Election officials say general election ballots will be two pages long for the first time since 2006 in Maricopa County — and that includes 13 statewide ballot measures.
Here's what each ballot measure would do.
Proposition 133: Partisan primaries
Proposition 133 would amend the state Constitution to require partisan primary elections for all partisan offices. It would only allow political parties to nominate the same number of candidates as the positions open in the general election. That is how statewide elections already function, but this would prospectively block an effort to create ranked choice voting in Arizona. This measure was referred to the ballot by Republican state lawmakers.
What a yes or no vote means
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to require that when the Legislature enacts laws regulating direct primary elections for partisan offices, those laws shall supersede any city law, regulation, or policy to the contrary. The primaries would be conducted in a manner so that each political party represented on the ballot may nominate for each office a number of candidates equal to the number of positions to be filled for that office in the ensuing general election and requires eligible candidates who are nominated at a primary election to be placed on the next general election ballot.
A “no” vote means language requiring partisan primaries will not be added to the state Constitution.
Proposition 134: Changes to citizen initiatives
Proposition 134 would change Arizona’s citizen initiative process to require proponents of a measure to gather signatures from everywhere in the state to get something on the ballot. Arizonans currently have the power to get an initiative or referendum measure placed on the ballot if they collect enough valid signatures from fellow Arizonans anywhere in the state. This measure would require proponents of a statewide initiative to collect signatures from at least 15% of the people in each of Arizona’s 30 legislative districts spanning the entire state for constitutional amendments. For statutory amendments, it would require proponents of a measure to collect 10% of the signatures of the Arizonans in each legislative district. The measure was referred to the ballot by Republican state lawmakers in 2023.
What a yes or no vote means
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to require an applicant wishing to place a statewide measure on the ballot to collect a certain percentage of signatures in each of the 30 legislative districts, rather than a percentage of the total number of statewide voters. Signatures from 10% of the voters in each district would be required for a statewide initiative to appear on the ballot. Signatures from 15% of the voters in each district would be required for an amendment to the Arizona Constitution to appear on the ballot. Signatures from 5% of the voters in each district would be required for a statewide referendum to appear on the ballot. If a proposed measure does not obtain the minimum percentage of signatures in any one of the 30 legislative districts, it would fail to qualify for the ballot, and would not be presented to voters.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of keeping the current constitutional language requiring only the signatures of 10% of the total number of statewide voters for an initiative to amend a statute, 15% of statewide voters for a constitutional amendment, and 5% of statewide voters for a referendum.
Proposition 135: State of emergency powers
Proposition 135 would give the state Legislature the authority to end a state of emergency and to alter the emergency powers of the governor. Under current law; the governor can declare a “state of emergency” under certain dangerous conditions such as a natural disaster or epidemic. This measure would terminate a state of emergency after 30 days unless the Legislature extends it unless the emergency is caused by war, a flood or fire. The measure was referred to the ballot by Republican state lawmakers in 2023.
What a yes or no vote means
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to automatically terminate any emergency powers granted to the Governor thirty days after the date the state of emergency was proclaimed, unless the Legislature extends the emergency powers granted to the Governor or the emergency relates to war, fire, or flood. If the Legislature does not extend the emergency, the Governor may not declare a new state of emergency arising under the same conditions. Additionally, if requested by at least one-third of the members of each house of the Legislature, the Governor must promptly call a special session for the purposes of terminating or altering the emergency powers granted to the Governor during the state of emergency.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current emergency powers of the Governor.
More On Arizona Prop. 135
Proposition 135 could restrict Arizona governor's emergency powers
Proposition 136: Ballot measure challenges
Proposition 136 would allow Arizonans to challenge the legality of potential ballot measures before they’re voted on. Under current law, a measure can only face constitutional challenges after it’s been enacted by Arizona voters. Under Prop. 136, if a court finds a proposed measure is unconstitutional, then the Secretary of State’s Office would not be allowed to print it on ballots. The measure was referred to the ballot by Republican state lawmakers in 2024.
What a yes or no vote means
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to allow lawsuits regarding the constitutionality of a voter-initiated ballot measure to be filed at least 100 days prior to the election, in order to stop the measure from being placed on the official ballot. If a challenged voter-initiated ballot measure were found unconstitutional, the Secretary of State or another officer in charge of elections would be prohibited from placing it on the official ballot.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of preserving the current state of the law, which typically requires challenges to the constitutionality of a voter-initiated ballot measure to be brought only after the voters have decided to approve a ballot measure.
Proposition 137: Judicial retention
Proposition 137 would put an end to term limits for Arizona Supreme Court justices and some other judges who are up for retention every few years under the current state system. If Prop. 137 passes, voters would no longer choose whether to retain those justices. Instead, they would serve as long as they remain on terms of good behavior. Any justices on the November ballot would also automatically stay in office if the measure passes, even if voters choose to reject them. The measure was referred to the ballot by Republican state lawmakers in 2024.
What a yes or no vote means
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to eliminate judicial terms for judges of the Arizona Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, and judges of the Superior Court in counties with more than 250,000 people. Voters will no longer have the ability to decide whether to retain those judges at the end of their judicial terms. Those judges would instead be subject to a retention election only if they were convicted of a felony or a crime involving fraud or dishonesty; were a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding; held a mortgage under foreclosure; or did not meet performance standards according to the Commission on Judicial Performance Review. The House of Representatives and the Senate will each be able to appoint one member to the Commission. If any legislator asks the Commission to investigate whether a judge has engaged in misconduct, the Commission must investigate that allegation. If approved, these amendments will apply retroactively such that votes cast in the November 2024 election about whether to retain a judge will not be given effect.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current system of voters deciding whether to retain a judge at the end of their judicial term.
More On Arizona Prop. 137
Watch the debate over Prop. 137, judicial retention
Arizona voters get a say in whether judges keep their jobs. Prop. 137 would eliminate that choice
Former AZ Supreme Court chief justice on Prop. 137: Changes shouldn't undermine system
Proposition 138: Tipped workers
Proposition 138 would allow employers to pay their employees up to 25% less than the minimum wage if those employees are paid the equivalent of the minimum wage plus $2 per hour due to tips. Under current Arizona law, employers may pay tipped workers $3 less than the minimum wage per hour if the employee makes at least the minimum wage factoring in tips. The measure was referred to the ballot by Republican state lawmakers in 2024 and is supported by the Arizona Restaurant Association.
What a yes or no vote means
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to allow employers to pay employees up to 25% less than the minimum hourly wage if the employer can establish that the employee’s wage plus tips or gratuities is at least $2 more than the minimum wage for every hour worked.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current laws regarding minimum wage.
More On Prop. 138
The case for and against Prop. 138 — does it protect tipped workers in Arizona?
Prop. 138 would change the Arizona tip credit system, but critics warn of wage cuts
Proposition 139: Right to abortion
Proposition 139 would establish a right to abortion in Arizona’s Constitution. Under current state law, abortions are legal until 15 weeks of pregnancy. Prop. 139 would legalize abortions through fetal viability — which is around 24 weeks gestation — unless a health-care professional determines an abortion is necessary to protect “the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant individual.”
What a yes or no vote means
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of creating a fundamental right to abortion under Arizona’s constitution. The State will not be able to interfere with this fundamental right before fetal viability unless it has a compelling reason and does so in the least restrictive way possible. Fetal viability means the point in the pregnancy when, in the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus. Throughout the pregnancy, both before and after fetal viability, the State will not be able to interfere with the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional that an abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant individual. The State will not be able to penalize any person for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the right to an abortion.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of not creating a fundamental right to have an abortion under Arizona’s constitution, will leave in place current laws that restrict abortion before fetal viability, and will allow the State to further restrict or ban abortion in the future.
More On Arizona Prop. 139
Arizona's 15-week abortion law leaves some women behind, Prop. 139 proponents say
2024 won’t be the first time Arizona votes on abortion. In 1992, it ended in a landslide
Anti-abortion advocate admits Arizona Prop. 139 is 'probably going to pass'
As Arizona voting begins, abortion rights is top issue for Democrats
Proposition 140: Open primaries
Proposition 140, also called the Make Elections Fair Act, is a citizen initiative that would create an open primary election system in Arizona. Under that system, all candidates for a specific office would run against each other in a single primary election, regardless of their political affiliation. The measure would then give lawmakers the option to create a top-two general election featuring the top primary candidates, regardless of party, or a ranked-choice voting general election featuring more than two candidates. The open system would replace Arizona’s traditional partisan primary in which voters who are registered with a party can only vote in that party’s primary election. Under the current system, independent voters are allowed to opt in to participate in one party’s primary.
What a yes or no vote means
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of allowing all eligible voters to vote for any primary election candidate, regardless of party affiliation; imposing the same signature requirements on all candidates for a given office who wish to appear on the primary ballot; generally prohibiting the use of public funds for political party elections; allowing future law to determine how many candidates advance from the primary election, as well as the process by which candidates are elected at the general election; and if future law provides that three or more candidates may advance to the general election for an office to which one candidate will be elected, voter rankings shall be used.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining current requirements related to primary and general elections processes.
More About Arizona Prop. 140
Watch the debate over Arizona Prop. 140, partisan primaries
Backers of Arizona Prop. 140 have raised $10 million, according to campaign finance report
AZ Supreme Court: Arizonans can vote on 'open primaries' ballot measure
Proposition 311: First responder death payment
The Arizona Legislature sent Proposition 311 to the ballot. If passed, the proposition would create a new $250,000 death benefit payment for the spouse or children of a first responder who is killed in the line of duty. It would establish a $20 penalty levied against all criminal convictions to pay for the benefit. If the balance in the death benefit fund exceeds $2 million, the Legislature could also use the money to pay for peace officer training, equipment and other benefits. The law would also broaden the law that sets the parameters for when a person is guilty of aggravated assault. Under current law, an assault charge can be upgraded to aggravated assault if the crime is committed against a peace officer; Prop. 311 would add all first responders to that list. It would also increase the criminal punishments faced by individuals accused of committing aggravated assault against peace officers.
What a yes or no vote means
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of requiring the State of Arizona to pay $250,000, which would be referred to as the State Death Benefit, to the surviving spouse or children of a first responder killed in the line of duty; creating a State Supplemental Benefit Fund to pay the State Death Benefit; increasing criminal punishments for aggravated assaults against peace officers and other first responders; and require a $20 penalty fee be imposed on every criminal conviction to fund the State Supplemental Benefit Fund. The State Death Benefit, $20 penalty fee, and increased criminal punishments for aggravated assaults would expire on January 1, 2033.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of not requiring the State of Arizona to provide a State Death Benefit for first responders killed in the line of duty.
More On Arizona Prop. 311
Prop. 311 would give an extra state benefit to the families of first responders killed on the job
Proposition 312: Property tax refund
Republican lawmakers sent Proposition 312 to the ballot. It would give property owners the opportunity to apply for a property tax refund once per year between 2025 and 2035 to offset expenses they incurred due to a city, town or county’s failure to address a public nuisances, including illegal camping, obstructing roadways, loitering, panhandling, public urination or public consumption of drugs or alcohol. The law would allow property owner to recoup the cost of documented expenses not to exceed the total primary property tax the property owner paid to the responsible municipality in the prior year.
What a yes or no vote means
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of establishing the right to apply for a refund from a property owner’s most recent property tax payment up to an amount that matches costs incurred by the property owner to mitigate the effects of a governing authority’s repeated failure to enforce laws and ordinances prohibiting illegal camping, loitering, obstructing public thoroughfares, panhandling, public urination or defecation, public consumption of alcoholic beverages, and possession or use of illegal substances. If the documented costs exceed the amount of the most recent property tax bill, the property owner would be permitted to apply for a refund from their next property tax payment(s) to cover the balance of the initial claim. Property owners would be eligible annually for refunds until the taxing entity begins enforcing the relevant public nuisance laws.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current primary property tax payment laws and regulations.
More On Arizona Prop. 312
Under Prop. 312, Arizona property owners could get tax refunds for 'nuisances'
Díaz and Kwok: Prop. 312 is a power grab, but cities must act faster on homelessness
Proposition 313: Child sex trafficking sentence
If passed, Proposition 313, which was sent to the ballot by the Arizona Legislature, would create a mandatory life sentence for individuals convicted of a Class 2 felony for child sex trafficking. Under current Arizona law, a person convicted of Class 2 felony for child sex trafficking faces a prison sentence of seven years to life in prison depending on a number of circumstances, including the age of the victim, the nature of the crime and the person’s prior convictions.
What a yes or no vote means
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of eliminating the current sentencing ranges for a Class 2 child sex trafficking conviction. The sentence for a person convicted of a Class 2 felony for child sex trafficking would be imprisonment for natural life without the possibility of release.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current statutory sentencing ranges for those convicted of a Class 2 felony for child sex trafficking. The current sentencing ranges are between 7 years and natural life imprisonment without the possibility of release, depending on the age of the victim, the defendant’s criminal history, and other factors.
Proposition 314: Secure the Border Act
Proposition 314, also called the Secure Border Act, was referred to the ballot by Republican lawmakers. The broad border and immigration legislation was inspired by Texas’ SB 2 and would create a new state law criminalizing crossing Arizona’s border with Mexico outside a legal port of entry. That is already illegal under federal law, but Prop. 314 would give sheriffs, local police and state law enforcement the power to enforce that prohibition. If voters approve the proposition, that section of the law would only go into effect after the Texas law, which is currently facing federal court challenges, is allowed to be implemented. Prop. 314 would also create new penalties for individuals who use fraudulent documents to obtain employment or public benefits. It would also create increased penalties for individuals convicted of knowingly selling fentanyl that originated outside of the U.S. that led to the death of another person.
What a yes or no vote means
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of creating new crimes regarding the following conduct by any person not lawfully present in the United States: (1) applying for a public benefit by submitting a false document; (2) submitting false information to an employer regarding the person’s authorization to work in the United States; (3) entering Arizona from a foreign country at any location other than a lawful port of entry; (4) refusing to comply with a court order to return to the person’s country of origin or entry. Also creates a new crime of selling fentanyl that causes the death of another person. Requires state courts to issue an order to return to a foreign country if a person is convicted of the illegal entry crime. The order to return must include an authorization allowing state and local law enforcement to transport the person to a port of entry or into federal custody.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current criminal and procedural laws.
More On Arizona Prop. 314
Watch the debate over Prop. 314, Secure the Border Act
Polls show broad voter support for Arizona Prop. 314. But there's opposition across party lines
Arizona border sheriff opposes Republican border security ballot measure Prop. 314
Proposition 315: Regulatory rule changes
Sent to the ballot by Republican lawmakers, Proposition 315 would require state agencies to submit proposed regulatory rule changes to the Legislature for approval if the proposed rule is estimated to increase regulatory costs by more than $500,000 within five years. The law would allow any legislator or person affected by the rule to ask the Office of Economic Opportunity to review a proposed rule change to determine if it meets the threshold for legislative review. The new law would not apply to the Arizona Corporation Commission or emergency rules.
What a yes or no vote means
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of requiring state agencies to submit any proposed rule that is estimated to increase regulatory costs by more than $100,000 within five years after implementation to the Office of Economic Opportunity for review. If the Office of Economic Opportunity determines that the proposed rule is estimated to increase regulatory costs by more than $500,000 within five years after implementation, the proposed rule shall not become effective unless the Legislature enacts legislation ratifying the proposed rule. The Corporation Commission and emergency rules are exempt from this act.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current laws related to state agency rulemaking.
This story was produced by KJZZ, the public radio station in Phoenix, and published by KNAU as part of the Arizona Public Media Exchange.