Arizona lawmakers want to ask voters — again — to limit initiative rights

PHOENIX — Arizona lawmakers want to ask voters again to pare back their right to write their own laws or change the Constitution, continuing a series of proposed changes to citizens’ rights to bypass the Legislature that have seen mixed results in recent elections.

The Republican-controlled House advanced a measure Wednesday that would require backers of voter initiatives to collect signatures from all 15 counties in order to put a measure on the ballot.

The effort by GOP lawmakers comes after 58% of the state’s voters rejected a similar measure in November. That measure, Proposition 134, would have required qualifying signatures to be collected from all 30 legislative districts, making it harder and more expensive for measures to collect enough signatures to make the ballot.

The Arizona Constitution requires collection of signatures from a number equivalent to 5% of the voters who cast ballots in the last governor’s election to try to repeal a new law enacted by the Legislature, 10% to get a new law on the ballot, or 15% to propose a constitutional amendment.

Currently, proponents can collect those signatures from any part of the state. The new measure would require that percentage from each county. Because initiative rules are in the Constitution, voters must approve any changes.

A second measure approved on a voice vote Wednesday would increase the percentage of votes needed to amend the state Constitution from a majority to 60% of voters. Voters already increased the threshold for enacting a new fee or tax to 60% in the 2022 election.

Both would be placed on the 2026 ballot if the House formally passes them and the Senate does the same.

Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, is sponsoring the measure asking voters to boost the threshold for changing the Constitution, saying the current standard makes it “trivially easy to change.’’

He pointed to efforts by initiative backers to put their measures into the Constitution rather than into state law as one reason for his proposal.

“I think that most voters would agree with me, a constitution should be of a more enduring nature,’’ he said.

Democrats opposed both measures. On the change to amending the Constitution, Rep. Oscar De Los Santos, D-Phoenix, said the state Constitution’s framers could have made it more difficult to change it but did not.

“But beyond that point? The effect of this bill would be to take power away from the people,’’ said De Los Santos, the minority leader.

“And we know in this state that the power and the sovereignty belongs to the people, not the politicians, not the House, not the Senate, not the government,’’ he said. “And I don’t think we should be enacting proposals that make it harder for the people to take control of their own government.’’

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

Of note is that Kolodin’s HCR 2025 to require a supermajority vote to adopt new amendments to the Arizona Constitution appears to create a dual standard.

It contains a provision saying the 60% rule does not apply to efforts to repeal already existing provisions. That would mean it would take only a simple majority to scrap the just-approved Proposition 139, which put a fundamental right to abortion in the Arizona Constitution.

De Los Santos also took the lead in opposing HCR 2057, the measure requiring signatures to be collected in all 15 counties, something he said chips away at the power of the voters to enact their own laws.

He noted that Arizona was one of the first states to adopt initiatives as a way for citizens to bypass their legislatures and write their own laws, calling it “one of the beautiful things about the Arizona Constitution.’’

“This was a novel concept in the early 20th century, that because the people are the sovereigns, because the people control this government, the people should be able to make their own laws,” he said.

“Unfortunately, HCR 2057 impedes on the people’s ability to make their own laws,’’ said De Los Santos. “And in so doing, it robs the people of the ability to control their own government, and gives much more power to the politicians here in the Arizona House, in the Arizona Senate, and in doing so, it gives more power to the special interests, to the lobbyists and to the corporations. I think the power belongs to the people, not the special interests.”

De Los Santos also argued that it creates an uneven playing field because the Legislature can enact laws without rules on geographic diversity, shifting more power to special interests and powerful corporations who have influence at the Legislature.

“And so it creates one set of rules for the politicians and another set of rules for the people,’’ he said, “And I think that’s wrong.’’

Backers of the new rule that would require signatures be gathered across all 15 counties , and the one rejected by voters last year, argue that it ensures a proposal has support not just in Maricopa County but across the state.

The signature measure is being sponsored by Rep. Rachel Keshel, R-Tucson, who said she agreed with De Los Santos that the government belongs to the people, but that her measure doesn’t do what he contends.

“It better defends the rights of the citizens in the minority ? by allowing more of Arizona citizens to have a voice on these initiatives, and it ensures that the subject matter of the initiative is actually something that the people of Arizona truly care about and are passionate about,’’ Keshel said. “So this bill does the opposite of what Representative De Los Santos said, it actually gives the people a voice.’’

Republicans lawmakers who have held the majority in the Legislature for decades have long chaffed at the ability of citizens to bypass them to enact laws that they oppose. These range from everything from higher minimum wages and legalizing marijuana to bans on leghold traps on state lands.

Both measures debated Wednesday require formal House votes before moving to the Senate. If they pass both chambers they will be placed on the 2026 ballot. No action is required by the governor.