State Propositions
Prop. 133 (Referred by the state legislature) Vote NO
Would amend the AZ Constitution to enshrine Arizona’s current partisan primary system. This would ban any local efforts to change voting methods to allow ranked-choice voting, for instance, or any other way cities and their residents may want to run their elections.
This proposition conflicts with Prop. 140. If both Prop. 133 and Prop 140 pass in November, the one with the most votes will “win” and the state constitution will be amended.
F3 recommends a NO vote because it would remove the ability of Arizona cities and counties to adopt an election system that differs from the current partisan primary system.
Prop. 134 (Referred by the state legislature) Vote NO
Would amend the AZ Constitution to further restrict the state’s initiative and referendum process by requiring signatures for ballot measures to be collected from a certain percentage of voters from each of the 30 legislative districts: ten percent for initiatives and 15% for constitutional amendments. 150,000 signatures are currently required to put a proposed change to state law on a statewide ballot, and more than 225,000 to change the state constitution.
F3 recommends a NO vote because it would make it more difficult and much more expensive for Arizonans to use the citizen initiative process to place questions on the ballot.
Prop. 135 (Referred by the state legislature) Vote NO
Would amend the AZ Constitution to automatically end the governor’s special powers for any emergency declaration after 30 days unless the legislature votes to extend them. Prop. 135 would jeopardize federal funding for emergencies while legislators argue about whether a declared emergency is still valid. This could endanger citizens who need immediate assistance. It can take decades to address many emergencies and some emergency declarations, such as the 1999 drought declaration which is still in place.
F3 recommends a NO vote.
Prop. 136 (Referred by the state legislature) Vote NO
Would amend the AZ Constitution to allow anyone to sue to invalidate citizen initiatives, even before the initiative is placed on the ballot (on the grounds that it is not constitutional). And, the initiative would be thrown off the ballot despite receiving enough qualified signatures if a judge agrees with plaintiffs. This would require that citizen groups defend against lawsuits prior to knowing if the voters passed the initiative.
F3 recommends a NO vote because it would significantly hamper the ability of citizens to place initiatives on the ballot.
Prop. 137 (Referred by the state legislature) Vote NO
Would amend the AZ Constitution to allow all appellate and Supreme Court judges, as well as judges in the four most populous counties, to never face a retention vote but instead, serve until the mandatory retirement age of 70. Currently judges face public retention elections every 4-6 years which allows voters to revoke their terms. If Proposition 137 passes, it would remove any public oversight and would also be applied retroactively so that any votes to not retain judges up for retention this fall would be disregarded. Evaluation of the judges’ performance would instead be the responsibility of the legislature.
F3 recommends a NO vote because it would remove public oversight of state judges.
Prop. 138 (Referred by the state legislature) Vote NO
Would amend the AZ Constitution to allow businesses to pay employees who work for tips 25% less than the minimum wage. Under current law, businesses outside of cities with their own tipped worker minimum wage, can pay tipped workers $3 less than the current minimum wage. If Prop. 138 is passed, tipped employees could receive a 25% lower hourly wage than the current minimum wage. With the current state minimum wage set at $14.35, this would bring hourly wages down to $10.76 for tipped employees. This is less than the $11.35/hour tipped workers currently receive. Tipped workers in Flagstaff would have their tipped wage cut from $16.85 to $13.39 on January 1st. As the minimum wage goes up the cuts will be deeper.
F3 recommends a NO vote. Tipped workers are harmed by reducing their hourly rate. And because this is a constitutional amendment it would override the tipped wage workers provisions of Flagstaff’s minimum wage law passed by Flagstaff voters in 2016 and reaffirmed by the voters again in 2018.
Prop. 139 (Citizens Initiative – voters put this on the ballot by collecting the required number of signatures) Vote YES
Would insure an Arizona citizen’s right to an abortion up to viability by amending the AZ Constitution. Currently abortion is allowed up to 15 weeks in Arizona. The state Legislature narrowly passed this law when the Arizona courts ruled, after the Supreme Court Dobbs decision, that the 1864 Arizona law criminalizing all abortions was still in effect. Proposition 139 will have the effect of restoring the right to abortion that existed before the Dobbs decision, allowing the procedure up to viability – approximately 24 weeks – and beyond if the life of the mother is in danger.
F3 recommends a YES vote on this amendment because reproductive health care decisions should be between a patient and their doctor and not dictated by the government.
Prop.140 (Citizen Initiative – voters put this on the ballot by collecting the required number of signatures.) Vote NO
Would amend the AZ Constitution to open up primaries to any candidate or voter, regardless of their party affiliation. Instead of having separate ballots for each party, every candidate would be on the ballot during the primary election and voters can choose candidates regardless of the voter’s party registration. The proposition doesn’t set a firm number of candidates that would advance to the general election so it would be up to the legislature or the secretary of state to determine how many candidates from the primary election would advance. Under certain circumstances, this could lead to a ranked choice voting election but that is not guaranteed.
Prop. 140 conflicts with Prop. 133. If both Prop. 133 and Prop. 140 pass in November, the one with the most votes will “win” and the state constitution will be amended.
F3 recommends a NO vote. Although some changes proposed in this proposition are positive such as opening primary elections to all voters regardless of party affiliation, this proposition, as written, would give lawmakers the power to manipulate the general election ballot for partisan reasons.
Prop. 311 (Referred by the state legislature) Vote NO
This proposition would add a $20 fee to every criminal conviction in order to establish a new death benefit to provide $250,000 to the families of first responders who die in the line of duty. This proposition would also add minimum sentences for defendants convicted of aggravated assault against public safety officers or first responders and increase the felony class of the charge. The families of first responders who die in the line of duty currently receive a federal death benefit from the national Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program.
This proposition adds more fees to already existing high surcharges added to fines of those convicted of criminal offenses, the vast majority of which are misdemeanors. This additional fine affects certain citizens disproportionately. Also, inflexible minimum sentencing laws raise incarceration costs and widen racial disparities.
F3 recommends a NO vote.
Prop. 312 (Referred by the state legislature) Vote NO
This proposition would ask voters to require both counties and cities to give property owners tax refunds if the county or city “declines to enforce” existing laws that criminalize activities that are common to people experiencing homelessness, including illegal camping, obstructing public thoroughfares, loitering and panhandling.
In 2019, the Ninth Circuit of Appeals ruled it was unconstitutional and “cruel and unusual punishment” to arrest or cite someone for sleeping outside if there were no available shelter beds. The Supreme Court recently overturned this ruling, which means the police can enforce generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property.
F3 recommends a NO vote. Punishing cities and counties that are working on finding compassionate solutions for the unhoused is inappropriate.
Prop. 313 (Referred by the state legislature) Vote NO
This proposition would require those convicted of the sex trafficking of minors to spend life in prison with no possability of parole. State law currently allows a penalty of 20 years for one count of sex trafficking, and multiple penalties can be “stacked” which result in multiple consecutive sentences. Victims have expressed concern that they could be caught up in the system and imprisoned for life unfairly.
F3 recommends a NO vote. Mandatory lifetime prison sentences exclude the possibility of rehabilitation and should only be used in the most egregious crimes.
Prop. 314 (Referred by the state legislature) Vote NO
Would make it a state crime to cross a federal border without documentation and give local police immunity to arrest those they suspect of coming into the country illegally. Officers do not have to witness a border crossing and arrests can take place anywhere in the state.
The proposition is similar to the “show me your papers” state law, SB 1070, and is modeled after a similar bill in Texas that is currently tied up in the courts. Prop 314 would criminalize crossing Arizona’s southern border anywhere except at a port of entry. No funding is included in the measure although it’s expected to cost at least $325 million per year.
F3 recommends a NO vote because it would encourage racial profiling. Immigration violations are a federal matter and should not be in the hands of state and local police.
Prop. 315 (Referred by the state legislature) Vote NO
Would take away the ability of state agencies to make rules and gives it to the legislature if the implementation costs more than $500,000 within 5 years of its adoption. This could result in lengthy delays in the implementation of new or revised regulations, potentially harming public health and safety as the legislature argues about the merit of the proposed rule.
This proposition would take power away from agency experts whose missions among many other things include protecting the public from harmful workplace hazards, pollution, and contaminated food, and give it to the state legislature.
F3 recommends a NO vote.