2022 Propositions
SCCDP Suggests NO on Proposition 128
PROP 128: Voter protection act; court determinations
Summary: Prop 128 is a constitutional amendment that would allow lawmakers to bypass the Voter Protection Act to amend or repeal any ballot measure with any illegal or unconstitutional language. (Currently, the Voter Protection Act bars lawmakers from repealing voter-approved laws, or from amending them, unless lawmakers can muster a three-fourths majority in both chambers and the changes “further the intent” of the voter-approved law.)
Argument for it: The VPA prevents lawmakers from changing voter-approved laws — even when they have unintended consequences or violate the state or U.S. constitutions. It’s not allowing lawmakers to reject the will of the people, but rather, it asks voters let la repeal unconstitutional laws.
Who’s backing it: Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Center for Arizona Policy, Home Builders Association of Central Arizona
Argument against it: One single sentence or word in an initiative might be found unconstitutional, and the courts currently have a way to deal with that — they nullify just the unconstitutional part and leave the rest. But if Prop 128 passes, lawmakers could then throw out the entire law, even though most of it is perfectly constitutional, which would shift power from the voters to the Legislature.
Who’s opposing it: League of Women Voters of Arizona, One Arizona, Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), Save our Schools Arizona, Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter
SCCDP suggests NO on Proposition 129
PROP 129: Initiatives; single subject; title
Summary: Prop 129 would limit initiatives to a single subject and require each provision be represented in the title. While lawmakers are barred from loading multiple subjects into a single bill, citizens writing initiatives are not, the Arizona Supreme Court has ruled.
Arguments for it: Prop 129 would allow voters to support individual policies that they like, and oppose ideas they don’t like — rather than having to vote yes or no on several ideas at once. If single-subject the rule is good enough for lawmakers, it’s good enough for initiatives.
Who’s backing it: Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Center for Arizona Policy Action
Arguments against it: It would eliminate initiative backers’ ability to combine forces for good-governance initiatives that touch on several aspects of the law. It would give the courts yet another technicality to use to ignore the will of the people. And the same rules shouldn’t apply to initiatives as lawmakers because passing a bill is a lawmaker’s job, but it costs citizens a lot of time and money to pass their own laws via initiative.
Who’s opposing it: Arizona Education Association, One Arizona, League of Women Voters of Arizona
SCCDP is Neutral on Proposition 130
PROP 130: Constitutional property tax exemptions
Summary: Prop 130 would amend the state Constitution to allow lawmakers to provide a property tax cut for veterans with disabilities. The Arizona Constitution already offers property tax breaks for certain groups, including widows and veterans. But the veterans portion was stuck down in a 1980s court case. Prop 130 would take all that language out of the state Constitution and expressly allow lawmakers to offer tax breaks to those groups via legislation. The actual tax cut would be provided in a companion bill, SB1095 that only goes into effect if Prop 130 passes. It was brought up by county assessors and had bipartisan support at the Capitol.
Who’s backing it: County assessors, Arizona Tax Research Association (ATRA), Ryan Boyd
Who’s opposing it: No organized opposition.
SCCDP suggests NO on Proposition 131
PROP 131: Lieutenant governor; joint ticket
Summary: Prop 131 would amend the state Constitution to create the position of lieutenant governor. Candidates would run as a team with gubernatorial candidates, like the vice president. If the governor resigned or died, the lieutenant governor would ascend to the Governor’s Office — instead of the secretary of state, who can be from a different party than the governor.² The lieutenant governor would be the director of the Department of Administration, per a companion bill, SB1255. The idea earned bipartisan support at the Capitol.
Arguments for it: Arizona has a long history of governors resigning, being impeached or otherwise leaving office during their term, and say the change would promote continuity of governance. Arizona is one of only a handful of states that doesn’t have a lieutenant governor. And overseeing the Department of Administration is a better training ground for the governor’s job of running state government than the Secretary of State’ Office.
Who’s backing it: League of Women Voters of Arizona; Arizona Republican Party
Arguments against it: Voters rejected a similar measure in 2010, though that plan would not have allowed the governor to pick their lieutenant, and they instead would have run separately rather than on a ticket.
Who’s opposing it: No organized opposition
SCCDP suggests NO on Proposition 132
PROP 132: Initiatives; supermajority vote; requirement
Summary: Prop 132 would amend the state Constitution to require a 60% vote to increase taxes at the ballot.
Arguments for it: Proponents argue it protects taxpayers from runaway spending by requiring the same kind of supermajority vote at the ballot as lawmakers need at the Capitol to raise taxes, and that the higher threshold will make it harder for out-of-state special interests to raise taxes on Arizona citizens.
Who’s for it: Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, The Goldwater Institute, Gov. Doug Ducey, Arizona Tax Research Association (ATRA)
Arguments against it: Lawmakers already need a two-thirds majority vote to pass any increases on taxes or to roll back tax credits and exemptions, and that supermajority requirement has hindered lawmakers’ ability to pass even common-sense tax increases. The same rule isn’t applied to tax cuts. They note the original bill highlights supporters' real intent, as it would have applied that supermajority requirement to all initiatives.
Who’s against it: League of Women Voters of Arizona, Arizona Center for Economic Progress, Arizona Education Association
SCCDP says YES to Proposition 209
PROP 209: Predatory Debt Collection Protection Act (citizens initiative)
Summary: The measure makes multiple changes to state statutes on wage garnishment debt collection. It limits the interest rate on medical debt to 3%. It would protect more equity in homes, vehicles, household goods and bank accounts from being taken by creditors. It also limits the amount that can be garnished from your wages to pay off debts.
Arguments for it: Medical debt, in particular, causes many Arizonans to fall into bankruptcy. The standards for wage garnishment and asset collection are outdated. People shouldn’t lose their homes or vehicles because of predatory debt.
Who’s backing it: Healthcare Rising Arizona (which receives support from the SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West), Arizona Public Health Association, Arizona Students’ Association, Phoenix Workers Alliance, Neighbors Forward AZ, Democrats of Casa Grande
Arguments against it: The measure is supported by out-of-state special interests. It would have far-reaching effects and could cause creditors to charge more to make up for lost costs. It would be bad for business.
Who’s opposing it: Goldwater Institute, Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Tucson Metro Chamber, Greater Phoenix Chamber, Arizona Bankers Association
SCCDP says YES to Proposition 211
PROP 211: Voters’ Right to Know Act (citizens initiative)
Summary: Prop 211 would change state law to require political groups and people spending more than $50,000 to influence the outcome of an election to disclose the original donor of contributions over $5,000. It would also require real-time reporting of significant campaign spending, and allow the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission to enforce the provisions of Prop 211. Allows civil penalties for violations.
Arguments for it: “Dark money” is a corrupting influence on our democratic system and Arizona voters deserve to know who is funding political campaigns. Prop 211 will bring transparency and accountability to campaign messaging because voters will know who is paying for those ads. And it’ll stop regulated utility companies like Arizona Public Service (APS) from secretly funding the campaigns of their own regulators, as has happened in past elections.
Who’s backing it: League of Women Voters of Arizona, former Phoenix mayors Paul Johnson and Terry Goddard
Arguments against it: Disclosing the names of political donors will open them up to threats and harassment from opponents.
Who’s opposing it: Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Center for Arizona Policy Action
SCCDP says YES to Proposition 308
PROP 308: Tuition; post-secondary education
Summary: Prop 308 would change state law to allow all Arizona students, regardless of immigration status, to be eligible for financial aid and in-state tuition at Arizona universities and community colleges. Students must have graduated from an Arizona high school and been enrolled for two years. The measure earned bipartisan support at the Capitol. It would ask voters to repeal Prop 300 from 2006, which passed overwhelmingly at the time and barred non-citizens from receiving in-state tuition.
Arguments for it: Arizona students should be able to attend Arizona universities, regardless of immigration status. Undocumented students and Dreamers are a vital part of our economy. It’s good for business and it's the right thing to do.
Who’s backing it: Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Southern Arizona Leadership Council, Arizona Education Association, Aliento Education Fund, Valley Interfaith Council, Stand for Children, Local First Arizona
Arguments against it: It offers in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants.
Who’s opposing it: Former Senate President Russell Pearce, the Arizona Republican Party, RidersUSA
SCCDP suggests NO on Proposition 309
PROP 309: Voter identification; affidavit; procedure
Summary: Prop 309 would change state statutes to require voters who vote in person to show a photo ID, instead of multiple pieces of certain mail, like bank statements. For voters without a photo ID, the state would issue a free non-operating license for voting purposes. If receive a ballot by mail, you would be required to write your birthdate, ID number and signature on a “concealed early ballot affidavit” before mailing it back or dropping it off at a polling place.
Arguments for it: Voter ID will restore trust to elections and make it harder to cheat. Showing an ID is a normal part of daily life for all manner of other activities.
Who’s backing it: Heritage Action for America, Arizonans for Voter ID, Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Arizona Republican Party, Goldwater Institute, Arizona Women of Action, Election Transparency Initiative, America First Policy Institute
Arguments against it: It will impede people’s ability to vote by adding burdens and creating confusion. It will invade people’s privacy.
Who’s opposing it: Prescott Indivisible, League of Women Voters of Arizona, One Arizona, Defend Arizona Rights, Opportunity Arizona, Arizona Education Association, Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), Chispa Arizona, Our Voice Our Vote Arizona, Mi Familia Vota
SCCDP says YES to Proposition 310
PROP 310: Fire districts; funding; sales tax increase
Summary: Prop 310 would increase sales taxes by a tenth of a penny on the dollar to fund rural fire districts.
Arguments for it: Fire districts serve 1.5 million Arizonans and are responsible for not only fighting fires, but providing emergency medical services in car crashes along major parts of Arizona’s highway system. Fire districts are strapped for manpower, equipment and resources, and 911 calls often take upwards of 30 minutes for a response.
Who’s backing it: Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona, Arizona Fire Chiefs Association, rural fire districts
Arguments against it: It’s a 20-year tax increase on all Arizonans to bail out rural fire districts, which already have access to a local tax base.
Who’s opposing it: Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Arizona Republican Party
SCCDP says YES to Proposition 413
PROP 413: Santa Cruz County Provisional Community College District Permanent Base Expenditure Limit Adjustment Election
Summary: The Santa Cruz County Provisional Community College District's Governing Board is asking Santa Cruz County voters to permanently increase the SCCPCCD fiscal year 1970-80 base expenditure limit by $1,392,941.
The permanent Expenditure limit adjustment will change the 1979/80 expense factor that is currently used for the annual Expenditure Limit calculation. In this case, the Community College District's Base Limit will increase by $1,392,941. If approved the additional expenditures authorized will be funded from revenue obtained from state, and local sources.
Arguments for it: Adjusting the base level expenditure limit will not increase taxes, but it will provide the College the flexibility to spend what it already has collected more effectively.
Arguments against it: None were submitted
Who is backing it: Angela Meixell, John Fanning, Paula Schaper, Bruce Bracker, Stephan Schadler, Michael Young, Harold Ronald Pitt Gregory Lucero, Marcelino Varona Jr., Lourdes Moreno-Jeong, Jaime Chamberlain, Liz Collier, David Verdugo, Carrie Pottinger, Kenny Hayes, Cynthia Matus Morriss, Dr. Homero Lopez, Dr. Mary Vanis, Marla Conrad, Dan Koskuba, Dyna Chin
SCCDP says YES to Proposition 414
PROP 414: Extension of the Alternative Expenditure Limitation
Summary: Prop 414 The voters of the City of Nogales in 2018 adopted an alternative expenditure limitation (Home Rule Option). The purpose of this election is for the continued use of the Home Rule Option. Pursuant to the Arizona State Constitution, the City of Nogales seeks voter approval to adopt a Home Rule Option to apply to the city for the next four years beginning 2023-2024. Under Home Rule Option, if approved by the voters, the City estimates it will be allowed to expend approximattely $85,460,756 in 2023-2026, and $94,669,455 in 2026-2027.
Arguments for it: Vote YES on the Home Rule in order to maintain our current level of services. As a community, we cannot afford to lose essential funding for our parks and recreation dept., libraries., police and fire departments, and important infrastructure. The City of Nogales must be able to set their current budget limits. A YES vote will not increase your taxes. If this does not pass, the city stands to lose $17 million in budget allowances.
Who’s backing it: Marcelino Varona, Evan Kory
Arguments against it: None Entered
A No Vote shall have the effect of not allowing the extension of the alternative expenditure limitation for the City of Nogales and will require instead that the local expenditures be limited by state law, resulting in cuts to existing city services and programs.