SB1663 creates a new “freedom of speech monument committee” within Arizona state government to oversee nominations for a proposed monument in the governmental mall. The committee would be made up of legislative leaders from both parties plus one gubernatorial appointee, with the chair alternating between the Senate president and House speaker depending on the year. Each year, the committee would select two deceased individuals from different political parties who are recognized for contributions to preserving freedom of speech in Arizona.
The bill also sets out a nomination process: the Senate president, House speaker, Senate minority leader, House minority leader, and governor may each nominate up to two individuals annually. The committee is generally limited to considering only those nominees, unless all members agree to consider someone else. Any person approved for inclusion must have been deceased for at least five years, and the same five-year-deceased requirement applies to any individual depicted in the monument’s design. The bill authorizes the legislative council to provide for placement of the monument under existing monument procedures, but it expressly bars the use of public money and places fundraising, contracting, design, and construction responsibilities on private proponents.
Impact
If enacted, SB1663 would add a new section to Title 41 governing legislative matters and create a formal state process for selecting honorees for a freedom of speech monument. It would affect the Legislature, the governor, and the legislative council by assigning nomination and approval duties, while also establishing restrictions on who may be included and how the monument may be funded. The bill would not authorize state funding and would temporarily authorize the monument process only until the section’s delayed repeal on September 30, 2029.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received some support in committee and on the floor, but not enough to advance successfully, and its final status is failed. The recorded votes show it cleared the Senate Government Committee and Senate Third Reading, and it also passed the House Government Committee and House Rules Committee, suggesting meaningful bipartisan or cross-chamber interest. However, the presence of negative votes in committee and the bill’s ultimate failure indicate that support was not unanimous and that the proposal did not secure final enactment.
Contention
The main points of contention likely centered on the policy choice to create a politically structured committee to select monument honorees and on the broader question of whether the state should be involved in establishing a monument honoring free speech. The requirement that honorees come from different political parties, the limitation to deceased individuals, and the ability to consider only nominated persons unless all committee members agree may have raised concerns about political balance, eligibility, and discretion. Another likely issue was the bill’s private-funding-only approach, which avoids public spending but also shifts all costs and fundraising responsibilities to proponents.
Relating to the removal, relocation, alteration, or construction of certain monuments or memorials located on public property; authorizing a civil penalty.
Relating to the removal, relocation, alteration, or construction of certain monuments, memorials, or designations located on public property; authorizing a civil penalty.
Alabama Memorial Preservation Act, memorializing marker required under certain circumstances, failure of committee to act results in denial of waiver, fine revised, and duties of Attorney General specified