Here we make a good faith attempt to evaluate more than a dozen ballot measures. There are no good ideas here. The best (Prop 133) is an attempt to neutralize one of the worst (Prop 140). I am tempted to vote ‘No’ on all, as a way of discouraging this kind of governing. One consequence of these measures is to cause our ballot to overflow onto two pieces of paper, front and back, 4 pages in all. That will slow voting on Election Day, which may be intended.
For your own copy of the official language: Ballot_Language_2024_GE_approved_by_AG_TOC_2024-07-31.pdf If it starts with a ‘1,’ it aims to amend the state constitution. If it starts with a ‘3,’ it aims to become a state statute. If it starts with a ‘4,’ it aims to become municipal or county law. If its title includes names like ‘HCR’ or ‘SCR’ (House or Senate Continuing Resolutions) the initiative arose in the Legislature and did not require signatures. Only two of these propositions, 139 and 140, are ‘citizens’ initiatives’ requiring signatures.
The initiatives which arose in the Legislature are an attempt to bypass Governor Hobbs’ veto. How many of these aim to restore election integrity?: ZERO. Remember that the next time a Republican legislator claims the reason we are still conducting elections under 2020 rules is because of Governor Hobbs’ veto.
Propositions 133 and 140: As I write, Prop 140 has been disqualified and that judgment has been overturned by yet another court. Previously, the one that passed with the most ‘Yes’ votes would have become part of our Constitution. Ballotpedia analysis of 133 here. Proposition 133 is a response to Proposition 140. Ballotpedia analysis of 140 here. 140 would have brought California’s ‘jungle primary’ system to Arizona. All candidates would run in a single primary and the top vote-getters would advance to the general election. There is no guarantee that a Republican would advance. If Prop 140 appears on my ballot, I will vote ‘No‘ and vote ‘Yes‘ on 133. If not, I will not vote on 133.
Proposition 134: by requiring signature gatherers to pass the same threshold (a percentage of the number of votes cast in the most recent Governor’s race) in every Legislative District, this proposition makes it harder to get citizens’ initiatives on the ballot because signature gatherers will have to work all over the state, and in rural areas. Ballotpedia analysis here. I will vote ‘Yes.’
Proposition 135: the Governor’s power to declare an emergency is in statute (ARS 26-303), not the Constitution. Ducey exceeded even those powers when he issued 57 executive orders during the COVID affair but he has not yet been punished. This proposition implies that the governor has emergency powers and would put that in the Constitution, so what is presented to us as a proposed limitation on executive power may actually give the governor more authority. If a citizen wishes to challenge something statutory, the Superior Courts will hear the case. To challenge something in the constitution, one must appear before the Arizona Supreme Court. Ballotpedia analysis here. I will vote ‘No.‘
Proposition 136: by allowing lawsuits against propositions before they are adopted, this measure will make it harder and more expensive to make law via proposition. That is a good thing. Ballotpedia analysis here. I will vote ‘Yes.’
Proposition 137: would end judicial term limits and retention elections. The retention elections don’t work. Even bad judges get returned with Soviet-style margins. This would simplify our ballots and make them easier to count by hand, at the cost of eliminating one theoretical means of getting rid of judges. Ballotpedia analysis here. Let’s redesign our methods of limiting the power of judges and separate that issue from simplying our ballots. This proposition is poorly thought out and does not belong in the Constitution. I will vote ‘No.’
Proposition 138: anything that permits employers and employees to loosen the yoke of Minimum Wage is good. Ballotpedia analysis here. Why can’t this be solved by statute? This might be a marginally good idea but I don’t think it belongs in the Constitution. I will vote ‘No.’
Proposition 139: This “citizens’ initiative” was paid for by “business” contributions, totaling $23 million as of the July Campaign Finance Report here. The largest “business” contributors were The Fairness Project, Planned Parenthood, and the 1630 Fund, all based in Washington, DC. Their largest supporters, in turn, appear to be the SEIU-UHW union. Ballotpedia analysis here. I will vote ‘No.’
Proposition 311: This promises to pay $250,000 to the surviving spouses of first-responders who die in the line of duty. Funding is supposed to come from a $20 fine levied on people convicted of crimes. I do not wish any part of our government to become dependent on taxes levied on criminals. Let this be funded from our taxes and monitored by the Legislature. Ballotpedia analysis here. I will vote ‘No.’
Proposition 312: This promises a procedure by which people can ask for property tax refunds if their municipality does not protect them from public nuisances arising from homelessness. The real problem is the breakdown of separation of powers. The Article 1 branch passes laws and the Article 2 branch cites ‘prosecutorial discretion’ and refuses to enforce those laws. We see this behavior everywhere in government. The City of Tempe, for example, has a consanguinity ordinance but chooses not to enforce it, allowing rooming houses, nursing homes and sober living homes to proliferate in single family neighborhoods. One of my neighbors recently stole a significant portion of a bridle trail (a public right of way) to enlarge his garden and the City chose to pay compensation to the neighbors, while allowing this man to keep his stolen property. This proposition would give something to those wronged by their city government, but punishing a tax-collecting entity this way really just punishes the taxpayers. Ballotpedia analysis here. I will vote ‘No.’
Proposition 313: This promises life imprisonment for child sex-traffickers. The arguments against warn that people caught up in this business are not all equally guilty. I have little confidence in our misnamed ‘justice’ system, but that argument would apply to all laws against all crimes. Trials are supposed to sort out degrees of guilt. Ballotpedia analysis here. I will vote ‘Yes.’
Proposition 314: This would give the state of Arizona authority over the border with Mexico. When the Legislature tried to control border traffic with SB1070, the federal government insisted that controlling the national borders are its exclusive duty, but then completely failed to perform that duty. Particularly disappointing is the response of the Arizona and New Mexico bishops, here. Every hardship they cite is traceable to the federal government’s failure to enforce the law. Ballotpedia analysis here. I will vote ‘Yes.’
Proposition 315: This gives the Legislature some control over regulatory costs, but then why did they delegate their authority in the first place? Ballotpedia analysis here. I will vote ‘Yes.‘
Proposition 479: This would continue the present rate of property rate designated for ‘regional transportation’ for the benefit of regional transportation. I will vote ‘No.’
Proposition 486: This would permit the Maricopa County Community Colleges to spend more money. See my post here. I will vote ‘No.’
And now for something completely different, see here.
Carol is discussing. 
South Tempe Civics blog 
Reply