Arizona voters picked and chose their way through ballot proposals Tuesday, rejecting nonpartisan primaries, refusing to curb their right to propose their own laws, and turning down a bid by Arizona restaurants to cut their costs by paying their tipped workers less.
They did agree that property owners who incur expenses from the homeless when cities don’t enforce nuisance laws should be entitled to tax breaks. And they decided that criminals engaged in certain types of child sex trafficking should spend life behind bars.
Props. 140, 133
Proposition 140, rejected by a 3-2 margin, would have forever changed politics in Arizona.
The measure, dubbed Make Elections Fair, would have scrapped partisan primaries in all federal, state and local races.
Instead, all candidates from all parties, and those without political affiliation, would have run against each other and all registered voters of whatever stripe would make their choices.
But Prop. 140 had a provision that made it a bit more complicated: It would have allowed the Legislature to decide how many winners in the primary advanced to the general election.
All that was simple if the answer was just two, with the general election serving as a runoff, even if it turned out both candidates were from the same political party. But it also permitted a decision to allow up to five to go on to the general election. That, in turn, would have required a system where voters would rank their choices.
Opponents focused on that provision, calling it convoluted and confusing, to convince Arizonans not to make that change.
That desire to leave the election process alone also resulted in the apparent defeat of Proposition 133 by about the same margin as Prop. 140.
This measure, put on the ballot by state lawmakers, would have enshrined the existing system of partisan primaries in the Arizona Constitution. Backers said that would ensure that those who go to the polls at general elections have a clear choice of political philosophies.
Prop. 134
Also failing by close to the same 3-2 margin was Proposition 134.
Voters now can put their own proposed laws on the ballot by getting the signatures equal to at least 10% of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election. That now tallies out to 255,949. Proposed constitutional changes require 15%, or 383,923.
Prop. 134 would have required initiative backers to get that same margin in each of the state’s 30 legislative districts. Supporters said that would ensure circulators do not gather all the signatures in only one or two counties and there was at least some buy-in from all areas.
Foes said the flip side would give residents of one or two areas of the state an effective veto on whether the rest of Arizona got to decide on controversial issues.
Prop. 138
Voters also sent a clear message to the Arizona Restaurant Association, rejecting Proposition 138 by a margin of close to 3-1.
Arizona created a minimum wage in 2006 and added to it in 2016. It currently requires employers to pay workers $14.35 an hour and will go up to $14.70 in January due to inflation.
The law also permits restaurants to pay tipped workers $3 an hour less as long as those tips bring employees up to the minimum.
Restaurants, noting the annual inflationary increases, wanted to put a provision in the Arizona Constitution setting the tip credit at 25% of whatever is the minimum wage.
That option would have been available only if workers brought home at least $2 an hour more than the minimum. The purpose was to provide financial relief to restaurants to make them responsible for less of each worker’s take-home pay.
Prop. 312
Close to 60% of voters did approve Proposition 312.
It allows a property owner, residential or business, to seek a tax refund once a year for the documented expenses incurred if a local government maintained a “public nuisance’’ on that person’s land.
It is aimed at cities, towns and counties that adopt any sort of policy or practice of refusing to enforce a number of existing laws, including obstructing sidewalks, drinking in public, illegal camping, loitering, panhandling, possession of illegal substances and public urination or defecation.
Affected property owners can tally the costs — presumably cleanup and loss of business — and present a bill to the Arizona Department of Revenue for payment. The state agency then reduces that community’s state revenue-sharing by that amount.
Watch now: Tucson is responding to homeless encampments the community reports based on the level of danger they pose to the community. Video by Nicole Ludden/Arizona Daily Star.
Prop. 313
By a 2-1 margin voters also approved Proposition 313.
Current law says those convicted of certain child sex trafficking offenses may serve a sentence of from anywhere from a minimum of seven years in prison to a life term without possibility of parole or other release. This measure automatically makes the sentence a life term.
Backers say it will deter sex traffickers and ensure that offenders are kept off the street. Others question the deterrent effect and removing discretion from judges to consider individual circumstances.
Prop. 135
About 57% of voters were opposed to Proposition 135, which would have increased the power of the Legislature to curtail or override a declaration of emergency declared by a governor.
It was an outgrowth of the COVID emergency declared in 2020 by Republican then-Gov. Doug Ducey, which lasted two years. This would have spelled out that any emergency would cease to exist after 30 days unless extended by state lawmakers.
Props. 136, 311, 315
Voters also rejected Proposition 136, which would have allowed foes of proposed initiatives to try to get them declared unconstitutional even before they got on the ballot.
They did agree to Proposition 311 to add a $20 surcharge to any criminal fine, with the funds earmarked for a $250,000 death benefit to the surviving spouse or children of a first responder who is killed in the line of duty as the result of another person’s criminal act.
They narrowly rejected Proposition 315, which would have given the Legislature more purview over rules enacted by state agencies.
