• House Concurrent Resolution 2015 (Proposition 132): The constitutional amendment required a 60% vote for voters to pass ballot measures to approve taxes. Voters approved the constitutional amendment at the election on November 8, 2022.

Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Hobbs[edit]

See also: Arizona Supreme Court, Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Hobbs, August 19, 2022

On August 19, 2022, the Arizona Supreme Court released the order for an earlier ruling, finding that veto referendums cannot repeal tax decreases or increases, except in cases when a tax would fund a new government department. As of 2022, the Arizona Constitution prohibited referendums against legislation regarding the support and maintenance of state government. Justice John Lopez IV wrote the 7-2 majority's opinion, stating that both tax increases and decreases relate to the "support and maintenance of existing departments of the state government and state institutions." Justices Bill Montgomery and James Beene dissented.^[1]

In December 2021, Maricopa Superior Court Judge Katherine Cooper ruled that a veto referendum that leaves the state with additional funds, rather than less, does not hinder the support and maintenance of state government.^[2]

The decision removed a veto referendum from the ballot that sought to repeal a bill to reduce the state's income tax from four brackets (ranging from 2.59% to 4.50%) to two brackets (2.55% and 2.98%) and further reduce the tax brackets to a flat rate of 2.50% when state revenue exceeds $12.976 billion.^[3]

• House Bill 2308: The legislation enacted several changes to the laws governing recall elections, including changing the recall petition format, requiring paid circulators and out-of-state circulators to register with the state, creating a misdemeanor charge for omitting or misrepresenting information on a circulator registration application, creating a felony charge for forging a signature on a recall petition, and allowing a person to withdraw their signature from a recall petition.^[1]

• House Bill 2364: The bill required persons or organizations submitting arguments for informational election pamphlets to include a sworn statement and identifying information, including name, telephone number, and residential address. Under HB 2364, the person's residence address or telephone number does not appear in the pamphlet, but the person's name and town do appear.^[2]

• House Bill 2821: HB 2821 created a process for local governments to call a ballot measure election to change the purposes of authorized bond monies until January 1, 2025. Under HB 2821, these elections must be held on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November.^[3]

• House Concurrent Resolution 2001 (Proposition 129): Voters approved the constitutional amendment on November 8, 2022. The ballot measure required that citizen-initiated ballot measures embrace a single subject.^[4]

• Senate Bill 1105: The legislation increased the word count for initiative and referendum descriptions on petitions from 100 words to 200 words.^[5]

• Senate Bill 1497: The bill required that the official ballot and secretary of state's website include a notice about Proposition 105, which requires voter approval for substantive changes to voter-approved ballot initiatives.^[6]

• Senate Concurrent Resolution 1034 (Proposition 128): Voters rejected the constitutional amendment on November 8, 2022. The constitutional amendment would have allowed the Arizona State Legislature to amend or repeal voter-approved ballot initiatives if any portion has been declared unconstitutional or illegal by the Arizona Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court.^[7]

• House Bill 2023: The legislation made tampering with political signs supporting or opposing a ballot measure a class 2 misdemeanor.^[1]

• Senate Bill 1451: The legislation changed several policies regarding initiative petitions and initiative petition circulators, including requiring non-resident circulators and paid circulators to register with the state; requiring registered circulators to submit a notarized affidavit confirming that they're eligible and knowledgeable of election laws; prohibiting people who have violated certain election laws, were convicted of felonies without restored civil rights, or convicted of fraud or forgery from registering as petition circulators; requiring that petition signature sheets be rejected for not meeting proper formatting.^[2]

• House Bill 2115: The legislation was designed to conform requirements for school bond elections with general obligation bond elections and rename the bond measure informational report to the informational pamphlet.^[1]

• House Bill 2121 (Vetoed): Gov. Doug Ducey (R) vetoed HB 2121 on April 20, 2018. The legislation would have changed the definition of paid circulator to include circulators who receive monetary or other compensation for obtaining signatures on an initiative or referendum petition, rather than circulators who are paid based on the number of signatures collected.^[2]

• House Bill 2648: The legislation changed the definition of paid circulator to include circulators who receive monetary or other compensation for obtaining signatures on an initiative or referendum petition, rather than circulators who are paid based on the number of signatures collected.^[3]

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Arizona

a Arizona House Bill 2404 was designed to prohibit paying circulators according to the number of signatures collected; make paying circulators on a per-signature basis a class 1 misdemeanor; reinstate a law repealed by legislators in 2015 allowing individuals to file legal challenges to initiative signature petitions, and increase the number of days that legal challenges to the registration of circulators can commence from five days to ten business days after signatures are filed.

• A veto referendum signature petition drive targeting HB 2404 was started, but did not succeed in putting the law before voters.
• The introduced version of the bill was written to also require paid circulators to register with the state, make certain disclosures, complete a training program provided by the state, and pay a registration fee; require initiative proponents to post bonds for paid signature gatherers ranging from $10,000 to $50,000; and create an Initiative and Referendum Integrity Fund. These provisions were removed through amendments, however. Provisions similar to them were included in separate legislative efforts.

a Arizona House Bill 2244 was designed to require strict scrutiny of initiative petitions and strict compliance with all rules surrounding to process. It was written to allow petition signatures to be rejected based on technical deficiencies. The bill was approved by the Arizona State Senate on April 12, 2017, and it was approved by the Arizona House of Representatives and transmitted to the governor on April 13, 2017. The governor signed the bill into law on April 14, 2017.

d Arizona Senate Bill 1236 was designed to do the following:

• require paid circulators to register with the state;
• require committees or individual proponents sponsoring an initiative to file with the secretary of state if they use paid signature gatherers;
• make the supporting committees or individuals responsible for violations committed by paid signature gatherers and allow a $1,000 fine per violation; and
• enact other restrictions and rules on initiative petitions.

This bill was approved by the state Senate and then amended and approved by the state House, which means it was sent back to the Senate for approval of the House amendments. The Senate did not give final approval of the amended version, and the bill, therefore, died when the session adjourned on May 10, 2017.

Many of the provisions in SB 1236 were passed by the Arizona legislature in 2013 as HB 2305. A veto referendum effort was launched against HB 2305. When the referendum qualified for the ballot, the legislature repealed HB 2305.

d Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2002 was designed to do the following:

• propose a constitutional amendment to remove Arizona's legislative alteration laws for initiatives and veto referendums, thereby allowing the legislature to amend or repeal citizen initiatives and referendums.

Going into 2017, state law prevented the legislature from repealing citizen initiatives and referendums or amend them unless an amendment furthers the purpose of the initiative or referendum and is approved by a three-fourths supermajority. These legislative alteration laws were approved by voters in 1998 through Proposition 105. Constitutional amendments require voter approval for enactment.

d Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2007 was designed to do the following:

• propose a constitutional amendment to remove Arizona's legislative alteration laws for veto referendums, thereby allowing the legislature to amend or repeal referendums.

Going into 2017, state law prevented the legislature from repealing citizen initiatives and referendums or amend them unless the amendment furthers the purpose of the initiative or referendum and is approved by a three-fourths supermajority. These legislative alteration laws were approved by voters in 1998 through Proposition 105. This resolution is similar to HCR 2002, except HCR 2002 was written to apply to both initiatives and referendums, while HCR 2007 was written to apply only to referendums. Constitutional amendments require voter approval for enactment.

d Arizona Senate Concurrent Resolution 1013 was designed to do the following:

• proposed a constitutional amendment to establish a distribution requirement for citizen initiatives and veto referendums.

Going into 2017, state law required 15 percent of votes cast for governor for initiated constitutional amendments, 10 percent for initiated state statutes, and 5 percent for veto referendums, and the law allowed these signatures to be collected from anywhere in the state. SCR 1013 was written to require these signatures to be collected from voters distributed across all of the states legislative districts. Constitutional amendments require voter approval for enactment.

d Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2029 was designed to do the following:

• proposed a constitutional amendment to establish a distribution requirement for citizen initiatives and veto referendums.

Going into 2017, state law required 15 percent of votes cast for governor for initiated constitutional amendments, 10 percent for initiated state statutes, and 5 percent for veto referendums, and the law allowed these signatures to be collected from anywhere in the state. SCR 1013 was written to require these signatures to be collected from voters distributed across all of the states legislative districts. Constitutional amendments require voter approval for enactment.

d Arizona House Bill 2255 was designed to do the following:

• prohibit contributions or expenditures in support of or opposition to a ballot measure from individuals that are not Arizona state residents and committees that are not registered in Arizona.

d Arizona House Bill 2320 was designed to do the following:

• require notice of the state's laws preventing the legislature from repealing or amending initiatives and veto referendums to be included on the ballot, state voter information pamphlets, and campaign expenditure disclosures.

The notice dictated by HB 2320 is as follows: "NOTICE: PURSUANT TO PROPOSITION 105 (1998), THIS MEASURE CANNOT BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE IF APPROVED ON THE BALLOT EXCEPT BY A THREE‑FOURTHS VOTE OF THE LEGISLATURE AND IF THE CHANGE FURTHERS THE PURPOSE OF THE ORIGINAL BALLOT MEASURE, OR BY REFERRING THE CHANGE TO THE BALLOT."

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Arizona

1. d Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2024: Was designed to require a 60 percent supermajority vote of the people to approve any citizen-initiated ballot measure that would legalize a drug considered a controlled substance by federal law in 2014. This proposed constitutional amendment would have required voter approval after being passed by the legislature and was designed, in part, to specifically target imminent initiative efforts to legalize marijuana. A similar law was proposed in 2015 but was not approved.
2. d Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2047: Was designed to amend the Arizona Constitution to require 25 percent of signatures for initiative and referendum petitions to be from counties with a population of fewer than 500,000 people. To be enacted, this distribution requirement would have had to be approved by the legislature and by the voters at the next general election.
3. d Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2043: Was designed to amend the Arizona Constitution to allow the legislature to alter laws passed through initiative and referendum by any majority vote greater than the majority of state electors that approved the relevant initiative or referendum. It was also designed to remove the requirement that all legislative changes to approved initiatives or referendums must "furthers the purposes" of the voter-approved laws, except for ballot measures approved by a two-thirds (66.67%) vote. This bill would have only applied to initiatives and referendums approved in 2016 or after. To be enacted, this law would have had to be approved by the legislature and by the voters at the next general election.
4. d Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2023: Was designed to allow legislators to repeal initiatives or referendums through a three-fifths supermajority vote. It was also designed to allow legislators to alter initiatives and referendums through a three-fifths supermajority vote instead of a three-fourths supermajority. Moreover, the bill would have removed the requirement that legislative amendments to initiatives and referendums “further the purposes” of the original ballot measures. To be enacted, this law would have had to be approved by the legislature and by the voters at the next general election.
5. d Arizona House Bill 2580: Was designed to require the publication of certain election information on the website of the secretary of state. It was also designed to allow the electronic submission of arguments in favor or opposing state ballot measures.
6. a Arizona House Bill 2015: Was designed to prevent early ballots for local elections being received by voters before voter information pamphlets are received.
7. d Arizona Senate Bill 1035: Was designed to eliminate the requirement that petition circulators sign and affirm an affidavit before a public notary and replace the words "affidavit of verification" with "statement of verification" in the law. A similar law was proposed in 2015 but was not approved.
8. a Arizona House Bill 2428: Was designed to require the electronic submission of arguments in favor or opposing state ballot measures.
9. d Arizona Senate Bill 1175: Was designed to prevent the original source of campaign contributions from being concealed.

See also: Laws governing ballot measures in Arizona

1. a House Bill 2407: In general, this bill required stricter compliance with technical signature petition rules and is more preventative of signature petitions that are not in strict compliance. It was also designed to require that any individual signatures dated after the circulator affidavit is signed must be thrown out. Arizona House Bill 2107 (2014) was relevant to and spurred this change. HB 2407 also specified that signatures collected by an out-of-state or paid circulator who was not registered with the Arizona Secretary of State at the time the signatures were signed must be invalidated. HB 2407 made other ballot law changes regarding litigation, court rulings and other issues.^[1][2]
2. a House Bill 2649: This bill amended campaign finance disclosure rules and definitions.^[3]
3. d House Concurrent Resolution 2027: Was designed to require a 75 percent supermajority vote of the people to approve any citizen-initiated ballot measure that conflicts with federal law. This proposed constitutional amendment -- which would have required voter approval after being passed by the legislature -- was introduced by Rep. Bob Thorpe (R-6) and was designed, in part, to specifically target imminent initiative efforts to legalize marijuana, which conflict with federal law.^[4][5]
4. d House Concurrent Resolution 2030: This bill would have provided that "any initiative or referendum measure or proposed amendment to the constitution of this state and that provides for a new increase in state expenditures is effective only on the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the qualified electors voting on the measure or proposed amendment."
5. d Senate Bill 1418: Would have amended campaign finance disclosure laws and definitions.
6. d Senate Bill 1365: Was designed to remove the requirements that a circulator affidavit for an initiative or referendum petition be signed in front of an authorized notary. It would have continued to require any circulator to sign a sworn statement, including the statement that all signers signed the petition in his or her presence. Moreover, it would have changed the name of the circulator statement from "Affidavit" to "Statement of verification."

The following bills were introduced in the Arizona State Legislature:

1. d SCR 1003: Requires voter re-approval every eight years for any measure that spends or collects public dollars; introduced in 2014.^[1][2]
2. d HCR 2018: Requires voter re-approval every eight years for any measure that spends or collects public dollars; introduced in 2014. This resolution died in a Senate committee.^[3]
3. a HB 2196: Repeals 2013 Arizona House Bill 2305, which contained multiple election and ballot law reform provisions; introduced in 2014.^[4]
4. a HB 2107: Allows certain petition signatures dated by the signer after the signature petition sheet was dated by the circulator. It also reaffirms the necessity for circulators to signify if they are paid or volunteer on the petition form and the necessity for non-state-resident circulators or paid circulators to register with the Secretary of State.^[5]
5. d SB 1436: Removes the necessity to sign the statement of verification, previously called the affidavit, before a public notary. Died in a Senate committee.^[6]
6. d HB 2014: Requires notice of Proposition 105 restrictions on publicity pamphlets, official ballots and campaign literature for ballot measures. Proposition 105 prevents legislators from repealing or changing any law approved by the voters except through a 3/4ths majority or through referral to the ballot.^[7]
7. d SB 1232: Changes registration and other requirements for circulators who are non-residents. Requires certain paid petition circulators to register with the Secretary of State (SOS) prior to circulating petitions. Allows any person to file a registration-based challenge against circulators in the superior court of the county in which the circulator is registered.^[8]

The following bills were introduced in the Arizona State Legislature:

d HB 2007: Requires literature or advertisements for statutory initiatives and their official ballot titles to contain the following disclosure: "Notice: Pursuant to Proposition 105 (1998), this measure can never be changed in the future if approved on the ballot except by a three-fourths vote of the Legislature and the change furthers the purpose of the original ballot measure, or by referring the change to the ballot."

d HB 2233: Requires the auditor general to conduct a special audit to evaluate the costs of each measure that is voter protected pursuant to article IV, part 1, section 1, Constitution of Arizona, and report the results to the governor, the president of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives, and provide a copy of this report to the secretary of state.

d HB 2282: Divides recall elections into a primary and a general election. Makes various changes to recall procedures.

d HB 2290: Relates to election recall; relates to reimbursement.

a HB 2305 (Repealed): Requires a political committee that files petitions with the secretary of state to organize and group the signature sheets and affords a heightened evidentiary standard for any challenger to the petition circulators if the political committee conducts an arm’s length background check on its circulators. HB 2305 was repealed in 2014 by HB 2196.

d HB 2314: Includes referendums in the public hearing requirement for initiatives.

d HB 2366: Requires that initiative and referendum petitions include an impartial title on the petition.

d HCR 2017: Allows the state legislature to repeal voter approved ballot measures that do not specifically claim protection under the Voter Protection Act of 1998. Also provides that all voter approved initiatives have a subsequent vote eight years after the initial vote.

d HCR 2033: Requires that all ballot measures relating to state expenditures be reauthorized in an election eight years after the date they were originally passed.

d SB 1247: Removes the current requirement for notarization of petitioner's statement on petition.

d SB 1260: Requires the secretary of state to provide the official serial number to the applicant on a stamped copy of the application along with the specific number that is the minimum number of signatures required for the initiative or referendum to appear on the ballot and the required filing date for a petition to appear on the ballot.

d SB 1262: Applies existing contribution limits to contributions made toward support the effort to gather signatures on a recall petition.

d SB 1263: Requires that for a statewide ballot measure or question, or a statewide or legislative recall, all persons who are paid circulators must be registered as circulators with the secretary of state before circulating petitions. Requires the secretary to establish the procedure for registering paid circulators and receiving service of process.

d SB 1264: Modifies and adds requirements with regards to the initiative, referendum and recall petition process.

d SB 1336: Establishes an Arizona Election Commission to act as the investigatory, compliance and enforcement officer for campaign finance laws that apply to political committees supporting or opposing the recall of a public officer officer, or supporting the circulation of petitions for ballot measures.

d SB 1416: Modifies the petition signature requirements for new political parties and initiative and referendum measures.

d SCR 1006: Changes from four to six months before the election the deadline to submit initiative petitions.

d SCR 1019: requires initiative and referendum petition signatures to be apportioned among at least five different counties. Requires at least 40 percent of the total minimum number of required petition signatures to be collected from counties other than the two most populous counties.

The following bills were introduced in the Arizona State Legislature:

d HB 2291: Makes minor changes to petition form, adds space for email address (optional).

d HCR 2005: Proposes two constitutional amendments. Bill description/summary: "Upon voter approval, creates two ballot measures requiring the reauthorization of initiatives and referendums that create a fund for public monies, dedicate public monies to a specific purpose or otherwise affect state General Fund (GF) revenues or expenditures after six years."

d HCR 2020: Proposes an amendment to the Arizona Constitution to limit those eligible to sign recall petitions to qualified electors who voted in the last election at which the targeted office was filled. Also, the amendment would impose an in-district residency requirement on recall sponsors.

a Arizona Senate Bill 1210 (2012): Confers on initiative proponents or primary legislative sponsors the right to intervene in the defense of a ballot measure.

d SB 1428: Allows recall elections to take place outside of consolidated election dates.

d SB 1430: Replaces the circulator's affidavit with a circulator's statement. Lying on the statement would remain a class 1 misdemeanor, but the document would not need to be notarized.

d SB 1449: Establishes a primary and general election process for recall.

d SCR 1031: Proposes a constitutional amendment requiring any measure that dedicates public funds to reauthorized by voters every 8 years.

d SCR 1037: Proposes a constitutional amendment allowing the legislature to cut funding for an approved measure if the measure's specified revenue source fails to cover the measure's costs.

The following bills were introduced in the Arizona State Legislature:

a Arizona House Bill 2304 (2011): HB 2304 would alter the state's requirements for petition circulators, ease third-party primary access, and clarify laws regarding wearing political apparel at polling places. With respect to initiatives, the law would repeal the state's unconstitutional circulator residency requirement. However, it would replace this requirement with a requirement that out-of-state circulators register with the state.^[1] Gov. Jan Brewer signed HB 2304 into law on April 29, 2011. Citizens in Charge Foundation rating: Reduces initiative rights.

d Arizona House Bill 2365: HB 2304 proposes formatting changes for petition sheets.
d Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2005: HCR 2005 proposes a constitutional amendment requiring half of the signatures necessary to place a measure on the ballot to be collected by volunteers.
d Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2029: HCR 2029 proposes a constitutional amendment establishing a sunset/reauthorization requirement for all initiated measures (statute or amendment) that affect state revenue or expenditures. Measures would sunset after six fiscal years and be automatically subject to a popular vote for reauthorization. It would also apply retroactively to measure passed in 1998 and following.
d Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2036: HCR 2029 proposes a constitutional amendment requiring legislatively referred measure to be placed on the primary ballot.
d Arizona Senate Bill 1075: SB 1075 proposes removing restriction on when recall elections may be held.
d Arizona Senate Bill 1077: SB 1077 proposes removing the requirement that circulators sign a notorized affidavit attesting to the validity of the signatures they collect. Replaces this requirement with the requirement that circulators simply sign a statement to the same effect.
a Arizona Senate Bill 1167 (2011): SB 1167 sets a deadline for challenges to referendum petitions. After the referendum has been filed with the Secretary of State, opponents have 10 days in even years and 20 days in odd years to file an action challenging the sufficiency of the referendum. The bill gives the Maricopa County Superior Court jurisdiction over these challenges with appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. The bill also gives Speaker of the House and President of the Senate the right to intervene as a party in the case.
d Arizona Senate Concurrent Resolution 1027: SCR 1027 proposes a constitutional amendment establishing a sunset/reauthorization requirement for all initiated measures (statute or amendment) that affect state revenue or expenditures. Measures would sunset after 10 fiscal years and be automatically subject to a popular vote for reauthorization. It would also apply retroactively to measure passed in 1998 and following.
d Arizona Senate Concurrent Resolution 1051: SCR 1051 proposes a constitutional amendment allowing lawmakers to redirect funds designated for an initiative if those funds are insufficient to fully fund the measure. Existing law only allows funding reduction for a measure if its designated funding source is insufficient.

The following bills were introduced in the Arizona Legislature:

a Arizona House Bill 2427 (2010): House Bill 2427 would change Arizona's laws on absentee and military voting to give people more flexibility on how they receive their absentee ballot voting materials. The bill was unanimously approved by the Arizona House of Representatives on February 2, 2010, and was approved by the Arizona State Senate on February 4, 2010 by a 24-0 vote^[1]. Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill into law on February 11, 2010^[2].

a Arizona House Bill 2647 (2010): House Bill 2647 would allow for Political Action Committees (PAC's) to submit ballot initiatives to be qualified upon approval of Legislative Council. Also, the bill would grant immunity to PAC's for reporting to authorities any individual who commit signature fraud^[3]. Members of the Arizona House approved the bill by a 55-1 vote on March 17, 2010. The Senate later approved the bill on April 27, 2010, by a 29-0 vote^[4]. The bill was signed into law by the Governor of Arizona on April 13, 2010^[4].

a Arizona Senate Bill 1393 (2010): Senate Bill 1393 modified the way election records can/must be stored. In addition, the bill mandated that groups advocating for or against ballot measures must file an amended statement of organization if the organization's name, the serial number of the petition, or the organization's statement of support or opposition is modified. It also exempted individual contributions to independent expenditure committees from the $5,610 yearly contribution limit. The bill also allowed contributors to donate more than $5,610 to political committees promoting the election or defeat of a state or local candidate. The bill also changed records keeping rules as regarding donations. Concerning the initiative process, the bill instructed the Secretary of State to exclude from counting any sheets circulated by someone ineligible to do so and any signature where the accompanying information was printed by the circulator. The bill also forbids the Secretary of State from refusing an election filing and changes registration requirements for lobbyists.^[5]

a Arizona Senate Bill 1422 (2010): Senate Bill 1422 allows those signing nominating petitions to use a PO box as their address.^[5]

d HB 2438-House Bill 2438 would change how initiatives are numbered on the official ballot in Arizona. The bill calls for all initiatives to be numbered starting after last number used in the previous election. The numbering requirement goes up to number 100^[6]. The bill died in committee without seeing a vote in either house of the Legislature^[7].

d HB 2730-House Bill 2730 would give county recorders more resources to determine the validity of a petition signer who has a Post Office box address^[8]. The bill was defeated in committee without seeing a vote in either house of the legislature^[9].

d HCR 2018: House Concurrent Resolution 2018 was a proposal to amend the Arizona Constitution to require that petitions be submitted to the Secretary of State at least 6 months prior to the election. The vote in the Arizona State Legislature to refer HCB 2018 to the November 2, 2010 ballot was successful, but the state's voters rejected the measure, leading to its ultimate defeat.^[5]

d HCR 2039: House Concurrent Resolution 2039 sought to amend the Arizona Constitution to modify the way funding sources provided in initiatives may be used by the state. It was not placed on the ballot.^[5]

d HCR 2041: House Concurrent Resolution 2041 sought to amend the Arizona Constitution to require legislative reauthorization of state ballot measures after 8 years if those measures require state expenditures. The bill would have applied retroactively to past ballot measure, but was not placed on the ballot.^[5]

d HCR 2055: House Concurrent Resolution 2055 sought to amend the Arizona Constitution to subject ballot initiatives, without an identified source of funding, to legislative appropriation. It was not placed on the ballot.^[5]

d HCR 2063: House Concurrent Resolution 2063 sought to amend the Arizona Constitution to require voters to reauthorize state ballot measures every 10 years if those measures require state expenditures. The bill would have applied retroactively to past ballot measure, but was not placed on the ballot.^[5]

d SB 1068-Senate Bill 1068 would have changed how and when election materials are sent to absentee voters. It would also have changed the deadline for ballot arguments from 53 to 48 days before the election. The billed failed to pass.^[5]

d SB 1267-Senate Bill 1267 would have changed the way ballot measures, referenda and amendments are assigned numbers.^[5]