Diné voters to decide on several critical issues in November election

By Donovan Quintero
Special to the Times

WINDOW ROCK — When Navajo voters head to the polls this November, they will not only be casting their ballots for their preferred candidates but also could weigh in on a significant array of issues.

Among them are 14 different propositions and initiatives, each with the potential to alter existing laws if they garner sufficient support.

Under Arizona’s Constitution, voters have the power to propose new laws or amendments through an initiative process. This allows citizens to directly influence legislation by gathering signatures from registered voters to bring important issues to the ballot.

To qualify for the ballot, an initiative must meet specific signature requirements: a minimum of 15% of qualified electors for constitutional amendments and 10% for statutory amendments. The Secretary of State, along with local County Recorders, is responsible for processing these petitions to verify that enough valid signatures have been collected.

When voters mark their ballots this November, the choice will be clear: a “yes” vote supports the enactment of new laws or constitutional changes, while a “no” vote favors maintaining the status quo.

As the election approaches, Arizonans can expect to see a range of propositions that could shape the future of legislation in the state.

Here are the initiatives Navajo voters could see on their ballots in November:

Prop 133
The Arizona Constitution currently requires the legislature to enact a direct primary election law for the nomination of candidates for all elective state, county and city offices, including federal congressional offices. The Arizona Constitution also allows a city or town that has adopted a charter form of government to enact and implement laws for the selection of its governing officers that may conflict with the state election laws.

Proposition 133 would amend the Arizona Constitution to require that the direct primary election for any partisan office allow each political party that has qualified for representation on the ballot to nominate the same number of candidates for the office as the number of positions to be filled for that office in the next general election; require that each eligible candidate who is nominated by a political party that has qualified for representation on the ballot in a direct primary election be placed on the official ballot in the next general election; provide that the state direct primary election law supersedes any city charter, law, ordinance, rule, resolution or policy that is inconsistent with or contrary to the state direct primary election law.

Prop 134
The Distribution Requirement for Initiatives Amendment is on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment.

A “yes” vote supports establishing a signature distribution requirement for citizen initiatives, meaning that instead of requiring 10% of votes cast for governor statewide for initiated state statutes for the ballot, and 15% of votes cast for governor statewide to qualify initiated constitutional amendments for the ballot, the initiative would require signatures from 10% of votes cast for governor in each legislative district to qualify initiated state statutes for the ballot, and require signatures from 15% of votes cast for governor in each legislative district to qualify initiated constitutional amendments for the ballot.

A “no” vote opposes requiring signatures from each legislative district for initiated ballot measures.

Prop 135
Emergency Declarations Amendment is on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment.

A “yes” vote supports providing for the state legislature to terminate a state of emergency or alter the emergency powers granted to the governor during a state of emergency, and providing for a state of emergency to automatically terminate 30 days after it is declared unless the state legislature extends the emergency powers granted to the governor, except in cases for a state of war emergency or an emergency arising from a flood or a fire.

A “no” vote opposes providing for the state legislature to terminate a state of emergency or alter the emergency powers granted to the governor during a state of emergency and providing for a state of emergency to automatically terminate 30 days after it is declared unless the state legislature extends the emergency powers granted to the governor, except in cases for a state of war emergency or an emergency arising from a flood or a fire.

Prop 136
Under the separation of powers doctrine embodied in Article III of the Arizona

Constitution, the courts generally may not adjudicate challenges to the constitutionality of an initiative measure until after the initiative measure is enacted by the voters.

Proposition 136 would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow a person to bring an action in superior court to contest the constitutionality of a statutory initiative measure or a constitutional amendment proposed under the power of initiative at least one hundred days before the date of the election at which the measure or amendment will be voted on. Any party may appeal the superior court’s decision to the Arizona Supreme Court within five days after the superior court enters judgment. If a court finds that the proposed statutory initiative measure or proposed constitutional amendment violates the United States Constitution or Arizona Constitution, the Secretary of State or other officer shall not certify or print the measure or amendment on the official ballot.

A “yes” vote supports providing for challenges to an initiative measure or constitutional amendment after the filing of the measure with the secretary of state.

A “no” vote opposes providing for challenges to an initiative measure or constitutional amendment after the filing of the measure with the secretary of state.

Prop 137
Amendments would end term limits and retention elections for Supreme Court justices and Superior Court judges

A “yes” vote supports ending term limits for state supreme court justices and superior court judges, replacing them with terms of good behavior unless decided otherwise by a judicial review commission, and would end retention elections at the end of the judicial term.

A “no” vote opposes ending term limits for state supreme court justices and superior court judges, replacing them with terms of good behavior unless decided otherwise by a judicial review commission, and would end retention elections at the end of the judicial term.

Prop 138
Current law provides that employers may pay tipped employees up to $3 per hour less than the minimum wage if the employer’s records or the employee’s declaration for federal insurance contributions act establishes that when adding tips or gratuities to wages the tipped employee was paid at least the minimum wage for all hours worked.

Proposition 138 would amend the Arizona Constitution to allow an employer, for any employee who customarily and regularly receives tips or gratuities, to pay up to 25% per hour less than the minimum wage, if the employer can establish that the employee is paid at least the minimum wage plus $2 per hour for all hours worked. This calculation is determined by averaging the employee’s tips or gratuities received and wages paid over the course of the employer’s payroll period or any other period that complies with state law. The employer would be able to use the employer’s records of charged tips or gratuities or the employee’s FICA declaration to establish compliance.

A “yes” vote supports allowing for tipped workers to be paid 25% less per hour than the minimum wage if any tips received by the employee were not less than the minimum wage plus $2 for all hours worked.

A “no” vote opposes allowing for tipped workers to be paid 25% less per hour than the minimum wage if any tips received by the employee were not less than the minimum wage plus $2 for all hours worked.

Prop 139
This measure would amend the Arizona Constitution to establish the fundamental right to abortion that the state of Arizona may not interfere with before the point of fetal viability. Fetal viability is defined in the measure as the point of pregnancy when there is significant chance of the survival of the fetus outside of the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures. This right would not be interfered with unless justified by a compelling state interest. In the measure, a compelling state interest is defined as a law or regulation enacted for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of the individual seeking abortion care that does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision making.

As of April 9, abortion is legal for up to 15 weeks of pregnancy in Arizona. On April 9, 2024, the Arizona Supreme Court, in a 4-2 decision, upheld a law enacted in 1864 prohibiting abortion in most circumstances except to save the life of the mother. The law ordered prosecution for “a person who provides, supplies or administers to a pregnant woman, or procures such woman to take any medicine, drugs or substance, or uses or employs any instrument or other means whatever, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of such woman, unless it is necessary to save her life.” The Arizona State Legislature never repealed the law, and the Court ruled it became enforceable following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

A “yes” vote supports providing the fundamental right to abortion that the state of Arizona may not interfere with before the point of fetal viability (defined as the point of pregnancy when there is significant chance of the survival of the fetus outside of the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures) unless justified by a compelling state interest (defined as a law or regulation enacted for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of the individual seeking abortion care that does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision making).

A “no” vote opposes providing the fundamental right to abortion that the state of Arizona may not interfere with before the point of fetal viability (defined as the point of pregnancy when there is significant chance of the survival of the fetus outside of the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures) unless justified by a compelling state interest (defined as a law or regulation enacted for the limited purpose of improving or maintaining the health of the individual seeking abortion care that does not infringe on that individual’s autonomous decision making).

Prop 140 – Single Primary for All Candidates and Possible RCV General Election Initiative

A “yes” vote supports this ballot initiative to change the state’s electoral system, including: replacing partisan primaries with primaries in which candidates, regardless of partisan affiliation, appear on a single ballot and a certain number advance to the general election, such as top-two or top-four primaries; requiring candidates to receive a majority of votes in general elections; requiring the use of ranked-choice voting in general elections when three or more candidates advance from the primaries (for one-winner general elections); and prohibiting using public funds to administer partisan primaries at the federal, state, and local levels, except for presidential preference primaries that allow independents to participate.

A “no” vote opposes this ballot initiative, thus: keeping semi-closed partisan primaries in which the candidate who receives the most votes advances to the general election to compete against other political parties’ nominees and independent candidates; maintaining a plurality vote system for general elections in which the candidate who receives the highest number of votes is elected to the office.

Prop 212
This ballot measure would have increased the minimum wage to $18 per hour and continued to increase the minimum wage based on inflation as measured by the consumer price index. The measure would also have gradually raised the wage of tipped employees to be equal to the wage of other employees by 2028.

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of removing the small business exception for minimum wage and raising the minimum wage by $1 over cost-of-living increases in 2025 and 2026. In years where the cost-of-living changes are in the negative, the minimum wage will not be raised. This law would also gradually raise the minimum wage for tipped workers in 2025 and 2026 and mandate that, beginning in 2027, tipped workers will also be paid the minimum wage. In addition, this law would establish that the minimum wage applies to workers regardless of age, status as a learner, apprentice, vocational trainee, or other status where a worker provides labor regardless of benefit to the worker.

A “no” vote shall have the effect of leaving in place current statutes and regulations governing the minimum wage.

Prop 311
Proposition 311 would establish a new state death benefit of $250,000 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. Proposition 311 would establish a $20 penalty fee on every criminal conviction to provide funding for the new state death benefit. The new state death benefit and penalty fee would begin on July 1, 2025. The state death benefit and penalty fee would be repealed on Jan. 1, 2033.

Beginning on July 1, 2025, the state treasurer would be required to pay the $250,000 benefit to the surviving spouse of a first responder who is killed in the line of duty within 30 days after being notified of the death by the first responder’s employer. If the first responder does not have a surviving spouse, the death benefit would be divided equally among the first responder’s children.

The state supplemental benefit fund would be established for the penalty fees and administered by the state treasurer. If the monies in the fund exceed $2 million, the legislature would be allowed to appropriate those excess monies for peace officer training, equipment and other benefits, including assistance to first responders who are seriously injured in the line of duty and the first responder’s family. A first responder for purposes of the new state death benefit would be a peace officer, firefighter, fire marshal, fire inspector, emergency medical care technician, paramedic, tribal police officer, national guard member who is on state active duty in Arizona, and correctional officer who is employed by the Arizona Department of Corrections.

Proposition 311 also would increase criminal punishment for committing an aggravated assault against peace officers and would add other first responders as possible victims of this crime.

A first responder, for purposes of the increased punishment, would be a peace officer, firefighter, fire marshal, fire inspector, emergency medical care technician or paramedic who is engaged in the execution of any official duties. First responders would also include tribal police officers. If the person knows or has reason to know that the victim of an aggravated assault is a first responder or a person summoned and directed by the first responder, the classification of the crime would increase from a class 5 felony to a class 4 felony. If the aggravated assault results in any physical injury to the first responder, the classification of the crime would increase from a class 4 felony to a class 3 felony. The increased criminal punishment would be repealed on Jan. 1, 2033.

A “yes” vote supports establishing a $20 fee on every conviction for a criminal offense, which would go to pay a benefit of $250,000 to the spouse or children of a first responder who is killed in the line of duty.

A “no” vote opposes establishing a $20 fee on every conviction for a criminal offense, which would go to pay a benefit of $250,000 to the spouse or children of a first responder who is killed in the line of duty.

Prop 312
Beginning in tax year 2025 through tax year 2035, Proposition 312 would allow a property owner to apply for a refund once per tax year of the documented, reasonable expenses incurred to mitigate the effects of a city, town or county: maintaining a public nuisance on the property owner’s real property or adopting and following a policy, pattern or practice that declines to enforce existing laws prohibiting illegal camping, obstructing a public thoroughfare, loitering, panhandling, urinating or defecating in public, consuming alcoholic beverages in public or possessing or using illegal substances and the property owner incurs documented expenses to mitigate the effects of the policy, pattern, practice or public nuisance on their real property.

Proposition 312 would require a property owner to apply to the Arizona Department of Revenue to initiate the refund process. The property owner would be eligible for a refund from the city or town in which their real property is located or from the county in which their real property is located if the real property is in the unincorporated area of the county. After receiving the refund application, the department would notify the appropriate city, town or county, which would accept or reject the refund. If the refund is accepted or unacknowledged for at least 30 days, the department would pay the refund. If the refund is rejected, the property owner would be eligible to file a cause of action for a court to determine whether the property owner is entitled to the refund and whether the amount of the refund is reasonable.

Proposition 312 would set the refund amount as the documented, reasonable expenses that the property owner incurred to mitigate the effects of the policy, pattern or practice or the public nuisance on their real property. However, if the refund amount is more than the amount the property owner paid in primary property taxes on the real property for the prior tax year, the refund for that tax year would be limited to the amount paid in primary property taxes to the city, town or county, and the property owner must reapply in subsequent tax years to receive the remaining balance of the refund. Additionally, if a public nuisance or policy, pattern or practice remains in place, the property owner would be eligible to apply for another refund in a subsequent tax year, unless the property owner entered a settlement with the city, town or county.

Proposition 312 would require the state treasurer to withhold the refund amount from monies otherwise due to the appropriate city, town or county from transaction privilege tax revenues and credit that amount to the Department of Revenue as reimbursement for the refunds issued. A property owner who receives a refund would waive their rights under the Private

Property Rights Protection Act, which prohibits a government from taking private property without just compensation, but the property owner could pursue other remedies provided in Arizona law, the Arizona Constitution or the United States Constitution.

Finally, refunds would not apply to case-by-case, published decisions of city, town or county authorities that exercise prosecutorial discretion not to prosecute alleged offenders, acts of executive clemency, acts or omissions taken during a state of emergency or acts or omissions required by federal law.

A “yes” vote supports allowing for property owners to apply for a property tax refund if the city or locality in which the property is located does not enforce laws or ordinances regarding illegal camping, loitering, obstructing public thoroughfares, panhandling, public urination or defecation, public consumption of alcoholic beverages, and possession or use of illegal substances.

A “no” vote opposes allowing for property owners to apply for a property tax refund if the city or locality in which the property is located does not enforce laws or ordinances regarding illegal camping, loitering, obstructing public thoroughfares, panhandling, public urination or defecation, public consumption of alcoholic beverages, and possession or use of illegal substances.

Prop 313
Arizona Proposition 313, Life Imprisonment for Sex Trafficking of a Child Measure
A “yes” vote supports guaranteeing a sentence of life imprisonment without parole if an individual is found guilty of sex trafficking of a child.
A “no” vote opposes guaranteeing a sentence of life imprisonment without parole if an individual is found guilty of sex trafficking of a child and maintaining current state law.

Prop 314 – Immigration and Border Law Enforcement Measure
A “yes” vote supports: making it a state crime for noncitizens to enter the state at any location other than the port of entry; allowing for state and local police to arrest noncitizens who cross the border unlawfully; allowing for state judges to order deportations; requiring the use of the E-Verify program in order to determine the immigration status of individuals before the enrollment in a financial aid or public welfare program; making it a Class 6 felony for individuals who submit false information or documents to an employer to evade detection of employment eligibility, or to apply for public benefits, and; Making the sale of fentanyl a Class 2 felony if the person knowingly sells fentanyl and it results in the death of another person.

A “no” vote opposes: making it a state crime for noncitizens to enter the state at any location other than the port of entry; Allowing for state and local police to arrest noncitizens who cross the border unlawfully; Allowing for state judges to order deportations; Requiring the use of the E-Verify program in order to determine the immigration status of individuals before the enrollment in a financial aid or public welfare program; Making it a Class 6 felony for individuals who submit false information or documents to an employer to evade detection of employment eligibility, or to apply for public benefits, and; Making the sale of fentanyl a Class 2 felony if the person knowingly sells fentanyl and it results in the death of another person.

Prop 315
Current law outlines the process in which state agencies adopt rules. A state agency seeking to propose a rule must open a rulemaking docket to provide notice to the public of the proposed rulemaking. The state agency is required to accept comments on the proposed rule for at least 30 days before submitting the final rule to the Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) for approval.

The Administrative Rules Oversight Committee (AROC) may also review any rule-making action to ensure conformity with statute and legislative intent. AROC may comment and designate a representative to testify to GRRC on whether the rule is consistent with statute or legislative intent. GRRC is required to consider the comments and testimony AROC and may review and approve the rule or return the rule.

Proposition 315 would require a state agency to submit to the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) for review a proposed rule that is estimated to increase regulatory costs in Arizona by more than $100,000 within five years after implementation. If OEO finds that the proposed rule is estimated to increase regulatory costs in Arizona by more than $500,000 within five years after implementation, the proposed rule would not become effective until legislation is enacted to ratify the proposed rule. After completing the review, OEO would be required to submit the proposed rule to AROC at least 30 days before the start of the next legislative session.

AROC would be required to submit the proposed rule to the Legislature as soon as practicable.

Any member of the Legislature would be allowed to introduce legislation to ratify the proposed rule, and the proposed rule would be exempt from the statutory time frames and submission requirements. If the Legislature does not ratify the proposed rule during the current legislative session, the state agency would be required to terminate the proposed rulemaking by publishing a notice of termination.

Proposition 315 would also: Allow a legislator or a person who is regulated by a state agency that is proposing a rule to request OEO to review a proposed rule. Exempt any emergency rules from legislative ratification requirements. Beginning on the effective date of this measure, provide that any new rule that is subject to the regulatory cost review process is void and unenforceable unless the Legislature ratified the rule.

Proposition 315 would not apply to the Corporation Commission.

A “yes” vote supports prohibiting a proposed rule from becoming effective if that rule is estimated to increase regulatory costs by more than $500,000 within five years after implementation, until the legislature enacts legislation ratifying the proposed rule.

A “no” vote opposes prohibiting a proposed rule from becoming effective if that rule is estimated to increase regulatory costs by more than $500,000 within five years after implementation, until the legislature enacts legislation ratifying the proposed rule.

---