Navigation

All 13 ballot measures Arizona voters will decide this November

GOP lawmakers referred 11 proposed laws to the ballot, while two others were added by citizen initiative.
Image: Someone in a Maricopa County voting booth
Ballots for the 2024 election will be long, with 11 lawmaker-referred measures on top of any citizen-led initiatives that collect enough signatures to qualify. Benjamin Leatherman

What happens on the ground matters — Your support makes it possible.

We’re aiming to raise $6,000 by August 10, so we can deepen our reporting on the critical stories unfolding right now: grassroots protests, immigration, politics and more.

Contribute Now

Progress to goal
$7,000
$700
Share this:
Carbonatix Pre-Player Loader

Audio By Carbonatix

Editor's note: This story was published June 25. It was updated on Oct. 8.

***

Get ready, Arizona — the ballot for November’s elections is going to be a seriously long document.

On top of the presidential, congressional and state legislature races, the ballot will contain 13 measures which voters will decide directly with a yes or no vote.

Eleven of those measures were referred to the ballot by Republican state lawmakers in an attempt to bypass vetoes from Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs. Eight of the measures passed on a party-line vote, while two had support from just four Democrats.

Ironically, several of the GOP-introduced measures target the process citizens can use to put measures on the ballot themselves. That’s largely seen as a Republican reaction to the likelihood of the Arizona Abortion Access Act, which would codify a right to abortion in the state constitution, reaching the ballot this fall.

The abortion amendment is one of two citizen-led initiatives that will appear on the ballot. The other is a provision to eliminate partisan primary elections, though the courts are still deciding whether to give it final approval. With a green light, it likely will compete against a contradictory ballot measure referred by GOP lawmakers. A third citizen-led initiative, to raise the minimum wage, was abandoned by its backers on Aug. 9.

The official ballot language for each measure was released on July 22. Here's what you need to know about every measure on the ballot. Five would alter state statutes, while eight would amend the state constitution.

Phoenix political consultant Chuck Coughlin is pushing an initiative that would oppose House Concurrent Resolution 2033, which would require partisan primary elections for partisan offices.
Gage Skidmore / Creative Commons

Prop. 133: Partisan primaries for partisan offices

HCR 2033: Change to Arizona Constitution

This measure would amend the Arizona Constitution to require partisan primary elections for partisan offices. It's a response to the voter-organized Make Elections Fair Act, which would turn primaries into nonpartisan contests.

That campaign is being organized by political consultant Chuck Coughlin, one of Arizona’s foremost Republican political consultants until 2017, when he left the party after former President Donald Trump disparaged then-Sen. John McCain and the party moved to the extreme right.

“To win a Republican primary, you just say a bunch of shit you don’t believe,” Coughlin told Phoenix New Times. “Twenty percent of Republican voters turn out in the primary.”

The measure Republicans referred to the ballot would ensure that Republican primaries continue to court extremist candidates.

Prop. 134: Changing voter initiative signature requirements

SCR 1015: Change to Arizona Constitution

Another measure would dramatically change the way signatures are gathered for citizen-led initiatives, making it more difficult to get them on the ballot.

Currently, the state constitution requires citizen initiatives that alter state law to collect signatures amounting to 10% of the number of votes cast in the last election for governor. For changes to the state constitution, like this year’s abortion rights initiatives, the threshold is 15%. It does not matter where in the state those signatures are collected.

This ballot measure would change the geographic calculus, requiring initiatives to reach the same signature thresholds in every single legislative district in the state. That essentially gives veto power to one outlier district, which critics fear the measure would stop most citizen-organized initiatives from making it to the ballot.

click to enlarge T-shirts, pens and an iPad placed on a table.
Two Republican-backed ballot measures appear targeted at popular citizen-led initiatives, such as the Arizona Abortion Access for All movement, that successfully bypass the state legislature to change Arizona law.
TJ L'Heureux

Prop: 135: Declaring emergencies

HCR 2039: Change to Arizona Constitution

This measure would give legislators power over state-of-emergency declarations, allowing them to terminate a state of emergency declared by the governor. Additionally, a state of emergency would expire after 30 days unless extended by lawmakers.

The exceptions are war-related emergencies, as well as fire and flood emergencies.

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club, which supports the measure, framed it as a matter of checks and balances in government. The Arizona Public Health Association opposes the bill, noting it would make it harder for leaders to manage emergencies.

“The recovery phase of emergency response would basically not happen. The flow of money and authority to do the recovery work would have ended,” the nonprofit wrote on its website. “There is no way to get a quorum & a majority of legislators to keep reauthorizing emergencies — especially when they’re not in session."

Prop: 136: Challenging initiatives’ constitutionality

SCR 1041: Change to state law

This law allows voter-organized constitutional amendments to be challenged in court after the measure is filed with the secretary of state’s office and before it's been placed on the ballot. Due to the costs of mounting ballot initiative campaigns, not to mention defending them in court, critics say this change would make successfully placing a measure on the ballot almost prohibitively difficult.

This initiative appears to be a response to the popularity of the Arizona Abortion Access Act, as well as past ballot measures that legalized marijuana and Prop 208, which gave more funding to public schools by increasing the income tax on people earning more than $250,000.

click to enlarge Sen. Shawnna Bolick
Despite an apparent conflict of interest, state Rep. Shawnna Bolick voted to refer to the ballot a proposed law that appears engineered to protect the job of her husband, Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick.
ACTV

Prop. 137: End term limits for state Supreme Court justices

SCR 1044: Change to Arizona Constitution

This measure would end term limits for state Supreme Court justices and superior court judges, removing most judges from the ballot’s judicial retention section.

Currently, voters have the power to remove judges from the bench at the end of their terms. Under SCR 1044, a judicial review commission would determine which judges behaved poorly enough to merit voters deciding their fates.

Here’s the kicker: It would apply retroactively.

That suggests it’s a naked attempt by Republicans to prevent two Arizona Supreme Court justices, Clint Bolick and Kathryn King, from being voted off the court. Both voted to restore Arizona’s 1864 near-total ban on abortion, which legislators later repealed, and have been the target of a progressive campaign trying to fire the justices through the ballot box. Notably, Bolick’s wife, state Sen. Shawnna Bolick, voted in favor of sending the measure to the ballot.

If approved in November, Bolick and King would remain on the court even if voters decided otherwise.

The measure has been challenged in a lawsuit from Progress Arizona. The organization claims that the measure’s name — “The Judicial Accountability Act of 2024” — is deceptive and misleading and that, because it aims to change more than one amendment of the state constitution, it violates the constitution’s single-subject rule for ballot measures.

Prop: 138: Reducing wages for tipped workers

SCR 1040: Change to Arizona Constitution

If approved, this measure would allow tipped workers to be paid 25% less than the minimum wage if income from tips passed a certain threshold. Notably, voters in 2016 bypassed the legislature to gradually raise the minimum wage from $8.05 to $12 over a four-year period.

Currently, tipped workers are paid $3 less than minimum wage workers. SCR 1040, dubbed the “Tipped Workers Protection Act,” would lower their wages slightly more.

The restaurant industry lobbied heavily for the bill, with the Arizona Restaurant Association arguing that paying tipped workers less would actually lead them to make more. However, the group Raise the Wage AZ is challenging the measure in court over what it says is a deceptive name.

“(SCR 1040) is a deliberate attempt by the Arizona Restaurant Association and its corporate lobbyists to deceive voters into cutting the wages of tipped service industry workers across the state by 25 percent,” the group said in a press release.

click to enlarge A waiter holding plates
The so-called "Tipped Workers Protection Act" would allow tipped workers like restaurant servers to be paid 25% less than the minimum wage if income from tips passes a certain threshold.
Jacob Tyler Dunn

Prop. 139: Expanding abortion access and freedom
Change to Arizona Constitution

Petitioners gathered more than 823,000 signatures in favor of a measure that would establish a fundamental right to abortion until fetal viability — and no, conservatives, that does not mean up until birth. It was officially added to the ballot on Aug. 21.

If approved, the amendment would do two main things — make abortion legal up to fetal viability; which typically occurs after 23 or 24 weeks of gestation; and prevent the state from enforcing laws that interfere with abortions if the pregnant person’s health is at risk.

The measure comes in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, which cleared the path for the Arizona Supreme Court to reinstate a near-total ban on abortion (even in cases of rape or incest) first passed in 1864. Three Republicans in the House and two in the Senate joined Democrats to narrowly overturn the law. A different state law, passed by Republicans prior to Roe being overturned, allows abortion up to 15 weeks.

Advocates behind Prop. 139 argue abortion rights need to be enshrined in the constitution to prevent Republicans from outright banning the procedure should they ever regain the governorship along with both houses of the Arizona Legislature.

Arizona Right to Life sued to block Prop. 139 from reaching the ballot, claiming it was too confusing to understand. The Arizona Supreme Court rejected the argument. However, the court signed off on printing voter information pamphlets including the term “unborn human being,” which was chosen by Republicans despite complaints from the measure’s proponents that the language was misleading.

Prop. 140: Eliminating partisan primaries

Change to Arizona Constitution

The initiative was organized by Coughlin to make primaries less extreme. If approved, it would replace partisan primaries with an open primary system. That means voters would cast primary ballots for candidates from all parties, after which the top vote-getters would face off in the general election. Even though Prop. 133 comes numerically before this measure, it was developed in response to it. In essence, the two propositions are opposites.

This measure garnered almost 600,000 signatures, though many were found to be duplicates after the measure was added to the ballot and ballots began printing. In October, however, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that votes for Prop. 140 will be counted regardless of the signature issues.

Prop. 311: Conviction fee

SCR 1006: Change to state law

The measure would require a $20 fee to be tacked on to every criminal conviction, placing the money in a fund for spouses or children of first responders and police officers who are killed in the line of duty.

If approved, the family of any killed first responder or officer would receive $250,000. That is in addition to a federal program that gives $422,035 to the families of police officers who die while working. The Arizona pension system also gives a benefit to the surviving family members of police officers, firefighters and corrections officers.

While the measure passed on a party-line vote in the Arizona Senate, it had support from more than half of Democrats in the House.

click to enlarge A row of tents at a homeless encampment
Proposition 312, referred to the ballot by GOP lawmakers, would allow property owners to apply for tax refunds if their city doesn't enforce laws to curb homelessness.
Katya Schwenk

Prop. 312: Property tax refunds for public nuisance

HCR 2023: Change to state law

If this measure is approved, property owners could apply for tax refunds if their city is not enforcing laws that target unhoused people.

It is another effort taken by Republicans to force cities’ hands in taking an even more severe approach to policing homelessness and comes after property owners in the Zone successfully sued to break up the large encampment in the area.

"Arizonans cannot trust the government to address rampant homelessness,” said Victor Riches, president and CEO of Goldwater Institute.

The measure is opposed by the group lobbying for local governments.

"This measure is setting everyone up to fail,” said Tom Savage, the legislative director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns. “It will not solve the homelessness crisis or make homelessness encampments go away."

Prop. 313: Life imprisonment for child sex trafficking

SCR 1021: Change to Arizona Constitution

This proposed constitutional amendment would require life in prison for anyone convicted of child sex trafficking. But critics warn that people who were originally victims of sex trafficking could also be locked away forever after being pulled into a vicious cycle of coercing others.

State Rep. Analise Ortiz failed to get Republicans to amend the legislation to exempt those victims.

“This is something that the experts in sex trafficking know it happens that there are victims who are used to coerce other victims into the trade,” Ortiz said. “That is the harsh reality, and we do not want those minors who have been severely traumatized locked up because of this bill.”

click to enlarge Lukeville, U.S. Mexico border
A U.S. Border Patrol agent shouts at immigrants who cut into a long line of people awaiting transport from the U.S.-Mexico border on Dec. 6 in Lukeville.
John Moore/Getty Images

Prop. 314: The “Secure the Border Act”

HCR 2060: Change to state law

The most high-profile lawmaker referral on the ballot, House Concurrent Resolution 2060 is a sprawling Republican wishlist of immigration measures. Republicans insist it will help Arizona deal with increased migration at the southern border with Mexico, while critics say it’s a spiritual successor to Arizona’s notorious SB 1070 law that led to widespread racial profiling. The U.S Supreme Court mostly struck down SB 1070 in 2012.

If approved, HCR 2060 would make it a state crime to illegally cross the border — it is currently a federal crime only — and grant enforcement power to state and local officials. Those officials also would receive civil immunity shielding them from lawsuits. In addition, the measure would criminalize undocumented Arizonans who submit false information to apply for public benefits.

HCR 2060 would also make it a more severe crime to knowingly sell fentanyl that results in a person’s death.

The measure and its provisions could be illegal, though one potential challenge already has been struck down. On Friday, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled that HCR 2060 does not violate the state's single-subject requirement, which mandates that all ballot measures adhere to one topic. However, the proposed law may face other legal challenges.

The measure is based on a Texas law, the constitutionality of which is currently being decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals. The measure also could run afoul of a state requirement that all lawmaker ballot referrals include a guaranteed funding source. A conservative estimate suggests HCR 2060 would cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars to implement that hasn’t been reserved in the state budget. Another estimate projects the measure will have an annual price tag of $3.2 billion.

Prop. 315: Preventing regulations that cost more than $500,000

SCR 1012: Change to state law

By far the most boring of the 11 measures – though still consequential – is this one banning any state agency-issued regulations estimated to cost more than $500,000 within five years of their implementation. Unless, that is, they’re approved by the legislature.

Essentially, the measure claws power away from the executive branch of state government and puts it in the hands of the state Legislature.