Measuring up the ballot
The big two ... Dueling propositions ... And power to the people (at the Capitol).
Happy early ballot day, subscribers!
As part of our promise to ensure you know the ins and outs of your ballot — which should be arriving in your mailbox today or tomorrow — we’re breaking down the 13 questions every Arizona voter will face.
Lawmakers packed your ballot this year with 11 of those questions, from increasing the penalties for child sex trafficking, to an SB1070-style immigration crackdown, to restricting your right to vote on laws.
They even put up a few tricky ones, like a measure to “Save Tipped Workers” by cutting their pay.
Meanwhile, that two-page ballot also holds a pair of citizen initiatives that would drastically change our state — one would enshrine the right to an abortion in our state Constitution, and the other would eliminate primary elections as we know them.
Heavy decisions ahead.
So bookmark this one and share it with a friend, because you’re both probably gonna need it for reference when you start filling out that crazy-long ballot.
Also, we relied heavily on the state publicity pamphlet and the analysis from the Legislative Council and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee to write today’s cheat sheet. If you want to go deeper, those are great resources to start with.
Finally, we’re taking Monday off for the holiday.
We’ll be back in your inboxes bright and early on Tuesday!
The Big Two
Prop 139: Arizona for Abortion Access
What does it do?: The Arizona for Abortion Access Act would install abortion as a right in the state Constitution. It would allow abortions up until the point of fetal viability, with exemptions to allow it later if it’s to protect the physical or mental health of the mother.
What’s the back story?: After the fall of Roe v. Wade, Arizona’s abortion laws almost reverted to a near-complete ban on abortions that criminalized the procedure, even in the case of rape or incest. Lawmakers ultimately repealed that territorial-era law in favor of Arizona’s previous ban on abortions after 15 weeks. The existing 15-week ban does not include any exemptions for rape or incest.
What are the arguments for it?: Passing the measure would ensure pregnant people will receive the healthcare they need and can make their own choices about their bodies and families without interference from politicians.
What are the arguments against it?: Passing the measure would allow late-term abortions for non-medical reasons, remove lawmakers’ ability to put any meaningful restrictions on abortion and the measure would remove parental consent from the abortion process.
Who supports it?: A historic number of voters signed the petition to put it on the ballot, and groups like Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign, the League of Women Voters of Arizona, Democratic politicians and medical professional groups are backing it.
Who opposes it?: Arizona Right to Life, Center for Arizona Policy, religious and Catholic groups and Republican politicians including former Gov. Jan Brewer.
Who’s winning the money race?: The pro side and it’s not even close.
What does the polling say?: It’ll pass with relative ease.
Prop 314: The Border Security Act
What does it do?: Prop 314 would make it a state crime to be in the country illegally and require local law enforcement officials to enforce immigration law. It would also increase penalties for knowingly selling fentanyl.
What’s the backstory?: The proposal was put on the ballot by Republican lawmakers, who argued that the situation at the border is out of control under the Biden administration. Politically, it was Republicans’ response to the Arizona for Abortion Access initiative, which they expect to drive Democratic turnout.
What are the arguments for it?: The Biden administration has refused to control the southern border and illegal crossings have increased dramatically, straining social services and increasing the flow of drugs across the border.
What are the arguments against it?: It’s unconstitutional, as proven by the U.S. Supreme Court decision on very similar legislation in Arizona, SB1070, and would return Arizona to that era. It also doesn’t include any funding for local law enforcement, which would be tasked with enforcing the law, and it would discourage people from reporting crimes.
Who supports it?: Anti-immigration groups like RidersUSA and Heritage Action, Republican politicians and some law enforcement groups, including the Arizona Sheriff’s Association.
Who opposes it?: Pro-immigrant groups like Chicanos Por La Causa, LUCHA, the ACLU and Mi Familia Vota; civic groups like the League of Women Voters of Arizona, the Arizona Education Association, the Sierra Club and Grand Canyon Institute; and some law enforcement officers.
How much will it cost?: Estimates range from about $41 million for enforcement and up to $178 million for incarceration over time, to a total of $325 million per year for enforcement and incarceration costs.
What does the polling say?: Roughly two-thirds of voters like the idea.
Dueling Propositions
Prop 140: The Make Elections Fair Act
What does it do?: The Make Elections Fair Act would amend the state Constitution to abolish partisan primaries in favor of a system where every candidate would be on the same primary election ballot and all voters could participate, regardless of their political party. It would task lawmakers with setting up either a two-candidate run-off or a ranked-choice voting system in the general elections, or allow the Secretary of State to decide how that would work until lawmakers enact those rules.
What’s the backstory?: This one has been in the works for several years with a bipartisan cast of moderates pushing it in hopes of toning down the extremism in Arizona politics. A series of states, including Alaska, Maine and California, have approved open and ranked-choice primary systems in recent years, giving the idea momentum in Arizona.
What are the arguments for it?: Most congressional and legislative districts are considered “safe” for one party, so the primary election basically decides who holds office. An open primary system would ensure that our politicians aren’t selected solely by the hard-core partisans who vote in primaries. It would make it easier to participate in the primary for independent voters, who currently have to take that extra step to request a partisan ballot if they want to participate in primaries.
“Our current system rewards divisiveness and encourages candidates to cater primarily to their party's base, amplifying polarization and hindering meaningful collaboration. How can that possibly be a winning strategy?” - Rex Scott, Pima County Supervisor
What are the arguments against it?: The current system works fine and independent voters already can vote in primary elections (as long as they request a ballot). Prop 140 would bring “California-style” ranked-choice voting to Arizona, which will confuse voters and lower voter trust in elections. And the measure could lead to general election ballots with candidates from just one party.
“Prop 140 would result in long, confusing ballots, lead to even more delays in tabulating votes, and produce election results that do not reflect the will of the people.” - Cathi Herrod, president of Center for Arizona Policy
Who supports it?: Southern Arizona Leadership Council, Greater Phoenix Leadership, Tucson Metro Chamber, Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona, Grand Canyon Institute, and a bipartisan cast of politicians, including Mesa Mayor John Giles, former Gov. Fife Symington, former U.S. Sen. Dennis DeConcini, Pima County Supervisor Rex Scott and former House Speaker Rusty Bowers.
Who opposes it?: The Arizona Republican Party, Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Center for Arizona Policy, Heritage Action for America, Goldwater Institute, League of Women Voters of Arizona.
Prop 133: No open primaries
What does it do?: Prop 133 is the opposite of Prop 140.1 It would amend the state constitution to require direct primary elections for partisan offices and prohibit open primary elections and ranked-choice voting. It would supersede any local government rules about which elections are partisan or not.
What’s the backstory?: GOP lawmakers don’t like open primaries and ranked-choice voting, so they put this measure on the ballot to counteract Prop 140.
What are the arguments for it?: It would preserve the system Arizonans have used for more than a century. It would make sure each major party has a candidate in the general election, assuming they run a candidate. It would make sure Arizona’s elections don’t look like California’s elections.
“This is how the process should work. Candidates compete in a primary election, trying to convince voters that he or she best represents their party and platform. Then the general election allows for the best representatives of those ideas to compete against one another, and the voters get to choose which candidate best represents their district.” - Scot Mussi, President, Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Gilbert
What are the arguments against it?: It would further shut out independents, who outnumber Democrats and nearly outnumber Republicans, and would keep in place a system that churns out extreme candidates. It would also strip away local control of elections.
“This measure will impede moderate or independent candidates from fairly competing for your vote. In order to reduce polarization and increase representation, it’s crucial to ensure that voters have a multitude of options.” - Chris Hendrickson, Board of Directors, Arizona Forward Party, Scottsdale
Who supports it?: Arizona Free Enterprise Club
Who opposes it?: Sierra Club, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Common Cause
What does the polling say?: Voters are more supportive of opening the primary election than keeping it closed, but the number of undecided voters shows both measures could still go either way.
Restricting Initiatives
Prop 134: An Electoral College for signatures
What does it do?: Prop 134 would require backers of citizen initiatives — like the Arizona for Abortion Access Act — to gather signatures from a percentage of voters2 in each of the state’s 30 legislative districts, rather than a percentage of voters statewide.
What’s the backstory?: Republican lawmakers have long been critical of the citizen initiative process, saying it has been hijacked by out-of-state interests, and this is one of several measures that would make it harder to put citizen-initiated laws and constitutional changes on the ballot.
What are the arguments for it?: Prop 134 would require backers of initiatives to show support from rural Arizonans, not just Maricopa County voters, making the process more democratic.
“By spreading the signature requirement across all legislative districts, Prop. 134 also prevents outside special interest groups from disproportionately influencing the initiative process, ensuring that proposed measures have genuine grassroots support rather than being driven by narrow, localized agendas.” - Danny Seiden, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
What are the arguments against it?: Getting an initiative on the ballot is already incredibly difficult and expensive, and requiring petition circulators to hit every corner of the state would only take the process further away from average Arizonans and allow opponents to kill an initiative by successfully campaigning against it in just one county.
“At a time when the legislature is more committed than ever to making government work only for the few, Proposition 134 reduces the power of every Arizonan and makes it harder to have a government for the people, responsive to the people.” - Scott Greenwood, Executive Director, ACLU of Arizona
Who supports it?: Free Enterprise Club, Goldwater Institute, Center for Arizona Policy, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
Who opposes it?: Sierra Club, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Civic Engagement Beyond Voting, Save our Schools, ACLU of Arizona, Arizona Center for Economic Progress
Prop 136: A constitutional check
What does it do?: Prop 136 would allow the courts to rule on the constitutionality of a proposed initiative even before voters approve it.
What’s the backstory?: Under the separation of powers doctrine in the Arizona Constitution, the courts can’t rule on the constitutionality of an initiative — or a bill by lawmakers — until and unless it actually becomes law. If voters approve Prop 136, it would provide another legal avenue to block citizen initiatives.
What are the arguments for it?: The measure would ensure that all initiatives that qualify for the ballot are constitutional, saving Arizona from the uncertainty of approving a law, only to have it struck down by the state Supreme Court after years of litigation.
What are the arguments against it?: There are already multiple checks and balances in place to ensure that a proposition is constitutional, and Prop 136 would increase costs for organizers and have a chilling effect on initiative campaigns.
Who supports it?: Free Enterprise Club
Who opposes it?: Save our Schools, Sierra Club, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Arizona Education Association, Arizona Asian Chamber of Commerce, ACLU of Arizona
Power to the People (at the Capitol)
Prop 137: Voters can’t remove judges
What would it do? Arizonans would no longer vote on retaining high court judges if Prop 137 passes. Instead, judges currently covered under Arizona’s merit selection system,3 would only face retention elections if a judicial review panel says they should. The proposition is also retroactive, so any judges who lose retention votes this year will stay on the bench if it passes.
What’s the backstory? Arizona started a merit selection process — in which the governor appoints judges and the people vote on whether to keep them in retention elections — in the 1970s. Arizona lawmakers referred this to the ballot to get rid of the process in an election year that brought targeted campaigns against retaining two state Supreme Court justices who voted to reinstate the 1864 abortion ban.
What are the arguments for it?: It will stop out-of-state donors from influencing Arizona retention elections, and ensure that judges aren’t politically targeted for legal decisions. Also, very few actually pay attention to judicial retention elections anyway.
What are the arguments against it?: The measure would get rid of voters’ say in retaining judges and would offer judges lifetime appointments with little accountability to the public. And the retroactivity clause is clearly aimed at protecting two judges who face tough retention elections.
Who supports it?: Free Enterprise Club
Who opposes it?: Civic Engagement Beyond Voting, Sierra Club, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Local First Arizona, ACLU of Arizona
Prop 135: Lawmakers decide what’s an emergency
What does it do?: Prop 135 would let the Legislature terminate or alter the governor’s emergency powers while putting a 30-day time limit on states of emergency unless the Legislature extends them.
What’s the backstory?: It stems from Governor Doug Ducey’s emergency declaration during the onset of COVID-19 that closed down schools and businesses, which Republican lawmakers criticized as unnecessary and dictatorial.
What are the arguments for it?: Prop 135 would rein in concentrated power in the Governor’s Office.
What are the arguments against it?: It could vastly change how Arizona oversees disaster declarations and receives federal funding for drought management or another pandemic by adding red tape. It also violates the Arizona Constitution by giving one branch of government the powers of another.
Who supports it?: Free Enterprise Club
Who opposes it?: Arizona Public Health Association, Arizona Alliance for Community Health Centers, League of Women Voters of Arizona
Pocketbook Issues
Prop 312: Fix homelessness, or we keep our money
What does it do?: Property owners could request refunds on their property taxes if the municipality they live in doesn’t enforce public nuisance laws like loitering, panhandling and illegal camping.
What’s the backstory?: Republicans referred it to the ballot to force cities to quell homelessness.
What are the arguments for it?: Prop 312 would help businesses and homeowners recoup money they lost on remediation efforts.
”Prop 312 gives us hope that not only will the City of Phoenix not allow another ‘Zone’ to happen, but if so, there would be some compensation for small businesses like ours.” - Debbie and Joe Faillace, former owners of Old Station Subs near “The Zone”
What are the arguments against it?: It would get rid of tax revenue localities depend on to run operations, including social services.
“In a time where too many Arizonans are experiencing homelessness, can’t afford rent, or are priced out of the housing market, this law will take funds away from our local governments to do more to make housing more affordable for us all in order to hand out irresponsible tax breaks to wealthy homeowners and criminalize unhoused individuals.” -Alejandro Gomez, executive director, Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA)
Who supports it?: Goldwater Institute, Greater Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce, Tucson Crime Free Coalition, Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Restaurant Association, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell
Who opposes it?: ACLU, LUCHA, Arizona Housing Coalition
Who’s spending money on it?: Arizona Chamber of Commerce’s PAC and the Goldwater Institute have spent more than $500,000 supporting Prop 312.
Prop 138: The “Tipped Workers Protection Act”
What does it do?: Allows employers to cut tipped workers’ pay. Employers can pay tipped workers 25% less than the minimum wage, as long as they can prove the worker ended up making $2 more than the minimum wage.
What’s the backstory?: This one was meant to counteract a measure that didn’t make it on the ballot, the One Fair Wage Act, which would have increased the minimum wage to $18 per hour, including for tipped workers.
What are the arguments for it?: It would give workers an extra cushion and protect the tips they need to get by. If the tip system were dismantled, it would force restaurants to charge higher prices or even go out of business.
“As a server, I rely solely on tips for my income. The tip credit creates a balance where my employer can maintain its practical business model while my wages come through the tips I receive. If this were to be taken away, it would destroy the future of the restaurant industry.” - Daryn Viser, Tempe
What are the arguments against it?: It’s an attempt to undermine the minimum wage increase that voters approved in 2016. The “astroturf” campaign aims to allow corporations to raise their profits by not paying people a living wage.
“The audacity of corrupt politicians working with restaurant mega-corporations and their lobbyists to reduce tipped worker’s wages while trying to dub this as the ‘Tipped Worker Protection Act’ is appalling!” - Denise Previte, Scottsdale
Who supports it?: Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Restaurant Association, Visit Mesa, Goldwater Institute, Save Our Tips AZ sponsored most of the “for” arguments
Who opposes it?: LUCHA, state Rep. Cesar Aguilar, Civic Engagement Beyond Voting, Arizona Center for Economic Progress, Opportunity Arizona, former Flagstaff City Councilmember Eva Putzova, former Arizona state Rep. Eric Descheenie
Under the Radar
Prop 311: Backing the Blue
What does it do?: Everyone convicted of a criminal offense would have to pay a $20 fee that would go to a pot of money to pay out $250,000 to the spouse or children of first responders killed in the line of duty. It also ups the criminal punishments for aggravated assault against police and first responders.
What’s the backstory?: Several Democrats supported referring this measure to the ballot, but it's mostly backed by Republicans, including Sen. David Gowan, who sponsored the bill.
What are the arguments for it?: It could boost police morale while helping the families of fallen officers.
What are the arguments against it?: Families of fallen officers shouldn’t have to depend on criminals to meet their financial needs. And many people can’t afford the fines.
Who supports it?: Phoenix Police Sergeants and Lieutenants Association
Who opposes it?: Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, ACLU, Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice
How much will it cost?: It would likely result in financial benefits by creating a fund solely for the $20 fees, but that fund can only be spent on police.
Prop 313: Child sex trafficking
What does it do?: It would require a life sentence in prison for people convicted of sex trafficking children.
What’s the backstory?: The group behind the measure, Arizona’s Children Are Not For Sale, was inspired by the film “Sound of Freedom,” the Arizona Mirror reported. That movie and its star have ties to the QAnon conspiracy world, NPR reported.
What are the arguments for it?: Children are the most vulnerable members of society, so the harshest punishments should go to people who commit terrible crimes against them. Sex trafficking children is more common than people think.
“The passage of Proposition 313 will send a powerful message: Arizona's children are not for sale,” - Republican Sen. Shawnna Bolick
What are the arguments against it?: People convicted of sex trafficking children already get long prison sentences. The measure is based on emotion, rather than evidence, and judges should have discretion when it comes to sentencing, based on individual circumstances. And child victims of sex trafficking often are coerced by their abusers into committing crimes themselves.
“We cannot codify a law that would subject victims to mandatory minimum sentences.” - Pinny Sheoran, President, League of Women Voters of Arizona, Scottsdale
Who supports it?: Kari Lake, Center for Arizona Policy, Shawnna Bolick, Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb, Yavapai County Sheriff David Rhodes, Rene Lopez, co-founder of Cece’s Hope Center and Arizona Corporation Commission candidate
Who opposes it?: League of Women Voters of Arizona, Arizonans for Rational Sex Offense Laws
How much will it cost?: The main cost comes from increasing the time people spend in prison, so the cost would depend on how many people are convicted.
Prop 315: Too much regulation
What does it do?: It would make it much more cumbersome for state agencies to approve new rules and regulations, including by requiring lawmakers to sign off on any rule that increases regulatory costs to Arizonans by $500,000 total over 15 years.
What’s the backstory?: Republican lawmakers also put the idea in bill format, but Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed it, forcing them to send it to voters instead.
What are the arguments for it?: The administrative state is out of control and rule-making by unelected officials costs Arizona businesses, and ultimately taxpayers, money.
“Returning these powers to the Legislature will ensure that our voices are heard loud and clear and that our public servants are accountable for all decisions made.” - Stephen Shadegg, Americans for Prosperity
What are the arguments against it?: Agencies already have to jump through several hoops to enact new rules and regulations and this unnecessary new hurdle would essentially grind critical administrative rule-making to a halt.
“Interfering with the regulatory process in this manner means that biased lawmakers could impose their ideological will to supersede the expert and informed decisions of staff.” - Catherine Sigmon and Melinda Iyer, Civic Engagement Beyond Voting
Who supports it?: Americans for Prosperity
Who opposes it?: League of Women Voters of Arizona, Sierra Club, Arizona Public Health Association
If two contradicting measures pass, the one with the most votes goes into effect.
To propose constitutional changes, organizers need signatures from 15% of voters in the most recent gubernatorial election. It’s 10% for statutory changes and 5% to force a referendum or “citizens veto” on laws passed by the Legislature.
Not all judges are covered under the merit selection system — just the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Superior Court judges in Maricopa, Pima, Pinal and Coconino counties. The rest are elected.
One other thing about Prop 140 that is often cited as concerning: that significant details of what happens after the open primary (how many move to the general, etc) are left to either the legislature, if it acts, or the Secretary of State, if it doesn't.
It’s easy: vote YES on 139 and the school bond issues. Vote NO on everything else.