Nov. 5, 2024, is election day, and voters will pay attention to several things: Presidential candidates, a Senate seat, district representatives and ballot measures.
Arizona voters have 13 ballot measures to vote on in November. Of those referred, 11 are from the state legislature and two are citizen initiatives for the right to abortion and the restriction of two-party systems in primary elections.
Each ballot measure will give the option to vote either 'yes' or 'no'. A 'yes' vote supports the measure and signifies that the voter wants it to be implemented. A 'no' vote is when the voter opposes the initiative and does not want it to pass.
The 13 propositions cover primary elections, citizen initiatives, state of emergencies and more.
Proposition 140: Single primary for all candidates
The Single Primary for All Candidates and Possible RCV General Election Initiative is one of two citizen initiatives on the ballot.
If voted in, the proposition will support removing partisan primaries where candidates will be listed on the same ballot regardless of their party affiliation. In general elections, the proposition will require rank-choice voting for the candidates, applying two-top or four-top primaries.
This can open up the opportunity for two candidates of the same party affiliation to run against each other in a primary election, and then ultimately the general election, according to official ballot measure language by the Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.
"I think, two-party systems are dangerous, especially when you're pigeonholed into picking one even when you don't specifically like one, I think that's why most people don't like whatever candidate they end up with," said Kyle Gamotis, a sophomore studying psychology.
"Their measure will result in some races where candidates from only one political party appear on the general election ballot,' according to the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, an organization opposed to the proposition.
Proposition 133: Require partisan primaries
Proposition 133 will continue with the current practice of holding primary elections for offices of political parties, according to the official ballot measure language by the Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes. The proposition is titled The Require Partisan Primaries and Prohibit Primaries Where Candidates Compete Regardless of Party Affiliation Amendment.
This is a direct counter to Proposition 140 since it will reinforce the current election process into the state constitution, making it an amendment. This amendment can only be altered if another amendment is passed in the future.
Proposition 134: Signature distribution requirement for initiatives
The Signature Distribution Requirement for Initiatives Amendment would change the amount of signatures needed for citizen initiatives by targeting each legislative district.
If voted in, the proposition would require a certain percentage of signatures from each legislative district from eligible voters — 10% for state statutes and 15% for constitutional amendments — according to the legislative analysis.
Voting 'no' on the proposition would oppose requiring a signature percentage from each legislative district but instead would continue the required 10% for state statutes and 15% for constitutional amendments from the state as a whole.
Proposition 135: Emergency powers
The Emergency Declarations Amendment would change the emergency powers given to the governor in a state of emergency.
"We should be pretty wary of giving somebody emergency powers, but, when disasters and states of emergency do happen, we don't necessarily want to have the governor have to go through a whole bunch of hoops in order to be able to take action that's going to save lives," said Samuel Pritchett, a graduate student studying law.
If voted in, the proposition would support a constitutional change to clarify that after 30 days of declaring a state of emergency, the governor's powers would terminate. After that, the governor would have to call a special session to alter the powers granted to them, according to the ballot measure language from the Secretary of State's office.
Pritchett said the decision to vote for or against the ballot measure comes down to if the voter wants the governor to have "specific and clearly outlined restrictions on their exercise of power" or if the governor can "have a little bit more flexibility in terms of how those powers work."
Proposition 136: Legal challenges to constitutionality of initiatives
If voted in, the Legal Challenges to Constitutionality of Initiatives Amendment would support challenging citizen initiatives up to 100 days before election day, according to the legislative analysis.
Voting 'no' on the proposition would oppose challenging initiatives up to 100 days before the election, keeping the current practice of only being able to challenge after the referendum is filed with the secretary of state, according to Article 5, Title 19 of the Arizona Revised Statues.
Proposition 137: Removal of judges' and justices' term limits
The proposition, called The End Term Limits and Retention Elections for Supreme Court Justices and Superior Court Judges Amendment, will remove term limits for state supreme court justices and superior court judges.
If voted in, the proposition would support that judges and justices would no longer be up for retention — a vote on whether they should keep their position or not — according to the legislative analysis. The Commission on Judicial Performance Review would instead evaluate each judge or justice every four years.
Proposition 138: Wages for tipped workers
The Wages for Tipped Workers Amendment would support lowering tipped workers' wages up to 25% less an hour than minimum wage if the employer can determine that the worker is making minimum wage plus $2 per hour for all hours worked, according to the legislative analysis.
Voting 'no' on the proposition would oppose lowering tipped workers' wages by 25%. A 'no' would keep the minimum wage at $11.35, $3 less than the current minimum wage for non-tipped employees, according to the Department of Labor.
READ MORE: Arizona ballot measure sparks discussion around 'tipping culture'
Proposition 139: Right to abortion initiative
The proposition is one of two citizen initiatives. It received a record-breaking number of over 800,000 signatures, more than double the required minimum.
If voted in, the proposition would support amending the state constitution to provide for the "fundamental right to abortion." This means the state could not interfere before the point of fetal viability unless justified by a compelling state interest, according to the ballot measure language from the secretary of state's office.
"We support it because we believe in the right to privacy, the right to live, the right to protect safe and legal abortions," said Destiny Boyles, a junior studying criminology and criminal justice and an officer for ASU's Planned Parenthood Generation Action club.
Voting 'no' on the proposition would oppose amending the state constitution, keeping the current 15-week ban.
"The proposed amendment, among other things, would likely remove most safeguards for girls and women that are currently in place at abortion clinics, permit a minor to obtain an abortion without parental involvement or permission, and allow for painful late-term abortions of viable pre-born children," the Catholic Bishops of Arizona said in a statement opposing the proposition.
READ MORE: As elections loom, abortion ballot measure leaves students wondering about access
Proposition 311: Criminal conviction fee for first responder death
Proposition 311, called the Criminal Conviction Fee for First Responder Death Financial Benefit Measure, would support adding a fee of $20 to every criminal conviction.
The fee would be put toward "a new state death benefit of $250,000 to the surviving spouse or children of a first responder who is killed in the line of duty as the result of another person's criminal act," according to the legislative analysis.
Proposition 312: Property tax refund for non-enforcement of public nuisances
The Property Tax Refund for Non-Enforcement of Public Nuisance Laws Measure would begin in the 2025 tax year and continue through to the 2035 tax year.
If voted in, the proposition would support giving property owners the ability to apply for a tax refund if the city has not maintained a public nuisance, such as "illegal camping, obstructing a public thoroughfare, loitering, panhandling, urinating or defecating in public, consuming alcoholic beverages in public or possessing or using illegal substances," and must have supporting documentation, according to the legislative analysis.
Proposition 313: Life sentence for child sex trafficking
If voted in, the proposition would support requiring a life sentence without any form of release if a person is convicted of a class 2 felony for any child sex trafficking offense, according to the ballot measure language by Fontes.
Voting 'no' on the proposition would oppose the measure to keep the current law, which is a minimum sentence of seven years and as much as a life sentence without the ability of release, according to the legislative analysis.
Proposition 314: Immigration and border law enforcement
If voted in, the Immigration and Border Law Enforcement Measure would support a few things. It will make it illegal for non-citizens to enter the state anywhere except the port of entry, allow police to arrest non-citizens who entered the country unlawfully and allow state judges to have the ability to order deportations.
It would also require an E-Verify program to determine the immigration status of someone before they enroll in a financial aid or public welfare program, establish a Class 6 felony for someone who submits false information and documentation for employment eligibility or to apply for public benefits, and establish a Class 2 felony if a person knowingly sells fentanyl that results in the death of an individual, according to the Ballotpedia summary.
Proposition 315: Ratification of state agency rules that increase regulatory costs
If voted in, the proposition would support requiring state agencies to submit a proposed rule to the Office of Economic Opportunity if their regulatory costs, or out-of-pocket expenses, increase by more than $100,000 within five years, according to the legislative analysis.
If regulatory costs are estimated to be more than $500,000 in five years, the rule could not go into effect unless legislation would ratify the proposed rule.
Edited by George Headley, Sophia Braccio, Tiya Talwar and Natalia Jarrett.
Reach the reporter at elbradfo@asu.edu and follow @emmalbradford__ on X.
Like The State Press on Facebook and follow @statepress on X.
Emma is a sophomore studying journalism and mass communication and political science, with a minor in business. This is her second semester with The State Press.
