Citizen Initiatives: Proposed Amendments to the Arizona Constitution
Prop 139: “Arizona for Abortion Access”
What it does:
Amends the Arizona Constitution to declare every individual has a fundamental right to abortion and that the state cannot enact or enforce any policy that:
• Interferes with the right to an abortion before fetal viability unless it is justified by a compelling state interest (a compelling state interest means a law or policy enacted to improve or maintain the health of the individual seeking abortion care that does not infringe on the pregnant person’s autonomous decision-making).
• Interferes with the right to an abortion after fetal viability if it is determined by a health care professional that an abortion is necessary to protect the life or physical or mental health of the pregnant person; or
• Punishes an individual or entity for aiding or assisting a person in receiving an abortion. 3
Terms and Considerations:
Two terms used in the proposed amendment language are nebulous in nature: “Fetal viability” and “Extraordinary medical measure.”
“Fetal viability” is generally defined as the point in pregnancy where, in the judgment of a treating health care professional, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus’s sustained survival outside the womb without extraordinary medical measures. The timeframe for fetal viability is usually between 24 and 26 weeks. 4 A baby born at 22-24 weeks gestation would need medical interventions and hospital care to survive and may live with lifelong impairments as a result of being born prematurely. 5 With the advancement of science, however, a baby born earlier than 22 weeks may be able to survive, making the definition of “fetal viability” a moving target. The definition of an “extraordinary medical measure” can vary widely across medical professionals. Many premature babies have underdeveloped lungs and need support to breathe, even if they are born well into the third trimester. 6 Thus, the determination of an extraordinary medical measure is highly dependent on the physician and the specific medical situation.
Currently, there are 41 states, including Arizona, that have abortion bans in effect, restricting or prohibiting abortion access for pregnant people with limited exceptions to the ban. 7 Each state determines what qualifies as an exception to the policies in place; at a minimum, all states with an abortion ban contain an exception to preserve the life and prevent the death of the pregnant person. 8
Fourteen (14) states have a total or near-total abortion ban in effect, prohibiting pregnant people from legally accessing an abortion without an exception: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and West Virginia. Nine (9) of those states do not have an exception for rape or incest 9
Eight (8) states prohibit pregnant people from legally accessing an abortion within 6 to 18 weeks of pregnancy without an exception. Each state determines the exact number of weeks before the ban goes into effect. These states are Arizona (15 weeks), Florida (6 weeks), Georgia (6 weeks), Iowa (6 weeks), South Carolina (6 weeks), Nebraska (12 weeks), North Carolina (12 weeks), Utah (18 weeks) 10
Nineteen (19) states prohibit pregnant people from legally accessing an abortion after 18 weeks of pregnancy without an exception: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Washington,
Wisconsin, Wyoming 11 Ten (10) of those states allow access to abortion until fetal viability, generally between 24 and 26 weeks.
The Guttmacher Institute has provided a table of abortion bans and exceptions by state 12
This year, abortion access will not only be a critical question for Arizona voters, but a critical question for voters across the country. As of August 2024, there are six certified abortion-related measures that will be on the November ballot and five potential abortionrelated measures that may be on the November ballot. 13 The states with confirmed ballot measures include: Colorado, Florida, Maryland, New York, Nevada, South Dakota 14 For the ballot measures to pass and be enacted as state law, a 50% vote will be needed in Maryland, Nevada, New York, and South Dakota; a 55% vote in Colorado; and a 60% vote in Florida. 15
Timeline of Abortion Regulations in Arizona:
1973: The US Supreme Court released a decision on Roe v. Wade. The ruling stated that a “compelling interest” must be demonstrated by states wishing to regulate abortion care, and no interest was compelling enough to ban abortion before viability. 16 Ultimately, this decision solidified that it is the right of an individual, and not the government, to have an abortion before fetal viability. Prior to this, most states had banned abortion with limited exceptions 17
March 2022: AZ Legislature passes a bill banning abortion after 15 weeks, except in the case of a medical emergency (defined as a physician’s good faith clinical judgment that continuing the pregnancy would result in the woman’s death or serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function). 18 This law was passed shortly after Mississippi passed a similar restriction, which was eventually challenged in the Supreme Court as Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization 19
June 2022: Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade with its decision Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The court ruled that the Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion 20, and returned the issue of abortion regulation to the states’ elected branches. 21
September 2022: A Superior Court Judge in Pima County ruled that even though Arizona had a 15-week ban on the books, a law passed in 1864 that banned abortion in all cases except when necessary to save the mother’s life was able to be enforced. 22 Planned Parenthood Arizona appealed the decision almost immediately, so the enforcement was put on hold while the question went to the Arizona Supreme Court. 23
April 2024: The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the Superior Court’s ruling was correct, and the 1864 ban 24 was allowed to take precedence over the 2022 15-week ban. 25
May 2024: The Arizona Legislature voted to repeal the 1864 ban. 26
September 2024: Abortion is legal in Arizona up to 15 weeks gestation, and after if a doctor determines there is a medical emergency. 27
Details on Timeline:
When the legislature repealed the 1864 law, that change would not go into effect until 90 days after the end of the legislative session, which would be September 14. 28 However, former Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich asked the state not to begin enforcing the old law for at least 45 days after the ruling, 29 and current Attorney General Kris Mayes asked for a delay to give her time to decide whether to seek review from the US Supreme Court. 30 Between those two requests, the 1864 ban would have gone into effect on September 26, had the law not been repealed on September 14. 31
The Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) estimates that, if approved by voters, the implementation of Prop 139 would not have a direct financial impact to state or local government. 32
Prop 140: “Make Elections Fair”
Prop 140 proposes seven (7) main changes to Arizona’s election laws related to voting procedures and election funding. If the proposition is approved by voters, these changes would become effective after July 1, 2026. Changes relate to… 33
1. Primary Election Procedures
• Makes it so that all candidates who qualify for the ballot are placed on the same ballot, regardless of political party.
• Allows any qualified voter to vote in the primary election, regardless of party.
• Allows all candidates for the same office to have the same signature requirements to qualify for the ballot, regardless of party. Currently, Independent candidates must collect more signatures than major party candidates to qualify for the ballot.
• Allows a voter to sign a nominating petition for any candidate, regardless of party. Currently, voters can only sign nominating petitions for candidates in their own party or with no declared party.
• Specifies that eligible voters cannot be denied the right to vote based on political party affiliation or nonaffiliation.
• Clarifies that political parties are still able to endorse candidates.
o Specifies that if the ballot must reference a candidate’s political party, it must also include a disclaimer stating that party affiliation is for informational purposes and does not mean a candidate is endorsed by that party.
o Voters may need to verify if candidates are endorsed by their party.
• Specifies that a candidate can only appear on the general election ballot if they won the primary election or fill a vacancy caused by the death or withdrawal of a candidate who won the primary election.
o A candidate who lost their primary election would not be able to appear as a “write-in” on the general election ballot.
2. The Number of Candidates Who Will Advance from The Primary Election
• For a race with one open seat, between two and five candidates may advance to the general election.
• For a race with two open seats, between four and seven candidates may advance to the general election.
• For a race with three open seats, between six and eight candidates may advance to the general election.
• A candidate’s party cannot be considered when determining who advances to the general election.
• It also allows the Legislature to change the number of candidates allowed to advance to the general election once every six years or through a future initiative or referendum.
3. Rank Choice Voting
• Allows rank choice voting to be used to determine winning candidates in a general election
• Outlines the process for rank choice voting as follows:
o The ballot must allow voters to rank all candidates in order of the voter’s preference,
o If a majority of votes cast do not rank a single candidate as the voters’ first choice, all voter rankings determine which candidate is elected, 34 and
o If a candidate is the first choice for over 50% of voters, they will win. If no candidate meets that threshold, the candidate with the lowest number of first-choice votes is eliminated, and voters who chose that candidate as their first choice will have their vote assigned to their second choice. The process continues until a candidate earns over 50%. 35
4. General Election Procedures
• If two candidates advance to the general election for a single office, the candidate that receives the majority of votes is elected.
• If three or more candidates advance to the general election for a single office, voter rankings will be used to determine which candidate is elected.
• Specifies that if the Legislature does not enact laws to codify the new primary election processes by November 2025, the Secretary of State may do so, as long as the process allows voters to rank candidates for office in order of preference.
5. Use of Public Monies
• Specifies that public funds shall not be used to run political party elections, including precinct committee officers, presidential preference elections, and partisan primary elections.
• An exception would allow the use of public funds to run a presidential preference election if all voters who are registered as independent or “no party affiliation,” or those who register as a party not qualified for representation on the ballot, may vote in the election of any one of the political parties that are qualified for representation on the ballot.
The proposition further specifies that…
6. A person cannot be denied the right to vote or hold office based on political party affiliation or nonaffiliation, and
7. A person cannot be restricted from receiving a ballot or selecting a candidate based on political party affiliation or non-affiliation.
While the overall fiscal impact cannot be calculated in advance, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) estimates some minimal increase in the cost of administering elections due to the increased length of printed ballots and increased number of voters receiving a primary ballot. 36
Legislative Referrals: Proposed Amendments to the Arizona Constitution
Prop 133: primary elections; eligible candidates
Prop 133 would amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit any election law from being enacted that contradicts the direct primary election law. The proposition states that each political party on the ballot may nominate as many candidates as there are open seats in a given election and that each candidate that qualifies in a primary be placed on the official ballot in the next general election. The proposition also states that direct primary law will supersede city charters, laws, ordinances, rules, resolutions, or policies.
The Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) does not estimate any fiscal impact if Prop 133 is approved by voters. 37
Prop 134: initiative; referendum; signatures; legislative districts
Currently, citizens can propose a new law through the initiative process by gathering signatures from ten percent of the qualified electors in the state and fifteen percent if the proposed change is an amendment to the constitution Similarly, five percent of the qualified electors in the state can sign referendum petitions to stop a law from being implemented and refer it to the ballot for voter approval. 38
The number of qualified electors is calculated from the total number of votes cast for all candidates for governor in the most recent election. 39 Prop 134 would amend the State Constitution so that the required percentage of qualified electors comes from each legislative district rather than a percentage of the whole state. 40
The Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) estimates an increased workload for the Arizona Secretary of State’s office and county governments to conduct the signature verification process, however, the fiscal impact cannot be determined in advance. 42
Prop 135: governor; emergency powers
Currently, the Governor can declare a state of emergency if something threatens the safety of the people and property in Arizona. 43 Former Governor Ducey declared a state of emergency during the initial outbreak of COVID-19 in March 2020. 44 Under a state of emergency, the Governor has complete authority over all state agencies and law enforcement to use whatever services and equipment are needed to restore the health and safety of the citizens impacted. 45
Prop 135 amends the Arizona Constitution so that a state of emergency terminates after 30 days, except in the case of war, flood, or fire. If the Governor wishes to extend the state of emergency, it must be approved by a majority of the legislature. The legislature can alter or limit the Governor's emergency powers if they vote to approve a continuation of the state of emergency. If the continuation is not extended, the Governor is prohibited from enacting a new state of emergency to address the same conditions. Further, if at least onethird of the members of the Legislature sign a petition, the Governor is required to call a special session to terminate or alter the Governor’s emergency powers at any time. 46
The Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) estimates a nominal increase in costs for conducting special sessions of the legislature, but because the number of special sessions could vary, the fiscal impact can’t be determined in advance. 47
Prop 136: ballot measures; challenges
Currently, the Arizona Supreme Court does not have the authority to consider challenges to the constitutionality of a proposed initiative until it has been approved by voters and adopted. Prop 136 would allow any person to legally challenge a constitutional amendment or statutory initiative (i.e., state law) with the state Superior Court any time after a petition is filed with the Secretary of State on the basis that it violates the Arizona or US Constitution. 48 If the Court finds that the proposed language violates the Arizona or US Constitution, election officials will not certify or print the language on the official ballot. Any person can challenge the Court’s decision about the constitutionality of a proposed initiative with the state Supreme Court within five days of the Superior Court’s initial judgment. 49
The Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) estimates a minimal increase in judicial costs, however, the exact dollar amount cannot be determined in advance. 50
Prop 137: judicial retention elections
Currently, the Arizona Constitution allows voters to weigh in on whether justices of the Arizona Supreme Court, Arizona Court of Appeals, and Superior Court should be retained or removed from office at the end of their term (i.e., four years for trial court judges and six years for appellate court and the Supreme Court judges). 51
The Commission on Judicial Performance Review (Commission), comprised of 34 people appointed by the Arizona Supreme Court, evaluates the performance of judges eligible for a retention vote and makes publicly available recommendations for voters to consider when filling out their ballot. 52
Prop 137 would amend the Arizona Constitution so that these judges and justices would no longer be subject to a mandatory retention vote at the end of their term. 53 Instead, the Commission would only refer an official to the ballot if the judge or justice:
- Is convicted of a felony offense or a crime involving fraud or dishonesty
- Initiates personal bankruptcy procedures in which they are the debtor
- Has a mortgage that is foreclosed, or
- Has been determined to not meet judicial performance standards for some other reason by a majority of the Commission. 54
The Commission would be required to evaluate each judge or justice every four years. Additionally, the Commission would be expanded so that the majority party in the Arizona House of Representatives and the Arizona Senate can appoint one member. Any state legislator would be able to request an investigation into a judge or justice if a pattern of misconduct is suspected. 55
If Prop 137 is approved by voters in November, the results of the retention votes in the November election will not be counted. If voters reject any judge listed on the ballot, they will remain in office. 56
The Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) estimates the passage of Prop 137 could reduce county costs due to shorter election ballots. 57
Prop 138: tipped workers; wages
The current minimum wage in Arizona is $14.35 per hour. 58 It must be adjusted annually to reflect changes in the cost of living. An employer may pay tipped employees up to $3.00 per hour less if their records or federal declarations show that the employee was paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked when adding their tips to their wage. 59
Prop 138 would amend the Arizona Constitution so an employer could pay a tipped employee up to 25% per hour less than the minimum wage ($10.76 per hour) if their records show that when adding an employee’s tips to their wage, they are paid at least minimum wage plus $2.00 per hour ($16.35) for all hours worked, averaged over the pay period. 60
The Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) was not able to estimate the overall impact of Prop 138 on wages paid to tipped employees since employees would receive different base wages based on the level of tips earned. However, JLBC noted that a change in minimum wage for tipped employees could impact labor costs for businesses, direct wage levels for tipped employees, consumer costs (if businesses adjust prices due to a change in labor costs), and the number of people enrolled in AHCCCS and DES programs where eligibility is determined by income. Income and sales tax revenue changes cannot be estimated in advance. 61
Legislative Referrals: Proposed Changes to State Law
Prop 311: death benefit; assault; first responders
Prop 311 would create a new state death benefit of $250,000 paid to the spouse or children of a first responder killed in the line of duty due to a criminal act. Prop 311 defines a “first responder” as a peace officer, firefighter, fire marshal, fire inspector, EMT, paramedic, tribal police officer, national guard member, or correctional officer. 62 To fund this benefit, a $20 penalty fee would be assessed on every criminal conviction. If Prop 311 passes, both the benefit and the penalty fee will be repealed in 2033. If the balance of the benefit fund exceeds $2M in 2033, the legislature has permission to use the excess for peace officer training, equipment, or benefits to first responders who are seriously injured in the line of duty and their families. 63
The proposition also increases punishment for committing an aggravated assault against certain first responders engaged in the execution of official duties – those being peace officers, firefighters, fire marshals, fire inspectors, EMTs, paramedics, and tribal police officers. If a perpetrator knows their victim is a first responder, the crime would increase from a class 5 to a class 4 felony. Further, if the assault results in physical injury to the first responder, the crime would increase from a class 4 to a class 3 felony. These changes would also be repealed in 2033. 64 For further details on felony sentencing guidelines, refer to the table on page 10.
The Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) estimates that if Prop 311 is passed, the $20 criminal conviction fee will have a 50% collection rate, totaling $1.4M in collections annually. Based on a projected average of four deaths per year (estimated using public safety deaths data from the Arizona Public Safety Personnel Retirement System’s (PSPRS) between 2018 and 2020), the total annual projected disbursement would be $1M. 65 The proposition would increase probation and incarceration costs for the county and state governments by increasing the penalties, but the total cost would be based on the number of criminal penalties applied, and therefore, could not be determined in advance.
Prop 312: property tax; refund; nuisance enforcement
Starting in tax year 2025, Prop 312 would allow a property owner to apply for a refund on their property taxes if documented, reasonable expenses are incurred to mitigate the effects of a “public nuisance” causing damage to their property. A property owner may be eligible for a refund of expenses incurred if their city, town, or county declines to enforce laws that prohibit: 66
• Illegal camping
• Obstructing public roads or paths
• Loitering
• Panhandling
• Public urination or defecation
• Public consumption of alcohol or possession or use of illegal substances
The refund could not exceed the amount paid in primary property taxes to the city, town, or county in the prior tax year. After a property owner applies for the refund to the Arizona Department of Revenue (Department), the Department notifies the affected municipality (i.e., the city where the property owner resides), which must accept or reject the request within 30 days. If the municipality fails to respond within 30 days, the refund is accepted by default. 67
If accepted, the Department will refund the property owner and direct the State Treasurer to withhold the aggregate refund amount issued to the municipality from their share of statewide transaction privilege tax (sales tax) revenues. The State would refund the property owner while withholding that amount when distributing the share of statewide revenue to the city. 68
The Proposition outlines processes for applying for the refund, including if the municipality in question rejects the property owner’s claim, in which case the property owner can file a cause of action in Superior Court. 69
Prop 312 would impact the amount of state-shared revenue distributed to cities and counties. However, the cost cannot be determined by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) in advance since it will depend on the number of requests each year 70
Felony Sentencing Guidelines
A felony is a serious crime that results in a “term of imprisonment in the custody of the state department of corrections”. 71 Once convicted of a felony, a judge is responsible for sentencing individuals based on the type of crime committed; in Arizona, felony crimes are classified into 6 “classes” with class 1 being the most serious and class 6 being the least serious. 72 Each felony class has a range of punishments or ”sentences” outlined by the Arizona Criminal Code Sentencing Provisions, known as sentencing guidelines. 73
The table below shows the sentencing guidelines for first time offenders. 74
Judges have discretion or decision-making power to consider all factors, including previous offenses, mitigating circumstances, and aggravating circumstances, when sentencing an individual convicted of a felony, which can increase or decrease a sentence significantly. 75
For the most recent data available related to operational costs of prison facilities, please see the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry FY20 Report on Operating Per Capita Cost. 76
Prop 313: sex trafficking; child; natural life
Child sex trafficking is either a class 2 or class 5 felony, depending on the circumstances of the crime. Currently, a first-time offender convicted of a class 2 child sex trafficking felony may serve up to 27 years in prison if the minor is 15 or older and up to life in prison if the minor is under 15 years old. 77 Proposition 313 would create a state law requiring all persons convicted of a class 2 child sex trafficking offense, no matter the circumstance, to serve a life sentence in prison without the possibility of release. 78
The Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) cannot estimate the fiscal impact of Prop 313, as it depends on how many people are convicted of this specific violation. However, any cost for increased sentencing time with the Arizona Department of Corrections would not occur for 7 years, when the required life imprisonment sentence would exceed the prison sentence that is current law 79
Prop 314: border; benefits; fentanyl; illegal entry
Prop 314 creates several new state crimes related to immigration and one new state crime related to selling fentanyl if the drug results in the death of a person.
Prop 314 would:
1. Create a new state crime prohibiting someone who is illegally living in the US from knowingly submitting false documentation when applying for federal, state, or local benefits. Violating this crime would be a
class 6 felony. Government agencies that administer public benefits would be required to use the federal verification database for entitlement programs to verify an applicant's residency. 80
2. Create a new state crime prohibiting someone who is illegally living in the US from knowingly submitting false documentation or information to an employer when verifying residence for employment eligibility. A violation would be a class 1 misdemeanor on the first offense and a class 6 felony for subsequent offenses. A person convicted of a class 6 felony for this crime would be required to serve time in jail for a duration determined by the court. 81
3. Create a new state crime prohibiting a non-resident from entering or attempting to enter Arizona directly from a foreign nation at any location other than a legal port of entry. This would not apply to those who have not violated federal immigration laws, have been granted asylum, or have legal residence in the US. Violations of this crime would be a class 1 misdemeanor on the first offense and a class 6 felony on subsequent offenses. A person convicted of this crime would have to serve a prison term determined by the court before eligible for probation. 82 Within this, Prop 313 would:
• Allow a court to dismiss charges against someone who entered Arizona illegally if a) the person agrees to return to their country of origin, b) it is their first time committing this crime, and c) the person is not charged with another class 1 misdemeanor or any felony offense. Specific documentation that would be required of law enforcement is detailed in the proposition. 83
• Create a new state crime for an “alien” who enters Arizona at a location other than a legal port of entry and refuses to comply with an order to return to the foreign nation. Violations would be a class 4 felony. 84
• Provide civil immunity for government officials acting to enforce the law.
• Require the Arizona Department of Corrections to accept a person violating this law at any state facility with room if a county or local law enforcement agency does not have the capacity to hold the individual. 85
4. Create a new state crime that prohibits any adult, regardless of immigration status, from knowingly selling fentanyl if the person knows the drug sold contains fentanyl, and the fentanyl causes the death of another person. Committing this crime would be a class 2 felony, and any prison sentence imposed on the violator would be automatically increased by five years. This would not be applicable if the fentanyl and its related chemicals were legally imported or manufactured in the US. 86
If approved by Arizona voters, Prop 314 would only go into effect if a similar law in Texas or another state is passed and after it has been in effect for at least 60 days.
As reported to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC), the Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) estimated that they would incur $3.8M in additional costs annually if Prop 314 passes Using this figure, DPS projected an overall cost for all state and local police departments of $41M per year. Further, the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) estimated the cost would be $16.6M in 2025 and $178M in 2029. Additional incarceration costs (increased capacity) were acknowledged but not included in the cost figure. Furthermore, JLBC acknowledged that there would be increased costs related to the prosecution of the crimes outlined in this proposition, however, the Administrative Office of the Courts was not able to estimate this fiscal impact. Additional costs for public benefits administration were not estimated. Finally, it was noted that lower school enrollment could decrease General Fund state aid payments and reduced immigration could lower state and local tax collections. Dollar estimates were not provided. 87
Prop 315 rulemaking; legislative ratification; regulatory costs
Currently, state agencies adopt rules without the direct involvement of the legislature. A rule is any policy or procedure necessary to enact a law. 88 State agencies must give public notice, accept public comments, and submit the final language to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council for approval on any proposed rule. The
council members are appointed by the Governor and serve three-year terms. 89 Further, the Administrative Rules Oversight Committee receives complaints about proposed rules and may review them to ensure they conform to state law and the legislature's intent. 90
Prop 315 would require further approval for a state agency proposing a rule that is estimated to cost more than $100,000 to implement over five years. The Office of Economic Opportunity would evaluate the proposed rule. If it is estimated to exceed $500,000 over five years, the rule would need approval from the legislature to be enacted. If the legislature fails to approve the proposed rule during the current legislative session, the state agency terminates it. Further, any legislator or person regulated by an agency proposing a rule could request that the Office of Economic Opportunity review the proposed rule, regardless of cost. The Arizona Corporation Commission, which regulates utility companies, would not be subject to this additional level of oversight. 91
Prop 315 would create an increased workload for the Office of Economic Opportunity, but the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) cannot estimate the fiscal impact in advance as it depends on the number of rule changes submitted each year. 92
Comparison of Contending Propositions
In November, contending propositions about elections will be on the ballot. If both propositions are approved by voters, the Arizona Supreme Court will have to reconcile points of conflict between the propositions, where possible. 93 As of September 2024, Prop 140 is still under legal review about whether enough valid signatures were received for the proposition
Prop 133 and Prop 140: Elections
Contextual Information: Currently, the Arizona Constitution requires the Legislature to enact a “direct primary” election law for all state, county, and city offices. 94 The candidates from each political party who advance from the primary election face each other in the general election, where the candidate receiving the most votes is elected. Voters registered as independent, with no party preference, or with a party that did not have a candidate qualify for the primary ballot can submit a ballot for a party that did qualify. 95
Referral: Prop 133 Initiative: Prop 140 “Make Elections Fair Arizona” * Prop 133 would amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit any election law from being enacted that contradicts the direct primary election law. The proposition states that each political party on the ballot may nominate as many candidates as there are open seats in a given election and that each candidate that qualifies in a primary be placed on the official ballot in the next general election. The proposition also states that direct primary law will supersede city charters, laws, ordinances, rules, resolutions, or policies. 96
Prop 140 proposes to revise primary election procedures, outline the number of candidates who can advance from the primary to the general election, and revise general election procedures to allow for rank choice voting. In addition, the proposition specifies that a person cannot be denied the right to vote or hold office or restricted from receiving a ballot or selecting a candidate based on political party affiliation or nonaffiliation. The proposition also prohibits public monies from being used for election administration. 97 See below for details on the proposed changes.
*Prop 140 Explainer Continued
Prop 140 proposes seven (7) main changes to Arizona’s election laws related to voting procedures and election funding. If the proposition is approved by voters, these changes would become effective after July 1, 2026. Changes relate to… 98
1. Primary Election Procedures
• Makes it so that all candidates who qualify for the ballot are placed on the same ballot, regardless of political party.
• Allows any qualified voter to vote in the primary election, regardless of party.
• Allows all candidates for the same office to have the same signature requirements to qualify for the ballot, regardless of party. Currently, Independent candidates must collect more signatures than major party candidates to qualify for the ballot.
• Allows a voter to sign a nominating petition for any candidate, regardless of party. Currently, voters can only sign nominating petitions for candidates in their own party or with no declared party.
• Specifies that eligible voters cannot be denied the right to vote based on political party affiliation or nonaffiliation.
• Clarifies that political parties are still able to endorse candidates.
o Specifies that if the ballot must reference a candidate’s political party, it must also include a disclaimer stating that party affiliation is for informational purposes and does not mean a candidate is endorsed by that party.
o Voters may need to verify if candidates are endorsed by their party.
• Specifies that a candidate can only appear on the general election ballot if they won the primary election or fill a vacancy caused by the death or withdrawal of a candidate who won the primary election.
o A candidate who lost their primary election would not be able to appear as a “write-in” on the general election ballot.
2. The Number of Candidates Who Will Advance from The Primary Election
• For a race with one open seat, between two and five candidates may advance to the general election
• For a race with two open seats, between four and seven candidates may advance to the general election.
• For a race with three open seats, between six and eight candidates may advance to the general election
• A candidate’s party cannot be considered when determining who advances to the general election
• It also allows the Legislature to change the number of candidates allowed to advance to the general election once every six years or through a future initiative or referendum.
3. Rank Choice Voting
• Allows rank choice voting to be used to determine winning candidates in a general election,
• Outlines the process for rank choice voting as follows:
o The ballot must allow voters to rank all candidates in order of the voter’s preference,
o If a majority of votes cast do not rank a single candidate as the voters’ first choice, all voter rankings determine which candidate is elected, 99 and
o If a candidate is the first choice for over 50% of voters, they will win. If no candidate meets that threshold, the candidate with the lowest number of first-choice votes is eliminated, and voters who chose that candidate as their first choice will have their vote assigned to their second choice. The process continues until a candidate earns over 50%. 100
4. General Election Procedures
• If two candidates advance to the general election for a single office, the candidate that receives the majority of votes is elected.
• If three or more candidates advance to the general election for a single office, voter rankings will be used to determine which candidate is elected
• Specifies that if the Legislature does not enact laws to codify the new primary election processes by November 2025, the Secretary of State may do so, as long as the process allows voters to rank candidates for office in order of preference.
5. Use of Public Monies
• Specifies that public funds shall not be used to run political party elections, including precinct committee officers, presidential preference elections, and partisan primary elections.
• An exception would allow the use of public funds to run a presidential preference election if all voters who are registered as independent or “no party affiliation,” or those who register as a party not qualified for representation on the ballot, may vote in the election of any one of the political parties that are qualified for representation on the ballot.
The proposition further specifies that…
6. A person cannot be denied the right to vote or hold office based on political party affiliation or nonaffiliation, and
7. A person cannot be restricted from receiving a ballot or selecting a candidate based on political party affiliation or non-affiliation.
1 “2023 Initiative and Referendum Guide,” Arizona Secretary of State, last modified May 9, 2022, https://azsos.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/2023_03_initiative_and_referenda_handbook.pdf.
2 “2023 Initiative and Referendum Guide,” Arizona Secretary of State, last modified May 9, 2022, https://azsos.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/2023_03_initiative_and_referenda_handbook.pdf
3 “Application for Serial Number Initiative Petition,” Arizona Secretary of State, 2023, https://apps.arizona.vote/electioninfo/assets/47/0/BallotMeasures/I-052024%20Arizona%20for%20Abortion%20Access.pdf
4 “Facts Are Important: Understanding and Navigating Viability,” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist, Accessed August 12, 2024, https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/understanding-and-navigating-viability
5 “Facts Are Important: Understanding and Navigating Viability,” The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist, Accessed August 12, 2024, https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/understanding-and-navigating-viability
6 Elizabeth Chloe Romanis, “Is ‘Viability’ Viable? Abortion, Conceptual Confusion and the Law in England and Wales and the United States,” Journal of Law and the Biosciences 7, no. 1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa059
7 “State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy,” Guttmacher, July 29, 2024, https://www.guttmacher.org/statepolicy/laws-policies.
8 Mabel Felix, Laurie Sobel, and Alina Salganicoff, “A Review of Exceptions in State Abortion Bans: Implications for the Provision of Abortion Services,” KFF, June 6, 2024, https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/issue-brief/a-review-ofexceptions-in-state-abortions-bans-implications-for-the-provision-of-abortion-services/.
9 Annette Choi and Devan Cole, “See Where Abortions Are Banned and Legal — and Where It’s Still in Limbo,” CNN, July 29, 2024, https://www.cnn.com/us/abortion-access-restrictions-bans-us-dg
10 Annette Choi and Devan Cole, “See Where Abortions Are Banned and Legal — and Where It’s Still in Limbo,” CNN, July 29, 2024, https://www.cnn.com/us/abortion-access-restrictions-bans-us-dg
11 “State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy,” Guttmacher, July 29, 2024, https://www.guttmacher.org/statepolicy/laws-policies
12 “State Bans on Abortion Throughout Pregnancy,” Guttmacher, July 29, 2024, https://www.guttmacher.org/statepolicy/laws-policies.
13 “2024 abortion-related ballot measures and state context,” Ballotpedia, 2024, https://ballotpedia.org/2024_abortionrelated_ballot_measures_and_state_context.
14 “2024 abortion-related ballot measures and state context,” Ballotpedia, 2024, https://ballotpedia.org/2024_abortionrelated_ballot_measures_and_state_context
15 “Ballot Tracker: Status of Abortion-Related State Constitutional Amendment Measures for the 2024 Election,” KFF, August 5, 2024, https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/dashboard/ballot-tracker-status-of-abortion-related-stateconstitutional-amendment-measures/
16 “Roe v. Wade,” Center for Reproductive Rights, Accessed August 12, 2024, https://reproductiverights.org/roe-vwade/#:~:text=The%20Roe%20v.,Wade%20Ruling%2C%201973&text=In%20its%201973%20decision%20Roe,whether %20to%20continue%20a%20pregnanc.
17 “Roe v. Wade,” Center for Reproductive Rights, Accessed August 12, 2024, https://reproductiverights.org/roe-vwade/#:~:text=The%20Roe%20v.,Wade%20Ruling%2C%201973&text=In%20its%201973%20decision%20Roe,whether %20to%20continue%20a%20pregnanc
18 Arizona State Senate, Abortion; Gestational Age; Limit, SB 1164, 55th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session, 2022, https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/sb1164p.pdf
19 Gabriella Borter, “Arizona Governor Signs 15-Week Abortion Ban into Law,” Reuters, March 30, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/arizona-governor-signs-15-week-abortion-ban-into-law-2022-03-30/
20 “Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022),” National Constitution Center, Accessed August 12, 2024, https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/dobbs-v-jackson-womens-health-organization
21 “U.S. Supreme Court Takes Away the Constitutional Right to Abortion,” Center for Reproductive Rights, June 24, 2022, https://reproductiverights.org/supreme-court-takes-away-right-to-abortion/
22 “2022 Was Tumultuous for Access to Abortion in Arizona: New Report Provides Surveillance Detail,” AZ Public Health Association, Accessed August 12, 2024, https://azpha.org/2024/01/06/2022-was-tumultuous-for-access-to-abortion-inarizona-new-report-provides-surveillance-detail/
23 Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Brnovich, No. 2 CA-CV 2022-0116 (Ariz. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2022), https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d6Tepc7SpYQHkJmUjSe-ttgI_O08L0k2/view; “2022 Was Tumultuous for Access to Abortion in Arizona: New Report Provides Surveillance Detail,” AZ Public Health Association, Accessed August 12, 2024, https://azpha.org/2024/01/06/2022-was-tumultuous-for-access-to-abortion-in-arizona-new-report-provides-surveillancedetail/
24 Gloria Rebecca Gomez, “Abortions Will Be Banned in Arizona after the Supreme Court Upholds an 1864 Law,” Arizona Mirror, April 9, 2024, https://azmirror.com/2024/04/09/abortions-are-banned-in-arizona-after-the-supreme-court-upholdsan-1864-law/.
25 Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Mayes, No. CV-23-0005-PR (Ariz. Apr. 9, 2024), vacating 254 Ariz. 401 (App. 2022), https://www.lwv.org/sites/default/files/2024-04/2024-05-09_SCtAZ_opinion-uphold-1864-ban.pdf
26 Arizona House of Representatives, Abortion Ban; Repeal, Chapter 181, HB 2677, 56th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2R/laws/0181.pdf
27 “Arizona Abortion Laws,” Arizona Attorney General, Accessed August 12, 2024, https://www.azag.gov/issues/reproductive-rights/laws
28 ”Arizona Law,” Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Accessed August 12, 2024, https://libguides.law.asu.edu/ArizonaLaw/arizonalegislature#:~:text=This%20is%20why%20new%20legislation,in%20the%20last %20gubernatorial%20election.
29 Paul A. Isaacson and the Arizona Medical Association v. State of Arizona, No. CV2022-013091 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Oct. 25, 2022), https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nrHfIX3r6xj9dUXxShM9xOdy92sda95g/view
30 Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. v. Mayes, No. CV-23-0005-PR (Ariz. May 13, 2024), https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24661706/ordergrantingmotiontostaythemandate-5136231-0.pdf
31 " Attorney General Mayes Issues Statement on Arizona Supreme Court Ruling Granting Additional Stay of 1864 Abortion Law,” Arizona Attorney General, May 13, 2024, https://www.azag.gov/press-release/attorney-general-mayesissues-statement-arizona-supreme-court-ruling-granting
32 Moran, Patrick. “Proposition I-05-2024 Arizona Abortion Access Act Fiscal Analysis.” Joint Legislative Budget Committee, 2024. https://www.azjlbc.gov/ballot/24novi-05-2024fn.pdf
33 "Proposition [I - 14 - 2024]: Make Elections Fair Arizona Act," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20__%20(I-142024).pdf
34 "State of Arizona Application for Serial Number: Initiative Petition, A.R.S. § 19-111," Arizona State Legislature, November 8, 2023, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/2024BallotMeasures/I-022024%20Raise%20the%20Wage.pdf
35 "Ranked Choice Voting," Campaign Legal Center, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://campaignlegal.org/democracyu/accountability/ranked-choicevoting?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw2dG1BhB4EiwA998cqNgEehwK-E1f2MIN-qjC8N4RDZbIPF1d8eMehkFPdyzIu7f4DSAjxoCL3oQAvD_BwE
36 Andrews, Micaela. “Proposition I-14-2024 Make Elections Fair Arizona Act Fiscal Analysis.” Joint Legislative Budget Committee, 2024. https://www.azjlbc.gov/ballot/24novi-14-2024fn.pdf
37 Andrews, Micaela. “Proposition 133 Primary Elections; Eligible Candidates Fiscal Analysis.” Joint Legislative Budget Committee, 2024. https://www.azjlbc.gov/ballot/24novprop133fn.pdf
38 “2023 Initiative and Referendum Guide,” Arizona Secretary of State, 2023, https://azsos.gov/sites/default/files/202310/2023_03_initiative_and_referenda_handbook.pdf
39 “2023 Initiative and Referendum Guide,” Arizona Secretary of State, 2023, https://azsos.gov/sites/default/files/202310/2023_03_initiative_and_referenda_handbook.pdf
40 Arizona State Senate, Initiative; Referendum; Signatures; Legislative Districts, Senate Concurrent Resolution 1015, 56th Legislature, 1st Regular Session, 2023, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/2024BallotMeasures/SCR101556th1stR.pdf
41 “PROPOSITION 134 [SCR 1015 - 2023],” Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 12, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20134%20SCR1015% 20-%202023.pdf
42 Andrews, Micaela. “Proposition 134 Initiative; Referendum; Signatures; Legislative Districts Fiscal Analysis.” Joint Legislative Budget Committee, 2024. https://www.azjlbc.gov/ballot/24novprop134fn.pdf.
43 “PROPOSITION 135 [HCR 2039 - 2023],” Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 12, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20135%20HCR2039% 20-%202023.pdf
44 “Declaration of Emergency *COVID-19*,” Arizona Governor, Accessed August 12, 2024, https://azgovernor.gov/sites/default/files/declaraton_0.pdf
45 “PROPOSITION 135 [HCR 2039 - 2023],” Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 12, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20135%20HCR2039% 20-%202023.pdf.
46 “PROPOSITION 135 [HCR 2039 - 2023],” Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 12, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20135%20HCR2039% 20-%202023.pdf
47 Dorcheus, Morgan. “Proposition 135 Governor; Emergency Powers Fiscal Analysis.” Joint Legislative Budget Committee, 2024. https://www.azjlbc.gov/ballot/24novprop135fn.pdf
48 Arizona Senate, Senate Engrossed: Ballot Measures; Challenges, Senate Concurrent Resolution 1041, 56th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2R/bills/SCR1041S.pdf
49 Arizona Senate, Senate Engrossed: Ballot Measures; Challenges, Senate Concurrent Resolution 1041, 56th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/56leg/2R/bills/SCR1041S.pdf; "Proposition 136 [SCR 1041 - 2024]: Ballot Measures; Challenges," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20136%20SCR1041% 20-%202024.pdf
50 Paulsen, Geoffrey. “Proposition 136 Ballot Measures; Challenges Fiscal Analysis.” Joint Legislative Budget Committee, 2024. https://www.azjlbc.gov/ballot/24novprop136fn.pdf
51“PROPOSITION 137 [SCR 1044-2024],” Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20137%20SCR1044% 20-%202024.pdf
52 “Judicial Performance Reports,” Arizona Courts, Accessed August 12, 2024, https://www.azcourts.gov/jpr/JudicialPerformance-Reports
53 “PROPOSITION 137 [SCR 1044-2024],” Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20137%20SCR1044% 20-%202024.pdf.
54 “PROPOSITION 137 [SCR 1044-2024],” Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20137%20SCR1044% 20-%202024.pdf
55 “PROPOSITION 137 [SCR 1044-2024],” Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20137%20SCR1044% 20-%202024.pdf
56 “PROPOSITION 137 [SCR 1044-2024],” Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20137%20SCR1044% 20-%202024.pdf
57 Paulsen, Geoffrey. “Proposition 137 Judicial Retention Elections Fiscal Analysis.” Joint Legislative Budget Committee, 2024. https://www.azjlbc.gov/ballot/24novprop137fn.pdf
58 "State Minimum Wage Laws," U.S. Department of Labor, Last modified July 1, 2024, https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/minimum-wage/state#az
59 "Proposition 138 [SCR 1040 - 2024]: Tipped Workers; Wages," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20138%20SCR1040% 20-%202024.pdf
60 Arizona Senate, House Engrossed Senate Bill: Tipped Workers; Wages, Senate Concurrent Resolution 1040, 56th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/2024BallotMeasures/SCR1040-56th2ndR.pdf
61 Moss, Destin. “Proposition 138 Tipped Workers; Wages Fiscal Analysis.” Joint Legislative Budget Committee, 2024. https://www.azjlbc.gov/ballot/24novprop138fn.pdf
62 "Proposition 311 [SCR 1006 - 2023]: Death Benefit; Assault; First Responders," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20311%20SCR1006% 20-%202023.pdf.
63 "Proposition 311 [SCR 1006 - 2023]: Death Benefit; Assault; First Responders," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20311%20SCR1006% 20-%202023.pdf.
64 "Proposition 311 [SCR 1006 - 2023]: Death Benefit; Assault; First Responders," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20311%20SCR1006% 20-%202023.pdf
65 Moss, Destin. “Proposition 311 Death Benefit; Assault; First Responders Fiscal Analysis.” Joint Legislative Budget Committee, 2024. https://www.azjlbc.gov/ballot/24novprop311fn.pdf
66 Arizona House of Representatives, House Engrossed: Property Tax; Refund; Nuisance Enforcement, House Concurrent Resolution 2023, 56th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session, Accessed August 19, 2024. https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/2024BallotMeasures/HCR2023-56th2ndR.pdf
67 "Proposition 312 [HCR 2023 - 2024]: Property Tax; Refund; Nuisance; Enforcement," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20312%20HCR2023% 20-%202024.pdf
68 "Proposition 312 [HCR 2023 - 2024]: Property Tax; Refund; Nuisance; Enforcement," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20312%20HCR2023% 20-%202024.pdf
69 Arizona House of Representatives, House Engrossed: Property Tax; Refund; Nuisance Enforcement, House Concurrent Resolution 2023, 56th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/2024BallotMeasures/HCR2023-56th2ndR.pdf; "Proposition 312 [HCR 2023 - 2024]: Property Tax; Refund; Nuisance; Enforcement," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20312%20HCR2023% 20-%202024.pdf.
70 Olofsson, Hans. “Proposition 312 Property Tax; Refund; Nuisance Enforcement Fiscal Analysis.” Joint Legislative Budget Committee, 2024. https://www.azjlbc.gov/ballot/24novprop312fn.pdf
71 "13-105. Definitions," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00105.htm
72 ”Felonies,” Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alisPDFs/council/Felonies.pdf
73 “Criminal Code Sentencing Provisions 2023-2024,” Arizona Courts, July 24, 2024, https://www.azcourts.gov/Portals/34/2023-2024.pdf?ver=392u3DXhUU4V4wvymYIRRw%3d%3d
74 "13-702. First Time Felony Offenders; Sentencing; Definition," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00702.htm.
75 "13-702. First Time Felony Offenders; Sentencing; Definition," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00702.htm.
76 “ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, REHABILITATION, AND REENTRY (ADCRR) FY20 Per Capita Cost Report,” Prepared by the Bureau of Planning, Budget and Research, last revised June, 28, 2021, https://corrections.az.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/adcrr-percapcostreport_fy2020-final.pdf
77 "13-705. Dangerous Crimes Against Children; Sentences; Definitions," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/00705.htm#:~:text=%22Dangerous%20crime%20against%20children%22%20means,deadly %20weapon%20or%20dangerous%20instrument ; "13-3212. Child Sex Trafficking; Classification; Increased Punishment; Definition," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03212.htm.
78 "Proposition 313 [SCR 1021 - 2024]: Sex Trafficking; Child; Natural Life," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20313%20SCR1021% 20-%202024.pdf
79 Paulsen, Geoffrey. “Proposition 313 Sex Trafficking; Child; Natural Life Fiscal Analysis.” Joint Legislative Budget Committee, 2024. https://www.azjlbc.gov/ballot/24novprop313fn.pdf
80 "Proposition 314 [HCR 2060 - 2024]: Border; Benefits; Fentanyl; Illegal Entry," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20314%20HCR%2020 60%20-%202024.pdf
81 "Proposition 314 [HCR 2060 - 2024]: Border; Benefits; Fentanyl; Illegal Entry," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20314%20HCR%2020 60%20-%202024.pdf.
82 "Proposition 314 [HCR 2060 - 2024]: Border; Benefits; Fentanyl; Illegal Entry," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20314%20HCR%2020 60%20-%202024.pdf
83 Arizona House of Representatives, Senate Engrossed House Bill: Border; Benefits; Fentanyl; Illegal Entry, House Concurrent Resolution 2060, 56th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session, Accessed August 19, 2024.
https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/2024BallotMeasures/HCR2060-56th2ndR.pdf
84 "Proposition 314 [HCR 2060 - 2024]: Border; Benefits; Fentanyl; Illegal Entry," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024,
https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20314%20HCR%2020 60%20-%202024.pdf
85 "Proposition 314 [HCR 2060 - 2024]: Border; Benefits; Fentanyl; Illegal Entry," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20314%20HCR%2020 60%20-%202024.pdf.
86 "Proposition 314 [HCR 2060 - 2024]: Border; Benefits; Fentanyl; Illegal Entry," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20314%20HCR%2020 60%20-%202024.pdf
87 Johnston, Jordan. “Proposition 314 Border; Benefits; Fentanyl; Illegal Entry Fiscal Analysis.” Joint Legislative Budget Committee, 2024. https://www.azjlbc.gov/ballot/24novprop314fn.pdf
88 "41-1001. Definitions," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/viewdocument/?docName=https://www.azleg.gov/ars/41/01001.htm.
89 "About," Arizona Governor's Regulatory Review Council, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://grrc.az.gov/about
90 "Proposition 315 [SCR 1012 - 2024]: Rulemaking; Legislative Ratification; Regulatory Costs," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20315%20%20SCR10 12%20-%202024.pdf
91 Arizona Senate, Senate Engrossed: Rulemaking; Legislative Ratification; Regulatory Costs, Senate Concurrent Resolution 1012, 56th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/2024BallotMeasures/SCR1012-56th2ndR.pdf; "Proposition 315 [SCR 1012 - 2024]:
Rulemaking; Legislative Ratification; Regulatory Costs," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20315%20%20SCR10 12%20-%202024.pdf
92 https://www.azjlbc.gov/ballot/24novprop315fn.pdf
93 “2009 Constitution Document,” Arizona State Legislature, Accessed September 5, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/const/arizona_constitution.pdf
94 "Proposition [I - 14 - 2024]: Make Elections Fair Arizona Act," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20__%20(I-142024).pdf
95 "Proposition [I - 14 - 2024]: Make Elections Fair Arizona Act," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20__%20(I-142024).pdf
96 "Proposition 133 [HCR 2033 - 2023]: Primary Elections; Eligible Candidates," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20133%20HCR2033% 20-%202023.pdf.
97 "Proposition [I - 14 - 2024]: Make Elections Fair Arizona Act," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20__%20(I-142024).pdf.
98 "Proposition [I - 14 - 2024]: Make Elections Fair Arizona Act," Arizona State Legislature, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/Council/2024BallotMeasures/adopted%20analysis%20Proposition%20__%20(I-142024).pdf.
99 "State of Arizona Application for Serial Number: Initiative Petition, A.R.S. § 19-111," Arizona State Legislature, November 8, 2023, https://www.azleg.gov/alispdfs/council/2024BallotMeasures/I-022024%20Raise%20the%20Wage.pdf.
100 "Ranked Choice Voting," Campaign Legal Center, Accessed August 19, 2024, https://campaignlegal.org/democracyu/accountability/ranked-choicevoting?gad_source=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw2dG1BhB4EiwA998cqNgEehwK-E1f2MIN-qjC8N4RDZbIPF1d8eMehkFPdyzIu7f4DSAjxoCL3oQAvD_BwE
