ENGLISH (832) 930-3059 | SPANISH (832) 356-7254

Election results for Arizona’s 10 ballot measures – Arizona's Family

PHOENIX (3TV/CBS 5) — Ten propositions appear on this year’s ballot, including three that would impact the voting process in Arizona if passed. Learn more about the propositions below, including the latest numbers once counting begins after the polls close on Election Day.
The proposition gives the Arizona State Legislature the power to supersede existing, voter-approved measures if any part is declared illegal or unconstitutional. As of now, the state’s Voter Protection Act (Proposition 105) from 1998 prevents the legislature from making any changes to ballot initiatives and referendums. If a court finds problems with a measure, it could be struck down completely. Otherwise, the measure would need to be reworked and put back in front of voters in a future election.
How it appeared on ballots:
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WOULD ALLOW THE LEGISLATURE TO AMEND, DIVERT FUNDS FROM, OR SUPERSEDE AN INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM MEASURE ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF ARIZONA IF THE MEASURE IS FOUND TO CONTAIN ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL LANGUAGE BY THE ARIZONA OR UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of amending the constitution to allow the state legislature to amend, divert funds from, or supersede an initiative or referendum measure enacted by the people of Arizona if the measure is found to contain illegal or unconstitutional language by the Arizona or United States Supreme Court.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of retaining existing law on the state legislature’s ability to amend, divert funds from, or supersede an initiative or referendum measure.
Proposition 129 would limit the scope of voter initiatives to address only one subject at a time. Supporters say it will keep elections simple and voter-friendly. In addition, keeping one item at a time can prevent complicated or “hidden agenda” legislation from being packed in. However, opponents say it could deter initiatives from being comprehensive and inclusive.
How it appeared on ballots:
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WOULD LIMIT AN INITIATIVE MEASURE TOA SINGLE SUBJECT AND REQUIRE THAT SUBJECT TO BE EXPRESSED IN THE TITLE OF THE INITIATIVE MEASURE.
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of amending the constitution to limit each initiative measure to a single subject and require that subject to be expressed in the title of the initiative measure.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of retaining existing law on initiative measures.
The proposition was passed on Wednesday afternoon. This constitutional amendment will make some changes regarding property tax exemptions and allows exemptions for veterans with disabilities, widows, and widowers as soon as they become Arizona residents. Supporters say it allows disabled veterans to obtain financial relief already listed in the Arizona constitution but isn’t being offered based on a technicality. There are no major opposers to this initiative.
How it appeared on ballots:
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WOULD CONSOLIDATE FOUR SECTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION REGARDING PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS INTO A SINGLE SECTION; REMOVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL DETERMINATIONS OF THE AMOUNTS OF CERTAIN PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS; AND ALLOW PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR RESIDENT VETERANS WITH DISABILITIES, WIDOWS, AND WIDOWERS REGARDLESS OF WHEN THEY BECAME ARIZONA RESIDENTS.
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of amending the constitution to consolidate property tax exemptions into a single section; removing the constitutional determinations as to the amounts of certain property tax exemptions, leaving the legislature to prescribe by law the qualifications for and amounts of property tax exemptions it creates; allowing property tax exemptions for resident veterans with disabilities, widows, and widowers regardless of when they became Arizona residents; and establishing that a person is not eligible for property tax exemption under more than one category as a widow, widower, person with a disability, or veteran with a disability.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of retaining existing law on property tax exemptions.
Prop 131, if passed, would amend the state’s constitution to create the position of Lieutenant Governor beginning in 2026, replacing the secretary of state as the first line of succession. It provides a familiar model to other states, providing a ticket for who will assume the role of office should the governor be unable to carry out their duties. (Only five states in the U.S. don’t have this position). It also won’t create a bigger government, as this proposal would require the Lt. Governor to assume a current executive position.
How it appeared on ballots:
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WOULD CREATE A NEW EXECUTIVE OFFICER WHO WOULD BE ELECTED ON A JOINT TICKET WITH THE GOVENOR AND SUCCEED TO THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR IN THE EVENT OF THE GOVERNOR’S DEATH, REMOVAL FROM OFFICE, OR DISABILITY TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE.
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of amending the constitution to create the office of Lieutenant Governor beginning with the 2026 election; requiring that a nominee for Governor name a nominee for Lieutenant Governor to be jointly elected; replacing the Secretary of State with the Lieutenant Governor as first in the line of succession to the office of Governor; and provide that the Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Attorney General, and Superintendent of Public Instruction may succeed to the office of Governor regardless of whether they were elected.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current executive branch and existing law on executive succession.
Proposition 132 would require any initiative that would create a new tax to receive 60% of the vote to become law. However, there are several groups opposed, many saying this would disregard the majority rule of the people, putting more power back into the hands of state legislators.
How it appeared on ballots:
THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WOULD REQUIRE THAT AN INITIATIVE OR REFERENDUM TO APPROVE A TAX RECEIVES SIXTY PERCENT OF THE VOTES CAST TO BECOME LAW.
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of amending the constitution to require at least sixty percent of votes cast to approve an initiative or referendum that enacts a tax
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of retaining existing law on initiative and referendum measures.
Prop 209 covers medical debt, lowers the maximum interest rate from 10% to 3%, and protects more property from being seized or garnished. Supporters say it will protect families and small businesses and save their property. Opponents say it could lead to higher costs for everyone else and that lenders may be less inclined to offer financing.
How it appeared on ballots:
What is it? It targets so-called “Dark money” in our state’s elections. And it appears voters are mostly in favor of the initiative. If passed, It would ban big money donations from anonymous sources and increase reporting requirements.
More than 68 percent of likely voters surveyed by Arizona’s Family/Highground are in favor of full disclosure, while 13.8% are opposed. Approximately 17.8% are still undecided.
How it appeared on ballots:
THE LAW WOULD REQUIRE ENTITIES AND PERSONS SPENDING OVER $50,000 ON STATEWIDE CAMPAIGNS OR $25,000 ON OTHER CAMPAIGNS, NOT INCLUDING PERSONAL MONIES AND BUSINESS INCOME, TO DISCLOSE THE ORIGINAL DONOR OF CONTRIBUTIONS OVER $5,000; AND CREATE ADDITIONAL REPORTING AND ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of requiring additional disclosures and reporting by entities and persons whose campaign media spending and/or in-kind contributions for campaign media spending exceeds $50,000 in statewide campaigns or $25,000 in other campaigns, including identifying original donors of contributions of more than $5,000 in aggregate; creating penalties for violations of the law; and allowing the Citizens Clean Elections Commission to adopt rules and enforce the provisions of the law.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of retaining existing law on campaign finance reporting requirements.
Proposition 308 would guarantee in-state college tuition for students who graduate from a school in Arizona regardless of immigration status. To qualify, they would have to spend at least two years attending a public or private school in our state. They would also be eligible for state financial aid at public universities and community colleges across our state.
How it appeared on ballots:
THE LAW WOULD ALLOW ARIZONA STUDENTS, REGARDLESS OF IMMIGRATION STATUS, TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR FINANCIAL AID AT STATE UNIVERSITIES AND COMMUNITY COLLEGES AND IN-STATE TUITION IF THEY GRADUATED FROM AND ATTENDED A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL, OR HOME SCHOOL EQUIVALENT, FOR TWO YEARS IN ARIZONA.
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of allowing any Arizona student, regardless of immigration status, to be eligible for in-state tuition at state universities and community colleges if they graduated from, and spent at least two years attending, an Arizona public or private high school, or homeschool equivalent; allowing any Arizona student, regardless of immigration status, to be eligible for state financial aid at state universities and community colleges.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law on university and community college tuition.
If passed, this law would require voters to write their birthdate, ID number, and signature on the outside of the envelope (affidavit) voters put their early ballots in; require photo identification to vote in person, and require the MVDs to provide a free-of-charge ID card to those who ask for one for voting purposes.
How it appeared on ballots:
THE LAW WOULD REQUIRE VOTERS TO WRITE THEIR BIRTHDATE, GOVERNMENT-ISSUED IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, AND SIGNATURE ON A CONCEALED EARLY BALLOT AFFIDAVIT; REQUIRE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION TO VOTE IN-PERSON; AND REQUIRE THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO PROVIDE WITHOUT CHARGE A NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE TO INDIVIDUALS WHO REQUEST ONE FOR VOTING PURPOSES.
A “YES” vote shall have the effect of requiring the affidavit accompanying an early ballot and return envelope to be capable of being concealed when returned; requiring a voter to write their birth date, a state-issued identification number or the last four digits of the voter’s social security number, and signature on an early ballot affidavit; requiring certain photo identification issued by the State of Arizona, or a tribal government or the United States government, to receive a ballot at an in-person voting location; removing the ability to receive a ballot at an in-person voting location without photo identification when showing two other identifying documents; and requiring the Arizona Department of Transportation to provide, without charge, a nonoperating identification license to individuals who request one for the purpose of voting.
A “NO” vote shall have the effect of retaining existing law on early ballot affidavits and voter identification.
Copyright 2022 KTVK/KPHO. All rights reserved.
Election
Election
Election
Election
Election
Election
Election Headlines
Politics
Election Headlines
Election
Politics

source

Leave A Reply

Subscribe to our newsletter and promotions