Note: Ballotpedia will be read-only from 9pm CST on February 25-March 9 while Judgepedia is merged into Ballotpedia.
For status updates, visit
Ballotpedia's coverage of elections held on March 3, 2015, was limited. Select races were covered live, and all results will be added once the merger is complete.

Arizona Protect Marriage, Proposition 107 (2006)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on
Marriage and Family
Wedding rings.jpg
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Arizona Constitution
Flag of Arizona.png
Arizona Proposition 107, also called the Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona Relating to the Protection of Marriage Act, was on the November 7, 2006 ballot in Arizona as an initiated constitutional amendment. It was defeated.[1]

Election results

Protect Marriage
Defeatedd No775,49851.8%
Yes 721,489 48.2%
Election results from Arizona Elections Department.

Text of measure

Ballot language

The language that appeared on the ballot:

Analysis by Legislative Council

Pursuant to Arizona state statute, marriage between persons of the same sex is void and prohibited. Arizona law does not recognize a marriage contracted in any other state or country that is between two persons of the same sex.

Proposition 107 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that in order to preserve and protect marriage:

1. Only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage by the State of Arizona or its cities, towns, counties or districts.

2. The State of Arizona and its cities, towns, counties or districts shall not create or recognize a legal status for unmarried persons that is similar to marriage.[2]

Fiscal Impact Statement

{{Quote| {{State law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) Staff to prepare a summary of the fiscal impact of certain ballot measures. Proposition 107 is not projected to have a state cost.

Funding of the campaigns for and against

Two committees formed to support the measure: "Protect Marriage Arizona," which spent $1,019,143, and "Defend Marriage Arizona," which spent $19,950.

Two committees also formed to oppose the measure: "Arizona Together Opposed," which spent $1,831,504, and "No on 107," which spent $66,189.}}

Constitutional changes

If Prop 107 had passed in 2006, it would have added this language to the Arizona Constitution:

To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage.[2]

Donors in favor

Donors opposed

Donors to this group included William Lewis ($715,000), the Human Rights Campaign ($155,055), the Coalition for Progress ($100,000), the Gill Action Fund ($25,000) and Jonathan Lewis ($5,000).

See also

Suggest a link

Related measures

Voters in 30 states have approved legislatively-referred constitutional amendments or initiated constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriages at the ballot box. The first constitutional prohibition was in 1998, and the latest one occurred in May 2012. Most of these amendments define marriage along the lines of a "union of one male and one female."


The following constitutional bans were approved by voters, but later overturned by courts:


Cases overturning the following bans have been appealed to higher courts and are currently stayed:

Note: Same-sex marriage is legal in St. Louis County and the state recognizes same-sex marriages.


The following constitutional bans were approved by voters and have been upheld or not overturned by courts:


The following constitutional bans were defeated by voters:

  • Arizona Protect Marriage, Proposition 107 (2006)
Note: Arizonans defeated a measure in 2006, but approved one in 2008, which has been overturned.

External links


  1. Arizona 2006 election results
  2. 2.0 2.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.