Prop 134: Voters Urged to Cede Their Lawmaking Authority

PHOENIX — As the November ballot approaches, attention has primarily gravitated towards significant issues such as abortion rights and border security. Yet, tucked among the 13 proposed measures is Proposition 134, a proposal with the potential to alter how initiatives are placed on ballots.

If passed, Proposition 134 would mandate that initiative circulators obtain a specified percentage of signatures from all 30 legislative districts. This requirement would supersede current constitutional rules, which do not enforce such geographic limitations.

Senator J.D. Mesnard, the measure’s architect, argues that the change addresses concerns of rural representation. He claims that without this amendment, signatures might predominantly come from urban centers, leaving out rural voices. Conversely, Senator Priya Sundareshan counters that the current system allows for statewide participation similar to elections, where all counties have a say. She warns that collectively, one district could effectively veto proposals favored by the majority across Arizona.

Considered in the light of Arizona’s constitutional intention, the existing framework reserves law-making power for both the Legislature and the electorate. Historically, Arizonans have embraced direct democracy, exemplified by their early approval of women’s voting rights in 1912, well before the federal enactment of the 19th Amendment.

Opponents of Proposition 134 argue that the measure introduces unnecessary obstacles to the grassroots lawmaking process. Previous legislative actions have already imposed various restrictions on initiative procedures, including new regulations for paid circulators and heightened compliance standards.

Under current laws, proponents of new statutes must gather signatures equal to 10% of the number of people who participated in the last gubernatorial election. In 2022, about 2.56 million votes were cast, setting the threshold for statutory initiatives at approximately 255,949 signatures. If Proposition 134 is approved, this requirement would apply uniformly to each legislative district, mandating a minimum of around 8,500 signatures from each area.

Supporters of the proposition, including the Goldwater Institute, assert that it safeguards against localized interests skewing statewide measures. Mesnard emphasizes the need for broad consensus before initiatives advance to ballot consideration.

Yet the debate raises concerns about whether this would disadvantage certain voices, especially those in less populated areas. Advocates for direct democracy, including groups like the Sierra Club and Planned Parenthood, contend that the existing system adequately reflects the will of the people without imposing new barriers.

As election day nears, the implications of Proposition 134 remain a point of contention. Farmers, businesses, and advocacy groups continue to align on opposing sides of the issue, revealing deep-rooted tensions in Arizona’s approach to direct democracy and legislative authority.