reflect the areas that they represent,” he said. “That can advocate for solutions when it comes to water policy, that are closer and more representative of the people they represent.”

    This, from a guy who also voted on Tuesday to strip Phoenix and Tucson of their charter city status – those mini-constitutions that allow citizens more say in how their local government is run.

    That bill comes courtesy of Sen. Justine Wadsack, R-Tucson, who doesn’t like the way Tucson conducts city elections.

  10. Capitol Watcher says:

    Another Hoffman bill SB1314 seeks to quantify road projects according to the following formula:
    Increase in mobility (easier to drive a car?) and Congestion reduction (for drivers?) are weighted at 80% ; Safety improvements get only 20%

  11. Capitol Watcher says:

    Biking and walking are now officially ‘woke’; Arizona Republicans are having none of it.
    For example, they are against sidewalks and bike lanes on the I-10. Hmm.

  12. capitol watcher says:

    SB1313: Selected excerpts from the 3/16/2023 House TI Committee hearing —
    21:15 Rep Justin Wilmeth (R-LD2): Sen Hoffman this is a great bill… right so I look at these bike things and I I wonder what the long-term play is and I’m not the conspiratorial guy up here but I have my moments and I do see that the the bike lanes are some sort of nefarious effort to get us out of vehicles and in cities that are in the west that are built on highways we’re talking about diminishing lane capacity. When I was finishing my MPA I did a project on roads cuz that’s always my dorky topic and I know this is the City of Tempe has a part of their own long range transportation plan is actually deleting a lane on Rural Road right next to the football stadium it’s a six Lane highway and they’re over the next 25 years want to make it four lanes with the median which is fine medians are pretty but they want to put in a gigantic bike lane. 22:08 We talked about bike safety well maybe we shouldn’t put bike Lanes on the highways at all. Nobody walks in this market we might as well put them (bicyclists) on the damn sidewalks so my question to you is sir do you think that the bike lanes are an efforts out of vehicles entirely and do you think that can work in America

    23:05 Sen Hoffman on vision zero:
    “…the reality is every time a city enacts vision zero policies uh you know Seattle, San Francisco, Washington DC, New York, Chicago, etc, every time they’ve done it the number of vehicular fatalities actually go up over their implementation , not down” (he elsewhere says this applies also outside US, aw well)

    35:15Rep Justin Wilmeth (R-LD2):
    you’re seeing this stuff start to happen already in the valley and one area i can think of specifically is sometimes i like to take 3rd St exist off the Ten … this is already happening it used to be a couple of lanes and now it’s a single lane, a turn lane, and a gigantic bike lane with the pegs the get in the way at Roosevelt and they’re trying to terraform (?transform?) Central Phoenix into Manhattan that’s fine if people wanted to live in that that’s great but I’ve contended for years that cities like Phoenix Denver Oklahoma City where I used to live they are car cities that is never going to change there are certain aspects certain parts of cities where public transportation makes sense or aspects like this maybe makes sense but the idea that somebody from my district is going to ride their bike 25 miles on a bike lane from deer valley and cave Creek road to downtown Phoenix is absolutely asinine and the idea of removing lanes in the fifth largest city in America so that we can feel better and have some hippie dippy thing about you know green bike lanes that are in the way when we used to have six Lane highways is absolutely ridiculous to me and I would never support that. And anybody that does not treat transportation as a joke shouldn’t support that either.

    30:35 Sen Hoffman’s view on air pollution from motor vehicles (presumably ICE motor vehicles) “… given that our own experts say that we could remove ALL the vehicles, and it wouldn’t make a difference (in air quality)

Leave A Comment