Here is a run-down of the impacts of the propositions on your ballot: 

Prop 133  would cement Arizona’s current partisan primary system into the state Constitution. Most Arizonans who vote in primary elections are faithful Republican or Democratic voters. Though independents are eligible to vote in primary elections, they must proactively ask for a partisan primary ballot. Most do not; primary elections see roughly half the turnout of a general election. Because of this, for the past several cycles, Arizona primaries have seen extreme candidates win out over moderates, resulting in a “radically different” state legislative makeup that is less favorable to mainstream issues like public education. 

Prop 133 would also outlaw ranked-choice voting statewide, specifically superseding city and county elections. This would force cities such as Phoenix to stop using their current “top-two primary” system, in which all candidates run on the same nonpartisan ballot and the top two candidates advance to a runoff if none wins a majority. 

Prop 134 would restrict Arizona’s initiative and referendum process by requiring citizen’s initiative campaigns to collect signatures for ballot measures from a percentage of voters in each of Arizona’s 30 legislative districts: 10% of voters for initiatives and 15% for a constitutional amendment. This would allow a small area of the state to sink a measure that has otherwise broad support. Republicans at the Arizona Legislature introduced the measure for four years in a row before they succeeded in placing it on the ballot. Legislators in other red states, like Missouri, Ohio and Idaho, are attempting similar measures, largely in response to citizens enacting laws that run counter to the policy preferences of their lawmakers. Prop 134 only impacts citizen-led initiatives, not legislatively referred ones. 

Prop 135 would automatically end the governor’s special powers related to an emergency declaration after 30 days unless the Legislature votes to extend them. It would require lawmakers to come back to work, including when out of session, to do this. Currently, lawmakers need a two-thirds majority vote to call a special session. But Prop 135 requires only a one-third majority to do so. To put this into perspective, roughly one-third of lawmakers are so-called “election deniers,” those who repeat disinformation that leads to voters adopting false beliefs about elections. 

Prop 136 would allow anyone to sue to invalidate a citizen initiative, even before it’s been placed on the ballot, on grounds that it is not constitutional. This would force citizens’ groups to fundraise and defend themselves in court against lawsuits at the same time as they are collecting signatures. If a judge agrees, the initiative would be removed from the ballot, even if enough voters signed to qualify it. Prop 136 only impacts citizen-led initiatives, not legislatively referred ones. 

Prop 137 would eliminate the current retention process for judges in Arizona’s 4 most populous counties (Maricopa, Pima, Pinal and Coconino counties), along with all appellate and Supreme Court judges. It would allow these judges to serve until the mandatory retirement age of 70, instead of facing public retention elections every 4-6 years. Retention questions would go to voters only in the most limited cases, such as if a judge is convicted of a felony. The measure is retroactive, so if voters pass Prop 137, the entire judicial retention slate for November would be voided, and all judges would stay in office even if voters chose not to retain them. The current process was championed by Sandra Day O’Connor and passed by Arizona voters in 1974.

Prop 139 would guarantee a fundamental right to abortion until a fetus is viable outside the uterus (up to 24 weeks), with exceptions after that point if a health care provider judges it necessary to preserve the life, physical or mental health of their patient. 

This would reverse a number of state laws. Current Arizona law is a 15-week ban with no exceptions for rape or incest. Doctors who provide abortion beyond that point for any reason other than to prevent a patient’s death or the “substantial and irreversible impairment” of a major bodily function face a class 6 felony penalty with a potential prison sentence of up to 2 years. Arizona law also mandates waiting periods, pre-service ultrasounds, and pre-service counseling. 

A large body of evidence shows that restrictions on abortion result in harmful health outcomes, from a rise in infant deaths to impacts to women’s lives and health because doctors are uncertain about what the law allows them to do. 

Prop 140 is an initiative that would open primary elections to all voters, regardless of party affiliation. All candidates would appear on the same ballot, which would be sent to all registered voters. It requires the state legislature to pass a law deciding how many candidates advance from the primary to the general election in many races. If lawmakers fail to act, the Secretary of State would single-handedly decide. Although voter ranking is “taken into account” for single-seat elections, there is no requirement that voter rankings must apply to multi-seat elections. This could make Arizona’s elections more volatile and has the potential to impact our state for decades to come. 

Prop 312 would require cities and counties to give property owners tax refunds if the county or city does not “adequately” enforce existing laws that criminalize common activities for people experiencing homelessness. These activities include illegal camping, obstructing public thoroughfares, loitering and panhandling. Cities have been constraining their actions because of a 2019 court decision that found those actions unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court recently overturned that ruling, leaving cities legally able to enforce existing urban camping bans. 

Prop 312 does not contain funding for job training programs or enforcement or shelter beds. It is instead designed to penalize cities financially, which would force them to either cut services or push the tax burden from refunded citizens onto other taxpayers. This will impact budgets for many public services, including transportation and public safety. 

Prop 314 is a sweeping ballot measure that would make it a state crime to cross a federal border without documentation and give local police immunity to arrest those they suspect of crossing the border illegally. The measure, modeled after a Texas law that is currently tied up in the courts, could cost Arizona taxpayers at least $325 million a year and does not include funding for any of its costs. 

The measure has drawn opposition from law enforcement and the business community. County attorneys strongly oppose Prop 314 due to “the burden on local agencies and their already strained resources,” considering Arizona is making budget cuts due to a deficit, and law enforcement is already financially strained. Business groups have called it “an unworkable response to a federal problem with unknown consequences” and “an unfunded mandate on local law enforcement,” and cited the “potential hardship for our state’s economy and our residents.” 

The measure will also impact public schools and students. Unlike similar proposals in other states, Prop 314 does not make any exemptions for enforcement in places like schools. This will carry far-reaching consequences for learning environments, affecting student enrollment, achievement and absenteeism. 

Prop 315 would block Arizona agencies from creating rules that would increase regulatory costs by more than $500,000 over 5 years. This is a very small amount of money in the government world, in many cases equivalent to hiring a few positions. The Legislature would instead be required to enact legislation to ratify the proposed rule into law. Because rulemaking is necessary for our government to function, as it bridges the gaps between what a law envisions and how it’s carried out, this would drastically limit our state government’s ability to regulate spending. Because it can take months or years for our deeply divided state legislature to pass laws, Prop 315 would likely create lengthy delays for updating regulations. This would constrain state oversight for many state programs and services. Voters must carefully consider this measure’s impacts to public education, public safety, and other important governmental services.