Opportunity Arizona's mission is to build issue majorities and political power for policies that improve the lives of hardworking Arizonans. They envision a future where all Arizonans earn a dignified living with access to affordable healthcare and housing.
If passed, Proposition 134 will blow up the cost of citizens gathering signatures for initiatives, likely pushing the cost to over $25M for any initiative. It will push most citizen led efforts out of reach.
Arizona’s constitution allows the people to participate in direct democracy through citizen-initiated ballot measures where voters can collect signatures, amend state laws, or challenge new laws when they think our representatives haven’t gotten it right at the capitol. The citizen initiative process is a key part of Arizona’s democracy that has allowed us to raise the minimum wage, get paid family leave for all workers, increase funding for education, and legalize recreational marijuana when the legislature has failed to act.
Over the past decade, the ballot initiative process has become increasingly difficult to navigate. This is the latest blatant attempt to remove an important way for voters to participate in democracy and propose changes to state laws and the Arizona Constitution.
Currently, the requirement for the number of signatures needed for placement on the ballot is statewide: signatures must be collected by 15% of the number of people who voted in the last Gubernatorial election for a constitutional amendment, 10% to create a new state law or amend an existing law, or 5% to challenge a new law.
This proposition would keep the same percentage of voters but require they come from all 30 legislative districts in the state. In short, it changes the rules of the game and makes it harder to hold state government accountable. This new signature requirement will make it more difficult for voter-led initiatives to appear on the ballot and would centralize more power in the hands of elected officials and less power in the hands of the people.
The power of the citizen initiative process lies in the fact that nearly any group of Arizona voters can come together to bring an issue to the ballot. Prop 134 would change the process so that only the ultra-wealthy and powerful special interest groups could gather enough signatures to bring a question to the ballot. Prop 134 makes it so that instead of reaching a general signature threshold, getting a question on the ballot would require an unrealistic amount per legislative district.
The ultra-wealthy with political power and special interest groups are not a true reflection of Arizona voters. They should not be the only ones who can afford to bring important priorities to the statewide ballot.
Vote NO on Prop 134 to protect Arizonans' right to propose and pass new laws and constitutional amendments ourselves, such as the right to have an abortion
If passed, Proposition 134 will blow up the cost of citizens gathering signatures for initiatives, likely pushing the cost to over $25M for any initiative. It will push most citizen led efforts out of reach.
Arizona’s constitution allows the people to participate in direct democracy through citizen-initiated ballot measures where voters can collect signatures, amend state laws, or challenge new laws when they think our representatives haven’t gotten it right at the capitol. The citizen initiative process is a key part of Arizona’s democracy that has allowed us to raise the minimum wage, get paid family leave for all workers, increase funding for education, and legalize recreational marijuana when the legislature has failed to act.
Over the past decade, the ballot initiative process has become increasingly difficult to navigate. This is the latest blatant attempt to remove an important way for voters to participate in democracy and propose changes to state laws and the Arizona Constitution.
Currently, the requirement for the number of signatures needed for placement on the ballot is statewide: signatures must be collected by 15% of the number of people who voted in the last Gubernatorial election for a constitutional amendment, 10% to create a new state law or amend an existing law, or 5% to challenge a new law.
This proposition would keep the same percentage of voters but require they come from all 30 legislative districts in the state. In short, it changes the rules of the game and makes it harder to hold state government accountable. This new signature requirement will make it more difficult for voter-led initiatives to appear on the ballot and would centralize more power in the hands of elected officials and less power in the hands of the people.
The power of the citizen initiative process lies in the fact that nearly any group of Arizona voters can come together to bring an issue to the ballot. Prop 134 would change the process so that only the ultra-wealthy and powerful special interest groups could gather enough signatures to bring a question to the ballot. Prop 134 makes it so that instead of reaching a general signature threshold, getting a question on the ballot would require an unrealistic amount per legislative district.
The ultra-wealthy with political power and special interest groups are not a true reflection of Arizona voters. They should not be the only ones who can afford to bring important priorities to the statewide ballot.
Vote NO on Prop 134 to protect Arizonans' right to propose and pass new laws and constitutional amendments ourselves, such as the right to have an abortion
If passed, Proposition 136 would amend Arizona’s Constitution to allow lawsuits against citizen ballot initiatives before they even reach the ballot.
Arizona’s citizen initiative process already has strict safeguards to ensure proposed measures meet all requirements before being placed on the ballot. These include rigid rules governing petition signatures, who can carry petitions, and the possibility of canvassers being summoned to court to prove their work was legitimate.
The citizen initiative process is a cornerstone of Arizona's democracy. It empowers voters to directly influence the state’s future on critical issues like education funding, minimum wage increases, or constitutional amendments such as the right to abortion. This process has historically made Arizona more equitable and just.
Proposition 136 would weaken this process by allowing special interests, corporate lobbyists, and the state legislature to file expensive lawsuits against citizen-led petitions before voters have the chance to weigh in. This is part of an ongoing effort to erode Arizona's citizens' power.
Vote No on Proposition 136 to defend Arizonans' ability to ensure state government serves the people—not special interests.
If passed, Proposition 136 would amend Arizona’s Constitution to allow lawsuits against citizen ballot initiatives before they even reach the ballot.
Arizona’s citizen initiative process already has strict safeguards to ensure proposed measures meet all requirements before being placed on the ballot. These include rigid rules governing petition signatures, who can carry petitions, and the possibility of canvassers being summoned to court to prove their work was legitimate.
The citizen initiative process is a cornerstone of Arizona's democracy. It empowers voters to directly influence the state’s future on critical issues like education funding, minimum wage increases, or constitutional amendments such as the right to abortion. This process has historically made Arizona more equitable and just.
Proposition 136 would weaken this process by allowing special interests, corporate lobbyists, and the state legislature to file expensive lawsuits against citizen-led petitions before voters have the chance to weigh in. This is part of an ongoing effort to erode Arizona's citizens' power.
Vote No on Proposition 136 to defend Arizonans' ability to ensure state government serves the people—not special interests.
If passed, Proposition 137 would amend the Arizona Constitution to remove voters' ability to hold justices and judges accountable by eliminating the judicial retention process for state Supreme Court justices, Court of Appeals judges, and judges in Coconino, Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties. This would allow judges to receive lifetime appointments, reducing transparency and making it harder for the public to ensure judicial accountability.
If passed, Proposition 137 would retroactively apply to this November’s election, potentially overturning voters' decisions not to retain certain justices or judges. This move appears aimed at protecting judges up for retention this year who upheld the 1864 pre-statehood abortion ban.
For over 50 years, Arizona's constitution has allowed voters to hold judges accountable through retention elections. These elections are a vital democratic tool, ensuring judges serve the public interest rather than personal or political agendas. They help prevent the courts from becoming overly politicized by ensuring decisions are grounded in law, not outside pressure.
Currently, the governor appoints judges from a nonpartisan list of nominees, and those judges must stand for retention after their first term. Trial judges face voters every four years, while appeals and Supreme Court judges face voters every six years. Proposition 137 would eliminate these elections and grant judges lifetime appointments. Under the new system, judges would only face removal if convicted of a felony or after a negative performance review by a commission, stripping the public of the ability to vote them out.
In 2016, then-Governor Doug Ducey expanded the state Supreme Court from five to seven seats, consolidating a conservative majority. Since then, the court has made several politically charged decisions that have threatened public school funding, voting rights, and workers' protections.
Eliminating retention elections would weaken Arizona's judiciary by removing a key mechanism of accountability. Preserving these elections is essential to maintaining judicial integrity and upholding democratic principles.
Arizonans deserve a judiciary and political system that remains accountable to the public, not special interests. A No vote on Proposition 137 will ensure that voters continue to have a say in who remains on the bench.
If passed, Proposition 137 would amend the Arizona Constitution to remove voters' ability to hold justices and judges accountable by eliminating the judicial retention process for state Supreme Court justices, Court of Appeals judges, and judges in Coconino, Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal counties. This would allow judges to receive lifetime appointments, reducing transparency and making it harder for the public to ensure judicial accountability.
If passed, Proposition 137 would retroactively apply to this November’s election, potentially overturning voters' decisions not to retain certain justices or judges. This move appears aimed at protecting judges up for retention this year who upheld the 1864 pre-statehood abortion ban.
For over 50 years, Arizona's constitution has allowed voters to hold judges accountable through retention elections. These elections are a vital democratic tool, ensuring judges serve the public interest rather than personal or political agendas. They help prevent the courts from becoming overly politicized by ensuring decisions are grounded in law, not outside pressure.
Currently, the governor appoints judges from a nonpartisan list of nominees, and those judges must stand for retention after their first term. Trial judges face voters every four years, while appeals and Supreme Court judges face voters every six years. Proposition 137 would eliminate these elections and grant judges lifetime appointments. Under the new system, judges would only face removal if convicted of a felony or after a negative performance review by a commission, stripping the public of the ability to vote them out.
In 2016, then-Governor Doug Ducey expanded the state Supreme Court from five to seven seats, consolidating a conservative majority. Since then, the court has made several politically charged decisions that have threatened public school funding, voting rights, and workers' protections.
Eliminating retention elections would weaken Arizona's judiciary by removing a key mechanism of accountability. Preserving these elections is essential to maintaining judicial integrity and upholding democratic principles.
Arizonans deserve a judiciary and political system that remains accountable to the public, not special interests. A No vote on Proposition 137 will ensure that voters continue to have a say in who remains on the bench.
If passed, Proposition 138 would allow restaurants and bars to reduce the wages of tipped employees by 25% below the state minimum wage, deepening the economic struggles workers face.
Arizona law permits employers to pay tipped workers up to $3 less per hour than the state minimum wage ($14.35 in 2024) as long as tips bring their earnings to at least the minimum wage. Prop 138 would further reduce this wage gap, allowing employers to pay tipped workers 25% less than the minimum wage, provided their combined wages and tips exceed the minimum wage by at least $2 per hour. (The proposition provides no additional funding for information or enforcement, so most servers will just see their checks get smaller with little ability to determine whether the complex formula for allowing a 25% reduction instead of a $3 reduction has been met.)
This measure would worsen the financial security of Arizona's tipped workers, who already face difficulty earning a living wage. Prop 138 creates a more convoluted tiered wage system, further reducing base pay and forcing workers to rely even more on unpredictable tips.
Tipped workers in Arizona already earn $3 less than non-tipped workers. By lowering the tipped minimum wage further, Prop 138 would widen this wage gap and heighten poverty rates among tipped workers. Data shows that in states with larger wage gaps between tipped and non-tipped employees, poverty rates among tipped workers are significantly higher. In Arizona, tipped workers experience a poverty rate of 9.8%, compared to 5.5% for non-tipped workers. For women in tipped positions, the poverty rate is even higher at 10.8%. Prop 138 would exacerbate these disparities, especially for women, who make up nearly 70% of tipped workers.
Prop 138 disproportionately harms women and people of color, who are overrepresented in tipped positions. These workers already face economic vulnerabilities, and the proposition would leave their earnings more reliant on customer discretion, often influenced by bias, rather than guaranteed fair wages.
Prop 138 is backed by the restaurant industry, which has a long history of opposing fair pay and benefits for its workers, including efforts to block the 2016 voter-approved minimum wage increase. This proposition serves their interests by cutting labor costs at the expense of workers' livelihoods, further entrenching systemic inequities.
All workers deserve a living wage, especially as the cost of living continues to rise. Prop 138 would push Arizona’s tipped workers further into financial instability, deepening poverty and widening the wage gap between tipped and non-tipped workers. Employment laws should protect workers, not corporate profits.
Vote No on Prop 138 and stand with Arizona’s tipped workers.
If passed, Proposition 138 would allow restaurants and bars to reduce the wages of tipped employees by 25% below the state minimum wage, deepening the economic struggles workers face.
Arizona law permits employers to pay tipped workers up to $3 less per hour than the state minimum wage ($14.35 in 2024) as long as tips bring their earnings to at least the minimum wage. Prop 138 would further reduce this wage gap, allowing employers to pay tipped workers 25% less than the minimum wage, provided their combined wages and tips exceed the minimum wage by at least $2 per hour. (The proposition provides no additional funding for information or enforcement, so most servers will just see their checks get smaller with little ability to determine whether the complex formula for allowing a 25% reduction instead of a $3 reduction has been met.)
This measure would worsen the financial security of Arizona's tipped workers, who already face difficulty earning a living wage. Prop 138 creates a more convoluted tiered wage system, further reducing base pay and forcing workers to rely even more on unpredictable tips.
Tipped workers in Arizona already earn $3 less than non-tipped workers. By lowering the tipped minimum wage further, Prop 138 would widen this wage gap and heighten poverty rates among tipped workers. Data shows that in states with larger wage gaps between tipped and non-tipped employees, poverty rates among tipped workers are significantly higher. In Arizona, tipped workers experience a poverty rate of 9.8%, compared to 5.5% for non-tipped workers. For women in tipped positions, the poverty rate is even higher at 10.8%. Prop 138 would exacerbate these disparities, especially for women, who make up nearly 70% of tipped workers.
Prop 138 disproportionately harms women and people of color, who are overrepresented in tipped positions. These workers already face economic vulnerabilities, and the proposition would leave their earnings more reliant on customer discretion, often influenced by bias, rather than guaranteed fair wages.
Prop 138 is backed by the restaurant industry, which has a long history of opposing fair pay and benefits for its workers, including efforts to block the 2016 voter-approved minimum wage increase. This proposition serves their interests by cutting labor costs at the expense of workers' livelihoods, further entrenching systemic inequities.
All workers deserve a living wage, especially as the cost of living continues to rise. Prop 138 would push Arizona’s tipped workers further into financial instability, deepening poverty and widening the wage gap between tipped and non-tipped workers. Employment laws should protect workers, not corporate profits.
Vote No on Prop 138 and stand with Arizona’s tipped workers.
Proposition 139 would make abortion access a constitutional right in Arizona.
Currently, Arizona law limits abortion to the first 15 weeks of gestation without exceptions for victims of rape or incest. This law was passed in 2022 by the state legislature. Doctors who perform an abortion beyond this gestational deadline except to prevent the death or injury of a patient would face a class six felony, which could lead to a prison sentence of up to two years.
Proposition 139 explicitly states every Arizonan has a fundamental right to an abortion. It would prohibit any law, regulation, or policy that would deny, restrict, or interfere with abortion access before fetal viability (when a doctor believes a fetus can survive on its own outside of the uterus) without a compelling reason to do so and in the least restrictive way possible. It also restricts any law that would deny abortion access after fetal viability that is necessary to protect the patient’s life or mental health. Finally, it prevents the state from penalizing anyone who assists another person in exercising their right to abortion.
Vote YES on Proposition 139 to ensure your freedom to make your own healthcare decisions!
Proposition 139 would make abortion access a constitutional right in Arizona.
Currently, Arizona law limits abortion to the first 15 weeks of gestation without exceptions for victims of rape or incest. This law was passed in 2022 by the state legislature. Doctors who perform an abortion beyond this gestational deadline except to prevent the death or injury of a patient would face a class six felony, which could lead to a prison sentence of up to two years.
Proposition 139 explicitly states every Arizonan has a fundamental right to an abortion. It would prohibit any law, regulation, or policy that would deny, restrict, or interfere with abortion access before fetal viability (when a doctor believes a fetus can survive on its own outside of the uterus) without a compelling reason to do so and in the least restrictive way possible. It also restricts any law that would deny abortion access after fetal viability that is necessary to protect the patient’s life or mental health. Finally, it prevents the state from penalizing anyone who assists another person in exercising their right to abortion.
Vote YES on Proposition 139 to ensure your freedom to make your own healthcare decisions!
If passed, Proposition 312 would allow Arizona property owners to apply for a property tax refund if the city they reside in does not effectively eliminate homelessness by enforcing laws against things like public camping or having a sign asking for help at an intersection. It would force cities and towns to criminalize individuals for not having a home and divert resources away from affordable housing and shelters.
This proposition would undercut funding municipalities need to help people who are unhoused and who often suffer from mental health conditions. It also sets a public policy marker that contemplates a pathway for vigilante management of Arizona’s homeless community.
Vote No on Proposition 312 to ensure local governments have the resources they need to help the unhoused and those who need mental health care.
If passed, Proposition 312 would allow Arizona property owners to apply for a property tax refund if the city they reside in does not effectively eliminate homelessness by enforcing laws against things like public camping or having a sign asking for help at an intersection. It would force cities and towns to criminalize individuals for not having a home and divert resources away from affordable housing and shelters.
This proposition would undercut funding municipalities need to help people who are unhoused and who often suffer from mental health conditions. It also sets a public policy marker that contemplates a pathway for vigilante management of Arizona’s homeless community.
Vote No on Proposition 312 to ensure local governments have the resources they need to help the unhoused and those who need mental health care.
If passed, Proposition 315 would require the legislature to approve certain rules made by state agencies. It would statutorily prevent a new rule from going into effect if it would increase regulatory costs by more than $100,000. If a new rule that has been proposed would increase regulatory costs by more than $500,000, it will require approval by the legislature to go into effect.
Under the current law, if a state agency wants to develop a new rule under its subject purview, it must allow public comment for at least 30 days before submitting it for approval to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC). It is also reviewed by the Legislature’s Administrative Rules Oversight Committee to ensure it complies with the law.
Executive agency rule-making is important to a functional state government. Oftentimes, legislators do not have the proper expertise to determine if a new rule is needed or how it should be implemented. The rulemaking process allows for direct public input and for the use of best practices, and for experts to be brought in for complex and important topics such as how to ensure adequate clean water, cybersecurity for filing taxes electronically, or using best practices to ensure the public’s health as examples. These agencies carry out the day-to-day business of running the government and employ career professionals to accomplish this task.
Vote No on Proposition 315 to keep legislative politics out of the administration of state government.
If passed, Proposition 315 would require the legislature to approve certain rules made by state agencies. It would statutorily prevent a new rule from going into effect if it would increase regulatory costs by more than $100,000. If a new rule that has been proposed would increase regulatory costs by more than $500,000, it will require approval by the legislature to go into effect.
Under the current law, if a state agency wants to develop a new rule under its subject purview, it must allow public comment for at least 30 days before submitting it for approval to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC). It is also reviewed by the Legislature’s Administrative Rules Oversight Committee to ensure it complies with the law.
Executive agency rule-making is important to a functional state government. Oftentimes, legislators do not have the proper expertise to determine if a new rule is needed or how it should be implemented. The rulemaking process allows for direct public input and for the use of best practices, and for experts to be brought in for complex and important topics such as how to ensure adequate clean water, cybersecurity for filing taxes electronically, or using best practices to ensure the public’s health as examples. These agencies carry out the day-to-day business of running the government and employ career professionals to accomplish this task.
Vote No on Proposition 315 to keep legislative politics out of the administration of state government.
Vote NO on retention for Justice Clint Bolick.
In 2024, Justice Clint Bolick was one of four Arizona Supreme Court Justices who voted to reinstate an 1864 ban that would have outlawed abortions in Arizona in nearly all cases, threatening to put providers in jail. Before being appointed by Gov. Doug Ducey, Justice Bolick spent his career as a special interest lobbyist railing against public education and advocating against school funding and desegregation. After becoming a State Supreme Court Justice, he used his power to block a voter-approved initiative that would have restored much-needed funding to K-12 classrooms. In 2022, when the legislature passed a flat tax that gave a giant tax break to the wealthiest Arizonans and further decimated public education funding, Bolick voted to deny Arizona voters their constitutional right to veto this extreme proposal.
Vote NO on retention for Justice Clint Bolick.
In 2024, Justice Clint Bolick was one of four Arizona Supreme Court Justices who voted to reinstate an 1864 ban that would have outlawed abortions in Arizona in nearly all cases, threatening to put providers in jail. Before being appointed by Gov. Doug Ducey, Justice Bolick spent his career as a special interest lobbyist railing against public education and advocating against school funding and desegregation. After becoming a State Supreme Court Justice, he used his power to block a voter-approved initiative that would have restored much-needed funding to K-12 classrooms. In 2022, when the legislature passed a flat tax that gave a giant tax break to the wealthiest Arizonans and further decimated public education funding, Bolick voted to deny Arizona voters their constitutional right to veto this extreme proposal.
Vote NO on retention for Justice Kathryn H. King.
In 2024, Justice Kathryn H. King was one of four Arizona Supreme Court Justices who voted to reinstate an 1864 ban on that would have outlawed abortions in Arizona in nearly all cases, threatening to put providers in jail. Before being appointed to the Supreme Court by Governor Ducey, Justice King spent much of her career as a corporate litigator helping employers squash lawsuits brought by their employees. In 2022, when the legislature passed a flat tax that gave a giant tax break to the wealthiest Arizonans and further decimated public education funding, King voted to deny Arizona voters their constitutional right to veto this extreme proposal.
Vote NO on retention for Justice Kathryn H. King.
In 2024, Justice Kathryn H. King was one of four Arizona Supreme Court Justices who voted to reinstate an 1864 ban on that would have outlawed abortions in Arizona in nearly all cases, threatening to put providers in jail. Before being appointed to the Supreme Court by Governor Ducey, Justice King spent much of her career as a corporate litigator helping employers squash lawsuits brought by their employees. In 2022, when the legislature passed a flat tax that gave a giant tax break to the wealthiest Arizonans and further decimated public education funding, King voted to deny Arizona voters their constitutional right to veto this extreme proposal.