Proposition 141 · Legislatively referred constitutional amendment (Senate Concurrent Resolution 1004, Fifty-seventh Legislature, First Regular Session (2025))
AMENDING ARTICLE IX, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, BY ADDING SECTION 26.
It would add a section to the Arizona Constitution barring the state and local governments from charging any tax or fee based on the miles a person drives, and from adopting rules that track or cap a person's driving miles unless the person agrees. Commercial vehicles covered by interstate fuel-tax or registration agreements, and vehicles owned and run by governments, are excluded.
Passes with: majority of the votes cast on it (Ariz. Const. art. XXI, sec. 1; amendments that approve a tax need 60%, and this one does not approve a tax).
Official ballot summary (the state’s text)
PROHIBITS TAXES OR FEES BASED ON VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AND LAWS MONITORING OR LIMITING VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED WITHOUT CONSENT.
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to prohibit: (1) taxes or fees based on motor vehicle miles traveled; and (2) laws or rules that monitor or limit motor vehicle miles traveled without consent. These prohibitions do not apply in certain instances to interstate commercial vehicles or to vehicles owned by the state or local governments.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current constitutional language related to taxation.
Committees for and against
Sources: Arizona Secretary of State, 2026 General Election Publicity Pamphlet, Nov. 3, 2026 (English), as posted by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission; Full text.
Proposition 142 · Legislatively referred constitutional amendment (House Concurrent Resolution 2044, Fifty-seventh Legislature, Second Regular Session (2026))
AMENDING ARTICLE II, SECTION 36, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA.
It would add specific prohibitions to the constitution's existing ban on preferential treatment or discrimination by the state based on race, ethnicity and other classes, including requiring applicants, employees, students or contractors to give statements supporting race-based diversity programs, spending public money on public-education positions that promote such treatment, and race-based discipline. The measure lists exceptions, including for health services and legal requirements.
Passes with: majority of the votes cast on it (Ariz. Const. art. XXI, sec. 1; amendments that approve a tax need 60%, and this one does not approve a tax).
Official ballot summary (the state’s text)
ADDS FURTHER DETAILS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OR DISCRIMINATION BY THE STATE BASED ON RACE, ETHNICITY, OR OTHER CLASSES.
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution’s current prohibition against preferential treatment or discrimination by the state based on race, ethnicity, or other classes, to specifically prohibit: (1) compelling individuals to support preferential treatment or discrimination based on race or ethnicity as a condition of education, employment, or contract opportunities; (2) spending public money on positions in public education responsible for promoting preferential treatment or discrimination based on race or ethnicity; and (3) implementing disciplinary practices that treat students or employees differently based on race or ethnicity. Prohibited conduct includes requiring or asking an applicant, employee, student, or contractor to provide a statement in support of race-based diversity, equity, and inclusion beyond upholding the federal Equal Protection Clause or asking such a person to discuss the person’s race or ethnicity or experience with others’ race or ethnicity. The amendment contains certain exceptions for health services, legal, and other reasons.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current prohibition in the Arizona Constitution against preferential treatment or discrimination by the state based on race, ethnicity, or other classes.
Committees for and against
Sources: Arizona Secretary of State, 2026 General Election Publicity Pamphlet, Nov. 3, 2026 (English), as posted by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission; Full text.
Proposition 144 · Legislatively referred constitutional amendment (House Concurrent Resolution 2001, Fifty-seventh Legislature, Second Regular Session (2026))
AMENDING ARTICLE VII, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, BY ADDING SECTION 19.
It would add a section to the constitution requiring every voter, including those voting by mail, to show government-issued identification in each election, limiting registration and voting to citizens, and barring foreign nationals from spending money to influence Arizona elections. It would also give voters the option of having their ballot counted at their voting location on Election Day, set the test courts use when reviewing election laws, and require the Legislature to pay for these provisions.
Passes with: majority of the votes cast on it (Ariz. Const. art. XXI, sec. 1; amendments that approve a tax need 60%, and this one does not approve a tax).
Official ballot summary (the state’s text)
REQUIRES ALL VOTERS, INCLUDING VOTERS WHO VOTE BY MAIL, TO SHOW GOVERNMENT-ISSUED ID TO VOTE IN EACH ELECTION; MAKES OTHER CHANGES TO ELECTION ADMINISTRATION AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE PROHIBITIONS.
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to: (1) require voters to show proof of identity when voting in each election, including when voting by mail; (2) changing existing proof of identity requirements to limit acceptable documentation to government-issued ID; (3) require election officials to provide all voters the option to have their ballot tabulated at their voting location on election day; (4) prohibit foreign nationals from contributing or spending to influence elections in Arizona and prohibit anyone from knowingly accepting such contributions, similar to prohibitions that already exist in federal law; (5) create a new standard for judicial review of election laws under the Arizona Constitution, which may make it harder to challenge election laws; and (6) require the legislature to appropriate money necessary to implement these provisions.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining current constitutional provisions governing elections.
Committees for and against
Court challenges
- Keating v. State of Arizona, et al., Arizona Supreme Court, No. CV-26-0235-AP/EL (appeal from Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2026-026270): Decided Aug. 18, 2026: the court affirmed the superior court's ruling that HCR 2001 (Prop. 144) complies with the constitution's separate amendment rule and ordered that it remain on the ballot, absent further order; two justices dissented. Arizona Supreme Court, Keating v. State, No. CV-26-0235-AP/EL, decision order, Aug. 18, 2026
- Liles, et al. v. Fontes, et al., Arizona Supreme Court, No. CV-26-0272-SA (special action; Maricopa County Superior Court No. CV2026-031499): Decided Aug. 19, 2026: the court accepted jurisdiction and denied relief in a challenge to Prop. 144's descriptive title and 'yes'/'no' language, holding that the petitioners lacked standing; the majority also agreed with the trial court that the description is not false or clearly misleading. Two justices dissented on standing. A motion to publish the order was denied Sept. 9, 2026. Arizona Supreme Court, Liles v. Fontes, No. CV-26-0272-SA, decision order, Aug. 19, 2026
Sources: Arizona Secretary of State, 2026 General Election Publicity Pamphlet, Nov. 3, 2026 (English), as posted by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission; Full text.
Proposition 316 · Legislatively referred statute (House Concurrent Resolution 2021, Fifty-seventh Legislature, First Regular Session (2025))
AMENDING TITLE 42, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 42-6015, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES.
It would change state law so that cities, towns and other taxing jurisdictions could not adopt or raise a sales tax on groceries from July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2027 (the 24 months before June 30, 2027), with the act applying back to Jan. 1, 2025. After that, a new or higher grocery tax would need local voter approval and could not exceed 2%, and a jurisdiction already taxing groceries at 2% or more could not raise its rate.
Passes with: majority of the votes cast on it (Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, sec. 1(5); measures that approve a tax need 60%, and this one does not approve a tax).
Official ballot summary (the state’s text)
RETROACTIVELY PROHIBITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM ADOPTING OR INCREASING A TAX ON GROCERIES WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL AND SETS A MAXIMUM RATE OF 2%.
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of: (1) retroactively prohibiting local governments from adopting or increasing a tax on groceries from July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2027; and (2) after that time, prohibiting local governments from adopting or increasing a tax on groceries without voter approval and limiting any new or increased tax to a maximum rate of 2%.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current laws relating to local government taxation.
Committees for and against
Sources: Arizona Secretary of State, 2026 General Election Publicity Pamphlet, Nov. 3, 2026 (English), as posted by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission; Full text.
Proposition 317 · Legislatively referred statute (House Concurrent Resolution 2055, Fifty-seventh Legislature, First Regular Session (2025))
AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 41, ARTICLE 1, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 41-4256.
It would add a state law declaring drug cartels to be terrorist organizations and directing the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to do everything within its authority to address the threats they pose. It defines a drug cartel as an ongoing association of people engaged in human smuggling, drug trafficking or acts of terrorism under Arizona law, and states that the measure does not support any asylum claim.
Passes with: majority of the votes cast on it (Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, sec. 1(5); measures that approve a tax need 60%, and this one does not approve a tax).
Official ballot summary (the state’s text)
DECLARES THAT DRUG CARTELS ARE TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS; DIRECTS THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO DO EVERYTHING IN ITS AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS DRUG CARTELS.
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of: (1) declaring drug cartels as terrorist organizations and directing the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to do everything in its authority to address threats posed by drug cartels; (2) defining “drug cartel” to mean an ongoing formal or informal association of persons engaged in human smuggling, drug trafficking, or any act defined as terrorism under Arizona law; and (3) clarifying that this measure does not support an alien’s asylum claim.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current laws relating to terrorism and the Arizona Department of Homeland Security.
Committees for and against
Sources: Arizona Secretary of State, 2026 General Election Publicity Pamphlet, Nov. 3, 2026 (English), as posted by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission; Full text.
Proposition 318 · Legislatively referred statute (House Concurrent Resolution 2003, Fifty-seventh Legislature, Second Regular Session (2026))
AMENDING SECTION 15-120.02, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES.
It would require public schools, private schools and athletic associations to designate every team as male, female or coed based on sex as recorded on an original birth certificate, and would bar them from letting anyone use restrooms, locker rooms or similar private spaces designated for the other sex. Athletes could sue schools or associations that knowingly break the law.
Passes with: majority of the votes cast on it (Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, sec. 1(5); measures that approve a tax need 60%, and this one does not approve a tax).
Official ballot summary (the state’s text)
REQUIRES ALL SCHOOLS AND ATHLETIC ASSOCIATIONS TO DESIGNATE ATHLETIC TEAMS AS MALE, FEMALE, OR COED BASED ON THE BIOLOGICAL SEX OF THE ATHLETES AS DEFINED AT BIRTH; PROHIBITS THESE ENTITIES FROM AUTHORIZING USE OF PRIVATE SPACES NOT DESIGNATED FOR A PERSON’S SEX.
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of: (1) requiring private schools, public schools, and athletic associations to designate every athletic team as male, female, or coed/mixed based on sex and to prevent males from joining female teams; existing law imposes this requirement only on public schools and those competing against them; (2) prohibiting schools and athletic associations from authorizing anyone to use private spaces (such as restrooms) not designated for that individual’s sex; (3) defining “sex” as an individual’s biological status as male or female as recorded at birth on an original birth certificate; and (4) authorizing athletes to sue schools and athletic associations that knowingly violate this law.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current laws relating to student athletics.
Committees for and against
Sources: Arizona Secretary of State, 2026 General Election Publicity Pamphlet, Nov. 3, 2026 (English), as posted by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission; Full text.
Proposition 319 · Legislatively referred statute (Senate Concurrent Resolution 1004, Fifty-seventh Legislature, Second Regular Session (2026))
AMENDING SECTION 28-1201, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 28, CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE 21, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 28-1207.
It would bar state agencies and local governments from using photo enforcement cameras to catch traffic violations unless they have a contract for the system by Dec. 31, 2026. Local governments that keep such systems would need voter approval at the next regular general election and every 10 years after that.
Passes with: majority of the votes cast on it (Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, sec. 1(5); measures that approve a tax need 60%, and this one does not approve a tax).
Official ballot summary (the state’s text)
PROHIBITS STATE AGENCIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM USING PHOTO ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS FOR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT UNLESS PROVIDED BY CONTRACT AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2026; REQUIRES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO OBTAIN VOTER APPROVAL TO CONTINUE THEIR USE.
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of: (1) prohibiting state agencies and local governments from using photo enforcement systems to identify violators of traffic laws unless the agency or government contracts to use those systems by December 31, 2026; and (2) requiring local governments to obtain voter approval of existing photo enforcement systems at the next regular general election and every 10 years afterward to continue using photo enforcement systems.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current laws governing photo enforcement systems.
Committees for and against
Sources: Arizona Secretary of State, 2026 General Election Publicity Pamphlet, Nov. 3, 2026 (English), as posted by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission; Full text.
Proposition 320 · Legislatively referred statute (Senate Concurrent Resolution 1032, Fifty-seventh Legislature, Second Regular Session (2026))
AMENDING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 9, ARTICLE 1, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES BY ADDING SECTION 15-917.
It would require school districts with 7,500 or more students, or that operate in a county of 500,000 or more people, to spend at least 60% of their operational spending on direct instruction, with the state Auditor General defining both terms. Districts below the mark would have to move toward it each year, and the Department of Education would cut their Classroom Site Fund money by 25% a year, subject to limited waivers from the superintendent of public instruction.
Passes with: majority of the votes cast on it (Ariz. Const. art. IV, pt. 1, sec. 1(5); measures that approve a tax need 60%, and this one does not approve a tax).
Official ballot summary (the state’s text)
REQUIRES CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO SPEND AT LEAST SIXTY PERCENT OF THEIR OPERATIONAL SPENDING ON DIRECT INSTRUCTIONAL EXPENSES AS DEFINED BY THE AUDITOR GENERAL; REDUCES CERTAIN STATE FUNDING FOR NON-COMPLIANT DISTRICTS.
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of: (1) requiring school districts with 7,500 or more students in any county or that operate in a county with 500,000 or more people to spend at least 60% of their operational spending on direct instructional expenses; (2) requiring the state Auditor General to define “operational spending” and “direct instructional expenses”; (3) requiring non-compliant school districts to gradually adjust their spending each year until they are in compliance; and (4) requiring the state Department of Education to reduce funding from the state Classroom Site Fund by 25% each year for non-compliant districts, subject to limited waivers that the state Superintendent of Public Instruction may authorize.
A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current laws governing school district budgets.
Committees for and against
Sources: Arizona Secretary of State, 2026 General Election Publicity Pamphlet, Nov. 3, 2026 (English), as posted by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission; Full text.
What is not here yet
- azsos.gov and apps.azsos.gov (the Secretary of State's ballot measure pages, ballot-language PDF and its own copy of the publicity pamphlet) answer the workspace with a Cloudflare challenge. The pamphlet was saved from the Clean Elections Commission's copy (same title page, 'Published by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes'); the Secretary of State's ballot-language PDF of Aug. 19, 2026 was read with WebFetch only (same eight propositions).
- Committees: the campaign finance site does not show which ballot measure a committee was formed to support or oppose, so the committees listed are those that reported spending for or against each proposition (as of Oct. 20, 2026). Committees that registered for a proposition but have reported no such spending are not yet checked.
- Court challenges: only the Arizona Supreme Court's 2026 high-profile case list and the filings it links were searched; superior court dockets were not. The superior court ruling that kept Proposition 143 (HCR 2040) off the ballot was read from a copy posted by KJZZ (saved), not from the court's own docket; whether any appeal was filed outside the Supreme Court's high-profile list is not yet checked.
- Legislative vote counts and dates for each resolution were not pulled (azleg.gov bill status pages); not yet checked.
- The Legislative Council analyses are extracted from the pamphlet PDF; line breaks are joined, and hyphenated words split across lines may be joined without the hyphen's original spacing.
Gaps in the ballot records as of the date checked.