Robb: Prop. 123 – what’s best for Arizona schools?

Robert Robb, The Republic | azcentral.com
http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/robertrobb/2016/05/11/prop-123-vote-yes/84191600/

Should getting more money to Arizona schools be this hard?

If Proposition 123 passes next Tuesday, schools will get a lot of additional dough. And quickly.

Schools would get an additional $224 million the very next month, June. And an additional $230 million over the next fiscal year (July 2016 through June 2017). So, a total of $454 million over the next 13 months.

Education organizations representing teachers, administrators, school boards and parents are supporting Prop. 123. The business community has rallied strongly behind it and provided the pro campaign with a ton of cash.

Still, what opponents lack in organization and money they are making up in hot air. And, oddly, their narrative has dominated the public debate and discussion.

The opposition narrative, however, is based mostly on material misrepresentations and wishful thinking about alternatives. So, it’s worth revisiting some Prop. 123 basics.

Why are we voting on this, anyway?

Prop. 123 settles a lawsuit brought by some schools over the failure of the state to increase the base level, the starting point of the basic state aid formula, to reflect inflation for four years following the recession.

According to opponents, the courts have ordered the Legislature to increase the base level by $337 million and the Legislature has ignored the order. That’s a fundamentally dishonest description of the status of the litigation.

At issue is the maintenance of effort requirement in Proposition 301, referred by the Legislature in 2000 and approved by voters. Prop. 301 increased the sales tax by six-tenths of a percent and earmarked the proceeds for education. It also required the state to increase the base level for basic state aid to reflect inflation, up to 2 percent.

The schools filed the lawsuit in 2010. The first Superior Court judge to hear the case found that the Legislature owed nothing. That the people, acting in their legislative capacity, couldn’t bind a future Legislature acting in its legislative capacity.

$337 million or $75 million? That’s the fight

The schools appealed. Ultimately, the Arizona Supreme Court found that the Legislature had to abide by the maintenance of effort requirement. But the Supreme Court didn’t order that the state pay any specific amount. Instead, it remanded the case to Superior Court.

There is now a legal dispute over how to calculate the inflation adjustment. For three years during the 2000s, the base level was increased by more than inflation.

The Legislature says that these supplemental increases shouldn’t count in calculating what is owed today. Since the Supreme Court decision, it has appropriated what it maintains is owed, roughly an additional $75 million a year.

The schools maintain that if the Legislature increases the base level by more than inflation in any particular year, that just ratchets up the base for future inflation adjustments. That yields the $337 million number.

Schools get more in this deal than lawmakers

Another Superior Court judge found in favor of the schools. The Legislature has appealed. Rather than continue to litigate, a settlement midwifed by Gov. Doug Ducey’s office was reached.

Under the settlement, schools will receive nearly $300 million more in annual funding, or much closer to the position of the schools than the Legislature. There’s a reason the schools regard the settlement as a win.

Part of the settlement funding comes from an increase in distributions from the state land trust. The distribution is set forth in the Arizona Constitution. Changing it requires a constitutional amendment. The Arizona Constitution can only be changed with a vote of the people. Hence Prop. 123.

If Prop. 123 fails, the $454 million goes away

If Prop. 123 passes, schools will receive an additional $3.5 billion over 10 years. Of that amount, $2.2 billion would come from the additional distribution from the trust. The state general fund would be responsible for $1.3 billion.

And if Prop. 123 fails?

Here’s what we know for certain. The additional state land distribution will not occur.

As a litigation strategy, the Legislature would probably continue appropriating the $75 million that is owed as it calculates inflation.

The settlement obligates it to appropriate an additional $50 million a year for five years and $75 million a year for the five years after that. That obligation would go away.

The schools would not receive an additional $454 million over the next 13 months.

Other than that, everything is uncertain.

The litigation would presumably resume. How long it would take and what the outcome would be is speculation.

Surplus is gone and tax cuts aren’t enough

The breezy claim that there are easy alternatives to getting schools the same or more money is obfuscation.

The surplus? It’s gone. The Legislature spent it in the last budget, partly on education and partly on other stuff, such as the Department of Child Safety.

Delay tax cuts? According to legislative budgeteers, there is just $124 million in new and phased-in tax cuts scheduled for the next fiscal year. So, that’s $330 million short of what Prop. 123 will produce in the same period of time.

Taxes can be increased. I’m all for it. I’ve been advocating a general fund tax increase since it was clear that the temporary 1 percent sales tax wasn’t going to be an adequate bridge from the recession’s decimation of state revenues.

But the schools are owed a measure of political realism. Should increased funding for them be based on a bet that defeat of Prop. 123 will change Ducey’s mind about taxes or that a Legislature willing to increase taxes will be elected this November? That’s a very bad bet.

Prop. 123 doesn’t stop larger funding talk

And here’s the most perplexing thing about the opposition to Prop. 123: Its passage doesn’t preclude any of the alternatives opponents claim to prefer. Nothing about passage of Prop. 123 prevents the election of what opponents would regard as a better Legislature and governor. Passage of Prop. 123 doesn’t preclude a broader education funding initiative in 2018.

In fact, a broader discussion of education funding is inevitable. The expiration of Prop. 301’s sales tax in 2021 makes it unavoidable.

In the meantime, if Prop. 123 passes, the schools would be getting more money at a time they really need it.

And at a time they have been shortchanged not only by the general fund, but also by the state land trust. Since 2000, the trust has retained rather than distributed $1.7 billion in earnings. Prop. 123 mostly requires the trust to disgorge earnings that the schools should have been receiving all along.

Money goes to public – not private – schools

The schools are both the plaintiffs in the lawsuit and the beneficiaries of the trust. If they think the settlement is fair and increased distribution from the trust is appropriate, shouldn’t some deference be paid to that? Opponents who say continue the litigation or get the money from some other source are claiming they know what’s best for schools better than those who run them or teach in them. A bit of hubris there.

There is a lot of politics in the opposition. Opponents fear that passage of Prop. 123 will enable the agenda of Ducey and GOP legislators to cut taxes and increase assistance to charter and private schools. But they have the analysis backwards.

The settlement appropriates an additional $625 million over the next 10 years from the general fund to public schools based upon enrollment. If Prop. 123 is defeated, that money is up for grabs.

Voting down Prop. 123 won’t punish lawmakers

And then there is the emotional gravamen. For many opponents, Prop. 123 isn’t really a school finance measure. It’s a referendum on Ducey and the GOP Legislature.

In this view, a yes vote means that Ducey and the Legislature are doing a good job on education. A no vote means that they aren’t.

But that’s also massively unfair to schools. Prop. 123 is a school finance measure. If it is defeated, nothing bad happens to Ducey and the Legislature. But the schools lose $454 million over the next 13 months.

Passage of Prop. 123 gets the schools more money and settles a lawsuit. Its defeat guarantees nothing and provides a pathway to nowhere.

Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com.

Carlyle Begay Stands Against Religious Freedom

Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on marriage in 2015, religious freedom has been quite the topic across the country. A bitter fight has become exasperated between traditionalists and modernists throughout the country, and the divide has even spread within the Republican Party.

The past couple weeks have been ground zero for this battle being waged in cities and states across the country. Several states have been debating religious freedom laws; Target allowed transgender individuals to use bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity; and Curt Schilling got fired from ESPN for getting in the middle of the controversy sweeping the nation. It has become abundantly clear yet again that religious freedom is under attack in more ways than one in this country.

Because it is not the “cool” thing to do these days, it is exceedingly admirable when elected officials do stand up for religious freedom in the face of hostile pressure. Votes and actions to protect and to defend religious freedom take courage in this day and age, and will continue to fall few and far between.

Though Carlyle Begay has been hailed as “courageous” for bucking his former party and switching to the Republican Party in 2015, his record on religious freedom is less than courageous and principled. Even before SB 1062 became a firestorm in 2014, he voted against it in the Arizona Senate, joining most of his Democratic colleagues, and opposing most of his future Republican “cohorts.”

Fellow CD-1 candidates Paul Babeu and Ken Bennett also came out against religious freedom around the time of Governor Jan Brewer’s veto.

Carlyle Begay may act like a Republican and vote like a Republican more often than he once did, but his past votes – highlighted by his SB 1062 vote – show Arizona primary voters exactly where he stands on an issue that still filters out the contenders from the pretenders in Republican primary elections. Unlike fellow candidates Babeu and Bennett, Begay actually had a chance to vote on a bill that sought to strengthen religious freedom in Arizona – he could have done something about it.

He did not.

CD-1 Republicans, take note!

VIDEO: 4/20 is no joke

Watch the latest from Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy:

Sally’s son, Andy, committed suicide after becoming addicted to marijuana. In his suicide note, he said “marijuana killed my soul and ruined my brain.”

4/20 is no joke. And neither is recreational marijuana.

Arizonans For Responsible Drug Policy actively opposes any initiative to legalize recreational and commercial marijuana in Arizona.

Visit www.ardp.org for more info on what you can do to stop another story like Andy’s from happening in AZ.

Arizona Republic: Poll shows Arizona marijuana-legalization campaign could fail if voted on today

Arizona Republic: Poll shows Arizona marijuana-legalization campaign could fail if voted on today

As seen on AZCentral.com

Yvonne Wingett Sanchez
April 20, 2016

If a vote were taken today, Arizonans could reject an initiative to legalize recreational use of marijuana by adults, according to a poll released by the campaign opposing the plan.

The survey shows 43 percent of likely voters support legalizing marijuana for recreational use while 49 percent would vote against it. About 8 percent of likely voters were undecided. The telephone survey has a margin of error of about 4 percent.

Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy released the poll on the eve of 4/20, a day on which the drug culture celebrates and consumes cannabis.

The Campaign to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol is gathering signatures to put an initiative on the November ballot that would allow people age 21 and older to carry up to 1 ounce of marijuana and grow up to 12 plants in a home occupied by at least two people, without obtaining licenses. It would also create a distribution system similar to Colorado’s, where licensed businesses produce and sell marijuana, which would be taxed.

Barrett Marson, spokesman for the legalization campaign, said of the poll results: “We look forward to a vigorous campaign informing voters of the benefits of ending the failed policy of prohibition. By regulating and taxing marijuana, we benefit our schools and keep it out of the hands of teens.”

The poll, released to The Arizona Republic on Tuesday, shows voters could narrowly oppose the measure. According to the survey of 500 likely voters conducted April 11 through April 14:

  • When asked if they would be more or less likely to support the ballot measure if they knew recreational marijuana would be taxed at 15 percent and the funds would go to public health and education, 50 percent said they would be more likely to support the measure, while 29 percent said they would be less likely to support it. Eighteen percent said the tax would not really change their decision, while 4 percent were undecided and 1 percent wouldn’t answer the question.
  • About 19 percent said they would be more likely to support legalization in Arizona after being told teen use of the drug here is 70 percent higher than the national average. About 53 percent said they would be less likely to vote for the measure, 21 percent said they still held the same view, 6 percent were undecided and 1 percent wouldn’t answer the question.
  • Asked if they knew the measure would allow growth of up to 12 plants in their homes and allow them to smoke in their backyard, 31 percent said they would be more likely to vote for it, 52 percent would be less likely, 13 percent said their opinion remained about the same, 3 percent were undecided and 1 percent refused to answer.

Of those who responded, 39 percent were Republican, 33 percent were Democrat, 28 percent were independent, and 1 percent didn’t know their affiliation. About 36 percent were 65 or older, 21 percent were 55-64 years old, 17 percent were 45-54 years old, 13 percent were 35-44 years old and 13 percent were 18-34 years old.

Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy argues legalization could upend decades of policies surrounding substance-abuse prevention, law-enforcement and health. They argue legalization could lead to the abuse of marijuana and negatively impact the workplace.

The group’s leaders, Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk and radio host Seth Leibsohn, say legalization could lead to increased incidents of impaired driving and lead to accidental ingestion by youth who may find marijuana-laced cookies and candies enticing without knowing they contain the drug.

“Advocates for recreational marijuana argue that legalization is inevitable, but this poll shows it’s just not true,” Leibsohn said in a statement. “Arizonans are beginning to understand that today’s marijuana is not the marijuana of the past. It’s a great deal more potent — practically a different drug — and is made attractive to youth in seemingly innocuous candies like gummy bears.”

Campaign officials argue prohibition of the drug has been a failure, and it’s in the public’s best interest to try to regulate and tax it.

Taxation of the proposed program would pay the state’s cost of implementing and enforcing the initiative. Forty percent of the taxes on marijuana would be directed to the Department of Education for construction, maintenance and operation costs, including salaries of K-12 teachers. Another 40 percent would be set aside for full-day kindergarten programs. Twenty percent would go to the state Department of Health Services for unspecified uses.

A state Department of Marijuana Licenses and Control would regulate the “cultivation, manufacturing, testing, transportation and sale of marijuana” and would give local governments the authority to regulate and ban marijuana stores. Current medical-marijuana dispensary owners would get first dibs on licenses for the stores.

Gowan leads Q1 Fundraising in CD 1; Carlyle Begay falters

For all of the narrative that members of the media and his opponents seek to destroy his candidacy with, Arizona House Speaker David Gowan led all Republican challengers in fundraising for the first quarter of 2016. Gowan’s fundraising number for Q1 was extremely impressive because of the fact that he has not been able to fundraise from Capitol lobbyists during the (still-ongoing) Arizona legislative session.

Here were the amounts raised in the first quarter from the major Republican candidates in CD 1:

  1. David Gowan                 $169,390.27
  2. Paul Babeu                     $157,734.35
  3. Wendy Rogers               $144,209.00
  4. Ken Bennett                   $ 80,027.00
  5. Gary Kiehne                   $48,980.47
  6. Carlyle Begay                 $39,906.00

Here are some notes about the first quarter of fundraising in CD 1:

  • A significant amount of Wendy Rogers’ Q1 funds came from out-of-state donors.
  • Paul Babeu’s burn rate is mind blowing, and his out-of-state funds are disproportionate to a candidate who claims to want to represent Arizona and CD 1. Though his scandals have not greatly hurt his fundraising so far, many donors are still waiting to see how long he can survive in the race before another significant story from his checkered past breaks against him.
  • For all the talk about how Carlyle Begay was going to raise upwards of $100,000 for the quarter, his haul was severely underwhelming and raised serious questions about his viability in a Republican primary. Most people have already noted that without the Arizona Republican Party’s exaggerated and drawn-out celebration of his party switch (masterminded by the then-Executive Director of the AZGOP, Chad Heywood-now Begay’s consultant), Begay would have no foothold in this primary. Simply put, Carlyle Begay is merely a product of a conflict of interest by the immediate-past ED of the AZGOP (as previously reported by the Yellow Sheet), and his fundraising numbers are reflecting this dark reality.
  • Ken Bennett raised a respectable amount of money, but not enough to break through into the presumed top-tier of contenders.
  • Gary Kiehne has the potential of challenging for the frontrunner’s position because of the shier amount of dollars that he has already lent himself. If he can run a disciplined campaign to the end of the primary, he has a shot a the Republican nomination.

Sierra Vista Herald: Yes on Prop 123!

No tax increase
Sierra Vista Herald
04.18.2016

The bottom line? Prop. 123 will not cost taxpayers a dime while it pumps $3.5 billion into education over the next 10 years.

The money is coming from the State Land Trust — property deeded to Arizona by the federal government with the stipulation that when the state sells it, the money is used for education.

Gov. Ducey is proposing to do just that with his support of this legislation to change the State Constitution and accelerate the amount of money that can be allocated from the trust over the next decade. It is the closest thing to a guarantee for public education that it will receive at least 71 percent of the money Arizona schools were entitled to, before the State Legislature chose to ignore Proposition 300.

That “assurance” points to the most infuriating aspect of the debate on whether to check “yes,” or “no” on your ballot for the May 17 statewide referendum.

If state lawmakers had followed the provisions of Prop. 300, which Arizona voters approved in the 2000 election, the upcoming ballot would not be necessary. Instead, legislators in 2008 took money specifically allocated for education and spent it from the general fund to avoid increasing taxes during a national economic recession.

Public schools filed a lawsuit which after eight years since the funds were lost, advanced as far as the State Supreme Court, with the judicial branch in strong agreement that Arizona lawmakers owed as much as $1.3 billion to the education fund.

During that eight year span, public education in Arizona has spiraled to the bottom of national benchmarks. Compensation for teachers is among the lowest in the country, the ratio of teachers to student is among the highest, and today the Legislature allocates less revenue per student, than any other state in our Union. Arizona ranks 50th.

The consequence to education of the Legislature’s financial policies — in just eight years — has been catastrophic. Good teachers have left the profession in droves, student achievement scores are well below national standards and Arizona public schools cannot afford to invest in textbooks or the technology to keep up with the rest of the nation.

Imagine what the next eight years would be like if opponents of Prop. 123 get their way at the ballot box on May 17. If the referendum fails, public schools will go back to court to try and recover the money they are rightly owed, but there is little that will compel the current Legislature to be earnest in finding a solution to its $1.3 billion obligation. As Gov. Ducey said when he proposed this plan, it’s past time that Arizona taxpayers continued paying lawyers to negotiate a settlement between two government entities.

The solution for those who oppose Prop. 123 isn’t found by defeating the only assured source of revenue for public education over the next decade.

To change the behavior of the Legislature, it is incumbent on those who support education to change the membership. Electing representatives who are in tune with what public schools need to survive and prosper is the best way to prevent future State Senators and State Representatives from breaking the law and overruling a voter-approved proposition.

We strongly endorse a “Yes” vote on Proposition 123 on the May 17 ballot.

Rep JD Mesnard on Arizona Flex Loans

(Reposted from azcentral.com: http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2016/04/18/my-turn-providing-alternative-arizonans-payday-loans/83028610/)

My Turn: Providing an alternative to Arizonans on payday loans

Last month, the Arizona House of Representatives passed a consumer finance bill that contained little-noticed provisions inserted by my colleagues that abolish the toxic lingering effects of payday loans once and for all in Arizona.

It was a wise move, as Arizona is the only state where certain loopholes are used due to the lack of other legal lending options available in the state, such as installment loans.

The consumer finance legislation in question, which carries these critical provisions, is the Arizona Flexible Credit Act.

This act will establish a realistic pathway to serve those lacking access to viable, legal and safe credit options for the first time in Arizona, and will further help consumers rebuild their credit scores and profiles.

It permits loans from $500 to $2,500, which must be paid in equal monthly payments over a term of up to 24 months.

Research in other states shows that the overwhelming majority of these types of installment loans are paid off in approximately six months. The maximum monthly interest rate is comparable to existing title loans at 15-17 percent; however, much like existing title lending in Arizona, the heated marketplace between lenders will drive down rates.

For Arizona’s working middle class, there is an unmet need for these types of loans, which are not offered by traditional banks and credit unions.

Furthermore, this proposal carries the most robust set of consumer protections anywhere in the nation. The protections include:

  • A free repayment plan option for at least three months if a customer becomes delinquent in his or her payment schedule
  • A database that will track all lending activity and require authorities to immediately investigate any violations of the statute
  • No hidden or additional fees
  • A 10-year legislative review and 20-year sunset (elimination)

Under the proposal, qualified entities can apply for licenses to offer flexible credit loans if they meet certain criteria of solvency and legitimacy as determined and overseen by the state Department of Financial Institutions , as it should be.

The public policy is sound. My colleagues in the Arizona House did tremendous work, quietly in some cases, inserting major amendments to this legislation last month on the House Floor with little fanfare.

The bill, SB 1316, faces a vote in the Senate in the coming days, and I am hopeful that the governor signs it quickly. Arizonans can win with this long-overdue legislation.

CD5 Republican Legislative District Chairs Call for Local Representation

For Immediate Release

April 8, 2016

Contact: Mickie Niland, (480)-726-0543, Chairman@azld12.com

Arizona

CD5 Republican Legislative District Chairs Call for Local Representation

To interested parties,

As Republican leaders of Arizona’s Fifth Congressional District, we were saddened by the news of Congressman Matt Salmon’s retirement from Congress. We wish him nothing but the best in his next endeavor, and thank him for all the service he has provided to his constituents and our nation.

As the candidates to replace Congressman Salmon begin to form their campaigns, we wish to make our intentions known that we will not support, or encourage other grassroots leaders to support, any candidate running for the Republican nomination who does not reside within the current boundaries of Arizona’s Fifth Congressional District.

The East Valley has a long tradition of electing public officials who have known and understood our distinct culture and the values of our treasured communities. Many of our public officials and candidates have lived in the East Valley for a number of years; some for generations. East Valley constituents wish to elect candidates who are “one of us”, who truly understand us and can best represent the unique ideals that have helped to make the East Valley region what it is today.

While we respect the right of any individual to run for public office, we strongly discourage candidates who live outside of our district from running in the primary election to replace Congressman Matt Salmon.

We plan to support “one of us” in this election cycle.

Sincerely,

Legislative District Chairmen

12, 16, 25 and 26

Mickie Niland, Chairwoman LD12

Denis T. Brimhall, Chairman LD16

Ian Murray, Chairman LD25

Raymond Jones, Chairman LD26

Is Senator Kimberly Yee Feeling the Bern?

Is this GOP State Senator Feeling the Bern?

Source: American Action News

http://americanactionnews.com/articles/is-this-gop-state-senator-feeling-the-bern

An Arizona State Senator is pursuing a strange, populist course of action that puts her in camp with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren- the sort of interest rate voodoo that helped create the financial crisis:

Arizona State Senator Kimberly Yee is not making any new friends among the free-market Republican crowd in Arizona. In a recent Senate hearing, Yee, who has been touted as a rising star in the party, held her fire after a long debate until the voting opened on a financial services bill in her committee. She then unloaded with full ammunition on the financial services industry and their free market principles.

“This bill just doesn’t feel right,” Yee proclaimed. “I am standing with the poor,” while attacking the well-funded groups who were supportive and their consultant class.

Yee went on to explain she has a “strong moral compass” and wants to protect people – that she would possibly consider a bill capping interest rates on loans in Arizona, a position which is specifically prohibited under federal law by Dodd-Frank.  By promoting rate caps, Yew veers left of the Obama Administration.

The issue at hand in last month’s Senate Commerce committee hearing was a proposed consumer lending bill known as Flexible Credit Loans, which would create a new credit product for up to $2500 over the course of a two-year loan term. Yee emphatically stated she could not back the measure before teeing off on its supporters with a blistering rhetoric.

The bill (and ones like it across the country), however, is supported by a broad base from left of center to the far right.  In Arizona, leading free market groups, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and the Goldwater Institute have spoken out in favor of the legislation.

One conservative Republican interviewed on the subject off the record stated that they were quite surprised at Yee’s comments and mini tirade.  “She sounded more like Bernie Sanders than an Arizona Republican.  I’m not quite sure where all of that came from.”

# # #

ACTION ALERT – Call your legislator today!

 

Arizona Republicans need to hear from YOU about an urgent vote expected tomorrow on SB 1316!

If you haven’t been paying attention to SB 1316, it’s time to start. This hot-button bill has special interest groups running around the Capitol Complex with their pants on fire, telling lies to your Republican lawmakers and pressuring them to oppose this important bill.

SB 1316 offers Arizonans an additional financial choice, called a flex loan, in times of need. Not surprisingly, liberal legislators and controlling special interest groups ignore the facts as they attempt to blow up this bill and limit your lending choices.

WHY? The truth is Democrats and their special interest cronies want to limit your financial lending choices to just one option – the government!

That’s right – those socialists think you’re too dumb to make your own financial decisions. And they think THEY know better than you… and that a nanny state is the solution to every problem.

FACT: Flex loans would give Arizonans protected access to smaller-dollar loans in a legal, well-regulated marketplace.

When an emergency strikes, like a needed A/C repair or unexpected healthcare cost, cash-strapped Arizonans should have as many lending options as possible. A flex loan is simply one additional option.

Your elected representatives need to hear from you about the importance of voting for financial choice and freedom. They need to vote YES on SB 1316!

Call your legislator today and tell them keep the government’s hands out of your finances, and to vote YES on SB 1316!

Name District Party Phone (602)
J. Christopher Ackerley 2 R 926-3077
John M. Allen 15 R 926-4916
Brenda Barton 6 R 926-4129
Sonny Borrelli 5 R 926-5051
Russell “Rusty” Bowers 25 R 926-3128
Paul Boyer 20 R 926-4173
Kate Brophy McGee 28 R 926-4486
Noel W. Campbell 1 R 926-3124
Heather Carter 15 R 926-5503
Regina Cobb 5 R 926-3126
Doug Coleman 16 R 926-3160
Karen Fann 1 R 926-5874
Eddie Farnsworth 12 R 926-5735
Mark Finchem 11 R 926-3122
Speaker of the House
David Gowan 14 R 926-3312
Rick Gray 21 R 926-5993
Anthony Kern 20 R 926-3102
Jay Lawrence 23 R 926-3095
Vince Leach 11 R 926-3106
Majority Whip
David Livingston 22 R 926-4178
Phil Lovas 22 R 926-3297
Javan D. “J.D.” Mesnard 17 R 926-4481
Darin Mitchell 13 R 926-5894
Majority Leader
Steve Montenegro 13 R 926-5955
Jill Norgaard 18 R 926-3140
Justin Olson 25 R 926-5288
Warren H. Petersen 12 R 926-4136
Franklin M. Pratt 8 R 926-5761
Tony Rivero 21 R 926-3104
Speaker Pro Tempore
Bob Robson 18 R 926-5549
Thomas “T.J.” Shope 8 R 926-3012
David W. Stevens 14 R 926-4321
Bob Thorpe 6 R 926-5219
Kelly Townsend 16 R 926-4467
Michelle B. Ugenti-Rita 23 R 926-4480
Jeff Weninger 17 R 926-3092