By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
PHOENIX -- He's describing the measure as a "freedom to travel'' issue.
But a proposal Sen. Jake Hoffman got colleagues this session to put on the 2026 ballot would remove one option that lawmakers have to ensure that the ever-increasing number of electric vehicle owners in Arizona pay their fair share of the costs of road construction and repair: SCR 1004 would put a provision in the Arizona Constitution barring state and local government from imposing a tax or fee "based on the vehicle miles traveled.''
All this comes as lawmakers continue to struggle with the fact that there are more and more vehicles on the road that use no gasoline at all. And that means they don't pay the 18-cent-a-gallon gasoline tax that goes into the Highway User Revenue Fund.
Put simply, under the current system, the shift to all-electric cars could undermine the state's ability to not just build new roads but, potentially more important, upgrade and repair the ones we now have. But approval of the ballot measure would remove the option of charging electric vehicle owners who escape those gas taxes a fee based on their usage of Arizona roads.
Hoffman said it's not a question of protecting those who use electric vehicles -- as the driver of a Tesla cybertruck, that include him -- from the taxes generated on the sale of fossil fuels. Instead, the Queen Creek Republican said this is about protecting everyone from government overreach, regardless of the fuel they use.
"This is a measure that I'm confident that the voters will approve because it stands on the very simple principle that government should not be tracking or taxing your miles,'' he said. "Regardless of what type of vehicle you own, regardless of how our roads are funded, freedom to move is a fundamental liberty that has a long-standing track record in America.''
And Hoffman said it's more basic than that.
"The ability to tax is the ability to control by force,'' he said.
Still, that leaves the question of how to pay for roads as consumers move away from fossil-based fuels.
The current numbers aren't great -- at least not yet.
There are more than 108,000 all-electric vehicles registered in Arizona. And while that's a small percentage of the total fleet of more than 8.1 million cars and trucks, their use is growing exponentially, having more than tripled since 2020.
That trend so worries ADOT that it has contracted for a study of how much electric vehicles are driven as well as projected changes. In fact, the agency is noting the placement of new fast-charging stations as part of the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program which is "expected to increase the use of EVs both in Arizona and nationally.''
What the $74,835 study also is supposed to do is help ADOT determine how this shift will affect fuel use tax receipts. An agency spokesman said the report should be completed later this year or early in 2026.
In the meantime, Sen. David Farnsworth is the latest in a series of lawmakers who has crafted legislation designed to provide some equity.
His SB 1471 would have allowed ADOT to establish a tax on electric vehicles and any other motor vehicles using something other than fossil-based fuels.
It provided two methods for the agency to compute the levy. But in both cases, it was designed to comparable to the fuel tax that would have been paid by a comparable vehicle using gasoline or diesel.
The Mesa Republican even included a provision to make sure everyone knew what he was trying to do, was going on. It included language saying the intent is to ensure all alternative fuel vehicles are "paying an amount that is proportionally equal to their use of highways in the state'' and, more to the point, that vehicles powered by petroleum-based fuels "are not paying for all of the costs relating to highway use and maintenance.''
But Farnsworth, who chairs the Senate Committee on Education and Transportation, didn't push it beyond an informational hearing in March after getting resistance from some of his colleagues.
"There's the fear of government control and the camel's nose under the tent, and before long they're telling us where we can and can't go,'' he said.
"Is that paranoia or reality?'' Farnsworth asked. "But the concern is real.''
So the measure never advanced. Still, Farnsworth said he will continue to try, saying "we need to make things more fair.''
But the failure of his bill also paved the way for Hoffman to line up the votes for his SCR 1004 asking voters to forever eliminate one option: imposing a tax based on miles traveled.
Hoffman said that doesn't eliminate all options to tax electric cars.
For example, he said he has no problem with "consumption taxes'' based on usage.
"That's a very different thing,'' Hoffman said. In fact, that's the basis for the gasoline tax: Motorists pay based on the number of gallons of fuel purchased.
In this case, he said, electric vehicle owners already are paying fees and taxes to the electric company based on usage. And there may be more electrons used by someone who is charging a vehicle.
But Hoffman said all that is ignoring the real solution: Don't tax gasoline, diesel or electricity.
"I believe it is the Legislature's job to fund the core responsibilities, public safety and infrastructure being the most fundamental of those things,'' he said.
That, however, doesn't mean Hoffman supports higher overall state taxes to make up for the more than $1.8 billion going into the Highway User Revenue Fund each year -- $800 million of which is the levy on fossil fuels used to power motor vehicles. He figures there's enough in the state $17.6 billion budget to pick up the cost.
His position is not a surprise: Hoffman has voted against virtually every spending plan since he was first elected to the Legislature in 2020. And he insists that there is no company -- and no government -- that cannot find a way to cut 4.5% from its spending.
That, however, is likely to get a fight from a majority of lawmakers who just approved the new budget who have priorities they want funded, whether it's health care, prisons, social services or even pet projects.
Still, there is some precedent for the idea of the state using its income and sales tax revenues to build roads.
In fact, the new budget actually has millions of dollars of carve-outs for specific road projects, like widening a stretch of Interstate 10 west of Phoenix to making improvements to State Route 347 that runs between the edge of Phoenix and Maricopa.
And it's not just big projects. General fund dollars -- the money largely collected in sales and income taxes -- also are being earmarked for things like adding a second right-turn lane to State Route 87 in Payson and providing traffic control systems in Colorado City.
There's also the precedent of voters approving local sales taxes for specific transportation projects, including not just road construction and maintenance but also mass transit.
Gov. Katie Hobbs, asked about the issue, said the state needs a "creative solution'' to finding a way to ensure that everyone who uses state roads pays a fair share.
"The way that the gas tax works right now is not fair,'' she said. The governor, however, said she has no answer.
But will she vote for the ballot measure?
"I have not thought that far ahead,'' she said.
The issue of how to fund road construction and repair actually transcends alternate fuel vehicles and predates their current increasing popularity.
A decade ago, Noel Campbell, then a Republican state representative from Prescott, proposed a dime-a-gallon increase in the gas tax.
He pointed out that rate was set in -- and hasn't been adjusted since -- 1991. Had it kept pace with inflation, the levy in 2025 would be about 45 cents a gallon. Conversely, the buying power of the current 18-cent levy is worth only about a third.
Complicating matters -- beyond the increasing popularity of electric vehicles -- is that newer cars and trucks generally are more efficient than older ones. That means a typical vehicle travels more miles on a gallon of gas, meaning less need to purchase more fuel, even as the number of miles people travel -- and provide wear-and-tear on state roads -- is not going down.
Campbell, however, found little appetite among fellow lawmakers for a tax hike, even if it were referred to voters. And successive lawmakers have had no more luck.
On X, Bluesky, and Threads: @azcapmedia
