Yuma Propositions 436 and 437: What Voters Are Actually Being Asked to Change

One measure would change how Yuma's spending limit is calculated. The other would change how many signatures candidates need to get on the ballot. Here's what each proposal does, what stays the same, and why the City wants the changes.

By Dan Bustard | Yuma Informed

Yuma voters will face two questions on November 3 that could change how City Hall operates, although the proposals have little in common beyond appearing on the same ballot.

Proposition 436 would give the City more room under Arizona's spending-limit formula. Proposition 437 would change how the City calculates the signatures needed to qualify as a candidate for local office.

One deals with government spending. The other deals with getting your name on an election ballot.

Neither is quite as straightforward as its description might suggest.

The spending proposal involves $30 million, but that doesn't mean the City would receive another $30 million. The candidate proposal involves a 3% to 5% signature requirement, but those percentages wouldn't actually change.

The differences are in the calculations behind the numbers.

According to the City's election information, both propositions will appear on the November 3 General/Special Election ballot. Voters can approve one, reject the other, approve both, or reject both.

Here's what those decisions would mean.

Proposition 436: A $30 million adjustment that isn't $30 million in new money

Arizona limits how much cities can spend under a system known as the Annual Expenditure Limitation, or AEL.

The calculation starts with a spending base established in the 1979-80 fiscal year, then adjusts that historical figure for population growth and changes in the cost of living.

Proposition 436 asks voters to permanently increase Yuma's historical expenditure base by $30 million.

If approved, the revised base would be used to calculate the City's annual spending limits beginning in Fiscal Year 2028.

That distinction between the base and the annual limit matters.

The proposal would not put $30 million into a City bank account. It would not automatically authorize an additional $30 million in spending every year, either.

Instead, it would change the starting figure used in a formula that determines how much the City is legally permitted to spend.

The final annual limit would still depend on the adjustments built into that formula.

The City Council's record for Ordinance O2026-015 explains the proposed adjustment and its planned implementation in FY2028.

Would Proposition 436 raise taxes?

Not by itself.

The City says the measure would not create a new tax, increase existing tax rates, establish new fees, or generate additional revenue.

That doesn't mean City taxes and fees could never change. Those decisions would require separate action.

There is an important difference between having money available and having legal permission to spend it.

A city might collect revenue that it cannot fully spend because of its expenditure limit. Raising that limit would provide additional spending authority, but it would not create the revenue needed to use it.

The City would still have to adopt annual budgets based on available funds.

Approval of Proposition 436 would also leave future spending priorities to the regular budget process. It would not guarantee money for a particular road, park, public safety program, or infrastructure project.

Why does the City want the adjustment?

City officials argue that the existing formula does not adequately reflect Yuma's present-day needs.

They point to changing service demands, seasonal residents, infrastructure responsibilities, and operating costs that they say are not fully captured by the current system.

The City describes the proposed adjustment as a way to make better use of revenue it already lawfully receives.

That is the City's explanation for seeking the change.

Whether the existing limit is too restrictive, and whether a $30 million base adjustment is the appropriate solution, are separate questions.

The historical formula already accounts for population and inflation. The City's argument is that those adjustments are no longer sufficient.

The available materials do not independently establish that $30 million is the ideal adjustment or guarantee that approving it would produce any particular improvement in City services.

What your vote means:

A yes vote would approve the permanent $30 million adjustment to the City's expenditure base.

A no vote would leave the proposed adjustment unapproved, keeping the City under the applicable state-established spending limitation.

Neither vote directly determines how much money the City will collect or which projects future councils will fund.

Proposition 437: Changing the math for getting on the ballot

Proposition 437 addresses a different part of City government: the rules candidates must follow to qualify for an election.

Under the current Yuma City Charter, candidates seeking City elected office must collect nomination-petition signatures from qualified City voters.

The required number is calculated using a range of 3% to 5% of the valid ballots cast in the preceding general municipal election.

Proposition 437 would keep those percentages but change which election is used.

Instead of using the previous general municipal election, the City would use the previous primary municipal election.

It sounds like a minor wording change. For someone trying to run for office, the difference could be substantial.

Why the election used in the calculation matters

Consider what happened during the 2026 municipal election.

According to the City's January candidate announcement, candidates seeking a place on the primary ballot needed at least 998 valid signatures, with a maximum of 1,664 under the Charter's percentage range.

Those figures came from the existing calculation using the preceding general municipal election.

Proposition 437 would not eliminate the requirement to collect signatures. It would change the ballot count used to determine how many are necessary.

If the preceding primary election had fewer valid ballots than the preceding general election, applying the same percentages would produce a lower signature requirement.

But that outcome would depend on actual election participation.

The proposal does not establish a permanent signature total, and it does not guarantee that the required number would always fall.

The 998-to-1,664 range applied to the 2026 election cycle. It should not be mistaken for a fixed requirement in future elections.

The current City Charter, Article IV, Section 6, spells out the existing nomination procedure. The Council record for Ordinance O2026-018 describes the proposed amendment.

Why does the City want to change the rule?

The City points to changes in the municipal election calendar.

Moving municipal elections into even-numbered years, alongside presidential and gubernatorial elections, brought larger ballot totals into the calculation used for candidate petitions.

Because the signature percentages remained unchanged, larger ballot counts could mean more signatures for prospective candidates to collect.

The City's Council report also describes candidates who failed to gather enough signatures and concerns about the time available to collect them before filing deadlines.

Changing the calculation could reduce that burden when primary turnout is lower than general-election turnout.

Whether that would encourage more people to run, produce more competitive elections, or benefit particular candidates is another matter.

The proposal does not answer those questions.

It would also leave other nomination requirements in place, including signatures from qualified City electors and certification of petitions by the City Clerk.

And it concerns qualifying for the ballot, not the number of votes required to win an election.

What your vote means:

A yes vote would amend the City Charter so nomination-petition signature requirements are calculated using the preceding primary municipal election.

A no vote would keep the existing Charter language, which uses the preceding general municipal election.

Either way, the 3% to 5% range would remain.

Two proposals, two separate decisions

The simplest way to understand these propositions is to look at what each would actually change.

Proposition 436Proposition 437

Subject

City spending authority

Candidate nomination signatures

Proposed change

Add $30 million to the historical spending base

Use primary-election ballots instead of general-election ballots

What stays the same

No new revenue or taxes authorized by the measure

The 3% to 5% signature range

What remains uncertain

Future annual limits and spending decisions

Future signature totals and candidate participation

Both measures originated with City Council action in June, but placing a proposition on the ballot is not the same as voters approving it.

The City's June 23 announcement describes the proposals and the process for submitting arguments in favor of or against them for the official voter publicity pamphlet.

The Council has provided its reasons for seeking the changes. Voters must decide whether those reasons justify amending the existing rules.

For Proposition 436, that means considering how much flexibility the City should have under its spending limit.

For Proposition 437, it means considering which election provides the appropriate basis for determining how many signatures a candidate must collect.

One vote does not depend on the other.

Read more before voting

Yuma Informed has published separate explainers examining the details behind each measure:

• Proposition 436 Explained: Yuma's $30 Million Base Adjustment and the Spending Limit examines the historical spending base, annual expenditure calculations, and the distinction between spending authority and available revenue.
• Proposition 437 Explained: Why Yuma Wants to Change Candidate Signature Calculations examines the Charter language, the proposed change, and how different ballot totals affect signature requirements.

The Yuma Propositions 436 and 437 research page also brings together the related articles, official records, factual claims, and legislative history.

Both propositions will be decided November 3, 2026.

The questions are separate, and so are their consequences. Understanding what each proposal actually changes is a useful place to start before marking either box.