A “YES” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to require that when the Legislature enacts laws regulating direct primary elections for partisan offices, those laws shall supersede any city law, regulation, or policy to the contrary. The primaries would be conducted in a manner so that each political party represented on the ballot may nominate for each office a number of candidates equal to the number of positions to be filled for that office in the ensuing general election and requires eligible candidates who are nominated at a primary election to be placed on the next general election ballot.

A “NO” vote shall have the effect of keeping the current laws related to partisan primary elections.

A “YES” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to require an applicant wishing to place a statewide measure on the ballot to collect a certain percentage of signatures in each of the 30 legislative districts, rather than a percentage of the total number of statewide voters. Signatures from 10% of the voters in each district would be required for a statewide initiative to appear on the ballot. Signatures from 15% of the voters in each district would be required for an amendment to the Arizona Constitution to appear on the ballot. Signatures from 5% of the voters in each district would be required for a statewide referendum to appear on the ballot. If a proposed measure does not obtain the minimum percentage of signatures in any one of the 30 legislative districts, it would fail to qualify for the ballot, and would not be presented to voters.

A “NO” vote shall have the effect of keeping the current constitutional language requiring only the signatures of 10% of the total number of statewide voters for an initiative to amend a statute, 15% of statewide voters for a constitutional amendment, and 5% of statewide voters for a referendum.

Supported by State Rep. Joseph Chaplik (R)

Ballot Language:

A “YES” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to automatically terminate any emergency powers granted to the Governor thirty days after the date the state of emergency was proclaimed, unless the Legislature extends the emergency powers granted to the Governor or the emergency relates to war, fire, or flood. If the Legislature does not extend the emergency, the Governor may not declare a new state of emergency arising under the same conditions. Additionally, if requested by at least one-third of the members of each house of the Legislature, the Governor must promptly call a special session for the purposes of terminating or altering the emergency powers granted to the Governor during the state of emergency.

A “NO” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current emergency powers of the Governor.

Ballot Language:

A “YES” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to eliminate judicial terms for judges of the Arizona Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, and judges of the Superior Court in counties with more than 250,000 people. Voters will no longer have the ability to decide whether to retain those judges at the end of their judicial terms. Those judges would instead be subject to a retention election only if they were convicted of a felony or a crime involving fraud or dishonesty; were a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding; held a mortgage under foreclosure; or did not meet performance standards according to the Commission on Judicial Performance Review. The House of Representatives and the Senate will each be able to appoint one member to the Commission. If any legislator asks the Commission to investigate whether a judge has engaged in misconduct, the Commission must investigate that allegation. If approved, these amendments will apply retroactively such that votes cast in the November 2024 election about whether to retain a judge will not be given effect.

A “NO” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current system of voters deciding whether to retain a judge at the end of their judicial term.

Supported by State Sen. Javan Daniel Mesnard (R), and State Rep. Justin Wilmeth (R)

A “YES” vote shall have the effect of creating a fundamental right to abortion under Arizona’s constitution. The State will not be able to interfere with this fundamental right before fetal viability unless it has a compelling reason and does so in the least restrictive way possible. Fetal viability means the point in the pregnancy when, in the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus. Throughout the pregnancy, both before and after fetal viability, the State will not be able to interfere with the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional that an abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant individual. The State will not be able to penalize any person for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the right to an abortion.

A “NO” vote shall have the effect of not creating a fundamental right to have an abortion under Arizona’s constitution, will leave in place current laws that restrict abortion before fetal viability, and will allow the State to further restrict or ban abortion in the future.

Ballot Language:

A “YES” vote shall have the effect of allowing all eligible voters to vote for any primary election candidate, regardless of party affiliation; imposing the same signature requirements on all candidates for a given office who wish to appear on the primary ballot; generally prohibiting the use of public funds for political party elections; allowing future law to determine how many candidates advance from the primary election, as well as the process by which candidates are elected at the general election; and if future law provides that three or more candidates may advance to the general election for an office to which one candidate will be elected, voter rankings shall be used.

A “NO” vote shall have the effect of maintaining current requirements related to primary and general elections processes.

A “YES” vote shall have the effect of requiring the State of Arizona to pay $250,000, which would be referred to as the State Death Benefit, to the surviving spouse or children of a first responder killed in the line of duty; creating a State Supplemental Benefit Fund to pay the State Death Benefit; increasing criminal punishments for aggravated assaults against peace officers and other first responders; and require a $20 penalty fee be imposed on every criminal conviction to fund the State Supplemental Benefit Fund. The State Death Benefit, $20 penalty fee, and increased criminal punishments for aggravated assaults would expire on January 1, 2033.

A “NO” vote shall have the effect of not requiring the State of Arizona to provide a State Death Benefit for first responders killed in the line of duty.

A “YES” vote shall have the effect of establishing the right to apply for a refund from a property owner’s most recent property tax payment up to an amount that matches costs incurred by the property owner to mitigate the effects of a governing authority’s repeated failure to enforce laws and ordinances prohibiting illegal camping, loitering, obstructing public thoroughfares, panhandling, public urination or defecation, public consumption of alcoholic beverages, and possession or use of illegal substances. If the documented costs exceed the amount of the most recent property tax bill, the property owner would be permitted to apply for a refund from their next property tax payment(s) to cover the balance of the initial claim. Property owners would be eligible annually for refunds until the taxing entity begins enforcing the relevant public nuisance laws.

A “NO” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current primary property tax payment laws and regulations.

A “YES” vote shall have the effect of eliminating the current sentencing ranges for a Class 2 child sex trafficking conviction. The sentence for a person convicted of a Class 2 felony for child sex trafficking would be imprisonment for natural life without the possibility of release.

A “NO” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current statutory sentencing ranges for those convicted of a Class 2 felony for child sex trafficking. The current sentencing ranges are between 7 years and natural life imprisonment without the possibility of release, depending on the age of the victim, the defendant’s criminal history, and other factors.

A “YES” vote shall have the effect of creating new crimes regarding the following conduct by any person not lawfully present in the United States: (1) applying for a public benefit by submitting a false document; (2) submitting false information to an employer regarding the person’s authorization to work in the United States; (3) entering Arizona from a foreign country at any location other than a lawful port of entry; (4) refusing to comply with a court order to return to the person’s country of origin or entry. Also creates a new crime of selling fentanyl that causes the death of another person. Requires state courts to issue an order to return to a foreign country if a person is convicted of the illegal entry crime. The order to return must include an authorization allowing state and local law enforcement to transport the person to a port of entry or into federal custody.

A “NO” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current criminal and procedural laws.