2024 Arizona Election: When it comes to ballot measures, voters have some big choices to make in November

PHOENIX - Come November, Arizona voters will have some big choices to make.

Besides the presidential and congressional elections, there will also be a few propositions on the ballot this year, and two of them are expected to get a lot of attention.

Proposition 139

What's it about?

Proposition 139 is an abortion-related ballot measure. Abortion has been a hot-button topic across the nation, and especially in Arizona, a battleground for abortion access since the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling was overturned in 2022.

According to information provided by the Arizona Secretary of State's Office, the measure, if approved, will add abortion rights to the Arizona State Constitution.

"A ‘yes’ vote shall have the effect of creating a fundamental right to abortion under Arizona’s constitution. The State will not be able to interfere with this fundamental right before fetal viability, unless it has a compelling reason and does so in the least restrictive way possible," read a portion of the official ballot language for the measure. "A ‘no’ vote shall have the effect of not creating a fundamental right to have an abortion under Arizona’s constitution, will leave in place current laws that restrict abortion before fetal viability, and will allow the State to further restrict or ban abortion in the future."

Fetal viability, as defined in the measure, means "the point in pregnancy when, in the good faith judgment of a treating health care professional and based on the particular facts of the case, there is a significant likelihood of the fetus's sustained survival outside the uterus without the application of extraordinary medical measures."

Per the website for non-profit organization KFF (formerly known as The Kaiser Family Foundation), fetal viability "varies from person to person and also by the medical resources that are offered in their community, but is generally estimated to be at around 24 weeks LMP."

The measure, per the ballot language, also includes a provision that bans the state from interfering with the "good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional that an abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant individual," and also bans the state from penalizing "any person for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the right to an abortion."

The ballot summary for this measure became the subject of a lawsuit, after Arizona for Abortion Access sued the Republican-led Legislative Council for using the phrase ‘unborn human being’ to describe a fetus for the summary. The court subsequently ruled that the phrase is provocative, and has emotional and partisan meaning.

What are proponents saying?

Proponents of this measure are feeling confident, after gathering more than 800,000 signatures in an effort to get this measure on the ballot.

"Right now, Arizona is living under an extreme abortion ban that limits abortion to 15 weeks," said Chris Love, a spokesperson with Arizona for Abortion Access. "There are no protections for victims of rape or incest. There are very limited protections for medical emergencies, and we just don’t feel that that’s enough."

Love says the choice for an abortion should belong solely to the pregnant person, and not the government.

"We’re tired of these retrograde decisions being made by politicians and courts, as opposed to putting medical decisions into the hands of people that know better, and that’s the patients and medical providers who are trained to make these decisions," Love said.

What are opponents saying?

Those criticizing the measure say the language is too broad, and causes major concern.

"We believe this amendment definitely goes too far, and how it allows abortion beyond viability, how it removes safety standards, keeps parents in the dark and puts women at risk," said Joanna de la Cruz with a campaign called ‘It Goes Too Far.'

Opponents also believe the measure’s use of the term ‘health care professional’ is broad, as it does not specifically state the term ‘doctor’ or ‘physician.’

"We’re not just talking about performing a surgical abortion, but who could provide the pill, who could sign off on a post-viability abortion," said de la Cruz.

Critics also say the proposal could lead to unlimited and unregulated abortions in Arizona.

"What Arizona voters need to realize is this is a constitutional amendment that would be voter-protected, and under those two categories of how this would be passed, it would be nearly impossible to make any fixes or changes if these problems begin to arise," said de la Cruz.

Proposition 314

What's it about?

Proposition 314 is a measure on illegal immigration and border security, and it has drawn some controversy.

The measure was referred to the ballot by the State Legislature. If approved, the measure will make it a state crime for noncitizens to enter the state at any location other than a port of entry, and arrests can lead to deportations that are ordered by state judges. Local law enforcement would need Probable Cause to make contact with anyone who appears to be crossing illegally.

In addition, people using false documentation to apply for public benefits or employment could be charged with a class six felony as a result of the measure.

The ballot measure also criminalizes the act of knowingly selling fentanyl that leads to the death of another person. Such an act is considered by the measure as a class two felony, which is punishable by up to ten years in prison.

What are opponents saying?

Opponents of the measure are calling it racist, and some advocates of migrants say they are getting déjà vu.

"This is now SB1070 on steroids," said Alejanda Gomez, Executive Director of Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA), a Latino advocacy group.

Gomez was referring to a controversial 2010 state law that allowed police to check the immigration status of people they believed to be in the United States illegally. SB1070 was ultimately found to be mostly unconstitutional.

"If someone is presumed to look as if they are undocumented, it is the outright targeting of black and brown people," said Gomez.

Gomez also questions whether law enforcement have enough resources.

"What we have heard from law enforcement is that they are not prepared to be able to incur now, with the influx, of having to be also immigration agents," said Gomez.

Opponents vow to stop the bill at the ballot on behalf of mixed status families.

"The progressive infrastructure is going to knock on 5 million doors, so we feel very confident that we will be able to stop this, should it make it to the ballot in November."

What are proponents saying?

Proponents say Proposition 314, if passed, empowers local law enforcement to arrest migrants crossing illegally.

"This strictly has to do with border security. It’s a border bill. That’s why it’s called the Border Security Act. It only has to do with people crossing the border illegally. It does not have to do with people who are already in the state," said Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen, who is a Republican.

Petersen blames the federal government for failure at the border.

"If the federal government was enforcing the law, there would be no need for us to mirror the federal law," said Petersen.

Petersen also talked about the issue of resources for law enforcement.

"We’ve always funded public safety sufficiently. If they need resources, we’ll provide those resources," said Petersen. "It doesn’t matter who’s entering this country illegally. It doesn’t matter what country they’re from. If they’re crossing illegally, they’re breaking the law."

Opponents mounting legal appeal

Immigration advocates are in the process of appealing a Maricopa County judge’s ruling that kept Proposition 314 on the ballot. Opponents believe the State Legislature lumped unrelated topics on one initiative together, like fentanyl, public benefits, and immigration.

Supporters, however, argue all of those issues fall under a single subject: border security.