BLAMEHOBBS.COM
IssuesVeto LedgerVeto BlogReceipts

BLAMEHOBBS.COM

Share this page

NicoPAC
Political Advertisement
Paid for by NicoPAC

10% of funds from out-of-state contributors.
Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.

Sources include Arizona Legislature bill records, LegiScan session dumps, and published veto letters. Bill numbers cited throughout.

← The Veto Ledger

Vetoed April 13, 2026 · 57th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session

SB1148

supreme court; attorney licensing

BLAME HOBBS!

Government & transparency

THE CONTEXT: Arizona attorney licensing and regulation, including admission and discipline, are controlled by the Arizona Supreme Court. Admissions are handled through the Court s Attorney Admissions Unit, which processes applications and administers the Arizona Bar Examination.

WHAT THE BILL DID: The final vetoed version would require the Supreme Court of Arizona to directly license attorneys for the practice of law in Arizona and restricts it from delegating the duty to any other organization, direct the Supreme Court to adopt rules regarding: a; minimum qualifications for licensure; b; testing requirements; c; requiring a background investigation before obtaining a license; and d; the process for disciplining and, if necessary, disbarring attorneys, and stipulate that an attorney must not be required to be a member of any non-governmental organization to become or remain a licensed attorney in Arizona.

WHY IT MATTERED: The practical reason for this bill was to make the licensing pathway more workable while retaining a defined state standard. It would require the Supreme Court of Arizona to directly license attorneys for the practice of law in Arizona and restricts it from delegating the duty to any other organization, and would also direct the Supreme Court to adopt rules regarding: a. minimum qualifications for licensure; b. testing requirements; c. requiring a background investigation before obtaining a license; and d. the process for disciplining and, if necessary, disbarring attorneys, rather than leave the current rule unchanged.

Legislature recordOfficial bill summaryVeto letter

Share this page

Related vetoes

HB2010

digital goods; seller's requirements; enforcement

2026 · Government & transparency

HB2086

vaccination mandates; masks; prohibition

2026 · Government & transparency

HB2113

public service corporation; rates; intervenor

2026 · Government & transparency

HB2118

mobile food vendors; licensure

2026 · Government & transparency

HB2133

sexual material; consent; synthetic depiction

2026 · Government & transparency

HB2140

treasurer; investment; bullion

2026 · Government & transparency