SB1655 — Senate Bill 1655 was introduced as a measure allowing qualified jurors to serve as temporary election workers instead of jury duty if they receive their summons 90 to 120 days before a primary or regular election. After discussion, the committee voted on the bill and it failed to pass by a vote of four ayes, five nays, and one absent.
Jen Marston — Testified in opposition on behalf of the Arizona Association of Counties and acknowledged the sponsor's intent to increase poll workers.
Jen Marston — Testified on behalf of the Arizona Sheriff's Association in support of SB 1317 and said sheriffs from Yavapai and Navajo counties were present.
Jen Marston — Jen Marston is referenced as someone who previously spoke about the program, and then identified as the best person to answer follow-up questions about what changed in the strike-everything, keeping the discussion focused on her role in explaining the same issue.
SB1655 — Motion made to return SB 1655 with a due pass recommendation.
Ms. Marston — Referenced as having noted the bill would strain counties.
Ms. Marston — Called on to respond next.
Dale Bache — Dale Bache, a death penalty attorney and ASU law instructor who has represented death row inmates since 1988 and witnessed 16 executions, testified in opposition to the bill. He urged lawmakers to vote no, arguing that expanding execution methods such as firing squad or lethal gas raises constitutional, operational, and humanitarian concerns. He said these methods can cause prolonged suffering, create litigation risks, and also harm corrections staff psychologically.
Mr. Bache — Mr. Bache was asked what death method he would choose and responded that life without parole would be his preferred option because it removes the threat to the community. He clarified that, if he were in charge, that would be the method he would choose, while noting that the bill is actually discussing a different, more humane execution method.
the gentleman that spoke earlier — Referenced as having said participation was completely voluntary; the speaker did not remember his name.
unnamed witness — The witness was asked whether they had witnessed executions or spoken with people involved in carrying them out. In response, they said they work directly with inmates rather than officers, and gave an example of an inmate they work with who is on a daily cocktail of Haldol and Benadryl. They used this example to argue that the state is forcing such people to choose how they die, while emphasizing that they cannot speak to officers’ experiences or trauma.
SB1317 — The strike-everything amendment would appropriate $20 million for coordinated reentry planning services and a statewide database.
SB1317 — A witness testified in support of SB 1317 and then continued by explaining the bill’s funding request, noting that the current ask includes about $3 million and describing the related program structure.
SB1317 — The committee considered SB 1317 and moved to return it with a due pass recommendation, including the amended version of the bill. The discussion reflects the committee’s final action on the measure as amended.
Ms. Marcia — Says she can work on providing the requested data.
David Rhodes — Begins testimony explaining county-jail-level reentry and distinguishing it from DOC reentry.
David Klaus — Introduces himself as Navajo County Sheriff and President of the Arizona Sheriff's Association and states support for the proposal.
SB1735 — Referenced as the prior-year budget bill language being matched in the strike-everything amendment.
Sheriff Rhodes — Referenced as having discussed the program back in 2017 when it was a pilot in Yavapai County.
SB1656 — Introduced as the next bill, with a brief description of its purpose in family court proceedings.
Leanna Garcia — Leanna Garcia is referenced in connection with a written note expressing concerns, which is identified as coming from the court representative. The two mentions describe the same issue from slightly different wording and should be treated as one consolidated moment.
SB1656 — SB 1656 is brought forward for a due pass recommendation, but the committee ultimately fails to give it a do pass recommendation.