ÃÛÌÒÓ°ÏñAV

You can start Wednesday.

That’s when — Oct. 9 — early ballots for the general election go out. And if you’re unwilling to wait for the mail, there are remote early voting locations in every county.

This year’s ballot is led by the competition between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump for the state’s 11 presidential electors, a number that could matter depending on the outcome in other swing states. There’s also the highly watched race nationally of whether Republican Kari Lake or Democrat Ruben Gallego will replace Democrat-turned-independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who bowed out.

Also on a statewide basis, there are three seats up for grabs on the Arizona Corporation Commission. And voters statewide will get to decide whether Arizona Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King are retained for six-year terms — though those individual decisions could be overridden. More about that below (see Prop. 137).

But it is the 13 propositions that could have a lasting impact on Arizona — if for no other reason than they are more or less permanent: It would take another public vote to repeal or substantially alter anything approved at the ballot.

Note that measures in the 100 series are constitutional proposals whether placed on the ballot by the Legislature (133 through 138) or by voters (139 and 140).

The 300-level ballot measures are statutory changes lawmakers could legally approve themselves but have instead put on the ballot, some of these because the Republican-controlled Legislature could not get them signed by the Democratic governor.

Proposition 133: Guarantees that each political party gets to put its own nominees on the general election ballot. It is designed in part as an alternative to the voter-proposed Prop. 140, which would instead create a system of nonpartisan primaries. Proponents say it ensures the November election is a contest between the different ideologies of the major parties. Opponents say that’s precisely what’s wrong with it, ensuring that general elections end up between the extremes of both major parties. It does preserve the existing ability of registered independents to vote in the primary of any political party, though they have to choose whose ballot they want ahead of the election. It also would clear the way for lawmakers to override the practice used in most cities and towns of having nonpartisan council elections, though that does not appear to be automatic if the measure is adopted.

Proposition 134: Adds a new requirement to ballot measures, requiring proponents to get the requisite number of signatures from each of the 30 legislative districts. Now, circulators can get needed signatures — equal to 10% of those who voted in the last gubernatorial race for statutory changes and to 15% for a constitutional amendment — from any part of the state. Supporters say this ensures some level of buy-in, particularly from residents of rural areas. Foes say it provides a veto power of sorts, keeping issues of statewide concern off the ballot if there is no real support in any one area. They cite previously approved measures including a ban on leghold traps on public lands and prohibitions against gestation crates for pigs as items that might never have made the ballot in the first place if they had needed signatures from around the state.

Proposition 135: Increases the power of the Legislature to curtail or override a declaration of emergency declared by the governor. It would spell out that any emergency would cease to exist after 30 days unless extended by state lawmakers. It also puts teeth into that power by ensuring legislators must be called into special session on the petition of a third of House and Senate members, which would allow lawmakers to void an emergency even before 30 days. This is an outgrowth of the COVID emergency declared by Republican then-Gov. Doug Ducey that lasted two years, including at one point a stay-at-home order and business closures. Backers say Prop. 135 would ensure there are checks on the powers of a single person. Opponents say this could unnecessarily inject politics into the process and delay aid.

Proposition 136: Current law allows only limited pre-election challenges to an initiative over such things as whether it violates rules against having multiple subjects. This would permit foes to go into court even before enactment to contest other constitutional issues, potentially getting courts to short-circuit an election. That issue arose in 2020 with a ballot measure to impose a 3.5% income tax surcharge on earnings of more than $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for married couples filing jointly. The state Supreme Court declined to remove it from the ballot, resulting in it being approved after an expensive campaign. Only later did the same justices rule that the plan as written was unconstitutional. Foes say the other side of the issue is forcing initiative proponents to spend money up front to defend their measure rather than devoting the finances to marshaling voter support.

Proposition 137: Arizona Supreme Court justices and judges of the Court of Appeals and superior courts of Pima, Maricopa, Pinal and Coconino counties are appointed by the governor. That would not change. What would is the current requirement they stand for election regularly on a retain-or-reject basis. Only judges who had specific issues such as a personal bankruptcy, felony conviction or found to not meet standards by the Commission on Judicial Performance Review would have to be on the ballot. Everyone else could serve until mandatory retirement age of 70. Backers say there is no need to crowd the ballot. They also say it shields judges from being targeted for a single unpopular decision. But it is precisely that which foes say is the reason to keep the current system, giving voters the last word. Of note it is written to be retroactive: If approved, it would overrule any separate votes this November to oust any of the judges on the ballot. That has gotten the attention of groups seeking to remove Supreme Court Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King, in part over their votes to reinstate a territorial-era abortion law.

Proposition 138: Voters in 2006 and again in 2016 approved a state minimum wage adjusted annually for inflation. It will be $14.70 in January. It also allows employers to pay tipped workers $3 an hour less — $11.70 in January — as long as their pay, with wages, hits the minimum. This proposal by the Arizona Restaurant Association would boost the credit to 25% of the minimum, lowering what restaurants have to pay out of their own pockets to $11.03. That would be available only if the workers made the minimum plus $2 an hour. Backers say this works to the benefit of tipped workers if for no other reason than to ensure restaurants can keep more employed by lowering costs for employers. Opponents say the measure can hurt workers who may depend on tips to help them bring home more than minimum wages, and that it essentially shifts the burden of ensuring they are properly compensated to customers.

Proposition 139: Current Arizona law allows abortion until the 15th week of pregnancy, with no statutory exemptions after that for rape or incest. This measure would put a right to terminate a pregnancy into the Arizona Constitution, with no state interference prior to fetal viability — generally 22 to 24 weeks — and the ability to have a legal abortion after that if a health provider decided it was necessary to protect the life or the mental or physical health of the mother. Backers say that, as a constitutional amendment, it would preclude future legislatures from altering the law. There were legislators earlier this year who wanted to restore a territorial-era law that outlawed the procedure except to save the life of the mother. But opponents say it goes too far, technically allowing abortion up until childbirth — a circumstance that is extremely rare and usually involves some fetal defect — and that it overrides other existing laws such as one that requires a minor to get parental consent.

Proposition 140: The other side of Proposition 133. This would eliminate partisan primaries in all federal, state and local races, with all candidates running against each other and all registered voters allowed to cast ballots. It would be up to the Legislature, or the secretary of state if lawmakers default, to determine how many candidates advance to the general election. If just two, then the race would be between the top vote-getters. But the measure permits up to five to be placed on the general election ballot, which would require a system of ranked-choice voting to determine a winner. Supporters say this overrides a system where political independents have a higher burden to get on the general election ballot than those of recognized parties. They also say it forces all candidates to seek support from all voters versus just in their party, which could result in eliminating those on the political fringes. But foes — who come from both major political parties — say general elections are supposed to be contests between political philosophies. They point out that, as crafted, the choice in the general election could come down to two people from the same party if they were the primary winners. There also are questions of whether a ranked-choice system, which could involve multiple rounds of counting, would slow the results.

Proposition 311: This would 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. It also would increase the punishment for committing an aggravated assault against a peace officer and added other first responders to that list, like firefights and paramedics. Supporters say this provides additional benefits that may help recruit and keep officers. But foes note that there already are multiple benefits available. And the measure also allows some of the money to be used for other purposes including peace officer training and equipment, something they say should be funded directly from state revenues.

Proposition 312: This is designed to provide property tax relief to people who say the failure of cities, towns or counties to enforce laws dealing with the homeless, like loitering, public camping and public urination, has affected them. The reimbursement would be for documented expenses to “mitigate’’ the harms caused to their properties, with payments up to the amount of property tax due available for each year there are problems. Supporters say it is only right that owners get some compensation when local governments fail to do their jobs and protect them and to prevent blighted areas. The counter is that the funds to be paid out might be better spent creating shelters for the homeless and providing for other services. There also are questions about the enforceability of some of these laws like a prohibition on panhandling.

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 would automatically make the sentence a life term. The aim is to both deter sex traffickers as well as ensure that offenders are kept off the street. Others question the deterrent effect. And they say that not all cases are the same and some discretion should be left for judge to consider individual circumstances like mental health, remorse, addiction or the person’s background.

Proposition 314: This is a catch-all billed by proponents as a way to secure the border. The main provision would allow state and local police to arrest anyone who crosses the border at other than a port of entry. Backers say they would have to have actual evidence and not just be able to stop someone far from the border. Another section makes it a state crime to submit false documents when applying for public benefits. A third criminalizes submitting false documents to an employer to evade having their legal presence verified. And a fourth provides for increased penalties for the sale of fentanyl if the drug causes the death of another person. Proponents say the state needs to act due to the failure of the federal government to secure the border. Foes note, however, the legality of the provision on arresting border crossers is in doubt: A federal appeals court has for the moment barred Texas from enforcing similar language over questions of whether this is illegal state interference into the exclusive right of the federal government to enforce immigration laws. There also are concerns about the ability of businesses to get the workers they need and whether the law will be enforced in a discriminatory fashion.

Proposition 315: This is an effort by Republican lawmakers to curtail the ability of state agencies to enact rules. It would require any agency to submit for review any rule that would increase regulatory costs by more than $100,000 within five years. If an analysis shows the cost would exceed $500,000 it would require approval of the full Legislature or could not be enacted. Sending it to the ballot gets around a veto by Gov. Katie Hobbs of a similar but not identical requirement for review to see if a rule conforms with legislative intent, one she called unnecessary. Supporters say it protects small business from overregulation. But foes say it adds another hurdle that can stifle or slow needed regulations on things like protecting health.