With her first year as the State Senate Leader in the Arizona Legislature, Senator Priya Sundareshan graciously took time to discuss the upper chambers sprint to the legislative finish line last week headlined by the passage of two bipartisan measure: a 17 billion dollar budget and a water security bill that will protect urban water supplies while increasing housing developments.
The questions and Senator Sundareshan’s responses are below:
With the budget passage in the Senate, how much of the Democratic Affordability Agenda made it into the final version? Please explain.
“Well, our Affordability Agenda that we revealed at the beginning of session. Much of those bills that we introduced, we’re not able to get hearings during session, but I would say that a significant component did make it into our budget. Thanks to the Democratic caucuses and our Governor, I’ll point you specifically to Child Care. Senator Eva Diaz had introduced the bill to support the Governor’s January budget proposal of 112 million dollars of investment into child care which would be helpful both for making sure child care providers were able to get reimbursed at a level that can help them stay in business and then also putting investments towards the Department of Economic Security, so that people who need child care but have lower incomes are able to get supplemental support there and there’s a wait list. So, the purpose for that 112 million dollars of investment would be to support providers and reduce the wait list by 50 percent. What we were able to get in the budget is much reduced from that. What we’ve passed out of the Senate contains a little less than 45 million dollars, so a little less than half of the of the proposal but it is still very much necessary. It is very important to make sure that childcare providers stay in business, so people have access to childcare and that there will be also some of that DES waitlist is able to be supported. I would say that’s a huge one that a really impacts our Affordability Agenda.”
“We had fought for and advocated, especially in my caucus, for a significant investment in housing, homelessness support, rental assistance, and eviction protection. All of the things that help keep people in their homes and also help build affordable housing. What we have ended up in at least a Senate passed budget is a lot less than what we had asked for. We had asked for about 150 million dollars of investment, but of course, our revenue picture is not great because we have the flat tax and because we have ESA (Empowerment Scholarship Account Private School Voucher) reforms that the Republicans were unwilling to talk about. So, with much reduced amount to be able to spend, this budget includes a lot less towards that, but very important and very vital and that is about 12 million dollars of support for that broad set of areas in kind of homelessness support, refugee assistance and things like that. So, those are the two areas I’ll point to in terms of how our Affordability Agenda that we’d introduced is, although at much smaller levels still reflected in the final budget here.”
Some members of the Democratic Senate caucus voted no on the budget, mainly because, as you just mentioned there were reduced levels of assistance on housing, but also no ESA reform, not enough appropriations for K-12 and funds that apparently have been around for years that they felt would be used this time to enforce Trump’s MAGA program against immigrants. What is your view on their objections and their opposition to the budget?
“Yeah, and I will say, I join them. I voted no personally myself on the budget because I do think that there’s so much more that needs to be done in terms of addressing the ESA reforms, making spending capacity and also moving the spending away from things like immigration enforcement. However, I also want to uplift the work of my caucus members in providing those of us who voted yes on the budget did so because we did reduce some component of that kind of spending, and we were able to make some gains. But I also voted no myself because there was so much that is lacking here, and that reflection of the fact that Republicans are in the majority in the legislature and this budget very much reflects that fact. If we had a Democratic majority in the legislature, we would have a vastly improved budget that would have invested in things that really impact working class people in Arizona.”
On the AG to Urban Water Security Bill, please compare this measure to what you, Governor Hobbs and a bipartisan group of public servants and activists proposed last winter, and what is left to be done in this vital area.
“This is AG to Urban is what it’s being called, and it is a completely different set of proposals than the Rural Groundwater bills that we unveiled at the beginning of the winter to protect rural ground water. Unfortunately, rural groundwater legislation has gone nowhere, even though those protections are more important than ever. Residents in rural areas in Arizona continue to experience their wells declining or even drying up and other impacts that occur when you are just pumping uncontrollably or allowing any corporate pumper to come in and have access to our water. So that’s separate. AG to Urban is focused in our more urban areas. It’s focused in our active management areas. Actually, yesterday was an example of how bipartisanship can work because we were able to come to a negotiated agreement and make sure that the purpose of the bill was to help allow additional development for housing to be built in our active management areas, where under the Groundwater Management Act, these active management areas, the Phoenix AMA and the Pinal AMA have not allowed further housing to be built solely on groundwater, because over the hundred year period, there just isn’t enough groundwater for that to happen. But there are leftover kind of a from the initial period when the 1980 Groundwater Management Act was passed, active management areas had grandfathered in agricultural water use and so as our as our urban areas have grown, some of that agricultural use no longer needs or wants agricultural uses, and they would like to transition to more housing developments, and it makes sense to do this in our more urban areas. So this bill allows that pathway for them to convert from agricultural use to housing use even though we are in a constrained groundwater situation and so the real question was can we negotiate a package and provisions that will still be very protective of our groundwater in these active management areas. And fortunately, miraculously, we came together, and we found that bipartisanship and compromise. It was really a beautiful moment yesterday morning, as we all stood up, shook hands on the floor with each other, and made speeches celebrating the bipartisanship there. So, now it goes to the House, and I do hope the House passes it because it is truly a good accomplishment that we reached in the Senate.”
What is your view of the bill funding Renovations at Chase Field? Please explain.
“I personally voted no on the Diamondbacks Bill, the Chase Field Renovations Bill because there was a split in our caucus. It did get voted out on a bipartisan basis and some of my members found some increased guardrails to be put on the measure before they wanted to see it move out of the Senate. It comes down to should the state be allowing the tax revenue generated from Chase Field to instead of going to the state coffers to support everything that the state needs to invest in public education and all the needed services that we have found it difficult to fund in this budget process go to the Diamondbacks to keep that tax revenue for themselves and, by inference, the billionaire owner of the Diamondbacks to be able to keep that amount for himself rather than put his own funds up the investment that’s needed for Chase Field renovations, because certainly his ownership of the Diamondbacks has been very profitable for him. So, shouldn’t he be the one to do the investment? And so, that was the debate. A few members of my caucus found that the negotiation process got to the point where they felt more comfortable voting yes, for it. The City of Phoenix had been able to come to the point where they were supportive of the measure and that there were additional kinds of guardrails to make sure that the Diamondbacks might not run away with the money.”
How do you feel about MAGA Republicans were not able to advance a ballot measure (HCR2013) that would have compromised early voting?
“Oh, I feel absolutely great about it.”
“It came up as somewhat of a surprise at the end of last night. We celebrate every win we can get and the fact that we were able to fail that bill on a bipartisan basis and there were Republicans who joined us in voting no to stop that ballot measure. That was absolutely another win last night with that not moving to the ballot.”
As you know, MAGA Republicans in the House are working on a measure that would Renew Prop 123 but only have pay raises for teachers and perhaps contain amendments to deregulate charter schools and put ESA private school vouchers in the Constitution. What’s your view on that?
My view remains unchanged. The Senate Democrats are not supportive of a measure like this. We weren’t supportive of previous measures that we’re trying to only limit it to teacher raises, too. You know, we know that the school districts need to be able to support all of their employees, and that includes teachers who are at the front of the classroom, but there’s so much support staff that goes into making sure our schools run effectively. That by itself is a component that we can continue to negotiate and hash out between Democrats and Republicans for a Prop 123 measure that goes to the ballot. But once Republicans started talking about potentially deregulated Charters or putting vouchers in the Constitution. Now, you’re getting to the place where you’re really losing Democratic support, and we know that Prop 123 initially was a very close vote, and so you’re going to need the support of every possible constituency to make sure that that gets approved at the ballot box. I would say to Republicans to start over. Let’s come back to the table and talk. Talk with Democrats about proposals that we are willing to get behind.”
How did you enjoy your first year as Democratic Senate Leader?
“Oh, it was a learning experience, that’s for sure. Being leader is a lot of work, but I think on the whole, have enjoyed it. It’s been an awesome honor to lead my caucus and a great responsibility, But I have really appreciated the chance to be able to represent my caucus as leader and speak for us and help make sure that every one of my members is reflected in the statements and the votes and the decision making that that we take as a caucus and the Senate. I’ve been so proud of my Senate Democratic caucus for sticking together this session in a way that I think we may not have done in prior session. I’m really proud of us.”
Please watch Senator Sundareshans comments on the passage of the AG to Urban Water Security Bill below and read her official statement on the Senate passage of the bipartisan budget agreement.
After this interview, House Republicans decided to throw a wrench in the budget process by declaring their opposition to the bipartisan Senate budget legislation. Along with Governor Katie Hobbs, Democratic House Leader Oscar De Los Santos, and several Senate Republicans, Senator Sundareshan issued the below statement urging House Republicans to come back to reality and call for a vote on the House floor on the one budget bill Governor Hobbs will sign.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.