Mixed results on the 8 ballot measures Republicans put before voters

Arizona voters weighed in on multiple ballot measures on Tuesday that were sent to the ballot by GOP lawmakers, and they overwhelmingly agreed with Republicans that taxes on groceries should be prohibited, but appear to have rejected other proposals, including a move to place a ban on diversity policies in the state constitution. 

Aiming to avoid Gov. Katie Hobbs’ veto pen, Republican lawmakers put eight initiatives on the midterm ballot, hoping to convince voters to greenlight long sought after policy priorities like a ban on stop light cameras and a mandate to spend 60% of school funding on instruction. 

Early results Tuesday night showed that Arizonans were largely unconvinced by a GOP proposal to overhaul the state’s election processes, potentially jeopardizing the popular vote-by-mail option. But voters did mostly agree to prohibit trans students from using the bathrooms and locker rooms that best reflect their gender identity. 

Also on Tuesday, The Associated Press called the election for Propositions 142 and 316, which respectively sought to ban diversity, equity and inclusion policies and limited taxes on groceries. Proposition 142, which would have made it more difficult for public universities and state agencies to adopt equitable hiring practices, failed; 61% of Arizona voters rejected it. 

And Prop. 316, in a move that likely reflected the widespread concern over the high cost of living, succeeded with nearly 60% of Arizona voters on board. The initiative limits grocery taxes to 2% and requires cities to go to voters to set up a new grocery tax or raise an existing tax up to that cap. Many cities, especially in rural Arizona, currently have grocery taxes that exceed that rate. Taylor, a town of just over 4,000 people in Navajo County, has a grocery tax rate of 3% and Litchfield Park taxes groceries at 2.5%. The initiative preserves those higher tax rates but prohibits cities from ever raising them again. 

Some city leaders, particularly those who oversee smaller communities in rural Arizona, have vocally opposed the proposal, saying that it would force them to cut public services in the future. 

Ken Budge, the mayor of Bisbee, a city of about 5,000 residents on the Arizona-Mexico border, said grocery taxes are a critical tool for city officials to help build revenue, and warned that taking that option away would necessarily force them to make cuts elsewhere. 

“Do we not buy a new firetruck? Do we go out and cut our personnel?” he said. “We don’t fill as many potholes, we don’t keep the swimming pool open as long, we don’t buy new books in the library.” 

But Republican proponents touted it as an ethical solution. Rep. Leo Biasiucci, R-Lake Havasu CIty, who sponsored the legislation, questioned whether taxing food is the right thing to do during a debate of the proposal’s underlying legislation in February 2025. 

“Do you think it’s right that we’re taxing milk and eggs and bread?” he asked. 

Photo radar cameras: voters lean towards banning them

In another bid to restrain the power of city officials, Arizona voters are also poised to approve Proposition 319, which would ban the ability of cities to set up photo enforcement traffic cameras, like red light and speed cameras. As of early Wednesday morning, nearly 59% of voters cast their ballots in favor of banning photo enforcement radar. 

Prop. 319 would prohibit cities and towns from installing photo enforcement cameras and require municipalities that already use them to seek voter approval for continued use, in a rebuke from Republicans who have for years championed efforts to ban the cameras. 

Republican lawmakers sent the measure to the ballot to avoid a veto from Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, who rejected a similar proposal in 2023. The governor said in her veto letter that the technology was an “important tool for law enforcement.” 

Opponents of the ballot measure say the tech helps prevent fatal car crashes. They have also argued that banning photo radar is a backdoor to defunding the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, as photo radar fines have a mandatory 10% surcharge that goes to the commission.

Prop. 319 would not limit the use of automated license plate readers, like those operated by Flock Safety, in Arizona.

Proponents of the proposition have included both Republican and Democratic state lawmakers, while opponents of the measure have largely leaned to the left. 

60% of school funding in the classroom? Voters remain unconvinced 

A bid by Republican lawmakers to funnel education funding into the classroom appeared to garner scorn from Arizona voters. As of early Wednesday morning, 53% of voters rejected the proposal, while 47% approved of it. 

If voters approve it, Prop. 320 would require the public schools that teach more than 80% of Arizona students to increase their direct instructional spending by one-half a percentage point annually until they reach at least 60% of their spending. 

School districts that don’t comply would see their share of the Classroom Site Fund decreased by 25% each year, until it reaches zero. That money goes toward teacher salaries and bonuses, smaller classes and support services for students. 

The proposition was sent to the ballot by the state legislature, in the final vote of this year’s legislative session at nearly 4 a.m. on June 13, after lawmakers had worked through the night. On that final day, the Republicans who control both chambers pushed through five ballot referrals, all on party-line votes, a strategy to bypass vetoes from Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs. 

Republicans and powerful conservative organizations who support Prop. 320 argued that public schools spend too much on administration and unnecessary programs are urging voters to change state law to override local control and force public schools to spend a bigger percentage of their funding on “direct instruction.” 

Democrats and public school advocacy organizations aggressively campaigned against Prop. 320, saying that, because those same GOP lawmakers have left Arizona public schools chronically underfunded for decades, the only responsible way to boost classroom spending is to increase funding. 

Republicans and proponents argue that putting a larger proportion of school spending toward student instruction will lead to better test scores and outcomes, and provide much-needed pay raises to Arizona teachers — without them having to spend any more money. 

But that ignores the reality that Arizona students need support beyond the classroom to thrive, public school advocates and Democrats say. Decisions to hire those vital support workers, like instructional coaches, counselors and school nurses, should remain in the hands of the local school boards that know their district’s needs, they argue.

For many schools, the 25% reduction in the Classroom Site fund would be a devastating loss. School districts receive millions of dollars from the fund. During fiscal year 2026, more than $27 million has been set aside for Phoenix Unified High School District, while Mesa Unified School District, the state’s largest, is slated to receive over $52 million from the fund.

Voters poised to equate drug cartels with terrorists under AZ law

As of the early morning hours of Wednesday, 55% of voters cast their ballots in favor of Proposition 317, which would label drug cartels as terrorist organizations under Arizona law, while just 45% said they opposed doing so. The initiative would also order the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to do everything in its power to “address the threat” drug cartels pose. 

The legislation was first proposed in 2023, and quickly vetoed by Gov. Katie Hobbs, who criticized it as “not a real solution,” and pointed out that such designations are usually the purview of the federal government. Seeking to avoid future vetoes, Republican lawmakers put the question directly to voters. 

It’s unclear exactly how or to what extent state officials would go after drug cartels under the new law, but the broad language in the ballot initiative alarmed civil liberties and community advocates, who warned that it could be used to criminalize people with substance abuse disorders or militarize the border.

“Arizona residents who are engaged in buying and selling low amounts of drugs may find themselves designated as terrorists simply because they have a substance abuse disorder or are a low-level part of the drug economy,” Darrell Hill, the spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, told the Arizona Mirror. 

The initiative defines a drug cartel as an “ongoing formal or informal association of persons” whose members either individually or collectively participate in human smuggling, drug trafficking or terrorism. Hill said that definition has the potential to sweep in low-level drug offenders, immigrants forced to carry drugs across the border by paid guides or people who suffer from substance abuse disorder and sell drugs to support their addiction. 

Critics of the proposal also fear that it could be used to mobilize armed forces under the “invasion theory,” a once extreme position that has now been embraced by mainstream Republicans to call for an increased military presence at the border. The theory relies on a flawed interpretation of the U.S. Constitution’s definition of an invasion and a xenophobic argument that immigrants at the southern border amount to one. The legislation appears to have been inspired, at least in part, by that argument. 

During a February meeting of the House Judiciary Committee, House Speaker Steve Montenegro, who sponsored the initiative’s underlying bill, touted it as a critical tool for law enforcement officials to defend against crime at the border. 

“(Prop. 317) underscores the urgency of the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to utilize its authority to address the invasion of traffickers at Arizona’s southern border,” the Goodyear Republican said.