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

The Tuesday, Nov. 5, general election ballot will include 11 legislature referred ballot initiatives, several of which will deal with service worker pay, election administration and the governor’s emergency powers. 

Proposition 134 

Proposition 134 would amend the Arizona Constitution to require that future citizen ballot propositions gather signatures from each of the state’s 30 legislative districts, although the total number of signatures required would not be changed. 

Proponents of the measure have contended that it requires all voters be heard, while opponents of the measure have argued that such a requirement would give rural areas outsized influence on what makes it to the ballot. 

Proposition 135 

Written in response to the state of Arizona’s COVID19 pandemic response in 2020, Proposition 135 would amend the law to terminate the governor’s emergency powers automatically 30 days after an emergency proclamation is issued, unless the state of emergency is extended by the legislature during a special session. Exceptions would be made in cases of flood, fire or war. 

“If the legislature does not extend the emergency, the governor may not declare a new state of emergency arising under the same conditions,” the proposition’s language states. “Additionally, if requested by at least one third of the members of each house of the legislature, the governor must promptly call a special session for the purposes of terminating or altering the emergency powers granted to the governor during the state of emergency.” 

Then-Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey declared a state of emergency on March 11, 2020, which he did not terminate until March 30, 2022. 

Opponents of Proposition 135 have argued that if enacted it would create additional red tape and hinder the state’s ability to respond quickly to emergencies, while supporters have argued that the proposition would be a check on executive power. 

Proposition 136 

Proposition 136 would “allow lawsuits regarding the constitutionality of a voter-initiated ballot measure to be filed prior to the election in order to stop the measure from being placed on the ballot” provided that a person sues at least 100 days before the election and alleges that the proposed ballot measure would violate the United States or Arizona constitutions. In the event of a ruling against a ballot initiative, the secretary of state would then be required to refrain from certifying the initiative or allowing it to appear on the ballot. 

The separation of powers doctrine outlined in the Arizona Constitution currently prohibits courts from ruling on the constitutionality of an initiative prior to the initiative’s being enacted by voters. 

Only the Arizona Free Enterprise Club submitted arguments in favor of Proposition 136, citing the circumstances surrounding the 2020 passage of Proposition 208, a tax on Arizonans with annual incomes exceeding $250,000, which was subsequently overturned in court after a two-year legal battle. 

“Prop 136 undercuts the rights of citizens granted in the Arizona Constitution and would force citizen-led initiatives to be tied up in costly legal battles triggered by frivolous lawsuits,” Save Our Schools Arizona Executive Director Beth Lewis wrote in an argument against the proposition. 

Proposition 137 

Proposition 137 would abolish term limits and regular retention elections for state Supreme Court and superior court judges, with judges becoming able to serve indefinitely and only becoming subject to a retention election under certain circumstances: Being convicted of a felony or a crime involving fraud or dishonesty, filing for personal bankruptcy, having their mortgage foreclosed or failing to meet performance review requirements set by the members of the Commission on Judicial Performance Review. 

If passed, Proposition 137 would also nullify the results of Arizona’s 2024 retention elections, including those for Arizona Supreme Court Justices Kathryn H. King and Clint Bolick, who faced opposition after ruling in April that an abortion ban written in 1864, when Arizona was still a territory, was valid state law. 

All arguments in support of Proposition 137 were filed by members of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, who argued that it would make ballots shorter and less expensive to produce and would single out poorly performing judges because of the new requirements to force a retention election. 

“Prop 137 would strip us of this right, allowing powerful judges who decide cases that affect millions of Arizonans to be appointed for a lifetime,” Local First Arizona CEO Kimber Lanning wrote in an argument against the measure. “This change to the state constitution would eliminate our voice. Not only that, but Prop 137 is retroactive by 10 years, meaning the outcomes of the judicial elections we vote in this November would be overturned, reversing the will of the people. When voters cast ballots, they should do so knowing their vote will count.” 

Proposition 138 

“ Proposition 138 would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow an employer, for any employee who customarily and regularly receives tips or gratuities, to pay up to 25% per hour less than the minimum wage, if the employer can establish that the employee is paid at least the minimum wage plus $2 per hour for all hours worked,” an analysis of the proposition by the legislative council stated. 

“The [measure] protects the current tipping system, which allows customers to directly reward our hardworking staff without the added burden of sales tax,” wrote John Conley, owner of the Salsa Brava restaurant in Flagstaff in an argument in favor of the measure. “This system incentivizes us restaurant owners to create an environment that maximizes tip potential for our employees.” 

The most vocal group in support of Proposition 138 is the political action committee Save Our Tips AZ, whose members submitted the majority of the arguments in favor of the measure. Save Our Tips financial contributors include the Arizona Restaurant Association [$17,000], The White Chocolate Grill in Scottsdale [$10,000] and Fat Olives of Flagstaff [$500]. 

“Tips are optional; a salary is not, which is why some restaurant owners continue to try to avoid paying a living wage to their employees,” Civic Engagement Beyond Voting cofounder Catherine Sigmon wrote in an argument against. “This measure is yet another attempt by the Arizona Restaurant Association to undermine the Fair Wages and Healthy Families Initiative passed by nearly 60% of voters in 2016. It asks voters to amend the Arizona Constitution to create an even lower subminimum hourly wage for tipped employees that is up to 25% lower than statutory minimum wage.” 

The last day to register to vote in this election is Monday, Oct. 7.