Arizona state-government finances, comparable debt and interest figures, and the enacted budget.
The national companion measures federal finances. Here the unit is Arizona state government. Federal debt is not allocated to Arizona; a state budget is not the federal budget.
Explore Arizona readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Arizona officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Arizona effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Arizona change.
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
No comparable time series is retained for this topic. The chart shows events and reviewed actions; current state comparisons appear below.
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
20 of 20 reviewed Arizona actions match · 18 date markers shown. 50 major events shown separately.
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
Compare state-government balances and interest expenditure from the same Census fiscal-year survey.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Long-term debt outstanding plus short-term debt outstanding at fiscal year end.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. Excludes local-government debt. Dollar ranks describe scale, not credit quality.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Arizona stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Arizona has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $166.39B | — |
| #2 | New York | $120.59B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $70.05B | — |
| #4 | Massachusetts | $65.87B | — |
| #5 | New Jersey | $57.23B | — |
| #6 | Pennsylvania | $48.67B | — |
| #7 | Illinois | $43.38B | — |
| #8 | Virginia | $33.73B | — |
| #9 | Connecticut | $33.27B | — |
| #10 | Ohio | $32.29B | — |
| #11 | Washington | $30.62B | — |
| #12 | Maryland | $25.9B | — |
| #13 | Michigan | $25.02B | — |
| #14 | Colorado | $23.57B | — |
| #15 | Wisconsin | $22.79B | — |
| #16 | Florida | $20.14B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $17.03B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $16.91B | — |
| #19 | Louisiana | $16.09B | — |
| #20 | South Carolina | $15.36B | — |
| #21 | West Virginia | $15.08B | — |
| #22 | Georgia | $14.05B | — |
| #23 | North Carolina | $13.13B | — |
| #24 | Hawaii | $11.72B | — |
| #25 | Rhode Island | $11.41B | — |
| #26 | Alabama | $10.99B | — |
| #27 | Oklahoma | $10.15B | — |
| #28 | Kentucky | $10.08B | — |
| #29 | Tennessee | $9.03B | — |
| #30 | Indiana | $8.52B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $8.06B | — |
| #32 | Arkansas | $8.05B | — |
| #33 | Mississippi | $7.72B | — |
| #34 | New Hampshire | $7.58B | — |
| #35 | Kansas | $7.16B | — |
| #36 | New Mexico | $7.12B | — |
| #37 | Missouri | $6.99B | — |
| #38 | Arizona · your comparison | $6.88B | — |
| #39 | Alaska | $5.72B | — |
| #40 | Utah | $5.55B | — |
| #41 | Maine | $5.3B | — |
| #42 | North Dakota | $4.89B | — |
| #43 | South Dakota | $4.67B | — |
| #44 | Delaware | $3.69B | — |
| #45 | Nebraska | $3.39B | — |
| #46 | Nevada | $2.89B | — |
| #47 | Montana | $2.76B | — |
| #48 | Vermont | $2.67B | — |
| #49 | Wyoming | $1.26B | — |
| #50 | Idaho | $728.59M | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
All measures use Census state-government records for FY2024. Categories describe collections; they do not rank statutory tax rates.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Census category T09.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Arizona stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Arizona has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Texas | $54.35B | — |
| #2 | California | $53.33B | — |
| #3 | Florida | $40.09B | — |
| #4 | Washington | $22.81B | — |
| #5 | New York | $19.99B | — |
| #6 | Ohio | $16.33B | — |
| #7 | Illinois | $16.05B | — |
| #8 | Pennsylvania | $15.6B | — |
| #9 | New Jersey | $14.31B | — |
| #10 | Tennessee | $14.08B | — |
| #11 | Arizona · your comparison | $13.16B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $12.7B | — |
| #13 | North Carolina | $12.16B | — |
| #14 | Indiana | $10.96B | — |
| #15 | Massachusetts | $9.4B | — |
| #16 | Georgia | $9.01B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $8.49B | — |
| #18 | Nevada | $8.4B | — |
| #19 | Wisconsin | $7.59B | — |
| #20 | Virginia | $7.4B | — |
| #21 | Maryland | $6.85B | — |
| #22 | South Carolina | $6.44B | — |
| #23 | Connecticut | $6.23B | — |
| #24 | Kentucky | $5.8B | — |
| #25 | Missouri | $5.26B | — |
| #26 | Mississippi | $5.07B | — |
| #27 | Arkansas | $5.07B | — |
| #28 | Louisiana | $4.87B | — |
| #29 | Hawaii | $4.79B | — |
| #30 | Colorado | $4.67B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $4.64B | — |
| #32 | Utah | $4.63B | — |
| #33 | Alabama | $4.59B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $4.33B | — |
| #35 | New Mexico | $4.33B | — |
| #36 | Oklahoma | $3.81B | — |
| #37 | Idaho | $3.09B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska | $2.97B | — |
| #39 | Maine | $2.35B | — |
| #40 | West Virginia | $1.82B | — |
| #41 | South Dakota | $1.68B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $1.63B | — |
| #43 | Oregon | $1.34B | — |
| #44 | North Dakota | $1.32B | — |
| #45 | Wyoming | $1.01B | — |
| #46 | Vermont | $597.33M | — |
| #47 | Alaska | $0 | — |
| #47 | Delaware | $0 | — |
| #47 | Montana | $0 | — |
| #47 | New Hampshire | $0 | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Census categories allow consistent comparisons. These selected categories are not a breakdown of the current Arizona appropriations act.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Current operations for public welfare institutions and other public welfare, excluding capital and transfers.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Arizona stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Arizona has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $156.71B | — |
| #2 | New York | $97.35B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $57.32B | — |
| #4 | Illinois | $41.13B | — |
| #5 | Florida | $40.11B | — |
| #6 | Ohio | $39.77B | — |
| #7 | Pennsylvania | $39.34B | — |
| #8 | Massachusetts | $34.12B | — |
| #9 | North Carolina | $30.64B | — |
| #10 | New Jersey | $28.06B | — |
| #11 | Arizona · your comparison | $26.02B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $24.37B | — |
| #13 | Virginia | $23.68B | — |
| #14 | Minnesota | $23.37B | — |
| #15 | Indiana | $22.93B | — |
| #16 | Maryland | $21.61B | — |
| #17 | Kentucky | $20.54B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $20.47B | — |
| #19 | Washington | $19.6B | — |
| #20 | Georgia | $18.99B | — |
| #21 | Louisiana | $18.69B | — |
| #22 | Tennessee | $16.42B | — |
| #23 | Wisconsin | $16.26B | — |
| #24 | Missouri | $15.65B | — |
| #25 | Oklahoma | $14.57B | — |
| #26 | Colorado | $13.6B | — |
| #27 | South Carolina | $12.84B | — |
| #28 | New Mexico | $10.72B | — |
| #29 | Iowa | $10.26B | — |
| #30 | Alabama | $9.73B | — |
| #31 | Arkansas | $8.67B | — |
| #32 | Mississippi | $8.08B | — |
| #33 | Utah | $6.91B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $6.84B | — |
| #35 | Nevada | $6.62B | — |
| #36 | West Virginia | $6.24B | — |
| #37 | Maine | $5.7B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska | $4.97B | — |
| #39 | Connecticut | $4.88B | — |
| #40 | Rhode Island | $4.54B | — |
| #41 | Hawaii | $4.14B | — |
| #42 | Delaware | $3.97B | — |
| #43 | Idaho | $3.73B | — |
| #44 | Alaska | $3.27B | — |
| #45 | Montana | $2.89B | — |
| #46 | New Hampshire | $2.72B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $2.69B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $2.09B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota | $1.95B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $1.09B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
The enacted plan, spending categories and audited activity use different periods and accounting scopes; they are kept separate.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Sum of Census current-operation expenditure categories, excluding capital outlay, interest, and assistance/subsidy expenditure.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. This FY2024 comparison differs in scope and period from Arizona’s FY2027 appropriations and Fiscal year ended June 30, 2024 audit shown below.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Arizona stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Arizona has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $287.03B | — |
| #2 | New York | $161.37B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $136.18B | — |
| #4 | Florida | $86.61B | — |
| #5 | Pennsylvania | $77.15B | — |
| #6 | Illinois | $75.67B | — |
| #7 | Ohio | $66.77B | — |
| #8 | New Jersey | $64.53B | — |
| #9 | Massachusetts | $61.38B | — |
| #10 | North Carolina | $59.01B | — |
| #11 | Michigan | $57.27B | — |
| #12 | Virginia | $53.45B | — |
| #13 | Washington | $49.82B | — |
| #14 | Georgia | $45.19B | — |
| #15 | Maryland | $45.06B | — |
| #16 | Oregon | $41.41B | — |
| #17 | Arizona · your comparison | $38.71B | — |
| #18 | Minnesota | $38.1B | — |
| #19 | Indiana | $37.4B | — |
| #20 | Kentucky | $36.94B | — |
| #21 | Wisconsin | $34.5B | — |
| #22 | Missouri | $34.43B | — |
| #23 | South Carolina | $32.85B | — |
| #24 | Colorado | $32.73B | — |
| #25 | Louisiana | $31.67B | — |
| #26 | Tennessee | $31.12B | — |
| #27 | Alabama | $26.99B | — |
| #28 | Oklahoma | $24.28B | — |
| #29 | Utah | $22.7B | — |
| #30 | New Mexico | $21.94B | — |
| #31 | Connecticut | $21.22B | — |
| #32 | Iowa | $19.89B | — |
| #33 | Kansas | $18.39B | — |
| #34 | Hawaii | $16.62B | — |
| #35 | Mississippi | $16.46B | — |
| #36 | Arkansas | $16.28B | — |
| #37 | West Virginia | $13.19B | — |
| #38 | Nevada | $12.43B | — |
| #39 | Nebraska | $10.41B | — |
| #40 | Maine | $10.12B | — |
| #41 | Delaware | $9.24B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $8.93B | — |
| #43 | Alaska | $8.4B | — |
| #44 | Idaho | $8.21B | — |
| #45 | New Hampshire | $7.12B | — |
| #46 | Montana | $6.44B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $6.28B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $5.63B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota | $4.55B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $4.01B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
The Joint Legislative Budget Committee's reported FY2027 Total Spending — All Sources, including appropriated General and other funds, non-appropriated funds, and federal funds. The official chart is rounded to $0.1 million and excludes administrative adjustments and revertments.
Shares of the $22.7 billion in taxes reported as general revenue for Arizona's primary government in the latest published audited ACFR. The denominator excludes grants, charges for services, investment earnings, land-sale gains, miscellaneous revenue, and local-government tax collections.
Every category in the official Total Spending — All Sources chart is assigned exactly once to one of these service groups. The amounts retain the source chart's $0.1 million precision and reconcile to its reported $72.0 billion total.
Latest published audited government-wide activity for Arizona's primary government. Revenue is total program and general revenue before endowment contributions and internal transfers; these accrual-accounting results are not the FY2027 spending authority.
Explore statements about budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt from FactVote’s Arizona candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
Conduct a comprehensive audit of Arizona’s entire state budget.
Conduct a comprehensive audit of Arizona’s entire state budget.Elijah Norton — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗
Elijah Norton is a self-made businessman and committed conservative with a strong track record of creating jobs, balancing budgets, leading a successful company, and standing up for American values. Now, he’s running for State Treasurer to bring those skills to government, where he will serve as a w…
Elijah Norton is a self-made businessman and committed conservative with a strong track record of creating jobs, balancing budgets, leading a successful company, and standing up for American values. Now, he’s running for State Treasurer to bring those skills to government, where he will serve as a watchdog over taxpayer dollars, eliminate waste, divest from woke and leftist causes, and return money to the people — where it belongs.Elijah Norton — candidate-owned primary source 5 ↗
Elijah wants to work with the Arizona legislature and auditor general to conduct “Arizona’s Audit”. Arizona’s audit would perform a comprehensive audit of the entire state budget. The findings would be published and help provide a path to cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in Arizona’s government – whi…
Elijah wants to work with the Arizona legislature and auditor general to conduct “Arizona’s Audit”. Arizona’s audit would perform a comprehensive audit of the entire state budget. The findings would be published and help provide a path to cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in Arizona’s government – which some budget experts say could be billions of dollars, and return the savings back to the taxpayers of Arizona.Elijah Norton — candidate-owned primary source 5 ↗
It’s time to send a Libertarian to Washington, the only party that truly puts America first and upholds the principles of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution. The astronomical government spending on the administrative state, bloated government programs, bureaucracy, and empire building has onl…
It’s time to send a Libertarian to Washington, the only party that truly puts America first and upholds the principles of our Founding Fathers and the Constitution. The astronomical government spending on the administrative state, bloated government programs, bureaucracy, and empire building has only increased the national debt. The trillions stolen from taxpayers for foreign aid and never-ending wars—without the consent of the people—wastes trillions of dollars that could create wealth and prosperity here at home. This MUST STOP. The destruction, corruption, lies and treachery perpetrated by the Uniparty has reached a level so shocking it inflicts psychological trauma, assaulting the conscience of every American.Monica Alponte — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
I believe hardworking Americans should keep more of what they earn. We must protect retirement programs and ensure they remain financially secure for future generations. At the same time, we need to reduce government waste, increase accountability, and bring greater transparency to federal spending.
I believe hardworking Americans should keep more of what they earn. We must protect retirement programs and ensure they remain financially secure for future generations. At the same time, we need to reduce government waste, increase accountability, and bring greater transparency to federal spending.Steven Sanders — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Reduce federal waste, strengthen accountability, and make government spending more transparent.
Reduce federal waste, strengthen accountability, and make government spending more transparent.Steven Sanders — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
This section matches specific budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt terms in retained, attributed source text from published Arizona candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Arizona legislators and Arizona’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Arizona’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
20 matching sponsorships or proposals · 14 Arizona incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Arizona House of Representatives, District 20 · D–AZ
1 proposalJan 21, 2026 · Did not pass
Rep. Alma Hernandez · Sponsored
The bill addresses residential rent, tenant protections, rental assistance, eviction, or housing supply and affordability.
The official Arizona Legislature record lists this final disposition: Held in Committees. The measure was not enacted in the 2026 session.
The official record directly addresses residential rent, tenant protections, rental assistance, eviction, or housing supply and affordability. It does not establish an effect on Arizona's median gross rent.
Retained Arizona evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
rental assistance program; appropriationReview official supporting evidence ↗
U.S. representative for Arizona, District 6 · R–AZ
1 proposalApr 2, 2026 · Passed the House
Rep. Juan Ciscomani · Sponsored
Pay Our Homeland Defenders Act This bill provides appropriations to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the remainder of FY2026. It also ends the partial DHS shutdown that began on February 14, 2026, because the continuing resolution (CR) that was funding DHS expired and a regular FY2026 DHS appropriations bill had not been enacted. Specifically, the bill provides appropriations to DHS for Departmental Management, Intelligence, Situational Awareness, and Oversight, including the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management; the Management Directorate; Intelligence, Analysis, and Situational Awareness; and the Office of Inspector General. In addition, the bill provides…
Received in the Senate.
The official record directly addresses immigration enforcement, immigrant residents, refugees, asylum, naturalization, or services tied to immigration status. It does not establish an effect on Arizona's foreign-born population share.
Retained Arizona evidence context: Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Pay Our Homeland Defenders Act This bill provides appropriations to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the remainder of FY2026. It also ends the partial DHS shutdown that began on February 14, 2026, because the continuing resolution (CR) that was funding DHS expired and a regular FY2026 DHS appropriations bill had not been enacted. Specifically, the bill provides appropriations to DHS for Departmental Management, Intelligence, Situational Awareness, and Oversight, including the Office of the Secretary and Executive Management; the Management Directorate; Intelligence, Analysis, and Situational Awareness; and the Office of…Review official supporting evidence ↗
Arizona House of Representatives, District 30 · R–AZ
1 proposalMar 5, 2024 · Did not pass
Rep. Leo Biasiucci · Sponsored
The bill addresses immigration enforcement, immigrant residents, refugees, asylum, naturalization, or services tied to immigration status.
The official Arizona Legislature record lists this final disposition: Held in Senate. The measure was not enacted in the 2024 session.
The official record directly addresses immigration enforcement, immigrant residents, refugees, asylum, naturalization, or services tied to immigration status. It does not establish an effect on Arizona's foreign-born population share.
Retained Arizona evidence context: Residents who are foreign-born. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
gang and immigration intelligence; appropriationReview official supporting evidence ↗
Arizona House of Representatives, District 24 · D–AZ
1 proposalFeb 8, 2023 · Did not pass
Rep. Lydia Hernandez · Sponsored
The bill addresses residential rent, tenant protections, rental assistance, eviction, or housing supply and affordability.
The official Arizona Legislature record lists this final disposition: Held in Committees. The measure was not enacted in the 2023 session.
The official record directly addresses residential rent, tenant protections, rental assistance, eviction, or housing supply and affordability. It does not establish an effect on Arizona's median gross rent.
Retained Arizona evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
homelessness; rights; eviction; housing; appropriation.Review official supporting evidence ↗
Arizona House of Representatives, District 6 · D–AZ
1 proposalFeb 5, 2019 · Did not pass
Rep. Myron Tsosie · Sponsored
The bill addresses residential rent, tenant protections, rental assistance, eviction, or housing supply and affordability.
The official Arizona Legislature record lists this final disposition: Held in Committees. The measure was not enacted in the 2019 session.
The official record directly addresses residential rent, tenant protections, rental assistance, eviction, or housing supply and affordability. It does not establish an effect on Arizona's median gross rent.
Retained Arizona evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
appropriation; Navajo veterans housing assistanceReview official supporting evidence ↗
Arizona House of Representatives, District 12 · D–AZ
2 proposalsJan 21, 2026 · Did not pass
Rep. Patty Contreras · Sponsored
The bill addresses residential rent, tenant protections, rental assistance, eviction, or housing supply and affordability.
The official Arizona Legislature record lists this final disposition: Held in Committees. The measure was not enacted in the 2026 session.
The official record directly addresses residential rent, tenant protections, rental assistance, eviction, or housing supply and affordability. It does not establish an effect on Arizona's median gross rent.
Retained Arizona evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
appropriation; housing assistance; elderlyReview official supporting evidence ↗
Jan 28, 2025 · Did not pass
Rep. Patty Contreras · Sponsored
The bill addresses residential rent, tenant protections, rental assistance, eviction, or housing supply and affordability.
The official Arizona Legislature record lists this final disposition: Held in Committees. The measure was not enacted in the 2025 session.
The official record directly addresses residential rent, tenant protections, rental assistance, eviction, or housing supply and affordability. It does not establish an effect on Arizona's median gross rent.
Retained Arizona evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
appropriation; housing assistance; elderlyReview official supporting evidence ↗
Only current Arizona officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Arizona statistic. Collection reviewed Sep 4, 2026.