Arizona House Bill HCR2038

Arizona 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/29/25
• Report Pass: 2/4/25
• Report Pass: 2/10/25

Caption

Rulemaking; legislative ratification; regulatory costs

Summary

HCR2038 proposes a voter-referral constitutional-style statutory change on state rulemaking and regulatory oversight. It would authorize the Legislature, by concurrent resolution, to eliminate any agency rule that is estimated to cost taxpayers more than $1 million per year. It also allows affected citizens or businesses to request that the Office of Economic Opportunity assess a rule’s impact on taxpayers, with the office required to complete the assessment and report its findings to the Administrative Rules Oversight Committee, the public, and the Legislature within six months. The measure defines “rule” by reference to existing Arizona law and includes a severability clause. If approved by voters and proclaimed by the Governor, it would add a new section to Title 41 governing administrative rulemaking and would be submitted to the electorate at the next general election. In practical terms, it would expand legislative control over agency rules and create a formal process for taxpayer-impact review of regulations.

Impact

If enacted by voters, the resolution would change Arizona law by adding A.R.S. § 41-1049.01 and giving the Legislature a direct mechanism to remove costly agency rules through concurrent resolution. It would also create a new administrative review process at the Office of Economic Opportunity for rule-impact assessments requested by affected residents or businesses. The bill would affect state agencies that issue rules, the Legislature’s Administrative Rules Oversight Committee, the Office of Economic Opportunity, and regulated parties that may seek review of regulatory costs.

Sentiment

The available vote history suggests the bill advanced with some support but not unanimity. It received a 3-2 vote in the House Regulatory Oversight Committee and then a unanimous 8-0 vote in the House Rules Committee, indicating broader procedural acceptance after initial debate. No committee transcripts are available, but the pattern suggests the measure was generally viewed favorably by supporters of regulatory oversight and legislative control over agency rulemaking.

Contention

The main point of contention is the scope of legislative power over agency rules and the threshold for intervention. Supporters appear to favor reducing regulatory burdens and giving lawmakers a tool to remove rules with significant taxpayer costs, while critics may be concerned about weakening agency autonomy, increasing political control over technical regulations, or creating uncertainty in the rulemaking process. The requirement that the Office of Economic Opportunity assess a rule’s taxpayer impact within six months may also raise questions about workload, methodology, and how costs would be measured.