The 2026 Election Center

PROPOSITION 141 · STATEWIDE

Vehicle-miles-traveled taxes and monitoring

Would add constitutional prohibitions on taxes or fees based on miles driven and laws or rules monitoring or limiting miles driven without consent. Exceptions cover certain interstate commercial vehicles and vehicles owned and operated by state or local government.

YES

Adopts those constitutional prohibitions and exceptions.

NO

Leaves the current constitutional language in place.

Official ballot wording (p. 55) ↗
Legislative Council analysis (p. 38) ↗

PROPOSITION 142 · STATEWIDE

Preferential treatment and discrimination

Would expand existing constitutional restrictions on preferential treatment and discrimination in public employment, education and contracting. It would prohibit compelled support for race- or ethnicity-based treatment, public funding for education positions promoting that treatment, and race- or ethnicity-based disciplinary practices. It also restricts requests for specified diversity statements or discussion of race or ethnicity, with health, legal and other exceptions.

YES

Adopts the added constitutional restrictions and exceptions.

NO

Leaves the current constitutional language in place.

Official ballot wording (p. 69) ↗
Legislative Council analysis (p. 58) ↗

PROPOSITION 144 · STATEWIDE

Election requirements

Would require government-issued identification in each election, including mail voting; an Election Day option to have a ballot counted at the voting location; restrictions on foreign-national election spending and knowingly accepting those contributions; a new constitutional standard for reviewing election laws; and legislative funding to implement the changes. These provisions would apply to elections on or after January 1, 2028. They would not govern the November 2026 election.

YES

Adopts the proposed constitutional election provisions for elections on or after January 1, 2028.

NO

Leaves current constitutional election provisions in place.

Official ballot wording (p. 95) ↗
Legislative Council analysis (p. 71) ↗

PROPOSITION 316 · STATEWIDE

Municipal transaction privilege tax on groceries

Would retroactively prohibit local governments from adopting or increasing grocery taxes from July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2027. After that, new or increased grocery taxes would need voter approval and could not exceed 2%. The measure does not automatically abolish existing grocery taxes.

YES

Enacts those limits on new or increased local grocery taxes.

NO

Leaves current local-tax law in place.

Official ballot wording (p. 100) ↗
Legislative Council analysis (p. 97) ↗

PROPOSITION 317 · STATEWIDE

Arizona Department of Homeland Security

Would declare drug cartels terrorist organizations and direct the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to address their threats within its lawful authority. Its definition covers groups engaged in human smuggling, drug trafficking or terrorism under Arizona law. It also states that the measure does not support an asylum claim.

YES

Enacts the declaration, definition and directive, including the asylum limitation.

NO

Leaves current law in place.

Official ballot wording (p. 105) ↗
Legislative Council analysis (p. 102) ↗

PROPOSITION 318 · STATEWIDE

Student athletics

Beginning January 1, 2027, would extend team-designation requirements to private schools and athletic associations as well as public schools. Teams would be designated male, female or coed based on sex recorded at birth on an original birth certificate, with males barred from female teams. It would restrict access to sex-designated private spaces integral to athletic participation, including restrooms, locker rooms and showers, and expand legal remedies. Participation on a team aligned with an athlete’s sex or designated coed would remain allowed.

YES

Enacts the changes to student-athletics law, with the specified new designation and private-space requirements beginning January 1, 2027.

NO

Leaves current student-athletics law in place.

Official ballot wording (p. 130) ↗
Legislative Council analysis (p. 107) ↗

PROPOSITION 319 · STATEWIDE

Photo-enforcement systems

Would prohibit state and local traffic photo-enforcement systems unless covered by a signed contract in place on or before December 31, 2026. Local governments would need voter approval at the next general election after the measure takes effect and every 10 years afterward to keep existing systems. If voters reject continued operation, the local system would have to stop within 90 days.

YES

Enacts the contract cutoff, voter-approval and renewal requirements.

NO

Leaves current photo-enforcement law in place.

Official ballot wording (p. 137) ↗
Legislative Council analysis (p. 132) ↗

The cutoff above follows the legal text on page 131, which says “on or before” December 31. The analysis uses “before.”

PROPOSITION 320 · STATEWIDE

School-district budgets

Would apply to school districts with at least 7,500 students or operating a school in a county with at least 500,000 people. It sets a 60% instructional-spending target, with spending categories defined by the Auditor General. Starting in fiscal year 2027–28, districts below the target must increase the instructional share by at least one-half of one percent each year until compliant. Failure to meet the requirements would reduce Classroom Site Fund allocations by 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% for one, two, three or at least four years of noncompliance, subject to limited waivers. Those percentages apply to that fund allocation, not the entire district budget.

YES

Enacts the spending target, phased compliance requirements and escalating Classroom Site Fund reductions, subject to limited waivers.

NO

Leaves current school-district budget law in place.

Official ballot wording (p. 152) ↗
Legislative Council analysis (p. 139) ↗

PROPOSITION 435 · Yuma County voters

Permanent Base Adjustment

Would permanently increase the County’s historical expenditure base by $6.2 million beginning in fiscal year 2027–28. The base is used to calculate the annual spending limit. The County says the measure creates no tax increase, fees or revenue; $6.2 million is not a fixed annual spending increase.

YES

Approves the permanent adjustment to the County’s expenditure base.

NO

Does not approve the proposed adjustment.

PROPOSITION 436 · City of Yuma voters

Permanent Base Adjustment

Would permanently adjust the City’s historical expenditure base by $30 million for the Annual Expenditure Limitation calculation. The City says it does not create a tax, raise tax rates or create revenue. The adjustment amount is not the final annual spending limit or a prediction of future spending.

YES

Approves the permanent adjustment to the City’s expenditure base.

NO

Does not approve the proposed adjustment.

PROPOSITION 437 · City of Yuma voters

Nomination-petition signature calculation

Would calculate the 3%–5% signature requirement for City nomination petitions from valid ballots cast in the preceding primary municipal election instead of the preceding general municipal election.

YES

Changes the election used to calculate petition-signature requirements.

NO

Keeps the current calculation method.

PROPOSITION 438 · Town of Wellton voters

Permanent Base Adjustment

Would permanently adjust the Town’s expenditure-limit base. Wellton says the measure does not raise taxes or authorize spending beyond available revenue. The adjustment amount and final ballot wording have not been verified for this guide.

YES

Approves the proposed permanent adjustment to the Town’s expenditure-limit base.

NO

Does not approve the proposed adjustment.