Border policy, abortion rights, and election procedures are just a few of the hot-button propositions Arizonans voted on in the November election.
Below is a breakdown of each ballot proposition and the live race results.
PROPOSITION 133
Proposition 133 would enshrine the current partisan primary system in the Arizona Constitution. This constitutional amendment would require partisan primary elections for partisan offices.
Supporters of Prop. 133 say it protects Arizona’s primary system, lets voters continue to choose which candidates of their political party will appear on the general election ballot and prevents one-party dominance in a general election. Backers note that two-thirds of Arizonans are registered with a political party.
Opponents of Prop. 133 say it locks in the current partisan primary system, protects two-party politics, excludes independent voters and would be difficult to reform if passed because it's a constitutional amendment.
***
PROPOSITION 134
Proposition 134 would change the signature requirements to get a citizen initiative or constitutional amendment on Arizona’s ballot. Currently, the number of signatures needed is a percentage of the statewide votes cast in the most recent election for governor. This constitutional amendment would require groups to gather signatures at least 10% of the votes cast for governor in each of the state’s 30 legislative districts for citizen initiatives and 15% for constitutional amendments.
Supporters of Prop. 134 say it would ensure that rural voters have a say in which proposals make the ballot and would discourage outside groups from gathering signatures in only Maricopa and Pima counties.
Opponents of Prop. 134 call the measure an attempt to kill citizen initiatives and say the proposition would make it more expensive to get measures on the ballot, discouraging grassroots groups and favoring wealthy national groups.
***
PROPOSITION 135
Proposition 135 would give the Arizona Legislature power over declarations of emergencies issued by the governor. This constitutional amendment would give state lawmakers the authority to end a state of emergency and would require their approval for an emergency declaration to last longer than 30 days.
Emergencies related to fires, floods or war would be exempt.
Supporters of Prop. 135 say it would be a common-sense limitation on the governor and a reasonable check on government power.
Opponents of Prop. 135 say it would add bureaucratic red tape and delays to emergency response. Other foes do not believe emergency powers are constitutional and object to adding the authority of a governor to call a state of emergency to the Arizona Constitution.
The reason this proposition is on the ballot goes back to the COVID-19 pandemic, when some say governors and lawmakers abused their emergency powers to combat the health crisis.
***
PROPOSITION 136
Proposition 136 would allow people to challenge the constitutionality of ballot initiatives and constitutional amendments before they are voted on. This constitutional amendment would allow courts to hear constitutional challenges to citizen initiatives or constitutional amendments at least 100 days before Election Day. If the measure is ruled to violate either the U.S. or Arizona Constitution, it will not appear on the ballot. Under current law, courts hear such challenges after voters have passed an initiative.
Supporters of Prop. 136 say it would ensure voters do not see unconstitutional measures on their ballot.
Opponents of Prop. 136 say it would make it more expensive to get initiatives on the ballot because organizers will need to budget for expensive court battles.
***
PROPOSITION 137
Proposition 137 would end regular retention elections for Arizona judges and justices.
This constitutional amendment would change the state’s retention system for Arizona Supreme Court justices, Arizona Court of Appeals judges, and Superior Court judges in counties with more than 250,000 residents.
Instead of going up for election after a set term, judges would only face voters for a retention election for poor performance, a felony conviction, a conviction involving fraud or dishonesty, a personal bankruptcy, or a foreclosure.
Read more on the changes that would be brought if Proposition 137 passes.
Supporters of Prop. 137 say the removal of regular judicial elections would make ballots shorter, keep big-money donors out of the judicial system and preserve the independence of the judiciary. Proponents also say it would improve accountability because only judges with ethical lapses or poor performance would face voters.
Opponents of Prop. 137 say the measure would remove public oversight of judges, take power away from Arizona voters, result in lifetime judicial appointments until age 70 and politicize the JPR Commission. Critics also say the retroactive clause would disenfranchise voters this year if they vote out any judges.
***
PROPOSITION 138
Proposition 138, the "Tipped Workers Protection" proposition would change the subminimum wage for tipped workers in Arizona. Under current state law, employers can pay tipped workers $3 less than the state hourly minimum wage. That amount is referred to as the “tip credit.” This constitutional amendment would change the tip credit to 25% of the state’s minimum wage, meaning employers could pay tipped workers 25% less than Arizona’s hourly minimum wage. Employers could pay this subminimum wage as long as workers make at least $2 more than the state’s regular hourly minimum wage once tips are added in.
Supporters of Prop 138 say the measure protects the restaurant industry’s tip credit system and provides a stable income by guaranteeing that tipped workers will make at least $2 per hour more than the state’s minimum wage.
Opponents of Prop 138 say the measure would cut pay for tipped workers while increasing profits for restaurant owners and shifting labor costs from restaurant owners to customers.
***
PROPOSITION 139
Proposition 139 would protect abortion in Arizona by putting the right to an abortion in the state constitution.
Since the ending of Roe vs. Wade, there has been a roller coaster of events regarding abortion in Arizona. At first, it was not clear which law would go into place regarding abortions in the state, but Arizona's Supreme Court ruled that the law of the land would be a near-total abortion ban that dated back to the 1800s. After the ruling, the Arizona state legislature passed a bill to repeal the law, which Gov. Katie Hobbs signed. While the territorial ban went into effect for a brief time, it was immediately challenged in the courts and was not enforced.
According to the AZ Secretary of State, Arizona for Abortion Access received close to 200,000 more valid signatures than needed to make the ballot. Critics of Prop 139, like the group "It Goes Too Far", say the measure's language is too vague and will create medical safety concerns.
Supporters of Prop 139 say it keeps healthcare decisions in the hands of patients, their family, and their doctors while restoring healthcare protection women had under Roe.
Opponents of Prop 139 say it removes safety standards at abortion clinics and that the language of the proposition is too vague, denying legislators the ability to regulate abortion in any meaningful way.
***
PROPOSITION 140
Proposition 140 would create an open primary system in Arizona, ending partisan primaries.
The Make Elections Fair Act would open up the primary for partisan races to all candidates, even independents. Currently, Republicans and Democrats only face members of their own party in the primary.
This constitutional amendment would allow two to eight candidates to advance to the general election, with the Legislature deciding how many candidates move forward for each office. If state lawmakers do not pass a law that sets how many candidates advance, the Arizona secretary of state would decide. And if lawmakers, or the secretary of state, choose to advance three or more candidates to the general election for a single seat, ranked-choice voting will be required. Lawmakers can pass a law laying out how the ranking process works. If they do not, the Arizona secretary of state will determine the process.
Prop. 140 would also put independent candidates, who under current Arizona law must gather more than five times as many petition signatures to qualify for the ballot, on equal footing with candidates who belong to political parties.
A debate on Prop. 140 was held on Thursday, September 26. You can watch the debate by clicking here.
Supporters of Prop 140 say it reduces the effects of gerrymandering, gives more power to unaffiliated and independent voters and provides more motivation for everyone to vote in the primary elections. Backers also say Arizona’s current system favors extreme voices and discourages moderate points of view.
Opponents of Prop 140 say it could lead to all candidates in a general election being from the same party, would confuse voters, would not protect each party’s representation and would prolong ballot counting. Foes also say ranked-choice voting undermines the principle of "one person, one vote" and would lead to incomplete ballots being submitted by accident.
It was not always 100% certain that Prop. 140 would even be counted because a challenge to the measure made it all the way to the Arizona Supreme Court. However, on Friday, October 4, the Arizona Supreme Court announced that it has ruled to dismiss the challenge against Prop. 140.
***
PROPOSITION 311
Proposition 311 would create a death benefit for the families of first responders who die in the line of duty.
This measure would establish a state death benefit of $250,000 for the surviving spouse or children of peace officers, firefighters, fire marshals, fire inspectors, emergency care technicians, paramedics, tribal police officers, members of the Arizona National Guard and DOC correctional officers who are killed in the line of duty during a criminal act. A $20 penalty fee on every criminal conviction will pay for the benefit.
Prop. 311 would also mandate tougher penalties for aggravated assault against peace officers and other first responders until Jan. 1, 2033.
Supporters of Prop. 311 say it shows support for first responders, whose agencies face staffing shortages, and protects their families.
Opponents of Prop. 311 say legislators should fund the death benefit in the state budget instead of a fee on convictions.
***
PROPOSITION 312
Proposition 312 would permit property owners to apply for a refund to reimburse expenses incurred to mitigate public nuisances on the property related to a city, town or county’s refusal to enforce ordinances on illegal camping, obstructing a public thoroughfare, loitering, panhandling, urinating or defecating in public, public consumption of alcoholic beverages or the use of illegal substances.
Supporters of Prop. 312 say it would compensate businesses and property owners for expenses incurred from homelessness, encourage municipalities to address homelessness and public nuisances such as the former “The Zone” encampment in Phoenix and hold local governments accountable.
Opponents of Prop. 312 say it would diminish revenue for municipalities, criminalize people who are experiencing homelessness, hurt efforts to address homelessness, offer tax breaks to corporations and businesses.
***
PROPOSITION 313
Proposition 313 would mandate a sentence of life without parole for people convicted of child sex trafficking.
Under current state law, someone convicted of a Class 2 child sex trafficking felony can be sentenced to seven years up to life in prison.
Supporters of Prop. 313 say life sentences would protect children from sex traffickers, ensure justice for victims, serve as a strong deterrent, and prevent harm to additional victims.
Opponents of Prop. 313 say victims of trafficking who are coerced by their abusers could be sentenced to life in prison, that Arizona already has severe sentences for sex trafficking and that judges should have discretion to determine sentences based on individual circumstances.
***
PROPOSITION 314
Among other border security changes, Proposition 314 would make crossing the border illegally a state crime, thus allowing local and state law enforcement to arrest those suspected of doing so.
The proposition would also stiffen penalties for some fentanyl sales cases, criminalize providing false documents for benefits/jobs, and require agencies to check someone’s legal status before giving them those public benefits.
It was created by Republican lawmakers with the help of the Arizona Sheriff’s Association and mirrors Texas’ SB4, which is currently held up in court.
Supporters of Prop. 314 say the law is necessary to secure the border, as they believe the federal government has failed to do so amid record migrant encounters last year and large quantities of drugs like fentanyl being found during smuggling attempts at ports of entry.
Opponents of Prop. 314 worry that the measure could lead to racial profiling, have a costly impact on local law enforcement, and harm employment.
If passed, the part of the proposition making illegally crossing the border a crime would not necessarily go into law. The text says that it cannot be enforced until SB4 or any other similar law in another state has been in effect for at least 60 days. Since SB4 is currently being challenged in court, this part of Prop. 314 would have to wait until a decision is made to take effect.
***
PROPOSITION 315
Proposition 315 would require legislation to enact a proposed rule if the Office of Economic Opportunity determines it would increase regulatory costs by more than $100,000 within five years. If the Legislature does not pass legislation, the agency would be required to terminate the proposed rule. Prop. 315 would not apply to the Arizona Corporation Commission.
Supporters of Prop. 315 say it would ensure agency rules are consistent with legislative intent, provide checks and balances, prevent unelected bureaucrats from creating policies with the force of law and that legislative involvement in rulemaking would give citizens a voice in regulations.
Opponents of Prop. 315 say it would concentrate more power in the Legislature, add red tape and partisan fighting to rulemaking, politicize the regulatory process, make it more difficult to pass rules, allow lawmakers to overrule experts, undermine state agencies, and create obstacles to government reform.