ELECTION 2024

Voter Information

Register to vote by visiting – https://www.arizona.vote

‍

General Election Date November 5th

2024 Election Voter Information

Download your LD26 Voter Guide here

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍_________________________________________________

Legislative District 26 Candidates

Arizona House of Representatives (2 Seats)

• Cesar Aguilar
• Quantá Crews

Arizona State Senate (1 Seat)

• Flavio Bravo

Maricopa County Candidates

• County Assessor – Greg Freeman
• County Attorney – Tamika Wooten
• County Recorder – Tim Stringham
• County Sheriff – Tyler Kamp
• County Superintendent of Schools – Laura Metcalfe
• County Board of Supervisors District 3 - Danny Valenzuela
• County Board of Supervisors District 5 – Steve Gallardo
• Maricopa County Community College Dist. 5 – Tom Nerini

Arizona State-wide Candidates

Arizona Corporation Commission  (Vote for all 3)

• Jonathan Hill
• Joshua Polacheck
• Ylenia Aguilar

Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) – non-partisan (vote for 2)

• Terry Goddard
• Heather Macre

Judges

Vote No to Retain

• CLINT BOLICK
• KATHRYN KING
• CHRISTOPHER A COURY
• KELLIE L JOHNSON
• ANGELA PATTON

(Retain all judges not listed)

Federal Candidates

• President – Kamala Harris
• United States Senate – Ruben Gallego
• United State House of Representatives District 1 - Amish Shah
• United State House of Representatives District 3 – Yassamin Ansari
• United State House of Representatives District 8 - Greg Whitten

Local Candidates

• Mayor of Phoenix – Kate Gallego
• City Council District 3 - No opinion
• City Council District 5 - Betty Guardado
• City Council District 7 - No opinion

School Boards

• CARTWRIGHT ELEMENTARY
  • ANNA ABEYTIA
  • PEDRO CAUDILLO PAREDES
  • DENICE M GARCIA
  • JENNIFER ROMERO
  • TERESA TAPIA
• GLENDALE ELEMENTARY
  • MIKE MARTINEZ
  • JUNIO OCAMPO
  • MONICA PIMENTEL
  • MARYANNE WILSON
• GLENDALE UNION HS
  • PATTI JO HUSSEY
  • PAUL ULAN
• ISAAC ELEMENTARY
  • SAVANNAH GALAVIZ
  • MARIA GUZMAN
  • MARIA HERNANDEZ
  • RUDY SANTA CRUZ
• PHOENIX UNION HS-AT LARGE
  • AARON MARQUEZ
  • FRANCISCO PASTOR-RIVERA
  • WARD 5 (WRITE-IN): RICARDO SERNA
• WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY
  • JENNI ABBOTT-BAYARDI
  • LINDSEY PETERSEN

School Bonds, Overrides, & District Additional Assistance

• Alhambra Elementary School District - Override Continuation – YES
• Glendale Union High School – Bond – YES
• Isaac Elementary - Site Sale - YES

City of Phoenix Ballot Propositions

Proposition 487 - YES

Alternative Expenditure Limitation

• A "YES" vote shall have the effect of continuing local control by allowing the Mayor and City Council, by majority vote, and after obtaining community input on the proposed spending plan to establish a local expenditure limitation. Constitutional and previously authorized voter exclusions shall continue to apply.
• A "NO" vote shall have the effect of the city operating under the state-imposed expenditure limitation formula based on 1979-80 expenditures adjusted for inflation and population. This will result in an estimated $2.1 billion reduction in the fiscal year 2025-26 budgeted expenditures and reductions in or eliminations across all City Services.

Proposition 488 - YES

General Plan

• A "YES" vote approve the General Plan providing direction for development, conservation and infrastructure investments in the City adopted by the Phoenix City Council on April 17, 2024. It does not change any current land use designations, zoning or raise any taxes.
• A "NO" vote does not approve the General Plan as adopted by the Phoenix City Council on April 17, 2024.

Proposition 489 - YES

Citizens' Commission on Salaries for Elected City Officials

• A "YES" vote approves the recommendation of the Citizens' Commission on Salaries for Elected City Officials of $103.840 per annum for the Mayor, and $77,000 per annum for each Council Member.
• A "NO" vote keeps salaries at 2004 level.

‍

City of Glendale Ballot Proposition

Proposition 499 - YES

Minimum Wage Increase for Hotel and Event Center Workers Initiative

- A "yes" vote supports providing a minimum wage of $20.00 per hour for hotel and event center workers and adopting other labor regulations.

- A "no" vote opposes providing a minimum wage of $20.00 per hour for hotel and event center workers and adopting other labor regulations.

‍

Maricopa County Ballot Propositions

Proposition 479 - YES

Regional Strategic Transportation Infrastructure Investment Plan

Do You favor the continuation of a county transaction privilege (sales) tax for regional transportation purposes in Maricopa County?

• A "YES" vote has the effect of continuing the transaction privilege (sales) tax in Maricopa County for twenty years to provide funding for transportation projects as contained in the regional strategic transportation infrastructure investment plan.
• A "NO" vote has the effect of rejectin the transaction privilege (sales) tax fo transportation purposes in Maricopa County.

Proposition 486 - YES

The Arizona Expenditure Limit and Maricopa Community Colleges

Shall the base expenditure limit of the Maricopa County Community College District established in fiscal year 1979-80 be permanently adjusted by $52,841,755.

- A “YES” vote shall have the effect of permanently adjusting the Maricopa County Community College District’s base expenditure limit established in fiscal year 1979-80 by $52,841,755.

- A “NO” vote shall have the effect of not permanently adjusting Maricopa County Community College District’s base expenditure limit established in fiscal year 1979-80 by $52,841,755.

State Ballot Propositions and Citizen Initiatives

PROPOSITION 133 – NO

Arizona Proposition 133, Require Partisan Primaries and Prohibit Primaries Where Candidates Compete Regardless of Party Affiliation Amendment (2024)

• A “yes” vote supports this constitutional amendment to: require partisan primary elections for partisan offices; prohibit primary elections where all candidates, regardless of political party affiliation, run in the same primary election, such as top-two, top-four, and top-five primaries; provide that the state’s direct primary election law supersedes local charters and ordinances that are inconsistent with that law.
• A “no” vote opposes amending the Arizona Constitution to require partisan primary elections for partisan offices, maintaining the status quo of requiring partisan primaries by state statute.

PROPOSITION 134 – NO

Arizona Proposition 134, Signature Distribution Requirement for Initiatives Amendment (2024)

• A “yes” vote supports establishing a signature distribution requirement for citizen initiatives, meaning that instead of requiring 10% of votes cast for governor statewide for initiated state statutes for the ballot, and 15% of votes cast for governor statewide to qualify initiated constitutional amendments for the ballot, the initiative would: require signatures from 10% of votes cast for governor in each legislative district to qualify initiated state statutes for the ballot, and require signatures from 15% of votes cast for governor in each legislative district to qualify initiated constitutional amendments for the ballot.
• A “no” vote opposes requiring signatures from each legislative district for initiated ballot measures.

PROPOSITION 135 – NO

Arizona Proposition 135, Emergency Declarations Amendment (2024)

• A “yes” vote supports providing for the state legislature to terminate a state of emergency or alter the emergency powers granted to the governor during a state of emergency, and providing for a state of emergency to automatically terminate 30 days after it is declared unless the state legislature extends the emergency powers granted to the governor, except in cases for a state of war emergency or an emergency arising from a flood or a fire.
• A “no” vote opposes providing for the state legislature to terminate a state of emergency or alter the emergency powers granted to the governor during a state of emergency and providing for a state of emergency to automatically terminate 30 days after it is declared unless the state legislature extends the emergency powers granted to the governor, except in cases for a state of war emergency or an emergency arising from a flood or a fire.

PROPOSITION 136 – NO

Arizona Proposition 136, Legal Challenges to Constitutionality of Initiatives Amendment (2024)

• A “yes” vote supports providing for challenges to an initiative measure or constitutional amendment after the filing of the measure with the secretary of state.
• A “no” vote opposes providing for challenges to an initiative measure or constitutional amendment after the filing of the measure with the secretary of state.

PROPOSITION 137 – NO

Arizona Proposition 137, End Term Limits and Retention Elections for Supreme Court Justices and Superior Court Judges Amendment (2024)

• A “yes” vote supports ending term limits for state supreme court justices and superior court judges, replacing them with terms of good behavior unless decided otherwise by a judicial review commission, and would end retention elections at the end of the judicial term.
• A “no” vote opposes ending term limits for state supreme court justices and superior court judges, replacing them with terms of good behavior unless decided otherwise by a judicial review commission, and would end retention elections at the end of the judicial term.

PROPOSITION 138 – NO

Arizona Proposition 138, Wages for Tipped Workers Amendment (2024)

• A “yes” vote supports allowing for tipped workers to be paid 25% less per hour than the minimum wage if any tips received by the employee were not less than the minimum wage plus $2 for all hours worked.
• A “no” vote opposes allowing for tipped workers to be paid 25% less per hour than the minimum wage if any tips received by the employee were not less than the minimum wage plus $2 for all hours worked.

PROPOSITION 139 – YES

Arizona for Abortion Access – Creates a fundamental right to abortion. Limits the State’s ability to interfere with that right before fetal viability. After fetal viability, abortions are allowed when necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant individual. Prohibits laws penalizing a person for assisting an individual obtaining an abortion.

• 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. Fetal viability means the point in the pregnancy when, in the good-faith judgment of a treating health care professional, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus. Throughout the pregnancy, both before and after fetal viability, the State will not be able to interfere 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. The State will not be able to penalize any person for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising the right to an abortion.
• 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.

PROPOSITION 140 – NO

All primary election candidates for a given office will have the same signature requirements for ballot qualification. eligible voters may vote for candidates regardless of party affiliation. the legislature may prescribe the number of candidates advancing to the general election. prohibits using public monies for political party elections.

• A “yes” vote shall have the effect of allowing all eligible voters to vote for any primary election candidate, regardless of party affiliation; imposing the same signature requirements on all candidates for a given office who wish to appear on the primary ballot; generally prohibiting the use of public funds for political party elections; allowing future law to determine how many candidates advance from the primary election, as well as the process by which candidates are elected at the general election; and if future law provides that three or more candidates may advance to the general election for an office to which one candidate will be elected, voter rankings shall be used.
• A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining current requirements related to primary and general elections processes.

PROPOSITION 311 – NO

Arizona Proposition 311, Criminal Conviction Fee for First Responder Death Financial Benefit Measure (2024)

• A “yes” vote supports establishing a $20 fee on every conviction for a criminal offense, which would go to pay a benefit of $250,000 to the spouse or children of a first responder who is killed in the line of duty.
• A “no” vote opposes establishing a $20 fee on every conviction for a criminal offense, which would go to pay a benefit of $250,000 to the spouse or children of a first responder who is killed in the line of duty.

PROPOSITION 312 – NO

Arizona Proposition 312, Property Tax Refund for Non-Enforcement of Public Nuisance Laws Measure (2024)

• A “yes” vote supports allowing for property owners to apply for a property tax refund if the city or locality in which the property is located does not enforce laws or ordinances regarding illegal camping, loitering, obstructing public thoroughfares, panhandling, public urination or defecation, public consumption of alcoholic beverages, and possession or use of illegal substances.
• A “no” vote opposes allowing for property owners to apply for a property tax refund if the city or locality in which the property is located does not enforce laws or ordinances regarding illegal camping, loitering, obstructing public thoroughfares, panhandling, public urination or defecation, public consumption of alcoholic beverages, and possession or use of illegal substances.

PROPOSITION 313 – NO

Arizona Proposition 313, Life Imprisonment for Sex Trafficking of a Child Measure (2024)

• A “yes” vote supports amending the Constitution to a sentence of life imprisonment without parole if an individual is found guilty of sex trafficking of a child.
• A “no” vote opposes amending the Constitution to guarantee a sentence of life imprisonment without parole if an individual is found guilty of sex trafficking of a child, and maintaining current state law.

PROPOSITION 314 – NO

Arizona Proposition 314, Immigration and Border Law Enforcement Measure (2024)

• A “yes” vote supports: Making it a state crime for noncitizens to enter the state at any location other than the port of entry; Allowing for state and local police to arrest noncitizens who cross the border unlawfully; Allowing for state judges to order deportations; Requiring the use of the E-Verify program in order to determine the immigration status of individuals before the enrollment in a financial aid or public welfare program; Making it a Class 6 felony for individuals who submit false information or documents to an employer to evade detection of employment eligibility, or to apply for public benefits, and; Making the sale of fentanyl a Class 2 felony if the person knowingly sells fentanyl and it results in the death of another person.
• A “no” vote opposes: Making it a state crime for noncitizens to enter the state at any location other than the port of entry; Allowing for state and local police to arrest noncitizens who cross the border unlawfully; Allowing for state judges to order deportations; Requiring the use of the E-Verify program in order to determine the immigration status of individuals before the enrollment in a financial aid or public welfare program; Making it a Class 6 felony for individuals who submit false information or documents to an employer to evade detection of employment eligibility, or to apply for public benefits, and; Making the sale of fentanyl a Class 2 felony if the person knowingly sells fentanyl and it results in the death of another person.

PROPOSITION 315 – NO

Arizona Proposition 315, Legislative Ratification of State Agency Rules that Increase Regulatory Costs Measure (2024)

• A “yes” vote supports prohibiting a proposed rule from becoming effective if that rule is estimated to increase regulatory costs by more than $500,000 within five years after implementation, until the legislature enacts legislation ratifying the proposed rule.
• A “no” vote opposes prohibiting a proposed rule from becoming effective if that rule is estimated to increase regulatory costs by more than $500,000 within five years after implementation, until the legislature enacts legislation ratifying the proposed rule.

‍