Notes:

Unless otherwise indicated, all of the information in this post regarding the ballot initiatives comes from the following sources:

• "Arizona 2022 General Election Publicity Pamphlet | azsos.gov"
• "Arizona 2022 ballot measures | Ballotpedia"
• "What's on your ballot? AZ 2022 general election initiatives explained | AZMirror"
• "Arizona State Legislature | Ballotpedia"

The current Arizona Senate consists of 16 Republicans and 14 Democrats. The current Arizona House consists of 31 Republicans and 29 Democrats.

Proposition 128

Proposition 128 allows the legislature to amend or repeal voter-approved ballot measures that contain provisions ruled unconstitutional or invalid by the state or federal supreme court.

I'm voting "NO" on Prop 128.

According to the ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL:

Proposition 128 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that the Legislature may amend or supersede an initiative or referendum measure if any part of the measure is found by the United States Supreme Court or the Arizona Supreme Court to contain illegal or unconstitutional language. The legislative action could occur by a majority vote of each house of the Legislature and would not be required to further the purpose of the measure.

The Arizona Constitution currently provides that if an initiative or referendum measure is approved by the voters, the following requirements (often referred to as "voter protection" or "Proposition 105" from 1998) apply:

• 1. The Legislature is prohibited from repealing the law.
• 2. The Legislature may amend or supersede the law (including diverting or repurposing monies in funds created by the law) only if the legislative action furthers the purpose of the law and is approved by at least three-fourths of the members of each house of the Legislature.

Two things concern me about this.

First, the fact that if Prop 128 is passed, the "furthers the purpose of the law" requirement goes away. This leaves the door wide open for a partisan legislature to do whatever they want, beyond making only minor changes to an initiative or referendum measure to make it adhere constitutionally.

Second, instead of a three-fourths majority requirement, if Prop 128 passes that requirement changes to a simple majority.

While I understand the concerns expressed by those supporting Prop 128, it sounds like a "power grab" by Republicans to me.

This constitutional amendment was introduced by a Republican state senator. It passed both the Arizona Senate and House along party lines.

Proposition 129

Proposition 129 requires citizen-initiated ballot measures to embrace a single subject.

I'm voting "NO" on Prop 129.

This constitutional amendment was introduced by a Republican state representative. It passed both the Arizona Senate and House along party lines.

On the surface this proposition sounds like a good thing.

One concern I have is that it might be difficult to determine what constitutes a "single subject."

Another concern is that in some cases two or more inter-related issues might have to be addressed by separate initiatives. This would mean two or more sets of signature collection which can be extremely expensive and time-consuming. It would also set up the possibility that not all of the inter-related initiatives would pass. If the issue being addressed requires that all of the individual initiatives pass for it be effective and to fulfill it's overall purpose, the passage of Prop 129 defeats that purpose.

Proposition 130

Proposition 130 allows the legislature to set certain property tax exemption amounts and qualifications rather than determining details in the constitution.

I'm voting "YES" on Prop 130.

There were no arguments presented in the" Arizona 2022 General Election Publicity Pamphlet" against Prop 130.

This constitutional amendment was passed in the Arizona Senate by a vote of 17-12 and in the House by a vote of 58-0.

Proposition 131

Proposition 131 creates the office of Lieutenant Governor to be elected on a joint ticket with the governor and to succeed the governor in the case of a vacancy.

I'm voting "YES" on Prop 131.

This way of governor succession makes more sense and ensures that the party-affiliation of the Governor won't flip.

There were no arguments presented in the" Arizona 2022 General Election Publicity Pamphlet" against Prop 131.

This constitutional amendment was passed in the Arizona Senate by a vote of 21-6 and in the House by a vote of 41-15.

Proposition 132

Proposition 132 requires a three-fifths (60%) supermajority vote to pass ballot initiatives (both statutes and constitutional amendments) and legislatively referred amendments that would approve taxes.

I'm voting "NO" on Prop 132.

Many of the "NO" arguments presented in the "Arizona 2022 General Election Publicity Pamphlet" against Prop 132 came from people and organizations associated with education, and there were a lot of them. It was noted that a handful of previous education-related ballot initiatives would not have passed had Prop 132 already been in place.

It was also noted that by raising the bar from simple majority to 60%, Prop 132 puts ballot initiatives with tax provisions "on par" with the U.S Congress in terms of passage. We all know how it's nearly impossible to get so many things passed in the U.S. Congress because of this. Why should the will of 41% of the people be able to supercede the will of the 59%?

This constitutional amendment was passed in the Arizona Senate by a vote of 16-12 and in the House by a vote of 31-27, strictly on party lines.

Proposition 209

Proposition 209 limits interest rates for debt from healthcare services and increases the value of certain property and earnings exempt from debt collections processes.

I'm voting "YES" on Prop 209.

Prop 209 is supported by the Arizona Democratic Party. It is opposed by the Republican Party of Arizona.

While I understand the argument that passage of Prop 209 has the potential to make it more difficult and costly access credit, I think the "pros" of Prop 209 outweigh the "cons."

Proposition 211

Proposition 211 requires independent expenditures of more than $50,000 on a statewide campaign or $25,000 on a local campaign to disclose the names of all original sources who contributed $5,000 or more.

I'm voting "YES" on Prop 211.

Prop 211 is opposed by the Republican Party of Arizona.

Only two arguments were presented against Prop 211. The first argument stated:

The measure is also likely unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that campaign contributions are free speech.

The second argument stated:

Prop 211 is Unconstitutional and will Make Cancel Culture Worse

The "unconstitutional" reference relates to the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission U.S. Supreme Court decision which states that the government can't restrict independent expenditures because it would violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment.

If prop 211 passes, it's possible lawsuits will be filed claiming that it's unconstitutional.

Citizens United v. FEC was a bad decision (decided by a 5-4 vote with all four liberal justices dissenting). Any reasonable, rational person should know that "dark money" is a bad thing for democracy.

Proposition 308

Proposition 308 repeals provisions of Proposition 306 (2006) to allow in-state tuition for non-citizen residents.

I'm voting "YES" on Prop 308.

You can certainly make the argument against Prop 308 by noting that Proposition 300 was approved via ballot initiative in Arizona in 2006 by 71% of voters, but that was 16 years ago.

This proposition appears to be targeting Dreamers, but it would apply to anyone who meets the 2-year in Arizona prior schooling and graduation requirement.

Dreamers arrived in the U.S. as children, they grew up here, and for all practical purposes it's their home. They should be given a chance to better their lives and not have to pay out-of-state tuition rates.

This ballot measure was passed in the Arizona Senate by a vote of 17-13 (with three Republicans voting in support). It was passed in the Arizona House by a vote of 33-27 (with four Republicans voting in support).

Prop 308 is opposed by the Republican Party of Arizona.

Proposition 309

Proposition 309 requires date of birth and voter identification number for mail-in ballots and eliminates two-document alternative to photo ID for in-person voting.

I'm voting "NO" on Prop 309.

About 80% of Arizona voters vote by mail. Prop 309 requires that all voters provide an "early voter identification" number, date of birth, and signature. The "early
voter identification" number can be any one of the following:

• Arizona driver license number or nonoperating identification number
• the last four digits of the voter's social security number
• the voter's unique identifying number from the statewide voter registration database

Prop 309 also requires that this information be provided in a concealed "affidavit" which is somehow attached to the ballot envelope.

Arizona validates all ballots with signature verification. If that processes fails, then election workers have a protocol to follow, part of which involves trying to contact the voter. We don't need any additional "security" measures for mail-in ballots.

It's not a good idea to provide confidential information along with a ballot. Think how easy it would be easy for anyone to simply open the affidavit and access that information. The ballot envelope has a pre-printed voter name and full voter address. That information, along with the last 4 digits of the voter's social security number or driver's license number gives anyone seeking harm way too much information.

A "Note" which some voters might miss regarding Prop 309 states:

Pursuant to Proposition 105 (1998), these measures cannot be changed in the future if approved on the ballot except by a three-fourths vote of the members of each house of the legislature and if the change furthers the purpose of the original ballot measure, by an initiative petition or by referring the change to the ballot.

If Prop 309 passes it would take a three-fourths vote of the Arizona legislature (both chambers) to make any future changes to these new voting requirements.

Here's some of what Arizona State Senator J.D. Mesnard (Republican), the author or the legislation that became Prop 309, said arguing in support of Prop 309:

Arizona is facing a crisis in voter confidence. Regardless of one's views about how past elections were conducted or the legitimacy of the outcome, it is an undeniable fact that a significant portion of the electorate has lost faith in the integrity of our elections. And having an electorate who doubts the credibility of the election system is an existential threat to democracy. Why would people bother to participate in a process they don't believe is legitimate? Why would they trust a system they're convinced is unreliable? To dismiss or ignore the concerns of so many people, whether or not one shares those concerns, is to promote voter suppression and heighten this crisis all the more.

The "Big Lie" persists. Facts and objective reality demonstrate that the 2020 presidential election was not rigged or stolen. All of the "evidence" put forward to prove election fraud is based solely on theory and conjecture.

Having a "view" of the "legitimacy" of the 202 election is total B.S. It was legitimate, period, end of story.

The entire rigged and stolen election narrative originated with Donald Trump. MAGA Republicans chose to buy into Trump's narrative and they amplified it.

Trump and MAGA Republicans are the ones who are paranoid about the security of our election systems. They are the ones who Mesnard is referring to when he refers to an "electorate who doubts the credibility of the election system."

The real "existential threat to democracy" is the ongoing, relentless perpetuation of the "Big Lie," not the doubting MAGA Republican "electorate."

I can't in good conscience vote for a Proposition that was introduced to try and "fix" a situation that Trump and MAGA Republicans created and who Trump and MAGA Republicans are solely responsible for.

Proposition 310

Proposition 310 creates a 0.1% sales tax for 20 years to fund Arizona's fire districts.

I'm voting "YES" on Prop 310.

After reading all of the arguments for and against Prop 310, it seems that passage of Prop 310 would mean that all Arizona residents living in urban areas would be paying two taxes for EMT and Fire services (once for their city EMT and fire services, and a second time with Prop 310's 0.1% sales tax increase for rural EMT and fire services). In other words, city dwellers would be paying to help rural areas.

I understand the arguments against Prop 310, but in the final analysis, for me I think the fact that rural areas have such a small tax base (limited number of residents) compared to urban areas, that it makes sense to provide this additional revenue.