Arizona propositions explained

Prop 133 Direct Primary Elections

Proposition 133 seeks to amend the state's constitution to mandate partisan primary elections for all partisan offices, which is currently the way most races in Arizona are held. The proposition would ensure that each recognized political party can nominate as many candidates as there are positions to be filled in the general election, effectively prohibiting primary systems like "top-two" or "top-four" primaries where candidates from all parties compete on a single ballot.

Supporters argue that maintaining the current partisan primary system protects democracy by ensuring that all political parties can participate in elections. They believe this structure allows voters to choose candidates that best represent their values and prevents the dilution of party identities, which could occur in more open primary systems. Supporters assert that this system prevents outside influences and helps maintain a clear distinction between parties, allowing voters to choose candidates aligned with their beliefs. They also claim that independent voters benefit from this system as they can choose which party's primary to participate in, ensuring that their voices are heard. Proponents emphasize that changes to this system could lead to a less democratic environment, akin to what they describe as a "one-party system" seen in some other states. Proposition 133 is backed by various political and civic organizations, including the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and other conservative groups.

Opponents argue that such a measure could further entrench the two-party system and reduce the ability of independents or third parties to gain traction in elections. They suggest that more inclusive primary systems could better reflect the diversity of voters' preferences and foster greater political competition. Opponents include various civil rights organizations, progressive groups, and some independent voters who argue that the proposition restricts voter choice and undermines democracy. They contend that eliminating non-partisan primaries limits the ability of independent and third-party candidates to compete effectively in elections. The ACLU of Arizona expressed concern that Proposition 133 will further entrench the two-party system and reduce opportunities for diverse representation in government.

Check out AZPM reporting on Prop 133.

Prop 134 Signature Requirements

Arizona's Proposition 134 proposes new requirements for signature distribution on voter-initiated ballot measures. Currently, ballot initiatives in Arizona need signatures from a set percentage of voters statewide (10% for statutory initiatives, 15% for constitutional amendments, and 5% for referenda). If approved, Proposition 134 would add a geographic distribution requirement, mandating that signatures be collected from a specified percentage of voters in each of Arizona’s 30 legislative districts: 10% per district for initiatives, 15% for constitutional amendments, and 5% for referenda.

Supporters, such as the Arizona Farm Bureau, argue this change would ensure broader, more equitable representation, giving rural areas more influence over ballot measures. They argue that the proposition ensures rural voices are included in the initiative process. By requiring signatures from each of the 30 legislative districts, the measure aims to prevent initiatives from being predominantly driven by urban areas like Phoenix and Tucson. This perspective emphasizes that all regions of Arizona should have equal representation in proposing legislation.

Opponents contend it would make the initiative process prohibitively difficult, potentially silencing popular measures that lack widespread support in every district but have substantial statewide backing. They argue that the proposition undermines the citizen initiative process established in 1912. The ACLU contends that the new requirements would significantly increase costs and make it harder for everyday Arizonans to bring initiatives to the ballot. They emphasize that the existing process already allows any citizen or community to initiate measures, and the changes would disproportionately affect those without ample resources.

Prop 135 Emergency Powers/Emergency Powers, Termination

Arizona's Proposition 135 proposes changes to the governor's emergency powers, specifically limiting these powers to 30 days for non-war-related emergencies like pandemics or other crises. Under the measure, after 30 days, the governor's authority could continue only with legislative approval. Additionally, Proposition 135 would allow the legislature to convene a special session, if one-third of lawmakers request it, to review or potentially terminate the emergency powers. This measure aims to increase legislative oversight and ensure that long-term emergency measures involve more than just executive decisions.

An example of governor emergency power in a time of crisis is New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, who also declared a state of emergency in March 2020. This allowed him to close non-essential businesses, impose curfews, and require hospitals to increase capacity. Cuomo’s use of emergency powers became controversial, especially regarding long-term restrictions and reporting on nursing home COVID-19 deaths, which ultimately led to calls for legislative oversight on future emergency declarations.

These emergency measures lasted about a year. Cuomo declared a state of emergency on March 7, 2020. However, in early 2021, as criticisms of his prolonged use of these powers grew—especially concerning nursing home data reporting—New York lawmakers acted to limit them. On March 5, 2021, the New York State Legislature voted to rescind the emergency powers, although it allowed some orders to remain in effect as long as they had legislative oversight. This shift highlighted increasing concerns over unchecked executive authority during extended emergencies, a debate seen in many states during the pandemic.

Supporters of this proposition in Arizona argue that the measure enhances checks and balances, ensuring that decisions affecting the state are reviewed by elected representatives. Critics, however, caution that this could introduce delays in emergency responses, particularly in healthcare, where outside professionals could face restrictions after the 30-day period. They also express concerns about added bureaucratic challenges during emergencies.

Prop 136 Voter Initiative Lawsuits

Proposition 136 proposes a constitutional amendment allowing for the constitutionality of ballot initiatives to be challenged before an election. Right now, Arizona courts can only rule on the constitutionality of initiatives after they have been approved by voters. If Proposition 136 is adopted, it would permit individuals to bring legal challenges in superior court at least 100 days prior to the election. Should a court find an initiative unconstitutional, it would be barred from appearing on the ballot.

Supporters of Prop 136, including the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, argue it would prevent unconstitutional or impractical initiatives from reaching the ballot, saving taxpayers time and money. They cite past examples where ballot measures, after winning voter support, were later found unconstitutional, which they say created public confusion and wasted resources. By allowing the Arizona Supreme Court to review measures before they appear on the ballot, supporters believe Prop 136 will enhance election integrity and ensure only legally viable initiatives proceed to a vote.

Opponents, such as the ACLU of Arizona, the Arizona Asian Chamber of Commerce, and Civic Engagement Beyond Voting, contend that Prop 136 would make it easier for special interests to challenge and potentially derail citizen-led initiatives. They argue that the proposition would make it especially difficult for grassroots groups to mount effective ballot campaigns, adding financial and logistical hurdles that could disproportionately affect rural communities and under-resourced advocacy groups. Opponents see Prop 136 as undermining Arizona’s long tradition of direct democracy and believe it could limit public participation in shaping state policy​.

Prop 137 Judicial Terms and Retention

Proposition 137 proposes significant changes to the state’s judicial retention election process. Currently, Arizona judges and justices on the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Superior Courts in larger counties face retention votes at the end of set terms. Proposition 137 would eliminate these automatic retention votes, allowing judges to remain in office indefinitely, with removal possible only under specific conditions, such as felony convictions, misconduct, or failure to meet performance standards.

Additionally, the Judicial Performance Review (JPR) Commission, which evaluates judicial performance and currently informs voters before elections, would see changes. Membership would expand to include legislative appointees, who would also have the authority to investigate claims of judicial malfeasance. If passed, Proposition 137 would also retroactively nullify the results of retention elections held in 2024, essentially granting judges continued tenure based on "good behavior" instead of periodic public votes.

Proponents argue that it would protect judges from what they see as politically motivated campaigns to unseat conservative justices. Key supporters include conservative lawmakers like Sen. David Gowan, who contend that removing retention elections will shield judges from outside influence, particularly from national groups looking to sway state judicial outcomes. Supporters emphasize that the measure would allow judges to focus solely on rulings rather than on campaigning for their positions. Additionally, some advocates believe it would prevent political “manipulation” by limiting the influence of changing public opinion on judicial independence.

Opponents, however, argue that Proposition 137 threatens judicial accountability and the public’s ability to influence the judiciary. Many legal professionals, including retired justices, warn that removing retention elections could result in unchecked judicial power, as the public would no longer have a say in retaining or removing judges. Groups like the ACLU of Arizona and the Keep Courts Accountable PAC believe the proposition would undermine democratic checks on the judiciary, potentially allowing judges to lean towards personal or political biases without fear of electoral consequence. These opponents argue that retention elections are crucial for maintaining transparency and public trust in Arizona's judiciary.

Prop 138 Employee Compensation, Tips

Arizona's 2024 Proposition 138, known as "The Tipped Workers Protection Act," aims to amend the state constitution concerning how tipped employees are compensated. Currently, Arizona law allows employers to pay tipped workers up to $3 less than the minimum wage, provided their total earnings (wages plus tips) meet the minimum wage threshold. Proposition 138 proposes to change this structure, allowing businesses to pay tipped employees 25% less than the minimum wage, which would effectively reduce the base pay to approximately $10.77 per hour while still requiring that their total earnings meet the minimum wage plus an additional $2.

Proponents argue that the measure helps protect jobs in the hospitality industry by allowing restaurants to manage costs more effectively. They contend that maintaining a tipping structure supports both workers and businesses, as many tipped workers prefer the current system, believing it allows for potentially higher earnings through tips. Steve Chucri, president of the Arizona Restaurant Association, emphasizes that the proposition is a proactive measure against initiatives that could eliminate the tip credit altogether.

Critics of Proposition 138, however, argue that it undermines the financial stability of tipped workers, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet. They express concern that lowering the base pay will force workers to rely more heavily on tips, which can be inconsistent and insufficient. Organizations advocating for low-wage workers highlight that this change could disproportionately affect women, who make up a significant majority of tipped employees in Arizona. They argue that the proposition may exacerbate existing financial hardships as costs of living continue to rise.

Check out AZPM’s reporting on Prop 138.

Prop 139 Arizona Abortion Access Act

Arizona's Proposition 139, which will be on the ballot in November 2024, aims to amend the state constitution to enshrine the right to abortion. If passed, it would establish that every individual has the fundamental right to access abortion care prior to fetal viability, which is generally considered to occur between 22 and 24 weeks of pregnancy. After viability, abortions would be permitted only to protect the life or health of the pregnant individual, as determined by a healthcare professional​.

Currently, Arizona allows abortions up to 15 weeks, following a significant shift in state policy after the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade. Proposition 139 seeks to restore abortion rights similar to those before this ruling​. It would also protect individuals from penalties for assisting others in obtaining an abortion.

Proponents argue it would restore access to abortion as it existed prior to the Dobbs decision, providing essential protections for reproductive rights​. Supporters, including organizations like Arizona for Abortion Access, emphasize the importance of allowing individuals to make personal medical decisions without legislative interference​. They believe it reflects the values of Arizonans regarding bodily autonomy and reproductive choices.

Opponents warn that the proposition could eliminate existing safety regulations and parental consent requirements for minors seeking abortions, potentially leading to unsafe conditions​. Critics, including groups like “It Goes Too Far” and the “Alliance Defending Freedom,” argue that the amendment would allow for virtually unrestricted access to abortion, including late-term procedures​. Some opponents express concern about the lack of legal protections for minors and believe the measure would undermine safeguards currently in place​.

Check out AZPM’s campaign finance reporting on Prop 140.

Prop 140 Make Elections Fair, I-14-2024

Proposition 140 aims to transform the state's electoral system by eliminating partisan primaries. Instead, all candidates for a given office would appear on a single primary ballot, allowing voters to choose any candidate regardless of their political affiliation. This initiative also establishes uniform signature requirements for candidates and permits the legislature to determine how many candidates advance to the general election. Furthermore, if multiple candidates progress, ranked-choice voting (RCV) would be utilized in the general election​.

Support for Arizona Proposition 140, which seeks to eliminate partisan primaries in favor of a single, open primary system, comes from a diverse coalition including former public officials, civic organizations, and business leaders. Proponents argue that the current system is unfair to independent voters—who constitute a significant portion of the electorate—and that it limits democratic participation by requiring voters to choose a party affiliation to vote in primaries. Supporters believe that allowing all voters to participate in selecting candidates, regardless of party affiliation, will lead to more representative and less polarized governance. Key endorsements include the Center for the Future of Arizona and various health and business organizations that emphasize the need for equitable electoral processes.

On the other hand, opposition to Proposition 140 includes former judges and political insiders who argue that the proposed ranked-choice voting system could be confusing for voters. Critics also contend that eliminating partisan primaries could dilute party accountability and lead to unintended consequences, such as encouraging the election of more extreme candidates, which the current system is designed to mitigate​. The opposition expresses concerns about potential issues with ballot design and the practical implications of changing the primary system, emphasizing a preference for the existing structure which, they argue, helps to maintain clearer party lines​.

Check out AZPM’s campaign finance reporting on Prop 140. And check out this Buzz episode on how it would change our elections.

Prop 212 Raise the Wage AZ

Proposition 212, originally a proposed Arizona ballot initiative for 2024, aimed to increase the state's minimum wage by $1 per hour in both 2025 and 2026, with additional annual adjustments for inflation. It also sought to phase out the tip credit, a provision that allows employers to pay tipped workers below the standard minimum wage, provided they earn enough in tips to make up the difference. The initiative was backed by One Fair Wage, a national organization advocating for higher wages and the elimination of tip-based pay models.

Supporters of the initiative, such as One Fair Wage, argue that it would provide fairer wages to Arizona’s workforce, ensuring that tipped workers no longer rely on tips to reach minimum earnings. Alternatively, opposition from business organizations, particularly the Arizona Restaurant Association, focused on concerns that the increased wages and elimination of the tip credit could financially strain small businesses and potentially result in layoffs or price hikes to offset the higher labor costs.

However, the measure was withdrawn due to legal challenges and concerns over the validity of petition signatures collected by paid and out-of-state circulators, some of whom had not registered according to state law. The Arizona Restaurant Association, a major opponent, argued that eliminating the tip credit would impose undue costs on restaurants, potentially hurting small businesses and leading to higher prices for consumers. Consequently, One Fair Wage decided to focus on local minimum wage campaigns within Arizona communities rather than continuing the statewide initiative.

Prop 311 First Responder

Proposition 311 proposes a new benefit for the families of first responders—police officers, firefighters, and EMTs—killed in the line of duty. Specifically, the measure would create a $250,000 lump-sum payment to be given to the families of these individuals if they are killed as a result of criminal activity. Funding for this benefit would come from a $20 fee added to every criminal conviction in the state. The proposition also expands the definition of aggravated assault to include assaults on various types of first responders and increases the penalties for such crimes.

Supporters, including police unions and some lawmakers, argue that the new benefit would provide essential financial support for grieving families and help with the recruitment of first responders, who face increased risks. They also see it as a way for Arizonans to demonstrate support for law enforcement, especially in light of national discussions on police practices following incidents like George Floyd’s death. Some proponents also believe that this initiative will allow Arizona voters to show appreciation and backing for law enforcement professionals.

Opponents, including many state Democrats, don’t dispute the need for additional support for first responders but raise concerns about funding it through an additional fee on criminal convictions, given that Arizona already imposes numerous court fees. They argue that the general fund could more fairly fund this initiative instead of placing the burden on convicted individuals, who often already face significant financial penalties. Critics argue this structure might disproportionately impact lower-income people facing criminal charges, making it a less equitable approach to supporting public safety workers’ families.

Prop 312 Property Owner, Tax Refund

Arizona's Proposition 312 addresses tax adjustments related to public nuisances affecting property values, particularly in areas with significant homelessness and crime rates. The proposition would allow property owners to apply for tax relief if they believe nearby "unmitigated public nuisances," such as unsheltered homelessness or high crime, have negatively impacted their property value. If enacted, property owners could receive partial refunds on property taxes in these impacted areas by demonstrating financial loss associated with these issues.

Proponents argue that Proposition 312 is a way to protect property owners from depreciating property values caused by public nuisances. Supporters believe this approach could encourage local governments to take action on homelessness and crime issues, as financial implications might compel quicker or more effective management of these problems.

Opponents argue that Proposition 312 could enable tax breaks for property owners at the expense of general state revenue, potentially shifting the financial burden to other taxpayers. Critics, including civil rights organizations, argue that it criminalizes homelessness and may lead to increased policing of vulnerable communities rather than supporting long-term housing or social services solutions. Additionally, they worry that this policy could divert funds from other essential services due to revenue losses for the state or local governments.

Check out AZPM’s reporting on Prop 312.

Prop 313 Child Trafficking Sentencing

Proposition 313 seeks to increase penalties for those convicted of child sex trafficking. Under this measure, anyone convicted of a Class 2 felony for trafficking a minor would face a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole. This would replace the current sentencing range, which varies based on factors like the victim’s age and the offender’s criminal history, with minimums starting from 7 years to life.

Supporters argue that this harsh sentencing will send a strong deterrent message, positioning Arizona as unwelcoming to traffickers and ensuring dangerous individuals remain off the streets. Advocates like Rep. Selina Bliss and law enforcement officials highlight the necessity for a stringent penalty to protect Arizona’s children and eliminate leniency in cases involving child exploitation.

Opponents, including Rep. Analise Ortiz and some policy experts, argue that the proposal’s lack of judicial discretion could harm individuals who were coerced into trafficking, such as minors who were victims themselves. They warn that mandatory life sentences may not allow judges to consider mitigating circumstances in complex trafficking cases, potentially leading to unjust outcomes.

Prop 314 Benefits, False Information

Proposition 314, known as the “Secure the Border Act,” is aimed at enhancing the role of state and local law enforcement in immigration law enactment. If passed, it would make unauthorized entry into Arizona a state crime, grant state courts the authority to issue deportation orders, and criminalize the use of false documents for public benefits. The proposition also includes provisions to increase penalties for selling illicit fentanyl and mandates the use of E-Verify for public benefits eligibility.

Supporters argue that Proposition 314 addresses perceived shortcomings in federal immigration enforcement and increases community safety. They highlight the importance of securing the border to combat issues like illegal drug trafficking and stress the need for local law enforcement to have more tools for handling immigration matters. This initiative has also gained public support, with polling showing a majority of Arizonans in favor, especially for measures against drug trafficking.

Opponents, including Governor Katie Hobbs, criticize the proposition as economically and socially harmful. They argue it could lead to racial profiling, strain Arizona’s limited law enforcement resources, and damage community trust, particularly in immigrant communities. Critics also draw comparisons to Arizona’s 2010 SB 1070, which faced backlash and was largely invalidated by the courts. There are also concerns that Proposition 314 could face legal challenges on grounds of federal preemption, as immigration is typically under federal jurisdiction. Opponents further warn that such measures could harm Arizona’s economy, as seen with previous immigration laws that negatively impacted the state’s reputation and business environment.

Check out AZPM’s reporting on Prop 314 and about 314 fundraising.

Prop 315 Regulatory Costs

Proposition 315 focuses on increasing legislative oversight for state agency regulations that impose high financial burdens. If passed, it would require any new state agency rule that would result in regulatory costs over $500,000 within a five-year period to receive approval from the Arizona legislature before implementation. This requirement aims to prevent high-cost regulations from going into effect without legislative review.

Supporters argue that this measure promotes accountability and protects businesses and taxpayers from expensive regulatory burdens that could stifle economic growth. They believe that legislative oversight ensures a balance between necessary regulation and economic impact, potentially leading to more thoughtful policymaking that considers financial consequences.

Opponents, however, contend that Proposition 315 could delay or prevent important regulations, particularly those related to health and safety, by adding a layer of bureaucracy. They argue that requiring legislative approval could hinder state agencies from acting swiftly in cases where regulations are urgently needed, such as in environmental protections or public health measures, potentially risking lives and well-being.