2024 election guide: Propositions on the ballot in Arizona and Pima County

Arizona voters will be asked at least 13 questions on their ballots this election, to make decisions about abortion, immigration law enforcement and how we vote.

And depending on where you live, you might have additional questions, including local proposals about transportation, parks or schools.

The large number of propositions — highest since 2018 — makes for a long ballot. In many cases, ballots will be two double-sided pages.

As a quick key for voters, if an initiative starts with a 2, it was put on the ballot by voters via signature gathering. If it starts with a 3, it was put on the ballot by the Legislature. Measures that start with 1 are constitutional amendments and may have been referred to the ballot by either voters or the Legislature; local initiatives start with a 4.

In this guide, Props. 133 and 140 are taken out of order because they are competing proposals.

How Arizona Luminaria compiled this information

This guide includes licensed information from Ballotpedia , an online encyclopedia of American politics; official information from the Arizona Secretary of State ; plus campaign documents, debates, town hall meetings, and other research.

Jump to a proposition

Prop. 133 Prop. 140 Prop. 134 Prop. 135 Prop. 136 Prop. 137 Prop. 138 Prop. 139 Prop. 311 Prop. 312 Prop. 313 Prop. 314 Prop. 315 Sahuarita South Tucson Schools

Prop. 133: Partisan primary elections

Prop. 133 is one of two competing proposals asking Arizona voters to change the election system. The other is Prop. 140. If both pass, the one with the most votes will take effect, according to the Associated Press.

A yes vote would change the state constitution to:

• Require partisan primary elections for partisan offices
• Prohibit primary elections where all candidates, regardless of political party affiliation, run in the same primary election, such as top-two or top-four primaries
• Change many nonpartisan city-level elections to become partisan
• Would not change independent voters’ ability to participate in partisan primary elections by choosing one party’s ballot

A no vote maintains the status quo of requiring partisan primaries for partisan offices.

Background : Prop. 133 was placed on the ballot by the state Legislature because of the effort to bring open primaries and ranked-choice voting to Arizona (see Prop. 140). By making this change to the state constitution, it would be harder for future election reform efforts to make it to the ballot.

The alternative to partisan primaries is open primaries, in which voters can participate in any party’s primary regardless of their party affiliation.

City election effect: City elections are most affected by Prop. 133, which would supersede city systems and require partisan primaries.

In Arizona, many cities use open primaries for their local elections. Candidates for local offices, like mayor and city council, appear on the ballot without party labels, and voters can vote for any candidate in the primary election. In some Arizona cities, if a candidate for mayor or city council receives more than 50% of the vote in the primary, they win the election outright. If no candidate wins a majority of the votes, the top two candidates advance to the general election.

School board election effect: The language sent to the ballot by the state legislature says this change would not apply to school boards, which are currently nonpartisan races. However, arguments published in the voter information provided by the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office say this proposition could make school board elections partisan. It’s an important possibility: If the Legislature were to make school board positions partisan — and they tried this year, but the bill was vetoed by the governor — then school board elections would need to comply with the partisan primary rules in Prop. 133, according to the Arizona School Boards Association.

For: Supporters say the existing system would be protected by Prop. 133 and would prevent Arizona or Arizona cities from adopting open primaries.

With open primaries, it is possible that only candidates from one party would advance to the general election, and supporters of Prop. 133 want to ensure candidates from both major parties, and third parties such as the Green Party, make it to the general election cycle.

Supporters include: the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, a conservative advocacy group that focuses on promoting free-market policies and limited government in Arizona.

Against: Opponents of Prop. 133 want election reform and support Prop. 140, a competing citizen initiative for election reform that would bring open primaries and ranked-choice voting to Arizona.

Opponents include: The League of Women Voters of Arizona, the Arizona Public Health Association, and the Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter.

Related : A debate of Propositions 133 and 140 was hosted by the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission and the Arizona Media Association. Watch here .

Prop. 140: Open primary elections

Prop. 140 is one of two competing proposals asking Arizona voters to change the election system. The other is Prop. 133. If both pass, the one with the most votes will take effect, according to the Associated Press.

A yes vote would change to state constitution to:

• Require open primary elections in which all candidates, regardless of political party affiliation, appear on the primary ballot
• Allow the top vote getters in the primary election to advance to the general election, even if they’re from the same political party
• Require candidates to receive a majority of votes in general elections, not just the highest number of votes
• Require the use of ranked-choice voting in general elections when three or more candidates advance from the primary election and only one candidate will win in the general election
• And make the petition signature requirements the same for all candidates for a given office.

A no vote maintains the current system of semi-open primaries, where a person unaffiliated with a political party may vote in ANY primary and those affiliated with a party must vote in that party’s primary only.

The measure doesn’t specify whether the open primary system would be a top-two system or a top-four system. Rather, it leaves it up to the state Legislature to pass a bill to set these rules. If the Legislature doesn’t pass such a bill by Nov. 1, 2025, then the Arizona Secretary of State will decide.

Background: Also known as the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act, Prop. 140 made it to the ballot after legal challenges that reached the Arizona Supreme Court.

Arizonans rejected election reform in 2012 with Proposition 121, a citizen initiative to replace partisan primaries with top-two primaries, according to Ballotpedia .

However, Arizona voters are interested in election reform. According to the statewide survey called the Arizona Voters’ Agenda , 77% of Arizonans agree with the statement: “Our partisan primary system rewards the most extreme candidates who then need to keep their narrow base of primary voters satisfied while they are in office so they can get reelected. We need to make changes to our primary system so we elect leaders who represent more than just a small segment of voters.”

Fourteen states, including Texas, use an open-primary system and six others have semi-open primaries. In Arizona’s semi-open system, independents can vote in a partisan primary.

Alaska uses a nonpartisan primary system in which the top four candidates, regardless of party affiliation, advance to the general election, where ranked-choice voting is used. California and Washington use a top-two primary system, in which the top two candidates, regardless of party, advance to the general election.

For: Supporters say the voting system proposed in Prop. 140 is more fair to independent voters who have to request a ballot in the primaries now, and to independent candidates who have to collect far more signatures on petitions than partisan candidates. As of July 2024, independent voters make up 34% of all registered voters in the state, while 35% are Republican and 29% are Democrats.

Supporters also say this proposal will reduce political polarization by giving moderate candidates a better chance of advancing beyond the primaries.

The Make Elections Fair political action committee, which has raised nearly $7 million for this cause, is leading the campaign for Prop. 140, according to Ballotpedia . The campaign chair is Sarah Smallhouse, a prominent Tucson civic leader and president of the Thomas R. Brown Foundations. Independent Paul Johnson, Republican Beau Lane and Democrat Patrick DeConcini are co-chairs.

Other supporters include the Southern Arizona Leadership Council, Tucson Metro Chamber , Greater Phoenix Leadership, and the Center for the Future of Arizona , as well as former governor Fife Symington, a Republican, and former state attorney general Terry Goddard, a Democrat.

Against: Opponents include the Republican Party of Arizona, the Pima County Republican Party, the Green Party of Arizona, the League of Women Voters of Arizona, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, and the Center for Arizona Policy.

Related : A debate of Propositions 133 and 140 was hosted by the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission and the Arizona Media Association. Watch here .

Prop. 134: Signature requirements for citizen-initiated ballot propositions

Prop. 134 would amend the state constitution to change the way citizen initiatives get to the ballot. Instead of setting statewide petition signature requirements, signatures would be required in each of Arizona’s 30 legislative districts. It would not change the total signature requirements, but would change where the signatures need to come from to spread them out across the state.

Background: Placed on the ballot by the state Legislature, this change would make it impossible for a citizen initiative to qualify for the ballot by only collecting signatures in metro areas. Rather, a group would need to circulate petitions across the state, collecting a set number in each area.

A yes vote would set geographical distribution requirements.

• For initiatives for state constitutional amendments, a group would need to collect signatures from at least 15% of the voters in each legislative district.
• For initiatives for state statutory amendments, a group would need to collect signatures from at least 10% of the voters in each legislative district.
• For state referendums  — when citizens petition to refer a law passed by the Legislature to voters — a group would need to collect signatures from at least 5% of the voters in each legislative district.

A no vote would keep the current system, in which a group must gather signatures from 5-15% of the voters statewide, with no requirements about what parts of the state they live in.

For: Supporters include the Center for Arizona Policy and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club.

Against: Opponents include the League of Women Voters of Arizona, Save Our Schools Arizona, and the ACLU of Arizona.

Prop. 135: Emergency powers

Prop. 135 would give the Legislature new powers to limit the emergency powers of the governor. It would allow the Legislature to end a state of emergency declared by the governor and would automatically end the governor’s emergency powers 30 days after declaring an emergency unless the Legislature passes an extension. The rules include exceptions for war, floods and fires.

Background: This proposal was placed on the ballot by the state Legislature in response to Covid-related lockdowns.

A yes vote would give the Legislature new powers to limit the emergency powers of the governor.

A no vote would keep the current system, in which the governor decides when to declare a state of emergency and when to end it.

For: Supporters say this is an important part of checks and balances on government power and include the Arizona Free Enterprise Club.

Against: Opponents include the League of Women Voters of Arizona, the Arizona Public Health Association and the Arizona Alliance for Community Health Centers.

Prop. 136: Challenges to ballot measures

Prop. 136 would allow challenges to a ballot initiative once the proposal is filed with the secretary of state and before it gets to voters. Currently, legal challenges happen after a measure is passed by voters. The potential for lawsuits could also make citizen initiatives slower and involve more expensive campaigns.

Background : Prop. 136 was placed on the ballot by the State Legislature.

For: Supporters want to make it easier to stop or slow citizens initiatives with lawsuits before they get to the ballot.

Against: Opponents include the League of Women Voters of Arizona, the Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona and the ACLU of Arizona.

Prop. 137: End term limits for judges

Prop. 137 would:

• End six-year term limits for state supreme court justices and appeals court justices and four-year term limits for superior court judges in Maricopa, Pima, Pinal and Yavapai counties
• Allow judges to keep their jobs as long as they have “good behavior”
• End retention elections at the end of the judicial term, meaning voters will no longer decide whether to retain judges at the end of their judicial terms Judges would still come up for a retention election under certain circumstances, including a felony conviction or a conviction involving fraud or dishonesty; a bankruptcy or foreclosure; or failure to meet performance standards as determined by a majority of the Commission on Judicial Performance Review. Judges would be reviewed by the commission at least once every four years, and the commission would be required to review a judge on the request of a state legislator.
• Maintain the mandatory retirement age of 70

If approved, changes would apply retroactively, so if voters choose to remove a judge on the ballot this November, that judge would keep their job.

Background: Prop. 137 was placed on the ballot by the state Legislature. Currently, judges are appointed by the governor after a nonpartisan merit selection process. They serve terms of four or six years, depending on the position, are reviewed by the commission, and must be retained or removed by voters at the end of their terms.

Some say the proposal is an effort to protect Arizona Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King, who are up for retention or removal this year, following their controversial decision in April to uphold an 1864 Arizona law that was a near-total ban on abortion.

For: Supporters say this proposal would result in shorter ballots without sacrificing accountability. Supporters include the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, a conservative advocacy group that focuses on promoting free-market policies and limited government in Arizona, and the Arizona Judges Association.

Against: Opponents say this proposal would give judges a lifetime appointment and bring politics into the Commission on Judicial Performance Review.

Judge John Hannah of the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County — to whom this change would apply — submitted an argument in opposition to Prop. 137 to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office. “Proposition 137 would change the JPR Commission from a neutral information source to a political actor,” he wrote. He concluded, “judges would be made answerable to those who are loud and well-connected, instead of to the public.”

Opponents include the League of Women Voters of Arizona, former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, the ACLU of Arizona, and Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona.

Related : A debate of Prop. 137 was hosted by the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission and the Arizona Media Association. Watch here .

Prop. 138: Wages for tipped workers

Prop. 138 would allow tipped workers to be paid 25% less per hour than the minimum wage if the sum of their wages plus tips is at least equal to the minimum wage.

Background: Prop. 138 was placed on the ballot by the state Legislature to potentially compete with another minimum-wage ballot measure that did not make the ballot this year.

Currently the Arizona minimum wage is $14.35 an hour, and the minimum is adjusted each year for inflation.

The current law says tipped workers can be paid up to $3 per hour less than the minimum wage if wages plus tips are at least equal to the minimum wage.

According to the political action committee called Save Our Tips AZ , if Prop. 138 were in place today, the guaranteed base wage for servers would be $16.35 per hour instead of $14.35 per hour.

The Common Sense Institute of Arizona says fixing the credit at a percentage rather than a dollar amount will prevent the regular increases in the minimum wage from eating away at the value of the credit.

A yes vote would allow tipped workers to be paid 25% less than minimum wage if the sum of their wages plus tips is at least equal to the minimum wage.

A no vote would maintain the current system, which pays employees $3 less than minimum wage as long as their take-home pay, including tips, amounts to the minimum wage.

For: Supporters of the campaign include the Arizona Restaurant Association, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, National Restaurant Association and the Tucson Metro Chamber .

Against: Democratic party leaders are opposed. The Pima County Republican Party encouraged its members to vote no.

Prop. 139: Abortion

Prop. 139 would add a fundamental right to abortion to the state constitution. The proposed amendment would allow abortions until a fetus could survive outside the womb, typically around 24 weeks, with exceptions to save the mother’s life or to protect her physical or mental health. It would restrict the state from adopting or enforcing any law that would prohibit access to the procedure.

Background: This is a citizen initiative. The organizing team, called Arizona for Abortion Access, collected more than 500,000 signatures on petitions to get Prop. 139 on the ballot.

Democrats have made abortion rights a central message since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 — and it is a key part of their efforts in this election year, according to the Associated Press . Nine other states also are voting on abortion this election — the most on record for a single year.

There were 11,530 reported abortions in Arizona in 2022 , according to the most recent data report from the Arizona Department of Health Services, published in December. About half were performed using surgery and half using medication.

A yes vote would change the constitution to add a right to abortion.

A no vote would leave in place the current Arizona law prohibiting abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

The current law, signed in 2022, includes exceptions in cases of medical emergencies. It contains no exceptions for victims of rape.

It requires those seeking an abortion prior to the 15-week mark to have an ultrasound at least 24 hours before the procedure and to be given the opportunity to view it. Minors must have either parental consent or authorization from a state judge, except in cases of incest or when their life is at risk.

Abortion medication can only be provided through a qualified physician, and only licensed physicians can perform surgical abortions. Abortion providers and clinics also must record and report certain information about the abortions they perform to the department of health services.

What about the 1864 abortion ban?

In April, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld an 1864 abortion ban that permitted abortions only to save the mother’s life and provided no exceptions for survivors of rape or incest, but the Legislature voted for a repeal in May and Gov. Katie Hobbs quickly signed it.

For: Supporters say a constitutional amendment ensures abortion rights cannot be easily erased by the court or the Legislature. The political action committee Arizona for Abortion Access has raised nearly $23 million.

Against: Opponents say the measure is too extreme and uses broad terms, like “fetal viability” and who counts as a “healthcare professional.” The campaign against Prop. 139, called It Goes Too Far , has raised nearly $900,000.

Prop. 311: A new fee to benefit the families of first responders who are killed in the line of duty

Prop. 311 would establish a $20 fee on every criminal conviction, which would go into a new fund to pay a $250,000 benefit to the family of any first responder who is killed in the line of duty. If the new fund collects more than $2 million, the Legislature could use the extra money for police training. Prop. 311 also would increase the level of punishment for committing an aggravated assault against peace officers or other first responders and would expire Jan. 1, 2033.

Background: Also known as the Back the Blue Act, this proposal was placed on the ballot by the state Legislature to counter rhetoric about defunding the police.

Prop. 312: Property tax refund

Prop. 312 would allow owners of homes and business properties to apply for a property tax refund if the city in which the property is located does not enforce laws regarding illegal camping, loitering, obstructing public thoroughfares, panhandling, public urination or defecation, public consumption of alcoholic beverages, and possession or use of illegal substances.

Background: Prop. 312 was placed on the ballot by the state Legislature in response to cities’ inaction on large homeless encampments.

For: Supporters include the Arizona Restaurant Association, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Tucson Metro Chamber , the Tucson Crime Free Coalition, and the Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce.

Against: Lutheran Social Services of the Southwest, a nonprofit social service organization, says Prop. 312 would result in less tax revenue available to address homelessness. Other opponents include the ACLU of Arizona.

Prop. 313: Life imprisonment for child sex trafficking

Prop. 313 would change the sentence for someone who is convicted of child sex trafficking to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Background: Prop. 313 was placed on the ballot by the state Legislature. Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb wrote in his argument for this proposal: “A yes vote on Prop 313 means you are willing to protect our kids and give our law enforcement the tools needed to hold sex traffickers accountable for their actions. Help us to send a strong message to those who wish to exploit the most vulnerable populations that our children are not for sale.”

Prop. 314: Immigration and border law enforcement

Prop. 314 would criminalize unauthorized border crossings at the state level, while giving state and local police and judges more power over migrant border crossing. It also tightens penalties on fentanyl sales.

A yes vote would:

• Make it a state crime if a migrant crosses the border anywhere but a port of entry
• Allow state and local police to arrest people who cross the border unlawfully
• Allow state judges to order deportations
• Require using the E-Verify program to check for eligibility for some public benefit programs and employment, and make it a crime to knowingly use false documents to apply for public benefits
• Make the sale of fentanyl a Class 2 felony (punishable by up to 10 years in prison) if a person knowingly sells fentanyl that leads to a person’s death.

A no vote would maintain current criminal laws and the federal government’s exclusive authority over deportation.

Background: The state Legislature put this proposal on the ballot, and you may have heard it called by the name of the bill, HCR 2060, or as the “Secure the Border Act.” This proposal is the biggest push to draw local authorities into immigration enforcement since SB 1070 — the state’s controversial 2010 law that required police to question people’s immigration status in certain situations, according to the Associated Press . Arizonans have voted on six immigration-related ballot measures since 2000, approving five and rejecting one, according to Ballotpedia .

According to the statewide survey called the Arizona Voters’ Agenda , 82% of Arizonans agree with the statement: “The current influx of thousands of migrants at the southern border is an international humanitarian and refugee crisis. Our leaders must work together to find a bipartisan solution to this problem.”

For: The proposal was initiated by Republican leaders. While federal law already prohibits the unauthorized entry of migrants into the U.S., proponents of Prop. 314 say it’s needed because the federal government hasn’t done enough to stop people from crossing illegally.

Against: Opponents say the proposal would lead to racial profiling, hurt Arizona’s reputation in the business world and carry huge unfunded costs for police departments that don’t typically enforce immigration law. Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed a similar measure in March and denounced the effort to bring the issue to voters. Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), Poder in Action, Phoenix Legal Action Network and others sued to try to block the proposal from the ballot, but the lawsuit was dismissed. Groups including the ACLU of Arizona, the League of Women Voters of Arizona and the Bishops of the Arizona Catholic Conference submitted arguments in opposition to Prop. 314 to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office. The Tucson Metro Chamber encouraged its members to vote no.

Related: A debate of Prop. 314 was hosted by the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission and the Arizona Media Association. Watch here .

Prop. 315: State spending on regulations

Prop. 315 would give the state legislature the authority to approve or block rules made by state agencies — such as the education department and the health department — that result in new regulatory spending of more than $500,000 within five years.

Background: This proposal was placed on the ballot by the state Legislature.

For: Supporters say this measure moves authority away from agency officials and toward elected lawmakers, an important part of checks and balances on government power.

Against: Opponents say this proposal could have unintended consequences in state departments like education and health, that have authority to set their own regulatory processes. Opponents include the League of Women Voters of Arizona.

Local questions within Pima County

Sahuarita

Voters in the Town of Sahuarita can participate in a Special Bond and Franchise Election, including five ballot propositions. The Prop. 403 bond election would authorize the town to issue and sell general obligation bonds up to $66 million to provide funding for parks and recreation, police and public safety, and infrastructure projects. The other questions — Prop. 404, Prop. 405, Prop. 406, and Prop. 407 — are about utility franchise agreements, which would provide natural gas and water for the town. See the Sahuarita voter information pamphlet .

South Tucson

Voters in the City of South Tucson will see two ballot questions: Prop. 408 will set the town’s alternative expenditure limit and Prop. 409 would authorize the town to issue and sell general obligation bonds up to $6 million to buy vehicles and equipment for the fire department and repair and renovate the fire station.

School bond and override elections

Check which school district you live in . Only voters in these school districts will see the proposition for their school district on their ballots.

Continental Elementary School District

Prop. 410 asks voters to approve 15% maintenance and operation budget override. The district says it will use the money to minimize class-size increases, offset state and federal funding reductions, and maintain school programs. The estimated cost to a homeowner with a property value of $210,530 (the average value of a home in the school district) would be about $27.42 per year, according to the Continental voter information pamphlet .

Marana Unified School District

Prop. 411 asks voters to approve 15% maintenance and operation budget override. The district says it will use the money to maintain teachers and staff pay, current class sizes, full-day kindergarten, and fine arts and extracurricular activities. The estimated cost to a homeowner with a property value of $229,030 (the average value of a home in the district) would be about $273 per year, according to the Marana voter information pamphlet .

Amphitheater Unified School District

Prop. 412 asks voters to approve an $84 million bond for school facility maintenance, renovations, student transportation, and instructional technology. The estimated cost to a homeowner with a property value of $250,000 would be about $81 per year, according to the Amphi voter information pamphlet .

Prop. 413 asks voters to approve a 13.5% maintenance and operation budget override. The district says it will use the money to maintain full-day kindergarten, reduce or maintain class sizes, maintain elementary school art/music and physical education programs, pay for intervention programs for struggling learners, and more. The estimated cost to a homeowner with a property value of $298,120 (the average value of a home in the district) would be about $185 per year, according to the Amphi voter information pamphlet .

The post 2024 election guide: Propositions on the ballot in Arizona and Pima County appeared first on AZ Luminaria .