Here’s every proposition on the Arizona ballot this year and what they’d do

Arizona voters will find over a dozen measures on the ballot this November, covering topics ranging from lifetime appointments for judges to tax refunds for property owners.

The state legislature referred 11 measures to the 2024 ballot, the most lawmakers have put before voters since 1984. The increase is partially an attempt by the Republican-controlled legislature to circumvent Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs’ veto and avoid compromising with Democrats to pass bills that the governor would sign into law.

Two citizen initiatives also qualified to be on the ballot this year: the Arizona for Abortion Access Act and the Make Elections Fair Act.

The guide below divides the propositions into two sections: constitutional amendments and state statutes. Amendments to the constitution are more difficult to change, while statutes deal more with the day-to-day laws that govern residents’ lives.

Descriptions have also been split into a shorter explanation—too long, didn’t read (TL;DR) and a longer overview of what the proposition would do. Others can read the official ballot language on the Arizona Secretary of State’s website.

Are you ready to vote? Make sure to check your voter registration status, see who’s on your ballot, and make a voting plan here.

Constitutional Amendments

Proposition 133: Political parties nominate candidates

Legislative referral, previously HCR 2033

TL;DR: Makes partisan primaries a requirement—basically a ban on ranked-choice voting—and lets parties nominate candidates instead of candidates collecting signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Overview: Elections run in phases, and this proposal would alter how partisan elections run their primary phase. This change would require all recognized political parties to hold a primary election for every partisan position—nearly every race besides seats on city councils and school boards.

The amendment would grant political parties the authority to put one candidate on the ballot for every qualifying race, meaning candidates wouldn’t need petition signatures from voters, only the blessing of party leaders. The move would shift significant power away from the general public—particularly independents, which make up one-third of Arizonans—in favor of political parties.

It would also give an outsized voice, and potentially undue burden, to smaller parties recognized by the state. The Libertarian, Green, and No Labels parties—less than 2% of voters collectively—would be required to nominate candidates for every partisan race, from US President to precinct constables. Independent voters, on the other hand, would have no saved spot for them on the ballot, as there is no recognized Independent Party in Arizona.

Proposition 134: District requirements for citizen initiatives

Legislative referral, previously SCFR 1015

TL;DR: This is a geographic barrier to citizen initiatives. Instead of simply getting a certain number of petition signatures, initiatives would be required to collect a percentage of signatures in 30 different parts of the state.

Overview: This would change the requirements for citizen initiatives. In order to qualify for the ballot under this law, initiatives would need to collect signatures from 10% of qualified voters in each legislative district—15% if the proposal requires a constitutional amendment.

Current law requires citizens to collect the same percentages of signatures, but for the overall population of the state, not individual districts. The difference is akin to the popular vote versus the Electoral College for the US presidential election; one favors the majority, while the other tips the scales in favor of rural voters. The likely end result would be that progressive measures would have a far more difficult time getting to a vote of the people than conservative ones.

Proposition 135: Restrictions on emergency powers

Legislative referral, previously HCR 2039

TL;DR: Limits the governor’s power when declaring a state of emergency—this is a direct response to former Gov. Doug Ducey’s handling of COVID in 2020.

Overview: This proposal was introduced in response to former Gov. Doug Ducey’s use of emergency powers in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, and would drastically limit the governor’s power during an emergency.

If approved by voters, this would amend the state constitution to:

• Limit the governor’s emergency powers to 30 days, unless extended by the legislature
• The legislature can add restrictions to limit the governor’s power during emergencies
• The governor would be required to call a special legislative session if petitioned by 30% of state senators and state representatives
• If an emergency order is not extended by the legislature, the governor would be prohibited from declaring another from the same emergency

 Proposition 136: Lawsuits against citizen intiatives

Legislative referral, previously SCR 1041

TL;DR: Makes it easier to sue citizen initiatives to stop them from being put on the ballot.

Overview: More opportunities to stop citizen initiatives from being added to the ballot by allowing lawsuits over the constitutionality of the proposed initiative. Under this proposed change to the Arizona Constitution, lawsuits could be filed against initiatives that have enough signatures to qualify for the ballot as long as it is at least 100 days before the election on the grounds that its implementation would be unconstitutional.

While ballot measures can be challenged in court for violating the rules for what can appear on the ballot, they cannot be challenged on their constitutionality unless they become law. This proposal would change this and would allow anyone to sue to stop a citizen’s initiative from being added to the ballot based on its potential to violate the Arizona or US Constitution.

The same legal scrutiny would not apply to legislative referrals, which can be added to the ballot even if lawmakers are told the proposal is unconstitutional. It is not uncommon for lawmakers to ignore constitutional concerns, as was the case with a now-overturned 2022 law that restricted the public’s ability to record the police.

The state constitution currently prohibits this as a matter of separation of powers: only after citizens exercise their right to enact legislation can those laws then be checked by the judicial branch.

Proposition 137: End term limits for judges

Legislative referral, previously SCR 1044

TL;DR: Ends term limits for judges and gets rid of retention votes, so voters can’t remove judges. This would also be retroactive, so any justices on this year’s ballot who are voted out would get to stay.

Overview: This would end term limits for judges on the Arizona Supreme Court and most county court jurisdictions, known as the Superior Court. Judges in these positions would no longer be subject to retention votes, and any accountability for judicial misconduct would be the responsibility of the state legislature. Judges would still be required to retire when they turn 70.

The measure would also be retroactive, meaning any votes to remove a judge in 2024 would be nullified. The provision appears to be a way to protect two Arizona Supreme Court Justices up for retention this year, Clint Bolick, 66, and Kathryn Hackett King, 44, from repercussions for their vote to reinstate Arizona’s 1864 total ban on abortion.

Proposition 138: Reduced minimum wage for tipped employees

Legislative referral, previously SCR 1040

TL;DR: Changes the minimum wage for tipped workers from a dollar amount based on the regular minimum wage to a percentage of the regular minimum wage, so every year when the minimum wage goes up, employers can pay tipped workers less than they would under the current law.

Overview: Arizona has one of the most progressive minimum wage laws in the country, thanks to the voter-approved Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act of 2016. In addition to tying the minimum wage to inflation, it established wage protections for tipped workers to guarantee they can’t make less than what non-tipped employees make.

Current law allows employers to pay tipped employees up to $3 less per hour if they can prove that the employee’s tips make up the difference. Proposition 138 seeks to change this by lowering the pay floor at which employers can reduce wages. It would change the $3 pay cut to 25% of the minimum wage

For example, the minimum wage in 2024 is $14.35 per hour. Under current law, employers can pay tipped employees $11.35 if they make $3 in tips. In the new proposal, employers could pay workers $10.77 per hour if the employee made a combined $15.35 in an hour from paycheck and tips.

Proposition 139: Arizona for Abortion Access

Citizen initiative

TL;DR: Makes abortion care a constitutionally protected right. It also prohibits penalties against healthcare providers who offer the procedure and gives them the protection to do what’s medically appropriate.

Overview: The Arizona for Abortion Access Act would restore abortion rights that were taken away nationally in June 2022. This change to the state constitution would make Arizona’s current 15-week abortion ban unconstitutional and would grant women the right to abortion healthcare without government interference.

This law would give medical professionals discretion to determine with patients when to prescribe abortion medication or perform a procedure, similar to most other medical decisions. It would also remove and prevent any future laws that would penalize healthcare providers from offering abortion care.

Proposition 140: Make Elections Fair

Citizen initiative

TL;DR: Creates an open primary system in the state, and allows primary elections to be administered using non-partisan ballots, such as a ranked-choice voting method.

Overview: Arizona’s partisan elections—meaning elected positions where candidates run as part of a political party—are required by law to be administered using a closed primary process, so only members of the Democratic Party, for example, can vote in the Democratic Primary Elections. It is closed off to Republicans, and voters not registered to a party must request a partisan ballot in order to participate.

The Make Elections Fair Act would remove this requirement, and allow for election officials to administer open primaries, so any voter could vote for any candidate in the Primary Election, regardless of party affiliation.

This would allow for different voting methods to be utilized, such as ranked-choice voting, where voters have the option to rank as many of the candidates in the race as they’d like. If their top choice in the race doesn’t get enough votes to win, that voter’s vote goes to their second choice, and so on.

State Statutes

Proposition 311: New fines to fund new public benefit

Legislative referral, previously SCR 1006

TL;DR: Adds a $20 fine to all criminal offenses to fund a public life insurance fund for first responders, police officers, and corrections workers who are killed by a criminal act while on the job.

Overview: This would change state law to create a public life insurance fund for first responders who are killed by a criminal act while working. The following professions would qualify:

• National Guard
• Firefighters, fire marshals, and fire inspectors
• Emergency medical care technicians
• Paramedics
• Tribal police officers
• Peace officers, which include: sheriffs, constables, marshals, police officers, and the Department of Public Safety, Department of Corrections, and Department of Juvenile Corrections personnel

The benefit would go into effect June 30, 2025, with qualifying next of kin receiving $250,000. The policy would be funded by a new $20 fine for all criminal offenses that cannot be waived.

Proposition 312: Tax refund for property owners

Legislative referral, previously HCR 2023

TL;DR: Penalizes cities that don’t aggressively criminalize homelessness by creating a tax refund for property owners who claim financial hardship resulting from their neighbors not having a place to live.

Overview: Voters will be asked to approve a new, opt-in tax cut for residential and commercial property owners. Under this proposal, taxpayers would be allowed to request a refund on property taxes to cover any documented cost incurred as a result of the police’s failure to enforce laws relating to:

• Illegal camping
• Loitering
• Obstructing public thoroughfares
• Panhandling
• Public urination or defecation
• Public consumption of alcohol
• Possession or use of illegal substances

The measure is designed to penalize cities that don’t aggressively police their unhoused residents and would incentivize hostility from property owners. It would also drain funds from public bodies, making it more difficult to respond to future public nuisance complaints.

Proposition 313: Mandatory life sentence for child sex trafficking

Legislative referral, previously SCR 1021

TL;DR: Mandatory life sentence for anyone convicted of a felony for sex trafficking—including the victims.

Overview: This law would make any conviction related to child sex trafficking a one-strike offense: a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison, no exceptions, parole, or release in any form.

This would drastically increase the penalty and give judges no room to issue a different sentence based on the situation. The law currently has a range of sentencing minimums based on the defendant’s criminal history: a 13-year minimum for a first offense, and a minimum of 30 years in prison for someone with two previous felony convictions. Those are only minimums, however, and longer sentences—up to life in prison—are up to the judge’s discretion.

It would also subject victims coerced into trafficking to life sentencing, with no option for the judge to lessen the sentence if they believe the defendant was forced or threatened to participate in the crime.

Proposition 314: Warrantless arrests over immigration suspicions

Legislative referral, previously HCR 2060

TL;DR: This is an anti-immigrant law that would allow for warrantless arrests, lowkey deputize all cops as border patrol agents and grant them immunity from civil lawsuits, create stricter requirements and penalties for businesses that employ immigrants, and pretend to address the fentanyl crisis by creating stricter penalties for people who sold fentanyl that kills someone.

Overview: A far-reaching measure resulting from a number of vetoed bills, Proposition 314 touches on border security, court proceedings, the criminal code, labor laws, prison, and public health and safety.

If passed, Proposition 314 would:

• Give state law enforcement authority to arrest anyone they suspect has entered the country outside authorized ports of entry
• Declares crossing the border anywhere outside a port of entry to be a state crime—and a felony
• Creates stricter requirements and penalties for businesses that employ immigrants
• Grants law enforcement and government bodies blanket immunity from civil lawsuits that might result from enforcement of the law
• Requires harsher penalties against anyone convicted of knowingly selling fentanyl that causes death

Proposition 314 does not provide funding for its mandate that local authorities enforce border crossings, despite enforcement coming with a hefty price tag, estimated to be $325 million annually. The spike in incarceration is also expected to cost the state’s prison system $50 million every year.

Proposition 315: State agency budget oversight

Legislative referral, previously SCR 1012

TL;DR: Forces the state legislature to micromanage the budgets of state agencies, like the Department of Veteran’s Services or the Department of Education, so they would have to get approval before they can spend money they’ve already been allocated.

Overview: State agencies’ ability to use their budgets would be subject to additional approval layers. This proposed law would require the state legislature to vote on and approve any rule or regulation change made by an agency that is estimated to cost more than $500,000 over a five-year period before it could go into effect.

Currently, state departments have the independence to use their budget as they see fit, but Proposition 315 would require them to depend on the legislature to micromanage their operations. A similar bill was passed along party lines earlier this year, but was vetoed by Gov. Katie Hobbs on the grounds that it would, “create unnecessary burden on state agencies that would inhibit their ability to carry out duties in a timely manner.”