Tucson-area voters will see a lot of questions on their ballots for the Nov. 3 general election, with decisions ranging from how we vote to how we fund our zoo.

And depending on where you live, you might have additional questions, including proposals about schools and local taxes.

As a quick key for voters, if the proposition number starts with a 1, it’s a state constitutional amendment and may have been referred to the ballot by either voters or the Legislature. If it starts with a 2, it was put on the ballot by voters via signature gathering. If it starts with a 3, it was put on the ballot by the Legislature. Local initiatives start with a 4.

Jump to a ballot proposition

Prop. 141
Prop. 142
Prop. 144
Prop. 316
Prop. 317
Prop. 319
Tucson Prop. 421
Tucson Prop. 422
Fire Prop. 424
Pima County Prop. 425
Oro Valley Prop. 431
Pima Community College Prop. 430

Prop. 318, Prop. 320 and more education propositions

Prop. 141: Ban on taxes based on miles driven

Prop. 141 would amend the Arizona Constitution to bar state and local governments from taxing or charging drivers based on how many miles they drive. It also would bar them from monitoring or limiting miles driven unless a driver voluntarily agrees.

A yes vote would change the state constitution to prohibit the state and any county, city, town or other local government from:

  • Imposing a tax or fee on a person based on the miles the person travels in a motor vehicle
  • Enacting a rule or law to monitor or limit those miles, unless the rule or law requires that the person voluntarily consent

The ban would not apply to interstate agreements for reporting or paying fuel taxes or registration fees on commercial vehicles that operate in more than one state. It also would not apply to vehicles owned and operated by a government.

A no vote would leave the constitution as it is, with no ban on mileage-based taxes or fees. Arizona does not actively tax or monitor vehicle miles traveled, so it would prohibit the government from creating any future tax/monitoring program. 

Background: The Legislature placed Prop. 141 on the ballot. Supporters call it the Freedom to Move Act.

A vehicle-miles-traveled tax, often called a VMT tax, charges drivers based on how far they drive. In other states, the tax rates have been based on weight, fuel efficiency or time of travel. Both sides acknowledge why the idea is under discussion: Fuel-efficient and electric vehicles generate less gas tax revenue, and the gas tax is a main source of funding for roads. Arizona’s gas tax is 18 cents a gallon, according to an argument submitted by Civic Engagement Beyond Voting, a group that opposes the measure.

Supporters say Arizona would be the first state to put such a ban in its constitution, according to arguments submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office for the state voter pamphlet.

For: Supporters say the measure protects privacy and freedom of movement. They argue that mileage-tax programs in other states can rely on GPS devices, smartphone apps or other tracking that records where drivers go, and they want to block that before it starts in Arizona.

Supporters also say a per-mile tax would fall hardest on rural residents, commuters, tradespeople and delivery drivers, and could raise prices on goods moved by truck. They say Arizona can raise money for roads in other ways, and that putting the ban in the constitution would keep future lawmakers from reversing it.

Supporters who submitted arguments include the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, the Arizona Trucking Association and the Maricopa County Libertarian Party.

Against: Opponents say the measure would permanently take away a possible way to pay for roads as electric vehicles become more common, since their owners don’t pay gas taxes. Ted Maxwell, president and CEO of the Southern Arizona Leadership Council and chair of the Arizona State Transportation Board, wrote that the measure would bar even voluntary and pilot programs to test whether a mileage-based system could work in Arizona.

Tom Prezelski, a senior policy adviser at Rural Arizona Action, wrote that the state faces an estimated $68 billion in unmet transportation needs. He said a VMT tax is still largely theoretical and that the measure would close off discussion before the state can study it.

Civic Engagement Beyond Voting argued that the privacy concerns are overstated and that the measure would keep electric vehicle owners from paying a share of road costs.

Opponents who submitted arguments include the Southern Arizona Leadership Council, Civic Engagement Beyond Voting and Rural Arizona Action.

Prop. 142: Preferential treatment and discrimination

Prop. 142 would add detail to a section of the Arizona Constitution that already bars state and local governments from giving preferential treatment or discriminating based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. The additions would restrict requirements, programs and training tied to race, ethnicity, gender identity and sexual orientation at public schools, universities and agencies.

A yes vote would change Article II, Section 36 of the state constitution to prohibit the state, including cities, towns, counties, public universities, community colleges, school districts and other local governments, from:

  • Granting preferential treatment or discriminating based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education or contracting, even if the action is part of a federal program
  • Requiring applicants, employees, students or contractors to endorse or support preferential treatment or discrimination based on race or ethnicity as a condition of admission, graduation, hiring, promotion, certification, contracting or a scholarship. That includes requiring or asking for a statement in support of race-based diversity, equity and inclusion concepts, asking people to discuss their own race or ethnicity or their views on others’ race or ethnicity, and requiring training or courses that promote those concepts
  • Spending public money on offices or positions at public education institutions that are responsible for promoting preferential treatment or discrimination based on race or ethnicity. That includes money used to influence the makeup of the faculty and student body, or for trainings, programs and activities designed with reference to race, ethnicity, intersectionality, gender identity or sexual orientation
  • Using disciplinary policies that treat students or employees differently based on race or ethnicity

The amendment lists exceptions. They include academic course instruction, research and creative works; activities of registered student organizations and short-term guest speakers; mental or physical health services provided by a licensed professional; discussion of historical instances of racial hatred or discrimination, such as slavery, Indian removal, the Holocaust and Japanese-American internment; qualifications based on tribal membership in programs that serve tribe members; and sex-based qualifications, including sex-specific spaces, that are reasonably necessary to operations. Actions needed to keep eligibility for a federal program are allowed only if they are limited to outreach, advertising or communication that does not change application criteria or how people are evaluated.

A no vote would keep Section 36 as it is. The constitution would continue to bar the state from granting preferential treatment or discriminating based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education and contracting.

Background: The state Legislature placed Prop. 142, which began as House Concurrent Resolution 2044, on the ballot.

The text of the amendment says the restrictions on compelled endorsement also cover “related practices or concepts as may be prescribed by the Legislature.” Opponents say that language would let future lawmakers add to the list without going back to voters.

Supporters and opponents disagree on what the amendment would do in practice.

For: Supporters say the measure would put equal treatment in the state constitution and keep public money from being used to require students or employees to endorse race-based programs. Dennis Liles from the Goldwater Institute wrote that it is not about banning conversation or diversity.

Supporters also say the amendment would close what they call a loophole that allows race-based preferences in hiring, admissions and contracting when the federal government requires them. They say the change would make the rule permanent regardless of who is in power in Washington. They argue that diversity, equity and inclusion programs, often called DEI, have led to preferential treatment based on race and sex.

Supporters who submitted arguments to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office include the Goldwater Institute, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Heritage Action for America and Arizona Women of Action.

Against: Opponents say the measure is unnecessary because Article 2 Section 36 of the Arizona Constitution already bars discrimination and preferential treatment. They say it goes further by restricting programs, training and outreach and that its wording is broad enough that schools and agencies could drop lawful programs to avoid lawsuits. Pinny Sheoran, board advisor and secretary of the League of Women Voters of Arizona made those arguments.

The Arizona Center for Women’s Advancement said the measure would limit programs that serve groups that have faced discrimination, including training related to gender identity and sexual orientation. Darrell Hill, the ACLU of Arizona’s director of policy, wrote that the measure violates the First Amendment by prohibiting certain ideas from being discussed in colleges and government workplaces.

Some opponents say it would limit how teachers can cover history. The amendment’s text exempts academic course instruction and discussion of historical instances of racial hatred or discrimination.

Opponents who submitted arguments include the League of Women Voters of Arizona, the ACLU of Arizona, Mi Familia Vota, Chispa Arizona, and Civic Engagement Beyond Voting.

A couple walks into the Woods Memorial Library in Tucson to cast their vote for the primary election on July 21, 2026. Una pareja entra a la Biblioteca Woods Memorial en Tucson para emitir su voto en las elecciones primarias del 21 de julio de 2026. Crédito: Summer Williams. Credit: Summer Williams

Prop. 144: Voter ID and other election rules

Prop. 144 would amend the Arizona Constitution to require every voter, including those who vote by mail, to show government-issued identification in each election. It also would ban foreign nationals from spending money in Arizona elections, require that voters have the option to have their ballots tabulated at their voting location on Election Day and set a new standard for how courts review election laws.

A yes vote would change the state constitution to:

  • Require every voter to show valid government-issued proof of identity before casting a ballot in each election, whether voting in person or by another method, as prescribed by law. The measure would limit acceptable identification to government-issued documents.
  • Require that all voters be offered the option, on Election Day, to have their ballot tabulated at their voting location, as prescribed by law
  • Prohibit foreign nationals from contributing or spending money or anything of value to influence an Arizona election, and prohibit anyone from knowingly accepting such a contribution
  • State that only citizens may register and vote in Arizona elections, and that elections are decided solely by the votes of eligible citizens
  • Allow the people and the Legislature to pass laws governing elections, including early voting and mail voting, as long as the laws are rationally connected to a legitimate state interest. The official ballot description says this new standard for judicial review “may make it harder to challenge election laws.”
  • Require the Legislature to appropriate the money needed to carry out the changes

The changes would apply to elections on or after Jan. 1, 2028.

A no vote would maintain the current constitutional provisions governing elections. State laws on voter identification, early voting and mail voting would stay in place. According to the Pima County Recorder’s Office, voters can use either government-issued IDs when voting or items like utility bills combined with a Voter Registration card. Election workers also verify signatures on early ballots. 

Background: The Legislature placed Prop. 144, which began as House Concurrent Resolution 2001, on the ballot. Supporters call it the FAST Election Results Act, for “Fast, Accurate, Secure, Transparent.” Rep. Alexander Kolodin, a Scottsdale Republican who is running for secretary of state, sponsored the measure.

Arizona voters rejected a similar measure in 2022. Prop. 309 would have added ID requirements for mail ballots, according to the Secretary of State’s office.

Mail ballots: The amendment says the ID requirement would work “as prescribed by law,” which leaves the details to the Legislature. Opponents argue the measure does not say how mail voters would show ID. Greg Blackie of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club said at an Oct. 1 debate that options could include writing four digits of an ID number on the ballot envelope or uploading a photo of an ID online.

Opponents say the measure is meant to restrict mail voting. Kolodin has said it is not an attack on the mail voting system, according to KJZZ.

Foreign money: Federal law already bars foreign nationals from contributing in connection with state elections, according to the Federal Elections Commission. Blackie said in an Oct. 1 debate that law has a loophole for ballot measure campaigns. He pointed to the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a nonprofit that has received millions of dollars from Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, according to an Arizona campaign finance report. The fund gave $1.25 million in 2024 to support Prop. 139, the abortion rights measure that voters approved, state filings show.

The measure does not explain how the state would stop a nonprofit that has received foreign money from contributing, according to Tempe Councilman Randy Keating, Blackie’s opponent Blackie said later by text to KJZZ that penalties set by law could deter violations and that the attorney general could investigate credible allegations.

For: Supporters say the measure would put voter ID and citizen-only voting in the constitution, where they would be harder to change. Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, wrote that current voter ID laws are statutory only, allow non-government identification and do not apply to all voters.

Supporters say on-site tabulation would speed up results. Mussi wrote that a 2021 law lets counties offer it but no county has, and that Prop. 144 would require every county to do so. Supporters also say Maricopa County received more than 280,000 mail ballots dropped off on Election Day in 2022, and that its count took nearly two weeks.

Supporters say the foreign contribution ban would close a gap in current law.

Supporters who submitted arguments to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office include the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, the Yavapai County Republican Committee and Kolodin.

Against: Opponents say the measure is unnecessary because Arizona already requires citizenship to vote, ID at registration and in person, and signature checks on mail ballots. They say about 80% of Arizona voters cast their ballots by mail.

Opponents say mail voters could be required to send a copy of an ID with each ballot, which they say would be a burden and a privacy and identity theft risk. They say narrowing acceptable ID to government-issued documents would end the use of options such as a utility bill or bank statement, which they say affects rural voters, older voters and voters with disabilities. They also say the measure would add unfunded work for county election offices.

The League of Women Voters of Arizona wrote that the new judicial review standard could be used to justify future limits on early and mail voting and could lead to costly legal challenges. Opponents also say putting election procedures in the constitution makes them harder to fix.

Opponents who submitted arguments include the League of Women Voters of Arizona, the ACLU of Arizona, Common Cause Arizona, Mi Familia Vota, All Voting is Local Action, Vitalyst Health Foundation, Chispa Arizona, Our Voice, Our Vote and Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in Arizona.

🔖 Read more

Arizona Prop. 144 debate focuses on a Swiss billionaire, mail-in voting | KJZZ, Oct. 2, 2026

Prop. 144 could reshape Arizona mail voting while doing little to speed results | Arizona Mirror, Oct. 14, 2026

Prop. 316: Cap on city grocery taxes

Prop. 316 would cap city and town taxes on groceries at 2% and require voter approval before a city or town adopts or raises such a tax. Cities that already charge 2% or more could keep their rates but could not raise them.

A yes vote would change state law to:

  • Prohibit cities, towns and other local taxing jurisdictions from adopting or raising a tax on food and certain ready-to-drink nonalcoholic beverages sold for home consumption from July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2027. The ban would apply retroactively.
  • After that, require voter approval for any new grocery tax or any increase, with a maximum rate of 2%
  • Bar local governments that already charged a grocery tax of 2% or more as of Jan. 1, 2025, from raising it. Those below 2% could raise their rates only with voter approval and only up to 2%.

If voters approve Prop. 316, the Legislature could change it later only with a three-fourths vote in each chamber, and only if the change furthers the measure’s purpose, under a 1998 voter-approved rule known as Prop. 105.

A no vote would keep current laws on local taxation. Cities and towns would not face the cap or the voter approval requirement.

Background: The state Legislature placed Prop. 316, which began as House Concurrent Resolution 2021, on the ballot. It started as a proposal to ban grocery taxes entirely. Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed an earlier attempt in 2023, and pushback from city officials led to the 2% cap as a compromise, the Arizona Mirror reported.

Seventy Arizona cities and towns tax groceries, the Mirror reported.

Local angle: Tucson, Marana, Oro Valley and Sahuarita do not tax groceries, according to Arizona Department of Revenue data. South Tucson charged a 1.5% grocery tax until July 1, 2026, when a city council decision to eliminate it took effect, according to the department. Because no local jurisdiction taxes groceries now, a yes or no vote would not change what Tucson-area shoppers pay. It would change what local officials could do in the future.

For: Republican lawmakers and other supporters say the measure eases the cost of living for residents.

The only argument in favor in the state voter pamphlet came from Chandler Mayor Kevin Hartke, president of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, and the league’s executive director, René Guillen. They wrote that the measure is a compromise: Cities and towns would keep their current revenue, residents would have a say in future increases, and tourists and visitors would continue to pay the tax. Hartke helped negotiate the cap and called it “an uneasy win-win” in an interview with the Mirror.

Against: Opponents say the cap would limit a revenue source that cities depend on and would take away local control. Bisbee Mayor Ken Budge said the state should not tell local governments how much to tax, according to Arizona Mirror. Bisbee charges 3.5%, which Budge said brings in about $700,000 a year of the city’s $9 million budget. He said if cities cannot raise the tax, they would have to cut services such as public safety, road repair and libraries.

Civic Engagement Beyond Voting wrote that small and rural towns often rely heavily on grocery taxes and that requiring a public vote for even small increases would add cost and administrative work.

🔖 Read more

Prop. 316 would cap Arizona grocery taxes. Rural cities say it will cost them, and their residents. | Arizona Mirror, Sept. 21, 2026

Prop. 317: Drug cartels as terrorist organizations

Prop. 317 would declare in state law that drug cartels are terrorist organizations and would direct the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to do everything within its authority to address the threat they pose.

A yes vote would change state law to:

  • Declare that drug cartels are terrorist organizations
  • Require the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to do everything within its authority to address the threat posed by drug cartels
  • Define “drug cartel” as an ongoing formal or informal association of people whose members or associates, individually or together, engage in human smuggling, drug trafficking for profit or any act of terrorism as defined in state law
  • State that nothing in the measure supports a claim for asylum under federal law

If voters approve Prop. 317, the Legislature could change it later only with a three-fourths vote in each chamber, and only if the change furthers the measure’s purpose, under a 1998 voter-approved rule known as Prop. 105.

A no vote would keep current state laws on terrorism and the Arizona Department of Homeland Security.

Background: The Legislature placed Prop. 317, which began as House Concurrent Resolution 2055, on the ballot. House Speaker Steve Montenegro, a Goodyear Republican, has pushed the idea for several years. In a 2025 news release, Montenegro described Arizona as the “frontlines of a war” and said the proposition is a “necessary step in our fight to defend Arizona communities.” Gov. Katie Hobbs vetoed his first version in 2023, and lawmakers did not send a ballot version to voters in 2024. They did so in 2025, after President Donald Trump issued an executive order designating drug cartels as terrorist organizations at the federal level.

The text of the measure does not create new crimes or penalties. It defines “threat” broadly to include anything designed to disturb, violate or harm individual rights or public safety, health or general welfare. The Legislature’s findings in the measure cite voters’ approval of Prop. 314 in 2024. Prop. 314 made it a state crime to cross the border anywhere but a port of entry, and 61% of voters approved it.

For: Montenegro told a House committee that the measure would give law enforcement a tool against criminals at the border, according to the Mirror. The Legislature’s findings cite a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration assessment that says cartels profit from synthetic drugs.

Against: Opponents say the measure would do little or nothing in practice.

Darrell Hill, director of policy for the ACLU of Arizona, said the definition of a cartel is so broad that it could cover low-level drug offenders, people with substance use disorders and immigrants traveling with paid guides. At a House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Lupe Contreras, a Democrat from Laveen, asked whether migrants forced to carry drugs could be designated terrorists, according to the Mirror. Montenegro said the Department of Homeland Security has processes for deciding who is at fault and that the focus is on groups that terrorize people.

Opponents also worry the measure’s language could be cited by a future governor to justify sending troops to the border. An opponent in the state voter guide argued that the bill is a waste of time and will not have significant legal changes.

🔖 Read more

Prop. 317 would call drug cartels terrorists. Critics fear who else it could catch. | Arizona Mirror, Aug. 31, 2026

Prop. 318: Transgender student athletes

Prop. 318, Prop. 320 and more education propositions

Prop. 319: Photo enforcement cameras

Prop. 319 would bar state agencies and local governments from using speed and red-light cameras to ticket drivers unless they have a signed contract by Dec. 31, 2026. Cities and towns that already have cameras would need voter approval to keep them.

A yes vote would change state law to:

  • Prohibit state agencies and local governments from using a photo enforcement system to identify drivers who speed or fail to obey a traffic signal or sign, unless they have a signed contract to operate one on or before Dec. 31, 2026
  • Require a local government with such a contract to ask its voters, at the next general election after the measure takes effect, to approve continued use
  • Require a local government to stop operating its cameras within 90 days if voters do not approve
  • Allow a local government with voter approval to operate cameras for 10 years, then require another vote every 10 years

The measure defines a photo enforcement system as a radar unit or sensor linked to a camera that records a vehicle’s license plate to identify speeding or traffic signal violations.

If voters approve Prop. 319, the Legislature could change it later only with a three-fourths vote in each chamber, and only if the change furthers the measure’s purpose, under a 1998 voter-approved rule known as Prop. 105.

A no vote would keep current laws on photo enforcement systems.

Background: The Legislature placed Prop. 319, which began as Senate Concurrent Resolution 1004 of 2026, on the ballot. Sen. Wendy Rogers, a Republican, introduced it.

Photo enforcement returned to Phoenix this year and is in use in Tempe, Mesa, Scottsdale and Paradise Valley. The measure’s statement of legislative intent says lawmakers want enforcement kept in the hands of trained officers, want to protect residents from outsourcing law enforcement to private for-profit companies and want to ensure enforcement does not exist to raise revenue for governments.

Local angle: Tucson stopped using red-light cameras and photo radar vans after city voters approved a ban, Prop. 201, by about 2-to-1. Pima County let its photo enforcement contract on unincorporated roads expire in January 2014.

For: Supporters say photo enforcement cameras raise money and turn roads into revenue sources, and they say private companies run them for profit. Rogers told KTAR that cities want to keep the money collected from fines and that the cameras raise privacy concerns similar to license plate readers.

The three arguments in favor in the state voter pamphlet, all from individuals, say the cameras are a form of surveillance that violates privacy and due process rights, and that voters should decide whether their communities use them.

Against: Opponents say the measure applies to both speed cameras and red-light cameras and bans a safety tool in places that do not use it now. Will Humble, executive director of the Arizona Public Health Association, wrote that there is a fair debate about whether some cities use too many speed cameras. He said the measure does not distinguish them from red-light cameras, which he says prevent violent crashes.

Opponents also say that the ban would prevent communities without these camera systems from ever having them. Michelle Donati, the director of government affairs with AAA Arizona, wrote that the proposition strips local communities of the ability to protect road users.

She also wrote that photo enforcement should never be a speed trap to fill budget gaps. AAA and Civic Engagement Beyond Voting cite an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety finding that red-light cameras cut fatal red-light crashes by 21%. Michael Grandy, a Gilbert traffic engineer, wrote that Federal Highway Administration data show crash reductions of 20% to 54%. He also wrote that the measure’s text wrongly suggests trained officers do not review the evidence, and that an officer reviews each photo before a citation is issued.

Opponents also call the measure state overreach on a local issue. Opponents who submitted arguments include the Arizona Public Health Association, AAA Arizona, the Institute of Transportation Engineers Arizona Section and Civic Engagement Beyond Voting. Civic Engagement Beyond Voting wrote that the measure applies only to traffic cameras and does not regulate other surveillance cameras.

🔖 Read more

What’s on your ballot: Prop 319 would ban new red-light and speed cameras in Arizona | KTAR, Oct. 5, 2026

Prop. 320: School spending

Prop. 318, Prop. 320 and more education propositions

City of Tucson

Propositions 421 and 422 will appear on ballots for City of Tucson voters only.

Prop. 421: Tucson Electric Power franchise

Prop. 421 asks Tucson voters whether to grant Tucson Electric Power a 25-year franchise to use city streets, alleys and other public rights of way for its power lines and equipment. A companion agreement would have the company give the city at least $2 million a year for energy projects if voters approve.

A yes vote would:

  • Grant TEP a non-exclusive franchise for 25 years to build, maintain and operate electric transmission and distribution lines and equipment in city rights of way, replacing the franchise voters approved in 2000
  • Keep the franchise fee at 2.25% of TEP’s revenue from customers in the city. Customers pay it on their bills, and TEP passes it to the city. One-ninth of the fee could go to low-income energy assistance, burying power lines or renewable energy incentives.
  • Put into effect a companion Energy Collaboration Agreement. Under it, TEP would provide at least $2 million a year in grants, rising 2% annually, to support the city’s climate action plan, according to the City of Tucson. That would total about $64 million over 25 years. The company says the money comes from corporate funds and would not be recovered through electric rates.
  • Let either the city or TEP request a review of parts of the agreement 10 and 20 years in. If the other side refuses to negotiate, the party seeking changes could end the agreement with a year’s notice.

A no vote would deny the franchise. TEP says it would still have to serve customers in its territory, but its use of rights of way would fall under the city’s standard permitting process. The companion agreement would not take effect. TEP says the current franchise would stay in effect until April 2027.

Background: Voters approved TEP’s current franchise in 2000. Voters rejected a renewal, Prop. 412, in April 2023. That version included a new 0.75% fee to help pay for burying a transmission line. 

A franchise does not set electric rates. The Arizona Corporation Commission does, according to TEP and franchise supporters. TEP has asked the commission for a rate increase that would raise residential bills by an average of 14%.

The city raised its utility tax on electric service to 5% on March 1, according to the Arizona Department of Revenue. TEP says franchise fee payments count toward that tax, so customers’ effective cost is 2.75% and the franchise does not increase bills.

For: Supporters say a franchise lets TEP crews repair and upgrade equipment without separate city permits for each job, which they say speeds outage response. They also say the measure would not raise rates and would bring new money for heat resilience, weatherization and help with energy bills. TEP says franchises are common.

City Council Member Kevin Dahl wrote in the voter pamphlet that voters who are unhappy with TEP should fight those battles elsewhere because rejecting the franchise would mainly hurt the city’s climate plan. Vice Mayor Lane Santa Cruz wrote that she supports a public electricity option and also supports Prop. 421.

Supporters who submitted arguments include the Southern Arizona Leadership Council, the Chamber of Southern Arizona, Local First Arizona, the Arizona Technology Council and the Southern Arizona Energy Alliance. Many arguments in favor were paid for by TEP for Tucson, a committee, including several written by TEP employees.

Against: Opponents say the 25-year term is too long and the agreement lacks terms residents asked for. Tucson DSA and Public Power for Tucson said at public meetings last year thousands of residents called for a five-year agreement, a public utility, renewable energy targets and stronger protections against rate increases. They point to TEP’s rate increase request and its plans to supply power to Project Blue, a proposed data center that has drawn opposition.

Public Power for Tucson  members said the $2 million investment is a drop in the bucket compared to Fortis’ almost $2 billion in profits. Some opponents argue that customers, not TEP shareholders, pay the franchise fee through their bills.

A flamboyance of flamingos rest in the shade at Reid Park Zoo on Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2026. The Chilean flamingos were moved to a new habitat near the entrance of the zoo in 2021, after voters approved a sales tax to help fund projects at the zoo. Credit: Stephanie Casanova

Prop. 422: Reid Park Zoo sales tax

A 0.1% city sales and use tax that voters first approved in 2017 to fund Reid Park Zoo would be extended for 20 years under Prop. 422. The tax amounts to 1 cent for every $10 spent  and would run from Jan. 1, 2028, through Dec. 31, 2047.

A yes vote would amend the Tucson city charter to reauthorize the 0.1% sales and use tax for 20 years and dedicate the revenue to capital improvements, infrastructure repair and replacement, exhibit expansion and related improvements, operations and maintenance at the zoo.

A no vote would reject the extension. The tax would end when the current authorization expires.

Background: Voters approved the current tax in 2017 for 10 years through two measures, Props. 202 and 203. Prop. 203, which created the tax, passed by about 600 votes, and Prop. 202, a charter change, passed with 53%. The city’s sales tax rate rose from 2.5% to 2.6% in 2018 because of it, according to a city notice.The tax is the main source of money for the city’s zoo fund, which was estimated at $17.1 million in fiscal year 2024 and projected at $18 million in fiscal year 2025, according to Tucson financial reports. Nancy Kluge, CEO of the Reid Park Zoological Society, which manages the zoo, said projects such as the Pathway to Asia expansion are paid for with 85% tax money and 15% private donations. Pathway to Asia, the last project in the first phase of the zoo’s master plan, is set to open Nov. 13.

If voters approve the extension, the zoo would put most of the money toward larger animal habitats in phases two and three of the master plan, Kluge said. Phase two includes redesigning the Africa area as a savannah for elephants, giraffes and lions. Kluge said the next two phases would not change the zoo’s footprint.

For: Supporters say the tax lets the zoo keep prices low and keep attracting visitors. Kluge said admission is $12.75 for adults and $9 for children, compared with almost $45 and almost $33 at the Phoenix Zoo. Families that receive WIC or SNAP benefits pay $6.50 for adults and $2.50 for children. County residents can get two free passes through the Pima County Library, and the tax has covered kindergarten field trips.

Kluge said annual attendance has grown from about 480,000 before the 2017 tax to about 600,000 over the past three years, and that tax money paid for two full-time veterinarians. She said upgrades also help the zoo show the Association of Zoos and Aquariums that it can care for more endangered animals.

Against: No arguments against were submitted for the city’s voter pamphlet. Kluge said the zoo has no specific plan for going without the tax. She said it might have to raise admission prices, reduce the number of animals or end programs that give free or reduced entry, but would not compromise on animal care.

Local government

Prop. 424: Northwest Fire District bonds

Voters in the Northwest Fire District, which covers Marana, Avra Valley and unincorporated northwest Tucson areas such as Casas Adobes, will decide this question. See a district map here.

Prop. 424 asks voters in the Northwest Fire District, which covers northwest Tucson-area communities, to let the district borrow up to $73 million to rebuild one fire station, build two new ones and buy a ladder truck and other equipment. Property taxes in the district would repay the bonds. See Northwest Fire District’s Proposition 424 page.

A yes vote would let the district sell up to $73 million in bonds over up to 20 years, at interest of no more than 8%, to build, improve and equip fire stations, buy land and apparatus, and pay the costs of the sale. The district plans to sell the bonds in three batches:

  • 2028: About $21 million to demolish and rebuild Station 331
  • 2029: About $25 million to build Station 340 and buy an aerial platform truck for it
  • 2032: About $27 million to buy land for and build Station 342 and add a fourth bay at the district’s fleet repair shop

A no vote would not authorize the bonds. The district says it would have to pay for projects out of regular revenue, which could delay them by up to 20 years, and some might go unfunded. The district says that could mean longer response times as the area grows.

Background: The district’s governing board voted unanimously on May 26 to call the election after a 13-member volunteer committee of residents and business people recommended it. District officials say the area is one of the fastest-growing in Southern Arizona and that new stations are needed to keep response times down.

The district estimates the bonds would add about 17.8 cents per $100 of assessed value. For a home with the district’s average value of $278,180, that is about $49 a year, or $4 a month. The district’s schedule assumes an average interest rate of 5% and puts the total cost, including interest, at about $115 million. The district says it does not have to sell all the bonds if growth does not require it.

The district’s schedule shows its combined bond tax rate rising from 20 cents per $100 in 2026-27 to about 24 cents by the early 2030s, then easing, as new bonds are sold while older ones are paid off. The district has $17.2 million in bonds outstanding.

For: Supporters say the money would help the district keep up with growth and keep response times down. A Marana Chamber of Commerce leader wrote that the plan includes a new station near Twin Peaks Road and Interstate 10. Supporters say the district is fiscally responsible. The district’s information pamphlet includes four arguments in favor, from two residents, Marana Town Council Member Patti Comerford and Marana Chamber of Commerce President and CEO Amanda Wiggins.

Against: No arguments against were submitted.

Prop. 425: Pima County spending limit

Pima County voters will decide whether to permanently raise the county government’s state-imposed spending limit. The measure would not change any tax rate, but opponents say a higher limit would lead to higher taxes.

A yes vote would add $70 million to the county’s 1979-80 spending base, the starting point for the limit. That figure is adjusted each year for population growth and inflation. In Fiscal Year 2027-28, the county’s limit would rise by about $610 million, from $817.1 million to $1.43 billion.

A no vote would leave the base as is. The limit would keep growing each year with population and inflation.

Background: Arizona voters approved a constitutional limit on local government spending in 1980. Each county, city and town has a limit based on what it spent in 1979-80, adjusted yearly for population and inflation. Governments can ask voters to adjust that base permanently. Pima County has never done so. Its Board of Supervisors referred the measure to the ballot in April 2026.

The county says the $70 million is added to the 1979-80 base, so it grows with the formula. That is why it turns into about $610 million in 2027-28. The county says it will use the added room for “any local budgetary purposes,” including public health, safety, roads and other infrastructure. It says the money would come from state and local revenue it already receives, not new taxes.

The county projects it would spend about $84.1 million above the current limit in Fiscal Year 2027-28. Of that, $21.9 million would come from state sources and $62.2 million from existing local revenue. Based on the past 10 years of revenue growth, the county says it does not expect to use the full increase for at least 20 years. Debt service on bonds is largely exempt from the limit.

Seven of Arizona’s 15 counties have made a similar adjustment, including Maricopa County in 1998 and Coconino and Yavapai counties in 2024. Santa Cruz County (Prop. 417) and Yuma County (Prop. 435) have similar measures on this year’s ballot. Tucson, Marana and Oro Valley have adjusted their limits.

For: Supporters say the formula is 46 years old and does not reflect the cost of roads, vehicles, public safety and health programs. They say the county could not spend revenue it already collects without the change and would have to take on debt. They stress the measure does not raise taxes or tax rates. Supporters in the county’s voter pamphlet include Board of Supervisors Chair Jen Allen, Tucson Mayor Regina Romero, U.S. Rep. Adelita Grijalva, Tohono O’odham Nation Chairman Verlon Jose, Sahuarita Mayor Tom Murphy and the Pima County Democratic Party. Murphy wrote that he opposes the county’s recent property tax increase but sees this measure as neutral on taxes. Supporters also point to the county’s financial reporting awards, its bond ratings and a new Debt and Financial Transparency Commission as oversight.

Against: Opponents say the real effect is a 75% increase in spending authority that never expires, with no requirement to spend it on specific projects. They argue that a higher ceiling will push the county toward higher property taxes and fees over time, and that the county should cut taxes or live within its means instead. Several say the ballot wording of a “$70 million” adjustment understates the effect. Others say a simple majority of three of the five supervisors could commit large sums. Opponents in the pamphlet include the Pima County Republican Party, former Supervisor Ally Miller, Jeff Rhodes, a candidate for the District 5 supervisor seat, and United Republicans for Arizona. Some opponents also note the county can already ask voters for a one-year override or a smaller adjustment.

Prop. 431: Oro Valley general plan

Oro Valley voters will decide whether to adopt “Oro Valley’s Path Forward,” the town’s next 10-year general plan. The plan is a policy guide for growth, housing, water, parks and other town decisions. It does not set the budget or create taxes.

A yes vote would approve the 2026 Path Forward plan to guide town decisions for the next 10 years.

A no vote would reject the plan. The town’s 2016 plan, “Your Voice, Our Future,” would stay in effect until voters approve a new one.

Background: Arizona law requires towns to adopt a general plan and update it every 10 years. Oro Valley voters ratified the current plan on Nov. 8, 2016. The town began work on this update in 2023 with a community survey, then an advisory group and public meetings. According to Oro Valley Path Forward, the final plan draws on more than 10,700 public comments gathered over three years.

The plan contains 286 actions in four groups: community, sustainability, economy and development. Tucson Spotlight reports that the 2016 plan had 310 actions, and the town has addressed most of them. Examples of goals include:

  • protecting wildlife corridors, native plants and conservation areas
  • diversifying water sources and limiting natural grass
  • managing the town budget and filling empty storefronts
  • offering a range of housing types, from townhomes to condos, while limiting high-density apartment complexes
  • keeping roads in good condition and reducing car dependence through transit

🔖 Read more

Oro Valley voters to decide fate of 10-year growth plan| Tucson Spotlight, Sept. 16, 2026

Props. 423, 426, 427, 428, and 429

Prop. 318, Prop. 320 and more education propositions

Pima Community College has nearly 20,000 students as of Spring 2026. Pima’s West Campus, shown here on Sept. 8, 2025, houses the Center for Excellence for Health Professions, including nursing, radiologic technology, respiratory care and a dental clinic. Credit: Josie Shivers

Prop. 430: Pima Community College bond

Pima Community College is asking voters to approve $250 million in bonds to build and renovate facilities, repaid with property taxes. It would be the college’s first bond request in more than 30 years.

A yes vote would let the college sell up to $250 million in general obligation bonds, repaid through a secondary property tax. The college estimates the cost at about $31 a year for an owner of a home with a $250,000 limited property value.

A no vote would not authorize the bonds. The college says it would scale back projects and look at other funding, which could include higher tuition or a larger primary property tax increase.

Background: The college says state capital funding ended in 2009 and state operating funding dropped to zero in 2015, a cumulative loss of $221 million. Many buildings date to the 1970s. The governing board voted unanimously to put the bond on the ballot.

The college’s estimated project costs are:

  • $58.9 million for existing infrastructure, including facilities and IT
  • $57 million to modernize and expand academic spaces
  • $39.8 million for a public safety and first responder training center at East Campus
  • $38 million to refinance existing revenue bonds
  • $29 million for a campus police headquarters at the Downtown Campus
  • $27.3 million to renovate student support centers

Designs and costs are not final. Refinancing would free up roughly $4 million a year in the operating budget, according to the college.

The college would sell bonds in phases through Fiscal Year 2029-30, each repaid within 20 years. Its pamphlet estimates $31.08 a year for 22 years for the $250,000 home, about $684 in total. Under the district’s schedule the rate rises over time, which puts the peak near $38 a year in 2030-31. The full bond, with interest, would cost about $385.5 million at an assumed 5% rate.

The governing board, a finance and audit committee of community members and annual state audits would oversee spending, according to the college.

For: Supporters say the state has left the college without funding and its buildings have aged. They say the bond would modernize training for first responders, nurses, teachers and tech workers, and save money by refinancing debt. Arguments in the college’s pamphlet come from the governing board, U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, U.S. Rep. Adelita Grijalva, state Reps. Alma Hernandez and Consuelo Hernandez, the Chamber of Southern Arizona, the Southern Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Southern Arizona Leadership Council, former Tucson Mayor Jonathan Rothschild, the mayors of Oro Valley and Sahuarita, and other business groups and former board members.

Against: One argument against appears in the pamphlet, from Carlos Mejorado Carrillo, a college alum. He says he supports the college but opposes the bond because it has not shown how earlier spending, including voter-approved Prop. 481 in 2020, improved results. He wants independent citizen oversight first. No organized opposition has surfaced.

🔖 Read more

Pima Community College seeks $250M bond in Prop. 430 | Tucson Spotlight, Oct. 8, 2026

What Prop 430 Could Mean for Pima Community College | The Pima Post, Oct. 7, 2026

Credits

Research and fact checking: Emma LaPointe

Creative Commons License

Republish our articles for free, online or in print.

Emma LaPointe is a senior at the University of Arizona, majoring in Political Science, Journalism, and German Studies. Her work focuses on local politics and the LGBTQ+ community.