Every couple of years, Arizona voters face a slate of ballot propositions. In advance of the election, voters get a publicity pamphlet with information to help them decide how to vote on the measures.
The Voter Publicity Pamphlet that mailed to voter households in September contains:
- the actual statutory language of the proposition (specialized language that’s not easy to understand);
- a summary of each proposition developed by the Arizona Legislative Council;
- arguments for and against the propositions (we submitted 4 arguments this year); and
- a 50-word summary explaining what the Proposition actually does (that’s on the actual ballot – not the voter publicity pamphlet).
This week, Arizona’s Legislative Council had their mostly overlooked (but important) meeting to approve the official publicity pamphlet descriptions for the 12 statewide ballot measures headed for the November ballot.
Who is Leg Council?
It can be a little confusing, because there’s an agency called AZ Legislative Council with staff and then there is a committee of the House and Senate that’s also called Legislative Council. The staff Executive Director reports to the legislature’s Legislative Council committee.
The Legislative Council has a small group of about a dozen or so analysts who report to the Executive Director, who reports to the 14-member Legislative Council of state lawmakers (right now it’s 8-6 in favor of Republicans).
You can learn more about the Council and its staff here.
Legislative Council staff and legislators have a special job when it comes to ballot propositions. Arizona law requires them to prepare the “impartial analysis” of each proposition for the state publicity pamphlet.
The analysis is supposed to explain what the measure does in clear, concise language and avoid technical terms whenever possible.
Last Wednesday the group of 14 legislators met to review what Leg Council had prepared. They approved exactly what staff had prepared and ignored amendments proposed by the Dems (including our suggestions) to make the language clearer.
All the amendments proposed by the Democrats on the Council to make the publicity pamphlet clearer were rejected 8-6. We submitted comments arguing for three changes – all were rejected by the Leg Council committee.
I testified on one of the amendments, to no avail. Once I saw it was a waste of time, I left to do more important work for AZPHA.
Legislative Council Ballot Measures Analyses 2026
HCR 2048 and HCR 2001 were the two measures that generated the most debate last Wednesday.
HCR 2048 is titled as a measure to protect military families using Empowerment Scholarship Accounts. But its real purpose is to nullify the ESA guardrail initiative. We urged Leg Council on Wednesday to be clear that if HCR2048 passes the Protect Education Act would be void. It’s not clear in the Leg Council summary that that’s the case.
Leg Council legislators rejected our suggestion 8-6.
HCR 2001 is another example. It’s framed as an election-security measure, but it would make voting by mail a lot harder. That’s not obvious from reading the legal language alone, and it’s also unclear in the Legislative council staff summary. We urged the Legislative Council analysis to explain the practical impact on Arizonans who rely on voting by mail.
They rejected our suggestion 8-6.
The same is true for SCR 1004, the anti-traffic-photo-enforcement measure. It is not just about photo radar. It would also restrict red-light cameras at dangerous intersections. The language Leg Council approved mentions that it preempts photo speed enforcement, but it leaves out that the measure preempts red light intersection cameras – just calling them ‘other traffic control devices’ (I think on purpose because there’s more support for red light cameras than photo radar).
Leg Council lawmakers rejected our suggestion 8-6.
Ballot Language
While the Leg Council language approved this week is important, the wording voters see on the actual ballot matters more in my opinion.
Under Arizona law the Secretary of State to prepares a descriptive title for each measure (50 words max), that summarizes its main provisions. The Attorney General needs to approve of the language the Secretary of State develops.
The ballot language is supposed to explain what a “yes” vote would do and what a “no” vote would do. You can read the ballot-language law, A.R.S. § 19-125, here.
Thankfully, Secretary Fontes will be developing the ballot language for AG Mayes’ review and approval.
What’s Next?
In the next few days Secretary Fontes will assign official proposition numbers to the measures and make final preparation of the voter Publicity Pamphlet.
Propositions in the 100 series are proposed constitutional amendments (either by voter initiative or as a legislative referral). Propositions in the 200 series are voter initiatives that would change state law but not the state Constitution. Propositions in the 300 series are referendum measures that change state law but not the Constitution.
The bottom line is the summaries of the 12 ballot propositions by Leg Council aren’t terrible – but they could have been more transparent and clearer – but those suggestions were rejected.
At least the actual language on the ballot will be likely better.
AZPHA Argument For Protect Education Act
AzPHA Argument Against Poison Pill for Protect Education Act
AZPHA Argument Against Making it Harder to Vote By Mail
AZPHA Argument Against Preempting Red Light Intersection Cameras
