[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6322799,"mediaKeyId","2346339-a55c576364bf5a5cd4a715842c8a6aca","parentId",2346339,"title","Caucus questions kinship placement bill that would require DCS to prioritize relatives","audioSeconds",256,"startMs",994000,"endMs",1250000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2346339-a55c576364bf5a5cd4a715842c8a6aca&start=994&end=1250","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2346339-a55c576364bf5a5cd4a715842c8a6aca/thumbnail_994000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6322799/Arizona/Caucus-questions-kinship-placement-bill-that-would-require-DCS-to-prioritize-relatives","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322799-0e5297c081d126f7937d8ef9e0c6576a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140488&Signature=O9433R-o4aZJEe5IpoidQcCfsKuB9zRZqsFQmhFIjG4e4C7GtO8VT5-puw6Em0fF1xba0Gi65KnbPPzr0nYeuLeX6IukfINBu8b1FzsAFTo3MLsqpTo0pVyD48PajwsPLXg6cAqS1Tfx61DsEqqCn8uqoQ966rABBLuNqiT3MAauYoZAaHtH5qsjX7WloYI-VvFQCs6dTP4dEFA~5FC1E5bAAnpEG8PKvTheBiL5efoEjIlepXpFPuBEHzdhyu~A5qhSqPXSF447pmm~8V5sqkGq3xWgQ9gcyq3MAERVnNV0avPlx-bi-Ixp83AvU53FOBjknjtD6FLMggDS~txmKg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Arizona State Legislature","date","2025-02-18T00:00:00Z","article","House Bill 27‑2,671, presented to caucus by Representative Magali, would change the definition of a child's \"best interest\" to prioritize placement with adult relatives or persons with a significant relationship to the child, unless the relative has been charged with or convicted of a dangerous crime against a child. The bill would require the Department of Child Safety (DCS) to search for extended family members when a child is taken into temporary custody and to file status reports with the court every 30 days for six months when kinship placement efforts are underway.

Why it matters: the bill changes statutory placement priorities and would require increased reporting by DCS and the courts. Caucus members raised operational questions about how the proposal would interact with current DCS practice and whether the state can fulfill increased duties after recent budget reductions.

Members noted that the bill references a statutory definition of \"dangerous crime against a child\" located at statute 13‑705 and observed that the statutory list applies only to crimes committed against children under 15. Representative Pete Contreras asked whether the bill would require sending a child out of state if the only available kin are outside Arizona; Representative Magali answered that, as written, it would allow out‑of‑state placement.

Several lawmakers said DCS already makes efforts to locate kin and questioned whether the bill would create unintended results, such as requiring placement with relatives where it is not in the child’s best interest. One member noted cuts to kinship‑care funding in the last budget — cited in caucus as $8.6 million one‑time and $4.2 million ongoing — and asked whether the agency could implement expanded duties while operating with fewer resources.

Ending: Members requested additional analysis on interactions with current DCS practice, the statutory definition of dangerous crimes, and budget implications before the bill proceeds.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","02/18/2025 - House Democratic Caucus Calendar #4","oneSentenceSummary","A bill that would redefine the 'best interest' standard to prefer kinship placements and require Department of Child Safety reporting drew concern from members who said DCS already seeks relatives and that funding cuts could limit implementation.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature Arizona, Arizona","taxId",78572,"location","Arizona","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6322804,"Caucus flags bill to fund pregnancy‑and‑parenting grants to crisis pregnancy centers",213,711000,924000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2346339-a55c576364bf5a5cd4a715842c8a6aca&start=711&end=924","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2346339-a55c576364bf5a5cd4a715842c8a6aca/thumbnail_711000.jpg","/articles/6322804/Arizona/Caucus-flags-bill-to-fund-pregnancyandparenting-grants-to-crisis-pregnancy-centers","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322804-3b68440ee3d983c8529cecbc250af18d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140488&Signature=bwhqzAPrlYLv9hsvAjcrY1oxn5rd0ULYraJz~kjZ~7HeWTLn67yLX~mlhVHo~vd9x1Cv2Z4nbc7XgiEDC04vm6rsLmSG8YLGXPx-QjN-g2tZfAVaJbW9Ck6ye1cchmXerWWDPg-2z00myfsfNeBxVNRziv~UvNvGZPKTaEgCvTtCKuFFz8n4rGz61SdeNU~YmUwyqdpdZFjjTj2QF~JXNbz9zk7v4j1cg4gsPKRH0sgkSkcjXGojStFCpJKAqXQa27lQN-7onkNgKeZ9ubxzSy4BRt8vdh93iJWokSSEIezj8qmHm-9DHJ105Ybh3vSTk5sRtBhxPsYJJlm6Om4Atw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 22‑16, described to caucus members by Representative Magali, would establish a pregnancy-and‑parenting grant program administered by the Department of Health Services to fund services for mothers who choose to keep their infants. The bill caps any single grant at 85% of the recipient provider's prior‑year revenue, requires that grants prioritize direct client services and sets audit and reporting requirements for DHS.

Why it matters: The bill would allocate state grant dollars to entities described as pregnancy centers — organizations that, as discussed in caucus, sometimes provide only one set of reproductive‑health options. Several members objected to state funding going to centers that, in their view, do not offer full counseling on all options and in some cases have been accused of providing misleading information.

Members also raised a procedural concern: sponsor and caucus members said the measure ‘‘died’’ in committee but was later revoted due to a timing error, prompting objections about that process. Several members asked that the bill be removed from the consent calendar for fuller floor debate.

Clarifying details provided in caucus included a DHS reporting requirement to the governor and legislative leaders and audit provisions tied to specified points listed on the caucus information sheet. Representative Magali explained that the program limits grant awards so no grant may exceed 85% of a provider's prior‑year revenue and that DHS must report outcomes to the governor, the House speaker and the Senate president.

Ending: Members asked for time to review the proposal and any pending floor amendments before voting. Representative Magali said she had not yet received a floor amendment that might change the bill’s scope.","A proposal to create pregnancy-and-parenting grants through DHS that would fund crisis pregnancy centers drew objections in caucus over service scope, past committee procedure and whether state funds should support centers that do not offer full reproductive‑health options.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6322809,"Arizona caucus debates several election measures, members warn some would conflict with federal rulings",356,6600000,6956000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2346339-a55c576364bf5a5cd4a715842c8a6aca&start=6600&end=6956","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2346339-a55c576364bf5a5cd4a715842c8a6aca/thumbnail_6600000.jpg","/articles/6322809/Arizona/Arizona-caucus-debates-several-election-measures-members-warn-some-would-conflict-with-federal-rulings","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6322809-1d23963bc9bf40bd4c4e22a4cc1cb70a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140488&Signature=JIbSYtBCLkSkoY1hY2tHTLBdz04eyVIjzggXwpfDhGiv43QQhz~F-AQlAB~A1Xrsbt9loIE8wABQNuXZCl5~WQClsA1GRTWKml9FbKnKDM4MGn5RikVXyKJ3gQG~THCJvnbzEkTuOGykT~JHDubuGaCu5ox-25dhLbbesNmgg6C4f5GGg4PJWltRQ~VZCs~ZzN27sLCLXzEb0oep0JIwlT6mOc0vk-k~Oxa5CoI6lNE9J5-b3vc0qgozVfXPxnuhtz5pstrbHMn1h5hVUjX-ODavfLvZzPhqmvE9dum4uOrihsXs~H2~YTfPtW16EQyIqc7dHRtfa2DTZP8tUCH7vw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Members of an Arizona House caucus debated a cluster of election-related bills and ballot referrals that would affect voter registration, the role of multi-state voter maintenance systems, controls over federal-election rules, and requirements for voting equipment sourcing.

The measures discussed included HB 2,038 (a voter-registration notice process tied to a DMV/Secretary of State data issue), HB 2,651 (requirement that voting machines be 100% sourced and assembled in the United States after 2028), HB 2,206 (prohibiting state participation in multi-state voter-registration systems), HCR 20‑40 (a ballot referral on prohibition of foreign contributions for election administration), and HB 2,060 (language asserting state control over qualifications for federal elections). Several members said the measures raise legal and operational problems and asked to remove some items from the consent calendar for floor debate.

Why it matters: the bills would change how Arizona maintains voter rolls, interacts with multi‑state systems such as ERIC, and how it acquires and certifies voting equipment. Committee members raised concerns about conflicts with federal law and with court rulings such as Inter Tribal Council v. Arizona and precedent rejecting the independent state legislature theory.

Members' concerns and questions centered on legality and feasibility. Representative Leila (committee staff presenter) summarized HB 2,038 as a notification and removal process tied to a reported data mismatch between the Secretary of State and the Department of Motor Vehicles. Several members warned that removing voters outright could conflict with existing court agreements and rulings; in caucus, attendees noted a prior consent decree and a federal‑court posture that has required states to allow “federal‑only” voters in some circumstances.

On machine sourcing, Representative Garcia said the equipment requirement “is impossible to do,” noting there currently are no widely available voting systems that meet a 100% U.S. sourcing and domestic assembly standard; she said the change would effectively force a return to hand‑counted methods absent available compliant machines. Other members raised implementation questions about procurement timelines and whether current systems purchased before 2028 would be grandfathered.

Representative El Contreras and others opposed the measure to withdraw Arizona from multi‑state voter‑registration partnerships, arguing the state uses such systems to maintain accurate rolls and that banning participation could hamper fraud‑detection and list‑maintenance efforts.

Several bills and referrals were flagged for removal from consent for further discussion on the floor; Representative Garcia asked that at least HB 2,038 and HB 2,651 be pulled for additional review before any final action.

Ending: Lawmakers said they will pursue additional briefings and amendments addressing statutory and constitutional concerns before the measures reach the floor. Some members also asked staff to provide written analyses of potential conflicts with pending litigation and federal election law.","Members at an Arizona House caucus on multiple election-related measures raised constitutional and implementation concerns, and several items were pulled from the consent calendar for further review.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Caucus questions kinship placement bill that would require DCS to prioritize relatives

Caucus flags bill to fund pregnancy‑and‑parenting grants to crisis pregnancy centers

Arizona caucus debates several election measures, members warn some would conflict with federal rulings