{¿Quiere que lo lleve a su lugar de votación?}{¿Quiere un paseo?}
Click here
{¿Quiere que lo lleve a su lugar de votación?}{¿Quiere un paseo?}
Click here
Elija UnoFederal
Elija UnoFederal
Elija UnoEstatal 
Elija UnoEstatal
Elija UnoEstatal
Elija UnoEstatal
Elija UnoEstatal
Elija DosEstatal
Elija UnoEstatal
Elija UnoEstatal
Elija DosEstatal
¿Que este juez continúe en al cargo? Elija Sí o NoEstatal
Timmer was appointed to the court by Gov. Jan Brewer (R) in 2012 and was retained by voters in 2016.
No
¿Que este juez continúe en al cargo? Elija Sí o NoEstatal
Leans Right. Montgomery was appointed to the court by Gov. Doug Ducey (R) in 2019.
No
¿Que este juez continúe en al cargo? Elija Sí o NoEstatal
Beene was appointed to the court by Gov. Doug Ducey (R) in 2019. He received a partisanship confidence score of Mild Republican.
No
|
|
A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to allow 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. |
|
|
A "no" vote opposed this constitutional amendment, thus continuing to require the Arizona State Legislature to propose a ballot measure to amend or repeal a voter-approved ballot initiative, including in cases where part of the initiative has been declared invalid. |
|
|
|
|
A "yes" vote supported allowing the legislature to set certain property tax exemption amounts and qualifications (including property tax exemptions for widows and widowers; those with total and permanent disabilities; disabled veterans; and property used for trade, business, or agriculture) and consolidating the constitution's property tax exemption provisions into a single article. |
|
|
|
|
|
A "no" vote opposed allowing the legislature to set certain property tax exemption amounts and qualifications and consolidating the constitution's property tax exemption provisions into a single article. |
|
|
|
|
A "yes" vote supported:
|
|
|
|
|
|
A "no" vote opposed:
|
|
|
A "yes" vote supported requiring that persons or entities that make an independent expenditure of $50,000 or more on a statewide campaign or $25,000 or more on a local campaign must disclose the names of the money's original sources, which would be defined as the persons or businesses that earned the money being spent. |
|
|
|
|
|
A "no" vote opposed requiring that persons or entities that make an independent expenditure of $50,000 or more on a statewide campaign or $25,000 or more on a local campaign must disclose the names of the money's original sources. |
Y¡Su voto importa!
