SB1306 is a straightforward appropriations measure that directs $2,594,840 from the state general fund in fiscal year 2025-2026 to Arizona’s law enforcement crime victim notification fund. The fund is established in statute and is used to support crime victim notification services, which help inform victims about criminal justice proceedings and related case developments. The bill does not create a new program or change eligibility rules; it simply provides funding for an existing statutory fund.
The bill also specifies that the appropriation is exempt from the normal lapse provisions in state law, meaning the money will not revert at the end of the fiscal year under the usual rules for appropriations. In practical terms, SB1306 affects state budget law and the administration of the crime victim notification fund, but it does not amend the underlying victim-notification statute itself. Its impact is primarily fiscal and operational, ensuring continued support for notification services used by law enforcement and victim-support systems.
Impact
SB1306 appropriates $2,594,840 from the Arizona general fund to the law enforcement crime victim notification fund for FY 2025-2026 and exempts that appropriation from lapsing under A.R.S. § 35-190. The bill therefore affects state spending authority and the flow of money to an existing fund under A.R.S. § 41-2414, but it does not alter substantive criminal procedure, victim rights, or law enforcement duties beyond funding support for those functions.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill. It passed the Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously, advanced through Senate Rules without recorded opposition, and received strong support on Senate third reading with only two nays. The House Judiciary Committee also approved it unanimously. No committee transcripts were provided, but the vote pattern indicates the measure was generally viewed favorably as a routine funding bill for victim notification services.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive controversy in the available record. The only recorded opposition appears in the Senate floor vote, where two senators voted no, but no explanation is provided. Because the bill is limited to a single appropriation and an anti-lapse exemption, any disagreement likely concerns the size or prioritization of the funding rather than the policy itself. No committee discussion transcripts were available to identify specific objections or amendments.