HB2993 would amend Arizona law governing the attorney general’s powers and the use of legal counsel by state agencies, while also making a supplemental appropriation to the Department of Public Safety. The bill largely restates and reorganizes A.R.S. § 41-192, reaffirming the attorney general as the state’s chief legal officer, describing the AG’s authority to represent state entities, settle claims, manage the Department of Law, and require certain settlement proceeds to be deposited into the state general fund. It also preserves and lists exceptions allowing specified agencies, including DPS, to hire their own counsel in certain circumstances.
The bill’s appropriation section provides $6.4 million from the consumer protection-consumer fraud revolving fund to DPS in fiscal year 2025-2026 as a supplemental appropriation for the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund. In practical terms, the measure would redirect consumer-fraud-related monies to support DPS operations tied to gang and immigration enforcement, while leaving the broader statutory framework for attorney general representation and agency legal services in place.
Impact
The bill would amend A.R.S. § 41-192, the statute defining the attorney general’s powers and restricting other state agencies from hiring outside legal counsel, and would continue the existing framework for exceptions, disqualification-based outside counsel, reimbursement, and deposit of settlement proceeds into the general fund. It would also create a one-time supplemental appropriation of $6.4 million from the consumer protection-consumer fraud revolving fund to DPS, affecting the funding available in that revolving fund and increasing resources for the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission fund.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been supported by a narrow majority in both chambers but faced meaningful opposition throughout the process. It passed House and Senate committees on party-line or near party-line votes and cleared third reading in both chambers, indicating partisan division rather than broad bipartisan consensus. The final action was a veto, showing that despite legislative approval, the measure did not ultimately become law.
Contention
The main points of contention were the funding source and the policy choice to direct consumer protection monies to DPS for gang and immigration enforcement. Supporters likely viewed the appropriation as a way to strengthen public safety and enforcement capacity, while opponents likely objected to using consumer fraud revolving fund dollars for a DPS mission fund rather than consumer protection purposes. The bill’s provisions concerning attorney general authority and agency access to outside counsel were less visibly disputed in the available record, but the overall debate centered on the appropriation and the use of dedicated funds.
Relating to selection of an attorney by an indigent parent as attorney ad litem for the parent in certain suits affecting the parent-child relationship.