2026 Arizona General Election

Demystifying the Ballot

We read the legalese so you don't have to. Prop Plain translates complex Arizona and Pima County ballot measures into clear, plain English. Empowering your vote with clarity.

Arizona State Propositions

Clear breakdowns of the statewide measures on your 2026 ballot, alongside the recommended votes from our source guide.

Prop 141 YES

Vehicle Mileage Taxes & Tracking Ban

Prohibits state and local governments from creating any tax or fee based on how many miles you drive. It also bans them from enacting rules to monitor or limit your vehicle miles traveled without your explicit consent.

Prop 142 YES

Ban on Race- & Ethnicity-Based Preferences

Amends the constitution to stop government agencies and public education institutions from requiring individuals to endorse preferential treatment based on race/ethnicity, and bans public funds for offices promoting these frameworks.

Prop 144 YES

Voter ID and Citizenship Requirements

Changes state law to explicitly state that only U.S. citizens may vote in AZ elections. It bans foreign national campaign contributions, requires government-issued ID to cast a ballot, and guarantees on-site vote tabulation.

Prop 316 YES

Grocery Tax Cap & Approval Requirement

Caps local grocery sales taxes at a maximum of 2% and prohibits local governments from imposing or increasing taxes on food sales without direct voter approval.

Prop 317 YES

Designating Drug Cartels as Terrorists

Formally declares drug cartels as terrorist organizations under state oversight and requires the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to use all available authority to combat them.

Prop 318 YES

Restroom & Private Space Privacy Act

Requires schools and athletic associations to restrict restrooms, locker rooms, and showers to spaces designated strictly for a person's biological sex at birth. Removes provisions allowing mixed-sex participation in female sports.

Prop 319 YES

Ban on New Photo Traffic Enforcement

Stops the state and local entities from installing new automated photo traffic enforcement systems (such as speed or signal cameras) and requires local governments with existing systems to get voter approval to keep using them.

Prop 320 YES

60% Direct Classroom Spending Mandate

Requires large school districts (over 7,500 students or located in counties with over 500k residents) to dedicate at least 60% of their operational budget to direct classroom instruction expenses as defined by the auditor general.

Pima County & City of Tucson Measures

These local measures directly impact community infrastructure, spending limits, and services in your area.

Prop 421 NO

TEP Franchise Agreement

Establishes a franchise agreement with Tucson Electric Power (TEP). Critics note that a tied side agreement takes effect if passed, potentially carrying over elements from previously rejected local policy proposals (like the local "Green New Deal").

Prop 422 NO

Reid Park Zoo Tax Reauthorization

Extends an existing 0.1% city sales tax for 20 more years (January 2028 to December 2047) to fund the zoo. Opponents cite maintaining this tax while Tucson already faces high overall tax rates, suggesting city funding could suffice.

Prop 426 YES

Amphi School District Property Sales

Authorizes the Amphitheater school district to sell surplus school properties to fund needed capital improvements.

Prop 427 NO

Pima County JTED Bonds

Authorizes roughly $250 million in bonds for career-training programs through property taxes. Opponents note a lack of required audits proving tangible results for a program cost approximately 4 times higher than the 2025 amount.

Prop 430 NO

Pima Community College Bonds

Authorizes PCC to borrow up to $250 million via general-obligation bonds paid through local property taxes in a county already experiencing high property tax pressure.

Voter Warning

Spotlight: Proposition 425

Pima County Expenditure Base Adjustment

RECOMMENDED: NO

The Core Issue: Voters Lose Control of Spending Constraints

The County seeks to raise its state-imposed spending limit ceiling by an "adjustment" of over $610 million (a nearly 75% increase) from $817 million to roughly $1.43 billion. This permanent adjustment bypasses ongoing taxpayer check-ins.

The Case for YES

  • Modern county government has outgrown a 46-year-old spending limit formula established in 1979-80.
  • The County argues this does not directly authorize new taxes, but gives flexibility for public health, safety, and infrastructure.

The Case for NO

  • The county's own FAQ admits it only needs a 10% to 20% increase for near-term needs, not the requested 75%.
  • By raising the ceiling so drastically, the County can continue raising property taxes at the maximum allowed without going back to voters for approval.
  • It nullifies the voter protection that the 1980 Expenditure Limitation Legislation was supposed to provide.

Independent AI Assessment Summary

"While the structural formula is outdated, a permanent 75% expansion asks for more unvetted trust than the stated need actually justifies. It solves for 'never having to ask again' rather than an identified shortfall."

AI Recommendation: Revise and Resubmit at a realistic 10-20% scale with clearer fiscal guardrails and a defined review mechanism.