logo
Axon wins legislative battle to scrap Scottsdale vote on controversial headquarter project

Axon wins legislative battle to scrap Scottsdale vote on controversial headquarter project

Yahoo16-04-2025

Photo by Bayne Froney | Cronkite News
With a single signature, Gov. Katie Hobbs could give law enforcement technology company Axon a carve-out in state law that would let it avoid voter review of its planned massive headquarters and housing project in north Scottsdale.
Axon came to the Capitol aiming to bar voters in every city and town in Arizona from being able to challenge zoning and development decisions, but settled instead for merely stripping away the right of Scottsdale voters to challenge the police weapons manufacturer's HQ project near Hayden Road and the Loop 101.
With Axon pledging to leave the state if the election was allowed to stand — Scottsdale voters are notoriously anti-development — their bill earned support from a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers who feared the firm would depart.
The Scottsdale City Council and every legislator from the city vociferously opposed the bill, and there are concerns the measure is unconstitutional, but the state Senate gave final approval to Senate Bill 1543 on April 15, and it now awaits a decision from Hobbs.
The Arizona Constitution gives residents the right to refer matters to the ballot.
Local activists, backed by a signature-gathering effort linked to a California labor union, gathered more than 25,000 signatures to send the rezoning decision made by a lame-duck city council — the votes for the project came from councilors who had been voted out of office — to the ballot in a voter referendum, which must happen by November 2026.
The measure that lawmakers advanced to Gov. Katie Hobbs' desk would cancel that election. It says that any municipality with between 200,000 and 500,000 residents — Scottsdale had 241,000 residents in the 2020 census — must 'allow hotel use and multifamily residential housing' for land zoned like the Axon parcel 'without requiring any type of application that will require a public hearing' if certain criteria is met.
Hobbs seems likely to sign the bill.
'Governor Hobbs is committed to keeping and bringing in businesses that create jobs and boost our economy,' Hobbs spokesman Christian Slater said in a statement to the Arizona Mirror. 'We are closely watching SB 1543 and are actively working with stakeholders and legislators to ensure the best outcomes for all Arizonans.'
Slater did not respond to questions about whether the governor believes legislation benefiting Axon outweighs the constitutional rights of Scottsdale voters. A representative for Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said they had 'no comment' on the legislation, and responded to follow-up questions by 'pointing out' recent awards the office had won for election administration.
Scottsdale City Councilman Barry Graham said that he and other city councilors have requested meetings with Hobbs and have sent her a 'veto request letter' signed by the full city council.
'All options are on the table to protect Scottsdale residents from dangerous legislation that threatens their constitutional rights and freedom to locally zone and plan their community,' Graham said in an email to the Arizona Mirror.
'This legislation is not just about one city. It is about preserving the rights of all Arizona communities to govern themselves in ways that reflect their unique identities and aspirations,' the letter sent to Hobbs and shared with the Mirror said. 'Scottsdale's residents deserve to have a meaningful voice in shaping the future of their city — not to have that voice silenced by sweeping state legislation.'
The city in a press release Wednesday is also urging Scottsdale residents to contact the Governor's Office about the legislation, calling it a 'serious threat to local democracy.'
'It could be and very likely is a violation of what is called the 'special law provision' of the Arizona Constitution,' constitutional law attorney Paul Eckstein told the Mirror.
The special law provision of the Arizona constitution prohibits laws from being enacted that impact certain things including 'granting to any corporation, association, or individual, any special or exclusive privileges, immunities, or franchises.'
However, Eckstein said that the bill could be 'elastic' enough that it may not be in violation. Ultimately, he said, it will take a legal challenge to determine whether the legislation is constitutional.
'It is a shame, I would say, that we would sell our souls and make a Faustian bargain with a company at the expense of probably the premiere provision in the Arizona Constitution. We wouldn't have a constitution, we wouldn't be a state, if the right to referendum hadn't been included as a broad right in our state,' Eckstein said.
In 1910, Arizona voters ratified what would become the state's constitution, including in it the right to referendum. In 1912, the year Arizona became a state, voters used that right to approve the first ballot initiative, which gave women the right to vote.
Senators opposing SB1543 brought up similar concerns when voting on the legislation.
'This is voter suppression on steroids,' Sen. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said. 'This bill also appears to be special legislation, which violates the Arizona Constitution.'
Kavanagh, whose district includes much of Scottsdale, also criticized the declaration in the bill that catering to Axon is a matter of 'statewide concern.'
'Could anyone explain to me why a bill that only affects four cities is a matter of statewide concern? Is there something special I don't see?' Kavanah said while explaining his no vote.
For supporters of the bill, keeping Axon in Arizona was more important than disenfranchising voters in Scottsdale.
'At the end of the day, we have a homegrown business that was established here, that became worldwide, and we have other states that are looking to take them,' said Sen. David Gowan, R-Sierra Vista, who sponsored the earlier failed Axon legislation.
Some Democratic members said their support came down to 'affordable housing' — Axon says it will build 1,900 apartments, with one-third of them reserved for company employees and law enforcement — and pushing back against 'NIMBY' culture in Scottsdale.
But that rationale fell short for Sen. Lauren Kuby, D-Tempe, who urged her colleagues that the 'affordable housing' was not enough to disenfranchise voters.
'Lets make no mistake about this: This is special interest legislation that undermines the will of the voters,' Kuby said. 'It's not about apartments, it is not about how we grow our cities, it is about the will of the voters and how we can take away the express will of the voters.'
Axon celebrated the passage of the legislation, and in a press release thanked the bill's supporters and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the state's largest business advocacy group and a major contributor to political campaigns across the political spectrum.
'It helps ensure that Arizona remains competitive for valuable economic development opportunities,' Axon's statement read. 'And this legislation brings real solutions to the state's housing supply crisis, creating more places to live in the Valley at a time when affordability and availability are out of reach for too many Arizonans.'
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Axon says it's no longer in talks with Scottsdale to expand its HQ
Axon says it's no longer in talks with Scottsdale to expand its HQ

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Axon says it's no longer in talks with Scottsdale to expand its HQ

The Brief Tech company, Axon, known for its body cams and Tasers, is no longer working with the city of Scottsdale to expand its headquarters. Earlier this year, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs signed a bill that allowed for the company's expansion, but the city and residents fought back. The project, Axon says, will move forward, but won't be negotiating with the city to amend part of its plan. SCOTTSDALE, Ariz. - Axon ended its talks with Scottsdale regarding plans to expand its headquarters, citing a "toxic environment." Axon President Josh Isner met with Scottsdale Mayor Lisa Borowsky on Monday, June 9 and released a statement, saying, "Unfortunately, Axon is withdrawing from negotiations with the City of Scottsdale. The internal politics of the City Council currently make it impossible to reach an agreement. I have never seen such a toxic environment in my life. We put a great deal on the table and we tried our best." Mayor Borowsky responded by saying, "I appreciate Axon's efforts to come to the table and engage in meaningful dialogue regarding the future of their development. Their team was willing to make concessions to their existing plan, which I appreciate. Unfortunately, there were too many hurdles to overcome in order to move an agreement forward successfully. I remain hopeful that future negotiations result in a win-win agreement that work for the community and keeps this vital employer right where it belongs — in Scottsdale." Axon will stay in Scottsdale, and it will expand its HQ. It had been trying to come to some sort of agreement with the city to reduce the number of housing units it planned to build for its employees. But now, Axon says it will go back to its initial plan, which included nearly 2,000 units. The backstory In April, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs approved SB1543, giving the tech giant the go ahead to expand its headquarters. She said it would provide more than 5,500 jobs and is projected to generate an estimated $38 billion in economic impact in the next decade. On April 19, Mayor Borowsky posted to X, "I am disappointed with the way the Axon Bill has played out, culminating with the Governor signing this awful legislation—-without any discussion with representatives of #Scottsdale, knowing the impact it will have exclusively on our communities. I stand with the people of Scottsdale in opposition to the legislature's unconstitutional overreach. The city is evaluating all legal remedies in response. We must protect the character of our community and our voters' right to the legally obtained referendum process." When Gov. Hobbs approved the bill, it meant major companies that build corporate headquarters in Arizona would be entitled to build housing for its employees. Axon CEO Rick Smith said he wanted to build 1,900 new apartments for its employees. A group named Taxpayers Against Awful Apartment Zoning Exemptions (TAAAZE) were against the expansion from the very beginning. "It's not necessary for him to override the will of the Scottsdale voters and to basically put a thumb in their eye, when they have made it clear over the last couple of elections, both by who they elected, and by the referendums, that they don't want another 2,000 apartments," TAAAZE's Bob Littlefield previous told FOX 10.

Jim Cramer Notes Axon (AXON) is a 'New High Natural'
Jim Cramer Notes Axon (AXON) is a 'New High Natural'

Yahoo

time9 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Jim Cramer Notes Axon (AXON) is a 'New High Natural'

We recently published a list of . In this article, we are going to take a look at where Axon Enterprise, Inc. (NASDAQ:AXON) stands against other stocks that Jim Cramer discusses. While discussing Axon Enterprise, Inc. (NASDAQ:AXON), Cramer said that it has a 'great software business.' 'Now, each day has its own Mosaic. We have Axon tonight, the law enforcement technology company that has so much business, they can barely handle it. It's a new high natural. By the way, they have great software business growing at more than 30%.' Axon (NASDAQ:AXON) produces TASER-branded conducted energy devices and provides a range of hardware, cloud software, and mobile tools that support public safety operations, evidence management, and real-time data integration across various industries. In a February episode of Mad Money, Cramer remarked: 'Now, biggest losers, one of them that has just been quietly going up over time, it's called Axon Enterprise. It was formerly TASER, which plunged nearly 28% over the course of three days. Now, Axon has been a fabulous winner for years. It pivoted… to police body cameras, evidence management software Those were good businesses. So why then did the stock just get completely obliterated? Weirdly, there really wasn't any bad news from the company. Instead, it was a one-two punch of downgrades from analysts at boutique research firms that failed Axon. A technician in a white coat testing an in-car system on a modern military vehicle. The stock fell another 5% on Friday when the market wide selling really got going. Now Axon reports tomorrow after the close, but clearly people wanted to ring the register going into the quarter and the bearish analysts gave them a real excuse to do so. Very different attitude from what we've seen in the past few months, huh, where momentum stocks are frankly unstoppable.' Overall, AXON ranks 15th on our list of stocks that Jim Cramer discusses. While we acknowledge the potential of AXON as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and 30 Best Stocks to Buy Now According to Billionaires. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

Arizona teachers could be sued for what they say in classroom under bill on Hobbs' desk
Arizona teachers could be sued for what they say in classroom under bill on Hobbs' desk

Yahoo

time13 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Arizona teachers could be sued for what they say in classroom under bill on Hobbs' desk

A bill on the governor's desk would allow students and their parents to sue K-12 and university teachers and could make the instructors pay damages for teaching or promoting antisemitism. The proposal has provoked concern from public-school advocates about exacerbating the teacher shortage and has raised red flags about First Amendment violations due to what the proposed law considers "antisemitism." But supporters, such as bill sponsor Rep. Michael Way, R-Queen Creek, say it's needed because existing anti-discrimination laws "either weren't clear enough or didn't contain the necessary enforcement mechanism to address this problem." House Bill 2867 would prohibit teachers, administrators, contractors and volunteers at K-12 public schools and public or private universities from: teaching or promoting antisemitism; requiring students to advocate for anti-Semitic points of view; and receiving professional development "in any antisemitism" that creates a "discriminatory" or "hostile" environment. The bill includes specific examples of speech the state would prohibit, such as calling the existence of Israel "racist" or comparing Israeli policy to that of Nazis. But when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tried to punish university student groups for the same type of speech, a Federal District Court in Texas said it amounted to "viewpoint discrimination that chills speech in violation of the First Amendment." That might bode poorly for the constitutionality of Arizona's bill. Some supporters have contended the bill doesn't violate the First Amendment because it targets teachers, not students. However, one provision of the Arizona bill does target students groups — a fact one First Amendment expert said was an obvious violation. Other sections of the bill raise concerns about the free speech rights of teachers and private universities. Way said his bill was prompted by concerns ignited by Hamas' attack against Israel on October 7. It comes amid a wave of similar proposals from lawmakers nationwide who also have tried to combat antisemitism. The efforts have come under fire by free speech advocates for using antisemitism to punish people for criticizing the Israeli government or for supporting the Palestinian people. The Arizona Education Association, the main teacher's union in the state, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona have urged Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, to veto the bill. The teacher's union, in a letter also signed by the National Council of Jewish Women Arizona, told Hobbs the proposal "weaponizes legitimate concerns about antisemitism to attack public education" by stripping teachers of professional liability protections. That would "incentivize bad-faith litigation by outside groups with unlimited resources, leaving Arizona educators, who already earn some of the lowest salaries in the nation, with few avenues to defend themselves." The ACLU of Arizona wrote to Hobbs that signing it "will chill the First Amendment rights of students, teachers, speakers and administrators," and targets those who criticize Israel. State Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, who supported the bill, rejected that idea. The bill wasn't about limiting speech but rather protecting a threatened group, he said. He urged other lawmakers to stand their ground and protect a persecuted community, pondering how such a law may have helped Black Americans in the past. "If you study your history, this sort of thing in schools were happening to Black Americans. And there wasn't a law to protect Black Americans from anti-Black speech in schools, particularly in the South," Blackman said. "This group of people, the Jewish community, this is a long time coming — to protect their identity, their community, their demographics," he said. In addition to banning antisemitic instruction in the classroom, the bill also seeks to restrict the use of public funding for training that promotes antisemitism and bans schools from penalizing or discriminating against a teacher who refuses to teach or promote antisemitism. The bill lays out a formal investigation and appeal process, involving school officials, governing boards and state education agencies. Any member of the public could file a complaint to kick-off the process. Accused officials found in violation could face consequences ranging from formal reprimands to suspension without pay to termination and losing their teaching certificate. The proposal also allows students and their parents to pursue civil litigation after an investigation ends, and says officials can be held personally responsible to pay damages or attorneys fees, if a court awards them. It is unclear who would pay the costs if a public institution itself was found in violation by a court. The bill says taxpayers funds could not be used. Way — who refused to answer questions when reached by phone and insisted on communication by email — told The Arizona Republic that decision would be left to the courts. There are varying opinions on how much of the proposed law, or which portions, would violate the First Amendment. If it became law and was challenged, courts could strike down parts of it and let others take effect. First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh, professor emeritus at the UCLA School of Law, said the parts of the bill banning what teachers couldn't teach in K-12 were probably OK. However, courts could find the bill's definition of antisemitism too vague to warrant punishment like termination, he added. The provision targeting university student groups, however, was "pretty clearly unconstitutional," Volokh said. "Generally speaking, the government can control what is taught in the public schools. It's sort of the government speech," he said. That dynamic changes in higher education, though. "Courts have recognized indeed that faculty members have very broad rights to speak out in public and in their scholarship. And in-part because we're talking not about kids as students but adults as students, that you can't just fire a faculty member simply on the grounds that the speech he said causes tension with people or disrupts morale ... . It would have to be very, very high bar," Volokh said. A few sections that appeared to restrict teachers' speech outside of the classroom also are constitutionally questionable. Volokh pointed to a section that would ban teachers or officials from calling for the genocide of a group of people or the "murder of members of a particular group." Because that section didn't specifically indicate that doing so was banned while teaching, it might be a First Amendment violation, Volokkh said. The First Amendment prohibits the government from banning speech, including offensive and uncomfortable ideas. Those protections are limited when the speech, by its very utterance, incites a clear and present danger — a high threshold. Hobbs, a Democrat whose 2026 re-election chances are widely seen as at risk, has not indicated her position on the bill. She is required to sign or veto it by June 10. It passed the Arizona Senate on May 28 along party lines, with Republicans in support. The House of Representatives passed it June 4, with Democrats Alma and Consuelo Hernandez of Tucson and Lydia Hernandez of Phoenix joining the Republicans. The Hernandez sisters, who are Jewish, are vocal proponents of laws that clamp down on antisemitism. Alma Hernandez, before casting her vote of approval, said the law was needed to address issues like schools displaying Palestinian flags. "That flag is not a flag of a country. That flag is a political statement, which should not be allowed in our public schools," Hernandez said. Taylor Seely is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at The Arizona Republic / Do you have a story about the government infringing on your First Amendment rights? Reach her at tseely@ or by phone at 480-476-6116. Seely's role is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona bill to ban teaching of antisemitism is First Amendment issue

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store