Ballot Propositions

ARIZONA NATIVE VOTE ELECTION PROTECTION HOTLINE: 1‑888‑777‑3831

LEARN ABOUT THE PROPOSITIONS THAT WILL BE ON YOUR BALLOT FOR THE 2026 GENERAL ELECTION

What does a ‘YES’ vote mean? What does a ‘NO’ vote mean? What are the potential impacts on Tribal Nations in Arizona?

PROPOSITION 141: VEHICLE MILEAGE TAX

DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: PROHIBITS TAXES OR FEES BASED ON VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED AND LAWS
MONITORING OR LIMITING VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED WITHOUT CONSENT.

  • Asks whether Arizona should permanently prevent state and local governments from charging people according to how many miles they drive. It would also prevent those governments from monitoring or limiting a person’s driving miles unless the person voluntarily agrees.
  • Arizona does not currently have a statewide tax based on miles driven. Prop 141 is intended to prevent one from being created in the future.
  • If Prop 141 passes, the Arizona Constitution would generally prohibit the state, counties, cities, and towns from:
    • Charging a tax or fee based on how many miles a person travels in a motor vehicle.
    • Requiring the government to monitor how many miles a person drives without that person’s consent.
    • Limiting the number of miles a person may drive without that person’s consent.

WHAT A “YES” VOTE MEANS: State and local governments are prevented from taxing, tracking, or limiting the miles a person drives without that person’s permission.

WHAT A “NO” VOTE MEANS: A mileage tax would not be created, it would simply leave the government with the option to consider one in the future.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON TRIBAL VOTERS: Some Tribal members must travel long distances for work, groceries, ceremonies, education, government services, and medical appointments. A tax based on miles traveled could place a greater burden on people living in remote Tribal communities.

PROPOSITION 142: DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION

DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: ADDS FURTHER DETAILS TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITION AGAINST PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OR DISCRIMINATION BY THE STATE BASED ON RACE, ETHNICITY, OR OTHER CLASSES.

  • Asks whether Arizona should place additional restrictions on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in state and local government, public schools, community colleges and public universities.
  • Arizona’s Constitution already says the government may not favor or discriminate against people because of their race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Prop 142 would add more detailed rules about what public institutions may require, fund, or consider.

WHAT A “YES” VOTE MEANS: Public institutions would have less authority to require DEI statements or training, fund certain DEI-related offices and programs, or make decisions based on race or ethnicity.

WHAT A “NO” VOTE MEANS: The Arizona Constitution would remain as is (currently prevents discrimination based on race.) Under Prop 107 passed in 2010, the state cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, and public contracting. Voting “no” would not remove the existing ban on racial discrimination or preferential treatment, it would mean that the additional restrictions in Prop 142 would not be added.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON TRIBAL VOTERS:

  • Prop 142 specifically says that programs created to serve members of Indian tribes may continue using tribal membership as a qualification. It also expressly allows teaching about Indian removal and other historical discrimination.
  • Tribal governments are separate sovereign governments and are not listed among the state and local public institutions governed by the proposition. However, the measure could affect Native students, employees, cultural programs, outreach efforts, and Native-focused services at Arizona public schools, community colleges, universities, and government agencies. Whether a particular program would be prohibited may depend on whether it uses tribal membership, race, ethnicity, or some combination of those categories.
  • Prop 142 could provide challenges for teachers in developing their curriculum.
PROPOSITION 144: VOTER IDENTIFICATION

DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: 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.

  • Add language to the Arizona Constitution stating that only U.S. citizens can register to vote and vote in Arizona elections. It would also state that Arizona elections can only be decided by votes from eligible citizens.
  • Require voters to show government-issued identification in each election and when voting by mail.
  • Prohibit a foreign national from making contributions to influence an Arizona election and prohibit others from knowingly accepting such foreign contributions.
  • Require that voters have the option to have their ballot tabulated at the voting location on Election Day.

WHAT A “YES” VOTE MEANS:

  • Limits voter ID types and specifically excludes alternative forms of identification, such as a utility bill or bank statement.
  • Requires government-issued ID every time someone votes, even when voting by mail.
  • Gives voters the right to have their ballot counted at their polling location.
  • New election laws are considered legal, so long as they have a “legitimate state interest.”

WHAT A “NO” VOTE MEANS:

  • Keeps Arizona’s current election laws and constitutional provisions in place.
  • Keeps Arizona’s current ID laws in place.
  • Keeps the Tribal ID settlement intact.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON TRIBAL VOTERS:

  • Prop 144 does not specify whether IDs issued by sovereign Tribal governments would satisfy the new “government-issued identification” requirement.
  • Tribal members who vote by mail may have to complete additional steps to meet the new ID requirement, adding an additional barrier to voting.
  • It is unclear how individuals who vote by mail would provide government-issued ID.
  • If Tribal IDs are not accepted, some Tribal members may need to obtain state-issued ID, which could require additional documentation, travel, costs, and administrative steps.
PROPOSITION 316: GROCERY TAX

DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: RETROACTIVELY PROHIBITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM ADOPTING OR INCREASING A TAX ON GROCERIES WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL AND SETS A MAXIMUM RATE OF 2%.

  • Concerns taxes that Arizona cities, towns, and certain other local governments place on groceries meant to be eaten at home.
  • Would limit future local grocery-tax rates to 2% and require local voters to approve a new grocery tax or an increase in an existing grocery tax.
  • The 2% is a limit, not a required tax. Prop 316 would not force every community to charge a 2% grocery tax.
  • The measure generally covers groceries purchased for preparation and eating at home, such as meat, vegetables, bread, milk, and canned goods. It does not create the same limit for restaurant meals or food prepared for immediate consumption. Some purchases made with SNAP benefits are already protected from taxation under existing law.

WHAT A “YES” VOTE MEANS:

  • Voter approval would be required before a local government creates or increases a grocery tax.
  • Limits any new or increased grocery-tax rate to 2%.
  • Prevents local governments from adopting or increasing grocery taxes during the period from July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2027.

WHAT A “NO” VOTE MEANS: Local governments would continue to have their existing authority to make decisions about grocery taxes without the new statewide 2% limit and voter-approval requirement. A “no” vote would not itself create or increase a grocery tax.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON TRIBAL VOTERS:

  • Prop 316 regulates Arizona cities, towns, and other state or local taxing jurisdictions. Tribal nations are separate sovereign governments, so the proposition would not ordinarily control taxes imposed by a tribal government on tribal lands.
  • However, tribal members shopping in nearby Arizona cities and towns could be affected. The measure may be particularly important for elders and families who must travel long distances from tribal communities to purchase groceries.
  • The practical effect would depend on where a person shops.
PROPOSITION 317: DRUG CARTEL DESIGNATION

DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: DECLARES THAT DRUG CARTELS ARE TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS; DIRECTS THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO DO EVERYTHING IN ITS AUTHORITY TO ADDRESS DRUG CARTELS.

  • Asks whether Arizona should officially classify drug cartels as terrorist organizations and direct the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to use all of its existing authority to address cartel threats.
  • Focuses on organized groups involved in drug trafficking, human smuggling, or conduct that Arizona law already defines as terrorism.
  • Arizona law would officially identify drug cartels as terrorist organizations.
  • The Arizona Department of Homeland Security would be directed to do everything within its lawful authority to address threats from cartels.
  • The measure would state that it does not support or strengthen a person’s request for asylum under federal immigration law.

WHAT A “YES” VOTE MEANS: Arizona will officially classify drug cartels as terrorist organizations and require the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to use its lawful authority to address cartel threats.

WHAT A “NO” VOTE MEANS:

  • Arizona’s current laws concerning terrorism, organized crime, drug trafficking, human smuggling, and the responsibilities of the Arizona Department of Homeland Security will remain the same.
  • A “no” vote would not make cartel activity legal or prevent law enforcement from investigating and prosecuting it.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON TRIBAL VOTERS:

  • Cartel activity, drug trafficking, and human smuggling can affect tribal communities, particularly those near the international border or major transportation routes.
  • Prop 317 could lead to more information-sharing or coordination between Arizona agencies and participating tribal law-enforcement departments.
  • Federal laws that protect tribal cultural resources could be waived.
PROPOSITION 318: SCHOOL SPORTS AND FACILITIES

DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: 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.

  • Concerns who may participate on girls’ and women’s sports teams and who may use school restrooms, locker rooms, showers, and other private spaces.
  • Bases those decisions on whether a person was recorded as male or female on their original birth certificate.
  • Arizona already has restrictions concerning transgender participation in public school sports. Prop 318 would expand the rules to private schools and athletic associations and add requirements concerning restrooms and other private spaces.

WHAT A “YES” VOTE MEANS: All covered schools and athletic associations will assign sports teams and private spaces according to sex as recorded at birth. It would also allow athletes to sue schools or athletic associations that knowingly violate the rules.

WHAT A “NO” VOTE MEANS:

  • The existing restrictions affecting public school sports would remain, but the additional requirements for public schools, athletic associations, and private spaces would not be adopted through this proposition.
  • A “no” vote would not automatically remove Arizona’s current restrictions on transgender participation in public school sports.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON TRIBAL VOTERS:

  • Native students attending Arizona public schools or covered private schools would be subject to the same rules as other students.
  • The application to a school operated directly by a tribal nation or under federal tribal-education authority could be more complicated. Tribal nations are sovereign governments, and questions about whether Arizona may enforce the measure against a particular tribal school would depend on the school’s legal status, location, funding, and governing authority.
PROPOSITION 319: TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS

DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: 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.

  • Concerns traffic cameras used to issue tickets for speeding or running red lights. It would generally prevent Arizona state agencies and local governments from starting new photo enforcement systems.
  • Local governments with qualifying existing camera contracts could continue only if local voters approve the systems at least once every 10 years. The main choice is between limiting automated traffic enforcement and giving voters direct control over existing cameras, or allowing state and local officials to continue deciding when photo enforcement should be used.

WHAT A “YES” VOTE MEANS: Most new government operated photo traffic enforcement systems would be prohibited. Local governments with qualifying existing systems would need voter approval to continue using them, with another vote required every 10 years.

WHAT A “NO” VOTE MEANS:

  • State and local governments would retain their existing authority to establish and operate camera systems without the new statewide ban and recurring voter-approval requirement.
  • A “no” vote would not require any community to install traffic cameras.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON TRIBAL VOTERS:

  • Prop 319 governs Arizona state agencies and state or local governments. Tribal nations are separate sovereign governments, so the measure would not ordinarily prohibit a tribal government from operating its own traffic-enforcement system on tribal lands under tribal law.
  • However, tribal members could be affected when traveling through Arizona cities and towns that use traffic cameras. Native communities could also be affected by decisions involving state highways or nearby municipalities.
PROPOSITION 320: CLASSROOM SPENDING

DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: 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.

  • Asks whether certain Arizona school districts should be required to spend at least 60% of their operating money on direct classroom instruction. A district that does not meet the requirement could lose part of the state money it receives from the Classroom Site Fund.
  • The requirement would apply to:
    • School districts with at least 7,500 students, regardless of the county where they operate.
    • School districts operating in a county with at least 500,000 residents.

WHAT A “YES” VOTE MEANS: Covered school districts will spend at least 60% of their operational money on direct instruction. Districts that fail to meet the requirement could lose part of their Classroom Site Fund money unless they receive a waiver.

WHAT A “NO” VOTE MEANS:

  • Districts would not be subject to the new statewide 60% requirement or the related 25% funding reduction.
  • A “no” vote would not prevent districts from choosing to spend 60% or more on instruction.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON TRIBAL VOTERS:

  • The measure could affect public school districts serving Native students if those districts meet the population or enrollment requirements. This may include districts located near or partly within tribal communities.
  • Native students may travel long distances to school, making transportation a significant expense.
  • Some districts provide language, cultural, counseling, family outreach, or student support programs that may not count as direct instruction.
  • Districts with aging facilities or limited local tax bases may have unavoidable non-classroom costs.
  • A funding penalty could affect teacher pay or student services in districts already facing staff shortages.
  • Schools operated directly by tribal nations or the federal Bureau of Indian Education are not ordinary Arizona school districts. Prop 320 would not generally govern those schools in the same manner. Whether it applies to a particular school would depend on the school’s governing authority and legal status.