There are several statewide propositions on the November 3rd ballot covering a wide range of hot-button issues, from gender to drug cartels to traffic cameras. But the official language describing each of them, and what a “yes” or “no” vote means, can be purposely obfuscating. Below, we’ve helped simplify things, so you can make the choice that’s right for you this midterm.
Note that this is a rundown of the statewide propositions. There many local propositions that apply to specific cities, school districts, etc., and we will cover those separately. Also, all the statewide questions on this year's ballot were added by the Republican-controlled legislature, not by the people through the initiative process. Many come after Governor Hobbs vetoed bills containing the same ideas. Several statewide initiative campaigns were mounted this year by citizen groups, but none survived court challenges to make it onto the ballot.
Looking for more Voter Guides for the 2026 Arizona election? Start here.
- Prop 141
- Prop 142
- Prop 144
- Prop 316
- Prop 317
- Prop 318
- Prop 319
- Prop 320
- Prop 421 (Tucson)
- Prop 425 (Pima County)
Prop. 141
What it proposes: Banning any tax based on vehicle miles traveled, and banning any monitoring or limiting of vehicle miles without consent.
Who would be affected: Anyone who uses a vehicle, especially EVs. Gasoline and diesel users pay fuel tax on every gallon they buy to support transportation costs. EV users currently pay no such tax. Charging vehicles per mile traveled would make every vehicle owner pay for transportation costs, no matter what powers their vehicle.
Why to vote yes: “I don’t want the government knowing how many miles I drive or tracking my driving habits. I believe the government should encourage adoption of electric vehicles by giving them a tax break.”
Why to vote no: “I believe everyone who uses public roads and highways should help pay for them. I don’t believe EV users should get special treatment.”
Prop. 142
What it proposes: Adds further details to the constitutional prohibition against preferential treatment or discrimination by the state based on race, ethnicity or other classes. Specifically bans:
- Requiring people, as part of their job, education or contract, to support “preferential treatment or discrimination” based on race or ethnicity;
- Using public money to hire staff to promote race- or ethnicity-based preferential treatment or discrimination;
- Disciplinary practices that treat students or employees differently based on race or ethnicity.
Who would be affected: Potentially anyone, especially those involved in the public education system.
Why to vote yes: “I believe the law should be colorblind as to race or ethnicity. I don’t think the present law promotes a level playing field.”
Why to vote no: “The current law already bans discrimination and doesn’t need to be changed. I think the majority already enjoys privilege in society and current protections for others do not ‘discriminate’ against me.”
Prop. 144
What it proposes: Increasing and clarifying requirements for voting.
- All voters must show identification, including those who vote by mail;
- Only U.S. citizens may vote;
- Only government-issued ID is acceptable;
- Voters can opt to have their ballot immediately tabulated at their voting location;
- Foreign nationals may not contribute to political campaigns, and no one may accept a contribution from a foreigner;
- The standard for challenging an election law is increased, to match that in federal law.
Who would be affected: Every voter, especially those who vote by mail.
Why to vote yes: “I don’t believe elections are secure enough now. I want to make sure only citizens are allowed to vote. I want to know the results as soon as possible.”
Why to vote no: “The law already bans non-citizens from voting, and it happens very rarely. Forcing mail-in voters to present their ID is difficult or impractical. I want the results to be accurate, no matter how long it takes.”
Prop. 316
What it proposes: Banning new local grocery taxes from July 1, 2025, until June 30, 2027; then requiring voter approval for new or increased grocery taxes, and limiting them to 2 percent or less.
Who would be affected: Anyone who buys groceries in a city or county with local taxes on groceries.
Why to vote yes: “Groceries are essential and many people are having trouble affording them today. This measure would lower the price that some shoppers pay.”
Why to vote no: “Passing this measure might force some local governments to cut services. Locally-elected leaders should decide what is right for their constituents without interference from the legislature.”
Prop. 317
What it proposes: Declares that drug cartels are terrorist organizations, and directs the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to do everything in its authority to address drug cartels.
Who would be affected: No one, including drug cartels, would be directly affected by this.
Why to vote yes: “It sends a message that organized drug trafficking is a form of terrorism.”
Why to vote no: “Sending messages without providing the money and resources to back them up accomplishes nothing.”
Prop. 318
What it proposes: Requires student-athletes to play on the team for the sex they were assigned at birth, and requires schools and athletic associations to designate teams for males, females or coed.
Who would be affected: Very few people would be directly affected. Arizona has roughly 170,000 student athletes. The Arizona Interscholastic Association received requests from just 16 transgender athletes in five years.
Why to vote yes: “I believe there are two sexes, and they are physically distinct. I believe it’s unfair to force biological girls to compete against biological boys.”
Why I should vote no: “I don't believe transgender youth should be denied the opportunity to compete on sports teams. I believe school sports should be governed by schools and athletic associations, not the legislature. “
Prop. 319
What it proposes: Bars traffic cameras except those under contract as of Dec. 31, 2026, and requires local governments to obtain voter approval for traffic cameras every 10 years.
Who would be affected: Everyone who drives in a jurisdiction that uses photo enforcement systems.
Why to vote yes: “I believe traffic cameras violate my right to privacy. I don’t trust automated systems to replace human police officers.”
Why I should vote no: “Driving on a public road is a privilege and there is no expectation of privacy. This measure would ban beneficial red-light cameras along with controversial speed-limit cameras.”
Prop. 320
What it proposes: Requires certain school districts – all districts in Pima, Maricopa, and Pinal Counties, and all districts with 7,500 or more students – to spend at least 60% of their operational spending on “direct instructional expenses.”
Who would be affected: Parents, students and staff in the affected districts.
Why to vote yes: “I’m concerned public schools spend too much on non-essential things. I don’t trust local school officials to spend tax money responsibly.”
Why to vote no: “I don’t want the state legislature preempting decisions by my locally-elected school board. Many students need special support that is not covered under ‘direct instructional expenses.’”
Prop. 421 (Tucson)
What it proposes: Approving a new 25-year franchise agreement between Tucson Electric Power (TEP) and the City of Tucson. Voters last approved a franchise agreement in 2000, which expired in 2025. Voters rejected a new agreement in 2023, so in 2025 the city extended the former franchise for one year. It is due to expire in April 2027.
Who would be affected: All Tucson Electric Power customers inside Tucson city limits, and indirectly other customers outside the city.
Why to vote yes: TEP says the agreement allows it to maintain its poles, lines and other equipment more efficiently, bypassing the need for a permit for each job. It also locks in an “energy collaboration agreement” in which TEP supports sustainability projects, starting at $2 million a year and increasing 2% a year.
Why to vote no: Opponents say the agreement perpetuated an effective monopoly over electric power. The $2 million per year sustainability pledge is a tiny part of TEP’s profits, reported at $283 million in 2025. Some favor transitioning to a publicly-owned non-profit electric utility, saying a public utility could lower costs and spend more on sustainability.
Prop. 425 (Pima County)
What it proposes: Increasing the Permanent Base Limit, or expenditure limit, for Pima County by 75%. This would effectively add $610 million per year to the amount the county could legally collect and spend. It would not immediately increase taxes or spending – it would only raise the spending cap.
Who would be affected: Everyone who pays taxes or benefits from public spending in Pima County.
Why to vote yes: The Permanent Base Limit was first set in 1980. It has risen due to population growth and inflation over the years, but the limit does not account for new services – or benefits Pima County may wish to deliver – that were not available 46 years ago. Seven of Arizona’s 15 counties, including Maricopa, have already raised their expenditure limits, as have many cities around the state.
Why to vote no: Seventy-five percent is a big increase, and Pima County has been less than transparent about it, describing it as a $70 million dollar increase (in 1980 dollars), without stating its current cost of $610 million. Conservative think-tank the Goldwater Institute claims the county is not giving voters the true cost of voting yes, as required by law.
