Editor’s Note: This is the first in a series of four stories about the propositions that will appear on the general election ballot on Tuesday, Nov. 5. The second story can be found here, the third story can be found here, and the final story can be found here. 

Arizona voters will have 13 statewide ballot propositions to approve or defeat in November, the most since 2006. 

All but two of the measures have been written by lawmakers. A major driver of the lengthy list is lawmakers in the Republican majority wanting to avoid potential vetoes by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs of certain measure if passed as legislation. Ballot propositions sent to voters cannot be vetoed. Hobbs, who was sworn in on Jan. 2, 2023, quickly set the record for the most vetoes by the governor of Arizona in April 2024, her 185 in 16 months surpassing that of the previous record-holder, fellow Democrat Janet Napolitano, who vetoed a total of 181 bills while in office from 2003 to 2009. 

Proposition 139 

The citizen-initiated Proposition 139, the Right to Abortion Initiative, is the most high-profile proposition.  

Organizers collected 577,971 signatures, exceeding the 384,000-signature threshold needed to qualify for the ballot, as of Aug. 12. 

The initiative cleared a final legal hurdle on Aug. 20 with a unanimous decision by the Arizona Supreme Court to allow the secretary of state to include it on the ballot. Abortion propositions are on the ballot in nine other states. 

“The principal provisions of the initiative are [1] the establishment of a fundamental right to abortion under the Arizona Constitution; [2] the scope of that fundamental right, before and after fetal viability; and [3] the preclusion of the state from penalizing a person for assisting another to exercise that right,” the court’s ruling stated. 

The anti-abortion organization Arizona Right to Life had filed an appeal to the state Supreme Court following the dismissal of their lawsuit by a Maricopa County Superior Court judge. Arizona Right to Life claimed that the 200-word summary of the act shown to voters before they signed the petition sheets was misleading. 

“Arizona Right to Life maintains that many of the paid circulators were misleading the public with their varied explanations of the initiative and there were many incongruous statements about when abortion would be limited,” Arizona Right to Life chairwoman Ashley Trussell said in a press release following the state Supreme Court decision, in which she also alleged that there were 250,000 false signatures. 

The initiative would allow abortions up to 24 weeks, when a fetus reaches fetal viability and “has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus,” the proposition reads. However, it allows for expectations to protect the mother’s life and in cases of rape or incest. 

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled on April 9 to restore an 1864 near-total abortion ban, which was subsequently repealed by the legislature with the repeal being signed into law by Gov. Katie Hobbs [D] on May 2. The legislative session adjourned on June 15, meaning that the repeal will go into effect on Saturday, Sept. 14. Currently, abortion in Arizona is available for the first 15 weeks of a pregnancy, passed as a law in 2022. 

“With less than 80 days to go until the election, we will continue working around the clock to ensure Arizona voters from every corner of the state, from every background and every political party, say yes to putting personal decisions about pregnancy and abortion where they belong — with patients, their families and their doctors, without government interference,” Arizona for Abortion Access said in a statement following the state Supreme Court decision. 

Proposition 140 

Proposition 140, the Make Elections Fair Act, is the other citizen-initiated proposition on the November ballot. 

If approved, it would amend the state constitution to create an open primary system in which all candidates for all offices face off in one primary election, often called a “jungle primary,” with the top primary vote-getters moving on to the general election. In the event that three or more candidates would advance to the general election, a ranked-choice voting system would be used. 

Ranked-choice voting allows voters to select their candidates in order of preference. If a candidate receives an overall majority of the vote, that candidate wins outright. If no majority winner emerges on the first count, the race goes into an instant runoff through the remaining choices until one candidate receives a majority of the vote. 

“This initiative is nothing more than a California-style election scheme, which would give unilateral power to one politician to determine the candidates on our ballots. It is not fair, and it is not honest,” Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, stated in a press release. 

On Aug. 23, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected lawsuits by the state Republican and Democratic parties, both of which claimed that Proposition 140 would be unconstitutional on the grounds that it would violate the requirement that each constitutional change must consist of only a single amendment. 

Another legal challenge remains for Proposition 140 over the validity of more than 38,000 petition signatures. The case is set to resume on Tuesday, Sept. 3, after the ballot printing deadline to ensure overseas voters receive their ballots. 

The Make Elections Fair Political Action Committee wrote in a campaign handout that the proposition “encourages candidates to be responsive to all constituents and combats the politics of division and incentivizes candidates to prioritize the issues we agree upon.” 

Proposition 133 

The Require Partisan Primaries and Prohibit Primaries Where Candidates Compete Regardless of Party Affiliation Amendment, Proposition 133, is viewed by some as a response to Proposition 140. It was referred to the voters by the state legislature 

If passed, Proposition 133 would amend the state constitution to mandate partisan primary elections for elected office, and would require future changes to primary election voting procedures to be accomplished via constitutional amendment. 

Outgoing freshman Arizona Rep. Austin Smith [R-District 29] was Proposition 133’s primary sponsor. 

“In the legislature, Austin supports mandatory voter ID, precinct-based polling and strengthening signature verification requirements,” Smith stated on his website. “Austin has led the charge to permanently ban ranked choice voting … and jungle primaries in Arizona.” 

Smith announced in April that he would not be seeking reelection following accusations that he forged over 100 signatures on his nominating petitions. Statewide, 17 candidates faced court challenges to their signature petitions in 2024. 

Proposition 133’s supporters include the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and Heritage Action for America, with the League of Women Voters of Arizona and the Arizona Public Health Association among those arguing against it. 

The voter registration deadline is Monday, Oct. 7.