FEDERAL
STATE
AZ CORPORATION COMMISSION
MARICOPA COUNTY
PEORIA CITY COUNCIL
PEORIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
DYSART UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
CITY OF PHOENIX
PROPOSITIONS
100: Constitutional Amendments
Under the Arizona Constitution, voters in the state have to approve all amendments to the state Constitution. Amendments can be initiated by voters through petition, or by the Arizona Legislature. If an amendment gets enough signatures or is approved by the state Legislature, it’s placed on the ballot for the next general election, and given a proposition number starting with 100.
200: Citizen Initiatives
Citizen Initiatives are changes to state law initiated by the public. After enough voters sign petitions for a proposed initiative, it may end up on the state ballot. When they’re approved for the ballot, they’re assigned numbers starting with 200.
300: Legislative Referendums
If enough voters disagree with a law passed by the state legislature, they can call for a veto referendum by collecting at least 5% of votes cast in the most recent gubernatorial election.
400: Jurisdicational/Local Level Measures
Propositions that begin with a 400 number indicate they are on the local level. They often allow voters to decide on issues like local sales tax increases, school district bonds and overrides and certain city budget issues. Because these ballot measures are local in nature, voters in different neighborhoods, school districts, fire districts, towns and cities see completely different questions.
2024 PROPOSITIONS
Proposition 133 – Require Partisan Primaries for Partisan Offices
Supported by:
- State Sen. Jake Hoffman (R)
- State Sen. Anthony Kern (R)
- State Sen. Janae Shamp (R)
- State Sen. Justine Wadsack (R)
- State Rep. Joseph Chaplik (R)
- State Rep. Justin Heap (R)
- State Rep. Laurin Hendrix (R)
- State Rep. Rachel Jones (R)
- State Rep. Alexander Kolodin (R)
- State Rep. Cory McGarr (R)
- State Rep. Steve Montenegro (R)
- State Rep. Barbara Parker (R)
- State Rep. Jacqueline Parker (R)
- State Rep. Austin Smith (R)
The constitutional amendment would require partisan primaries for partisan offices, meaning that members of political parties nominate their own candidates at primaries for general elections. This is the current practice in Arizona; the constitutional amendment would add this practice to the constitution, prohibiting future changes without another constitutional amendment. In Arizona, unaffiliated voters can also choose to vote in a party’s primary election—something that the amendment would not change. Voting YES ensures separate primaries for each political party for political offices; prohibits “Jungle Primaries” and protects against ranked-choice voting.
Ballot Langauge:
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to require that when the Legislature enacts laws regulating direct primary elections for partisan offices, those laws shall supersede any city law, regulation, or policy to the contrary. The primaries would be conducted in a manner so that each political party represented on the ballot may nominate for each office a number of candidates equal to the number of positions to be filled for that office in the ensuing general election and requires eligible candidates who are nominated at a primary election to be placed on the next general election ballot.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of keeping the current laws related to partisan primary elections.
Proposition 134 – Signature Requirement Distribution Across State for Proposition Initiatives
Supported by: State Rep. David Livingston (R-28)
Voting YES changes signature requirements for citizen initiatives (propositions) to include signatures from ALL 30 Legislative Districts across Arizona, not just densley populated cities.
Ballot Language:
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to require an applicant wishing to place a statewide measure on the ballot to collect a certain percentage of signatures in each of the 30 legislative districts, rather than a percentage of the total number of statewide voters. Signatures from 10% of the voters in each district would be required for a statewide initiative to appear on the ballot. Signatures from 15% of the voters in each district would be required for an amendment to the Arizona Constitution to appear on the ballot. Signatures from 5% of the voters in each district would be required for a statewide referendum to appear on the ballot. If a proposed measure does not obtain the minimum percentage of signatures in any one of the 30 legislative districts, it would fail to qualify for the ballot, and would not be presented to voters.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of keeping the current constitutional language requiring only the signatures of 10% of the total number of statewide voters for an initiative to amend a statute, 15% of statewide voters for a constitutional amendment, and 5% of statewide voters for a referendum.
Proposition 135 – Emergency Declaration Amendment
Supported by State Rep. Joseph Chaplik (R)
Ballot Language:
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to automatically terminate any emergency powers granted to the Governor thirty days after the date the state of emergency was proclaimed, unless the Legislature extends the emergency powers granted to the Governor or the emergency relates to war, fire, or flood. If the Legislature does not extend the emergency, the Governor may not declare a new state of emergency arising under the same conditions. Additionally, if requested by at least one-third of the members of each house of the Legislature, the Governor must promptly call a special session for the purposes of terminating or altering the emergency powers granted to the Governor during the state of emergency.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current emergency powers of the Governor.
Proposition 136 – Legal Challenges to Constitutionality of Initiatives Amendment
Proposed by: Rep. Austin Smith, Republican House Rep, LD29
Ballot Language:
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to allow lawsuits regarding the constitutionality of a voter-initiated ballot measure to be filed at least 100 days prior to the election, in order to stop the measure from being placed on the official ballot. If a challenged voter-initiated ballot measure were found unconstitutional, the Secretary of State or another officer in charge of elections would be prohibited from placing it on the official ballot.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of preserving the current state of the law, which typically requires challenges to the constitutionality of a voter-initiated ballot measure to be brought only after the voters have decided to approve a ballot measure.
Proposition 137 – End Term Limits and Retention Elections for Supreme Court Justices and Superior Court Judges
Proposed by State Senator David Gowan (R), and State Rep. Alexander Kolodin (R)
Ballot Language:
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to eliminate judicial terms for judges of the Arizona Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, and judges of the Superior Court in counties with more than 250,000 people. Voters will no longer have the ability to decide whether to retain those judges at the end of their judicial terms. Those judges would instead be subject to a retention election only if they were convicted of a felony or a crime involving fraud or dishonesty; were a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding; held a mortgage under foreclosure; or did not meet performance standards according to the Commission on Judicial Performance Review. The House of Representatives and the Senate will each be able to appoint one member to the Commission. If any legislator asks the Commission to investigate whether a judge has engaged in misconduct, the Commission must investigate that allegation. If approved, these amendments will apply retroactively such that votes cast in the November 2024 election about whether to retain a judge will not be given effect.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current system of voters deciding whether to retain a judge at the end of their judicial term.
Proposition 138 – Wages For Tipped Workers
Supported by State Sen. Javan Daniel Mesnard (R), and State Rep. Justin Wilmeth (R)
Ballot Language:
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to allow employers to pay employees up to 25% less than the minimum hourly wage if the employer can establish that the employee’s wage plus tips or gratuities is at least $2 more than the minimum wage for every hour worked.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current laws regarding minimum wage.
Proposition 139 – Right to Abortion Initiative
IT GOES TOO FAR! Vote NO: Maintains current law that permits abortion up to 15 weeks; current AZ law protects miscarriage, ectopic pregnancies, contraception and other exceptions
This Proposition will allow for full term abortions, makes safety precautions unenforceable, removes the required medical doctor, it shields sex abusers and shuts out parents, it legalizes post fetal viability abortion, it removes parental consent
VOTE NO!
Ballot Language:
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of creating a fundamental right to abortion under Arizona’s constitution. The State will not be able to interfere with this fundamental right before fetal viability unless it has a compelling reason and does so in the least restrictive way possible. Fetal viability means the point in the pregnancy when, in the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus. Throughout the pregnancy, both before and after fetal viability, the State will not be able to interfere with the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional that an abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant individual. The State will not be able to penalize any person for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the right to an abortion.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of not creating a fundamental right to have an abortion under Arizona’s constitution, will leave in place current laws that restrict abortion before fetal viability, and will allow the State to further restrict or ban abortion in the future.
Proposition 140 – Single Primary for All Candidates and Possible RCV General Election Initiative
Heavy Democrat Support for Prop 140.
VOTE NO: Primaries are only for members of their own political party; Independents may choose which party’s primary they want to vote in
Ballot Language:
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of allowing all eligible voters to vote for any primary election candidate, regardless of party affiliation; imposing the same signature requirements on all candidates for a given office who wish to appear on the primary ballot; generally prohibiting the use of public funds for political party elections; allowing future law to determine how many candidates advance from the primary election, as well as the process by which candidates are elected at the general election; and if future law provides that three or more candidates may advance to the general election for an office to which one candidate will be elected, voter rankings shall be used.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of maintaining current requirements related to primary and general elections processes.
Proposition 311 – Criminal Conviction Fee
Supported by State Sen. David Gowan (R), and Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio (Nonpartisan)
Argument against Prop 311; This ballot measure wrongly shifts some of the responsibility for supporting families of fallen first responders to convicted criminals by requiring them to contribute to a death benefit fund. Families of first responders who die in the line of duty should not depend on criminals for financial support. Instead, the state should directly fund the death benefits in the budget to honor those who risk everything. Additionally, Proposition 311 allows funds to be used for other purposes under certain conditions, which could lead to misuse. A dedicated budget line item would help prevent this. It’s inappropriate to ask families of fallen first responders to accept money from criminals. Vote against this measure and urge the legislature to do the right thing.
Ballot Language:
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of requiring the State of Arizona to pay $250,000, which would be referred to as the State Death Benefit, to the surviving spouse or children of a first responder killed in the line of duty; creating a State Supplemental Benefit Fund to pay the State Death Benefit; increasing criminal punishments for aggravated assaults against peace officers and other first responders; and require a $20 penalty fee be imposed on every criminal conviction to fund the State Supplemental Benefit Fund. The State Death Benefit, $20 penalty fee, and increased criminal punishments for aggravated assaults would expire on January 1, 2033.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of not requiring the State of Arizona to provide a State Death Benefit for first responders killed in the line of duty.
Proposition 312 – AZ Property Tax Refund for Non-Enforcement of Public Nuisance Laws
State Rep. Ben Toma (R-27): “Arizonans have had enough when it comes to lawlessness and city inaction. Business owners and residents alike are having their property stolen, vandalized, or terrorized and are desperate for help. That’s why I sponsored HCR 2023, to hold our local governments accountable to our community members and to help provide some relief for property owners who have suffered damages because of a city’s purposeful failure to provide the public health and safety services we all pay for.”
Ballot Language;
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of establishing the right to apply for a refund from a property owner’s most recent property tax payment up to an amount that matches costs incurred by the property owner to mitigate the effects of a governing authority’s repeated failure to enforce laws and ordinances prohibiting illegal camping, loitering, obstructing public thoroughfares, panhandling, public urination or defecation, public consumption of alcoholic beverages, and possession or use of illegal substances. If the documented costs exceed the amount of the most recent property tax bill, the property owner would be permitted to apply for a refund from their next property tax payment(s) to cover the balance of the initial claim. Property owners would be eligible annually for refunds until the taxing entity begins enforcing the relevant public nuisance laws.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current primary property tax payment laws and regulations.
Proposition 313 – AZ Life Imprisonment for Sex Trafficking of a Child
Supporter, State Rep. Selina Bliss (R)
Ballot Language:
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of eliminating the current sentencing ranges for a Class 2 child sex trafficking conviction. The sentence for a person convicted of a Class 2 felony for child sex trafficking would be imprisonment for natural life without the possibility of release.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current statutory sentencing ranges for those convicted of a Class 2 felony for child sex trafficking. The current sentencing ranges are between 7 years and natural life imprisonment without the possibility of release, depending on the age of the victim, the defendant’s criminal history, and other factors.
Proposition 314 – AZ Immigration & Border Law Enforcement
Supporters: State Sen. Ken Bennett (R) , State Rep. John Gillette (R), State Rep. Alexander Kolodin (R), State Rep. Ben Toma (R)
YES: Allows state and local police to arrest noncitizens who cross border unlawfully, allows state judges to order deportation of non-citizens; establishes use of E-Verify program regarding financial aid or public welfare; criminalizes selling fentanyl
Ballot Language:
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of creating new crimes regarding the following conduct by any person not lawfully present in the United States: (1) applying for a public benefit by submitting a false document; (2) submitting false information to an employer regarding the person’s authorization to work in the United States; (3) entering Arizona from a foreign country at any location other than a lawful port of entry; (4) refusing to comply with a court order to return to the person’s country of origin or entry. Also creates a new crime of selling fentanyl that causes the death of another person. Requires state courts to issue an order to return to a foreign country if a person is convicted of the illegal entry crime. The order to return must include an authorization allowing state and local law enforcement to transport the person to a port of entry or into federal custody.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current criminal and procedural laws.
Proposition 315 – Legislative Ratification of State Agency Rules that Increase Regulatory Costs Measure
Supported by: Americans for Prosperity – Arizona
Ballot Language:
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of requiring state agencies to submit any proposed rule that is estimated to increase regulatory costs by more than $100,000 within five years after implementation to the Office of Economic Opportunity for review. If the Office of Economic Opportunity determines that the proposed rule is estimated to increase regulatory costs by more than $500,000 within five years after implementation, the proposed rule shall not become effective unless the legislature enacts legislation ratifying the proposed rule. The Corporation Commission and emergency rules are exempt from this act.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current laws related to state agency rulemaking.
Proposition 479 – Continuation of a County Sales Tax for Transportation
Proposition 486 – Maricopa Community College Spending Increase
Maricopa Community College district’s spending limit increase. If approved, the district could spend an additional $100 million on education from existing revenues with declining enrollment.