Arizona’s LD-13 Republican Senator J.D. Mesnard is proposing to expand the Arizona House from 60 to 90 members, claiming that his idea is about enhancing representation at the state’s local level. Under his proposed Senate Concurrent Resolution SCR1022, Arizona would keep its 30 Senate districts. Still, each Senate district would be split into three separate House districts, creating 90 single-member House seats instead of the current system of two at-large House members per legislative district. Mesnard says that matters because each current district now contains about 254,000 residents, a number he argues is too large for lawmakers to represent well. 

The core strength of the proposal focuses on the benefits of smaller House districts: more localized campaigning, lower campaign costs, and greater direct accountability. Mesnard framed the case in those terms, saying, “This is about good governance. It allows for the House members to be a little more closer to the people.” 

Those could also result in significant political benefits for localities. Arizona’s current map often forces House candidates to campaign across sprawling and internally diverse districts. Single-member districts could give neighborhoods and communities of interest a clearer voice, while also making it easier for first-time candidates to compete without the expense of districtwide mail and name recognition. Even Sen. Lauren Kuby (D-8), who voted against the measure in committee, acknowledged that “I believe it would increase representation.” 

But some argue that his proposal’s weakness is that Mesnard asks lawmakers and, ultimately, voters to approve a structural change before fully answering the practical questions. The state would face at least $1 million in additional annual costs for legislator salaries and daily expenses alone, not including staff or possible building or office expansion. The House chamber was built for 60 members, and office space is already tight. 

That is why Kuby’s caution may be the sharper political critique. She said, “But I think it needs more thoughtful consideration,” adding that there may be other ways to reform the system. 

Bottom line: Mesnard’s idea has serious representational logic, but right now it looks more like a long-term reform concept than a fully finished blueprint. The proposal advanced from the Senate Government Committee and, as of March 17, 2026, had been transmitted to the House. Even if approved, the amended plan would not take effect until after the 2040 census, with the first elections under the new structure potentially coming in 2042.