2022 Election: Taking a closer look at Arizona's ballot proposition measures

PHOENIX - Election Day is November 8, and we're getting closer look at some of the most talked about propositions on the ballot.

Proposition 128

This measure, according to an analysis by the Legislative Council that is printed on voter pamphlets for this election, would amend the state's constitution to give the State Legislature the power to amend or supersede a ballot measure if any part of the measure is found by the state Supreme Court or the U.S. 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," reads a portion of the analysis.

What can the legislature do currently?

According to the analysis, the legislature currently cannot repeal laws that are passed by voters, as a result of a voter-approved ballot measure in 1998, but they can amend or supersede the law, including diverting or repurposing funding created by the law, but only if "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."

What are supporters saying about the measure?

Supporters say the measure will leave the 1998 voter-approved measure in place, while solving the problem of unconstitutional ballot measures.

"Groups putting initiatives onto the ballot sometimes make drafting errors or otherwise include language that is later found by the courts to be unconstitutional or illegal according to existing law. When this occurs, the court is faced with the difficult determination of whether to strike down the entire proposition," read a portion of a statement written by Suzanne Kinney, President and CEO of the Arizona Chapter of NAIOP, which describes itself as a Commercial Real Estate Development Association.

"Currently, the process to amend and correct the language that is found to be illegal or unconstitutional can take years, tons of money, and energy on the part of those involved on both sides of the aisle. And after all that, it might not even be successful in correcting the errors," read a portion of a statement written by Heather Turley of Mesa. The statement is sponsored by by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club.

What are opponents saying about the measure?

Opponents say the measure will give the State Legislature a way to disregard the will of voters.

"Some politicians and wealthy corporations don’t like the decisions we’ve made, so they are trying to rewrite the rules to get their way – no matter what the majority wants. Proposition 128 is yet another attempt by these politicians to block, limit or reverse the will of the people," read a portion of a statement written by One Arizona Executive Director Montserrat Arredondo.

"Instead of respecting the will of the people, it seems that many elected leaders want to change the rules to block voters from using our power to make decisions. That means more policy made through backroom deals and lobbyist influence, and less power for everyday voters to decide on the issues that matter most to us," read a portion of statement written by Carlos Figueroa of Tucson.

Proposition 129

According to the Legislative Council's analysis, the measure would amend the state's constitution to restrict ballot measures to only one subject, in addition to matters that are properly connected to that subject. The subject of the ballot measure must be expressed in the title of the measure, and any part of a ballot measure that is not contained in the title will be considered void.

Isn't there a single-subject rule for state law?

Yes.

In September 2021, the Arizona Supreme Court struck down a school mask mandate ban that was placed in the state budget, stating that the law violated the single-subject rule for state laws, even though state attorneys argued that they all had something to do with spending for education and health.

However, the analysis by the Legislative Council states that ballot measures are not required to only contain one subject, as a result of a previous state Supreme Court interpretation of the state's constitution.

What are supporters saying about the measure?

Supporters say the measure will align the initiative process with the legislative process, while reducing confusion.

"By limiting ballot initiatives to a single subject, voters are less likely to get confused and more likely to understand exactly what they are potentially cementing into voter protected law. It forces those who are writing the ballot measure to be thorough in their intent and text," read a portion of a statement written by Center for Arizona Policy Action President Cathi Herrod.

"Currently, Arizona doesn’t have any rule like that affects statutory initiatives that go on the ballot. Because of this, initiatives can have a whole assortment of different unrelated topics thrown into them, with voters having to vote on them as a whole," read a portion of a statement written by Frederick Sherwood of Peoria. The statement is sponsored by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club.

What are opponents saying about the measure?

Opponents say the measure will make it harder for citizens to enact laws via ballot measures.

"The many requirements that currently exist are already difficult to surmount and already provide fertile ground for legal challenges aimed at preventing voters from being able to weigh in on important measures. Proposition 129 will make it only harder for voter initiatives to make it through the process," read a portion of a statement written by Arizona Education Association President Marison Garcia.

"If Proposition 129 passes, a single judge will be able to remove an initiative from the ballot, even if hundreds of thousands of people have already submitted signatures in support. Under Proposition 129, expensive lawsuits could block Arizonans from weighing in on key initiatives, even if those initiatives would otherwise qualify for the ballot," read a portion of a statement written by Rev. Katie Sexton-Wood of Glendale. The statement is sponsored by One Arizona.

Proposition 130

The ballot measure relates to the issue of taxes.

According to the Legislative Council analysis, the measure would amend the state's constitution to "consolidate and clarify the constitutional provisions that prescribe exemptions from property tax," and would also allow the State Legislature to prescribe the qualifications for, as well as limits on, some of the exemptions.

"Currently, the Arizona Constitution provides for thirteen different exemptions from property tax in four sections of the Constitution. Proposition 130 would consolidate all but one of these exemptions in one constitutional section and reorganize them based on whether they are self-executing or whether they need further legislative action to implement," read a portion of the analysis.

One exemption, according to the analysis, would be eliminated, and that exemption affects the property of persons who served in the U.S. military or navy during World War I or earlier wars.

How will it affect taxes?

According to the analysis, the state's constitution currently sets a maximum limit for widows, widowers, persons with disabilities and veterans with service or non-service disabilities, as well as qualifications for the exemptions that are based on the taxpayer's household income and the property's assessed value.

In addition, the constitution allows the Legislature to adjust the maximum amount of exemptions for agricultural and business personal property for inflation, and allow allows the legislature to establish, by maw, 

"Under Proposition 130, the Constitution would no longer prescribe the initial values for the exemption qualifications and limits for the exemptions that require legislative action. The Legislature would determine the qualifications for and the amount of these exemptions," read a portion of the analysis.

The analysis also noted that the State Legislature has already passed a bill that would set qualification amounts, as well as exemption limits exemptions prescribed in the state constitution, as adjusted for inflation in 2022. The bill will only go into effect if Proposition 130 is passed by voters

What are supporters saying about the measure?

Supporters say, in the publicity pamphlet, that the measure will help disabled veterans and widows.

"Arizona’s constitution recognizes the extraordinary sacrifices our disabled veterans have made to our country and state. However, a defect in the language of Arizona’s constitution caused a federal court to prohibit county assessors from accepting veterans’ property tax exemptions," read a portion of a statement by Maricopa County Assessor Eddie Cook.

"Under the current language, widows and widowers must have been a resident of this state at the time of the spouse’s death. This requirement creates many inequities in the exemption program by not allowing Arizona resident widows and widowers an exemption just because their spouse died in another state," read a portion of a statement by former Yuma County Assessor Joseph Wehrle.

What are opponents saying about the measure?

No opposing arguments were filed, according to the 2022 publicity pamphlet.

Proposition 131

According to the Legislative Council's analysis, the measure, if approved by voters, will create a position of Lieutenant Governor for Arizona. A candidate for governor will select a Lieutenant Governor candidate at least 60 days before the general election, and they will run on a joint ticket.

A Lieutenant Governor, according to the analysis, will succeed the governor if the governor dies, resigns, is removed from office, or is permanently unable to carry out his/her duties as governor.

The measure, according to the analysis, will also allow the state's Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Attorney General and Superintendent of Public Instruction to succeed as governor, even if they were appointed to the office.

Right now, who becomes the governor if the office is vacant?

Under current rules, the person who was elected to the position of Secretary of State will become governor should the serving governor die, resigns, be removed from office, or otherwise be permanently unable to discharge the office's duties.

If the serving Secretary of State was appointed to the office, the state's elected Attorney General shall be the next person to succeed as governor, followed by the elected Treasurer and the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction.

What are supporters saying about the measure?

Supporters say, in the publicity pamphlet, that the measure promotes good governance.

"When a vacancy occurs, the state constitution requires the Secretary of State to become Governor because Arizona is one of just five states that lacks a Lieutenant Governor among its elected officers. Yet the Secretary, while an important office, is elected to handle administrative election duties and state records, a far cry from serving as the state’s chief executive," read a portion of a statement jointly written by State Sens. J.D. Mesnard (R) and Sean Bowie (D).

What are opponents saying about the measure?

No opposing arguments were filed, according to the 2022 publicity pamphlet.

Prop 132

According to the Legislative Council's analysis, this measure will, if approved by voters, set a threshold for initiative measures, referendum measures or proposed constitutional amendments to approve a tax.

The threshold, according to the analysis, means that such measures will only become law if it is approved by 60% of the votes cast.

What's the rule for such measures right now?

According to the analysis, current rules only require such measures to be approved by a majority of voters.

What are supporters saying about the measure?

Supporters say, in the publicity pamphlet, that the measure will protect voters from more taxes, and that the measure is similar to requirements that were placed on state legislators.

"If we are asking Arizonans to part with more of their paycheck, it needs to be for something that has broad agreement from every part of the state," read a portion of a statement by State. Rep. Tim Dunn of Yuma. The statement was sponsored by a group called the Arizona Leadership Fund.

"Years ago, Arizonans wisely passed Prop 108 that requires a supermajority vote of the legislature to pass any tax increase. It’s only fair that at the ballot, we have the same protections," read a portion of a statement by Gov. Doug Ducey. The statement was sponsored by a group called Arizonans for Strong Leadership.

What are opponents saying about the measure?

Opponents say the measure diminishes the power of voters.

"This measure will diminish the power of the people in Arizona. This proposition will serve only to help silence the voices of Arizonans. It will serve to limit the ability of AZ voters to invest in the future of our state," read a portion of a statement by Estevan Carreon of Glendale.

"The goal of Proposition 132 is to permanently change our constitution to require a three-fifths supermajority to pass certain ballot initiatives. In other words, it allows just 41% of voters to block issues that the majority of Arizonans want – like funding for schools, healthcare, roads, and more," read a portion of a statement by Joseph O'Rourke of Tempe.

O'Rourke also said, in his statement, that the measure is "s poorly written and vague, and legal experts agree that it will result in litigation, costing taxpayers money."

Prop 209

This measure deals with debt collection, including tax liens.

According to the Legislative Council's analysis, the measure will:

1. Raise the homestead exemption on a debtor's home to $400,000. The current level is $250,000
2. Raise the exemption on household furniture, furnishings, goods and appliances to $15,000. The current level is $6,000
3. Raise the exemption on the debtor's equity in one car to $15,000. The current level is $6,000.
4. For debtors with a physical disability, the exemption on their equity in one car is raised to $25,000. The current level is $12,000
5. Raise the exemption on a debtor's single account in one financial institution to $5,000. The current level is $300
6. Decrease the portion of a debtor's weekly disposable earnings that is subjected to debt collection actions that are not support payments to either 10% of the disposable earnings, or 60 times the highest applicable federal, state or local minimum wage, whichever is the lesser.The current levels are 25% of disposable earnings or 30 times the federal minimum wage, whichever is the lesser.
7. The amount mentioned above for garnishment can be reduced to 5% of disposable income if a court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the 10% calculation on disposable earnings would cause extreme economic hardship to the debtor or the debtor's family. Under current rules, the garnishment can be reduced to 15% of disposable income.
8. The maximum interest rate on medical debt, described as "an obligation arising directly from the receipt of medical products or devices, or the receipt of health care services provided at or by licensed health care institutions, the offices or clinics of most licensed health care providers or ambulance services," is reduced to either 3% or the "weekly average one-year constant maturity treasury yield, as published by the Federal Reserve Board, for the calendar week preceding the date when the consumer was first provided with a bill," whichever is the lesser, unless a different rate is contracted for in writing. Under current rules, the interest rate on medical debt is capped at 10% per year, and the new rate would also apply to medical debt judgments.

According to the analysis, the measure will only apply to contracts and agreements that are entered into on or after the effective date of the measure. The exemptions will also be tied to inflation.

How will it affect state spending?

In a separate analysis by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, it was stated that the measure is not expected to have a direct impact on General Fund revenues, but it was also noted that the increase of exemptions could "adversely affect the ability to collect tax liens, which may reduce state and local tax revenues relative to current law."

"The amount of the potential state and local tax revenue loss cannot be determined in advance," a portion of the analysis read.

What are supporters saying about the measure?

Supporters say this measure can protect Arizonans from crippling debt, including medical debt.

"We believe that after you have worked hard your entire life, at the very least, your basic assets should be protected from crippling debt, whether medical or otherwise," read a joint statement by Fred Aneas of Flagstaff, Carmen Arias of Phoenix, Erika Hunt of Chandler, Charlene McIntire of Flagstaff, Jonathan C. McIntire of Flagstaff, Diane Klock of Gold Canyon,  Rebecca Pakebusch of Phoenix, Ann Schleppi of Sun City, Terri Streich of Glendale, and Diane Watson of Tucson. The statement was sponsored by Healthcare Rising Arizona. 

"Proposition 209 doesn’t give people in debt a ‘free pass’. Far from it. But it does level the playing field so people will have an opportunity to pay back their debts without spiraling into poverty," read a statement by Arizona Public Health Association Executive Director Will Humble. 

What are opponents saying about the measure?

Some opponents say the measure will actually hurt Arizonans in a number of ways.

"When lenders can’t collect outstanding debts, they’ll pass their losses onto their other customers, which means higher interest rates for everyday Arizonans," read a portion of a statement by Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry President & CEO Danny Seiden.

"By imposing a series of draconian requirements on Arizona financial services firms, Prop 209 would severely restrict the ability of Arizona consumers and businesses to access critically important lines of credit," read a portion of statement by Arizona Bankers Association President & CEO Paul Hickman.

Prop 211

This measure deals with the disclosure of the original source of funding used for a campaign's media spending.

According to an analysis by the Legislative Council, the measure, if passed, will:

1. Require that a "covered person," or a person or entity that "spends $50,000 or more on campaign media for a statewide candidate during a two-year election cycle, or spends $25,000 or more on campaign media for any other type of candidate during a two-year election cycle," to disclose the identity of anyone who is the original source of donations of more than $5,000 to them for campaign media
2. Require any donor that contributed more than $5,000 to a covered person during an election cycle for campaign media spending to identify to the covered person "the identity of any person who contributed more than $2,500 in original money that is being transferred to that donor, as well as any intermediaries that previously transferred the funds being given to the covered person."
3. Require that a covered person’s disclosure report to the Secretary of State include: The identity of the person who owns or controls the money being contributed. The identity of any entity established, financed, maintained or controlled by the person who owns or controls the money being contributed, and that maintains its own transfer records The name, address, and position of the person who is the custodian of the transfer records The name, address, and position of the person who controls how the money is spent The total amount of money donated or promised to be donated to the covered person for use or transfer for campaign media spending on the date the covered person makes the report The identity of each donor of original monies who contributed, directly or indirectly, more than $5,000 of money or in-kind contributions for campaign media spending during the election cycle to the covered person, and the date and amount of each donor’s contribution
4. The identity of the person who owns or controls the money being contributed.
5. The identity of any entity established, financed, maintained or controlled by the person who owns or controls the money being contributed, and that maintains its own transfer records
6. The name, address, and position of the person who is the custodian of the transfer records
7. The name, address, and position of the person who controls how the money is spent
8. The total amount of money donated or promised to be donated to the covered person for use or transfer for campaign media spending on the date the covered person makes the report
9. The identity of each donor of original monies who contributed, directly or indirectly, more than $5,000 of money or in-kind contributions for campaign media spending during the election cycle to the covered person, and the date and amount of each donor’s contribution
10. Requires a covered person to file a supplemental report, within three days, for every time the covered person spends money or accepts in-kind contributions totaling an additional $25,000 for campaign media spending during an election cycle on statewide campaigns, or an additional $15,000 during an election cycle for any other type of campaigns
11. Requires a political action committee or political party that is a covered person that spends reportable money or receives reportable in-kind contributions to file disclosure reports within three days, during the 20 days before an election

The measure, according to the analysis, lists a number of exemptions from the new disclosure requirements, including:

1. Persons or entities that spend only their own personal money or business income
2. Candidate committees
3. Political action committees or political parties if they receive not more than $20,000 from any one person or entity during an election cycle
4. Donors who contribute $5,000 or less directly or indirectly to a covered person
5. Original sources of contributions that are otherwise protected by law, or f the Clean Elections Commission determines that there is a reasonable probability that disclosure of that original source will subject that original source or the original source’s family to serious risk of physical harm

The measure, according to the analysis, also contains, among other things:

1. A requirement for disclosures to be electronically filed with the Secretary of State under penalty of perjury, and with other officials, as provided by law, with the disclosures to be publicly posted
2. A ban on a person from attempting to, assisting in, or structuring any solicitation, contribution, donation, expenditure, disbursement or other transaction to evade campaign finance reporting requirements.
3. A requirement on the Clean Elections Commission to establish requirements for a covered person to name, in the campaign media, at least the top three donors who made the three largest contributions during the election cycle, except for certain electronic communications when not technologically possible

Fines on violations are also laid out in the measure.

How will it affect state spending?

According to a separate fiscal analysis by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, a fine surcharge provision in the measure is projected to increase annual state revenues by $600,000. The extra projected revenue will be deposited into a separate account in the Citizens Clean Elections Fund.

The various requirements listed in the measure, according to the fiscal analysis, will increase state spending on the Secretary of State's campaign finance database, which is estimated to involve a one-time cost of $135,000, to be paid from the fine surcharge, as listed above.

The fiscal analysis also states that enforcement provisions in the measure can be paid with revenue from the fine surcharge.

What are supporters saying about the measure?

Supporters say the measure will allow for greater transparency regarding who is behind political ads. Some even say the measure could help promote civility in politics.

"The Voters’ Right to Know Act, Proposition 211 doesn’t stop any person or group from expressing their opinions. It’s about transparency. Period. It’s about requiring anonymous, dark money donors to disclose to the public their names and how much they donate, just like the rest of us," read a portion of a statement by Diane McQueen of Dewey.

"If major donors are required to identify themselves, campaigns will be held to a higher level of accuracy and civility," read a portion of a statement by Michael Rulon of Flagstaff. "We’ve all seen too many misleading and hostile campaign ads, and the Voters’ Right to Know Act will encourage campaigns to support their causes and candidates with civil discourse rather than lies and attacks."

What are opponents saying about the measure?

Opponents voiced concerns the measure could result in some citizens dropping out of campaign involvement, and some also criticized the complicated reporting requirements.

"In truth, folks on all sides exercise their free speech rights by contributing to campaigns with which they agree. The difference is how some want to name the contributors in an effort to force a boycott, bully, and otherwise silence the speech of those with whom they disagree," read a portion of a statement by Herrod. "The desired effect is to scare contributors out of donating to campaigns."

"Prop 211 ignores the first amendment and would attempt to implement a draconian disclosure scheme that would be impossible for any group to comply with and would immediately lead to litigation," read a portion of a statement by Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi.

Prop 308

The measure relates to tuition rates for students who do not possess lawful immigration status.

The measure, according to the Legislative Council's analysis, would allow anyone, regardless of immigration status, to be eligible for in-state tuition at any state university or community colleges, if they:

• Attended high school (or the homeschool equivalent) while in Arizona for at least 2 years, and
• Graduated from high school (or the homeschool equivalent) while in Arizona, or
• Received a high school equivalency diploma in Arizona

The measure, according to the analysis, would also exclude post-secondary education from the definition of "state or local public benefit."

"Current law requires an agency or political subdivision of this state that administers any ‘state or local public benefit’ to require any person who applies for the state or local public benefit to submit documentation demonstrating lawful presence in the United States," read a portion of the analysis.

What are the current rules?

According to the analysis, a person who is not a U.S. citizen or legal resident, and does not otherwise possess lawful immigration status in the country, can't be classified as an in-state student or county resident for community college or state university tuition purposes. This stems from a voter-approved measure in 2006.

What are supporters saying about the measure?

Supporters say, in the publicity pamphlet, that the measure will allow students known as "dreamers," or those who grew up in the U.S. and did not know they were undocumented immigrants until they were teenagers, better access to higher education.

"Prop 308 will give Arizona Dreamers the chance to earn a higher education, giving every Arizona student a fair shot and making our state and workforce stronger," read a portion of a statement by Stand For Children Organizing Director Georgina Monsalvo.

"Our dreamer high school graduates deserve the same tuition rates all other classmates pay. It’s only fair. They are our kids. Education attainment will assure every young adult the absolutely best life outcome. Arizona is better than holding them back for any political or prejudicial points," read a portion of a statement by former State Sen. Bob Worsley of Heber.

What are opponents saying about the measure?

Opponents say the issue is unfair to others, and raised concerns over tax increases.

"US citizens from other states attending Arizona schools must pay the full cost of tuition. Why then, should the undocumented, who have entered America illegally, be given a reduced tuition rate?" read a portion of a statement by Timothy Rafferty of Gilbert.

"If passed, this will lead to an increase in taxes statewide and would use our tax dollars to pay for illegal aliens and non-citizens to attend university at an equal or lower cost compared to American citizens," read a portion of a statement jointly written by Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Kelli Ward and Arizona Republican Party Secretary Yvonne Cahill.

Prop 309

In Arizona, scene of the closest presidential contest in 2020, the question is whether to require more identification to vote in the future. 

People voting with mailed ballots — the vast majority in Arizona — would have to list their date of birth and either their driver’s license number, a state identification number or the last four digits of their Social Security number.

Only a few states — Georgia, Minnesota, Ohio — have similar proof-of-identity measures for mailed ballots, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Arkansas requires voters to provide a copy of a photo ID when returning a mailed ballot.

What are supporters and opponents saying about the measure?

Republican state Sen. J.D. Mesnard, who sponsored the measure, said the intent is to "make the election as secure as possible" while addressing "a growing crisis in confidence" that could discourage some people from voting.

What are opponents saying about the measure?

But rather than reassuring voters, tougher ID requirements could dissuade some from voting at all and actually lead to fraud by exposing personal information, said Darrell Hill, policy director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which opposes the measure.

"You’re opening people up to greater potential identity theft," Hill said.

Prop 310

The measure, according to an analysis by the Legislative Council, would increase the state's transaction privilege tax (also known as the sale tax) and the state use tax to 5.7%, for a 20-year period starting on Jan. 1, 2023, for the purpose of providing funding for fire districts, described as special taxing districts formed under existing state law to provide fire, rescue and other emergency services to specific areas outside of the boundaries of a city or town.

"The new revenue generated by the tax increase would be deposited into the fire district safety fund and would be used first to pay the costs to implement and administer the fund; the remaining revenue would be distributed each month to fire districts to carry out the districts’ statutory duties," a portion of the analysis reads.

The measure, according to the analysis, also has a funding distribution formula that is tied in proportion to each fire district's equalized property valuation, but no fire district can get more than 3% of the total amount of money given out to all fire districts.

What are supporters saying about the measure?

Supporters say the measure will help fire districts that are experiencing funding, staffing, and equipment woes, which in turn could improve their response to emergency situations.

"When the housing crunch hit in the mid 2010’s many districts lost much of their funding," read a portion of a statement by Vernon Fire District Chairman John Vehar. Vehar notes that his position is unpaid. "This tax increase will have a huge effect on the level of service that can be offered to the community at a very slight impact to the average citizen. Without this tax, Fire Districts will be asked to do more with less, which is just not sustainable."

One person who filed an argument in support of the measure, Hellsgate Fire District Fire Chief Morey Morris, recounted a story of his district's response to an accident.

"My crew responded [to] a semi-truck and pickup truck accident in the early hours of a weekday morning. When they arrived [at the] scene, they found a large semi with trailer that hit a pickup truck and smashed it into the forest. They found a patient, but due to the complexity of the scene and inadequate resources, they could not deploy extrication tools to get the entrapped victim out," Morris recounted. "The crew had to wait an additional 10 minutes for another crew to arrive. The outcome - the patient died. Had we been fully staffed with proper equipment, I believe we could have achieved a better outcome."

What are opponents saying about the measure?

Opponents say the measure is unfair to taxpayers not serviced by fire districts.

"Citizens in the urban areas of our state choose to live in cities and pay taxes for the services those cities have to offer. People such as me choose to live in a rural community, understanding the difference in service, taxation, and lifestyle will be quite different. We do not want or expect the taxpayers in urban Arizona to subsidize our way of life nor solve our problems," read a portion of a statement by Warde Nichols of Nutrioso.

"It’s time for Rural Fire Districts, their governing boards, and the unions to stop going to the taxpayers for more money for salaries and rich benefits. Tighten your belts just like the good citizens of Arizona must do," read a portion of a statement by Dwight Kadar of Sedona.

What about Proposition 210?

The ballot measure known as Proposition 210 was removed from the November ballot in August, after a lower court decision that the initiative fell 1,458 signatures short of what was required to qualify for the ballot was upheld by the state Supreme Court.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.