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

Arizona Proposition 312
Election date November 5, 2024
Topic Taxes and Property
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin State legislature

Arizona Proposition 312, the Arizona Property Tax Refund for Non-Enforcement of Public Nuisance Laws Measure, was on the ballot in Arizona as a legislatively referred state statute on November 5, 2024. The ballot measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported 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 opposed 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.

Election results

Arizona Proposition 312
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,804,728	58.62%
No		1,274,031	41.38%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What does this measure do?

See also: Measure design

This measure allows for property owners to apply for a property tax refund in certain circumstances, including if the city or locality in which the property is located does not enforce laws regarding illegal camping, loitering, obstructing public thoroughfares, panhandling, public urination or defecation, public consumption of alcoholic beverages, and possession or use of illegal substances.

What were the arguments for and against the measure?

See also: Support and Opposition

In support of the measure, Victor Riches, president and CEO of Goldwater Institute, said, "Arizonans cannot trust the government to address rampant homelessness – we saw this firsthand in ‘The Zone’ in Phoenix, where law and order gave way to death and destruction as officials refused to enforce the law."

State Sen. Justine Wadsack (R), who also supported the measure, said, "We all know homelessness has been overtaking once-beautiful cities all over this country … What it really boils down to is, when we have citizens who break laws, government has a lot of tools to go after citizens that don’t follow the law. But when our government doesn’t follow the law, or enforce our law, our citizens are limited on what they can do."

In opposition to the measure, Jane Ahern, lobbyist for the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, said, "This bill is going to put cities in an impossible legal position … Instead of addressing the shortage of shelter capacity, this bill simply threatens to drain much needed resources and expose cities to further litigation."

Tom Savage, representative of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, said, "This measure is setting everyone up to fail. It will not solve the homelessness crisis or make homelessness encampments go away."

How did this measure get on the ballot?

See also: Path to the ballot

In order for the Arizona State Legislature to place a statute on the ballot, a simple majority vote was needed in both chambers of the legislature. That amounts to a minimum of 31 votes in the Arizona House of Representatives and 16 votes in the Arizona State Senate, assuming no vacancies. Statutes do not require the governor's signature to be referred to the ballot.

The measure, HCR 2023, was introduced to the Arizona House of Representatives on January 22, 2024. It passed the House on February 28, 2024 by a 31-28 vote. It passed the Senate on March 4, 2024 by a 16-12 vote.

Measure design

Under this measure, a property tax owner can apply for a refund if the city, town, or county where their property is located follows a policy, pattern, or practice of not enforcing public nuisance laws, and if they incur documented expenses to mitigate the damage to their property as a result. This includes damages incurred due to illegal camping, loitering, obstructing public thoroughfares, panhandling, public urination or defecation, public consumption of alcoholic beverages, and possession or use of illegal substances. A property owner can apply for this refund once every tax year.

The amount of the refund under this measure is equal to the documented expenses incurred by the property owner but cannot exceed the amount the property owner paid in property taxes in the prior tax year. If the total refund is more than this amount, the refund will be equal to the amount the property owner paid in property taxes in the prior tax year. The property owner can apply to the department for the remaining portion of the refund in following tax years.

After the property owner applies for a refund, the town, city, or county has 30 days to accept or reject the refund. If the refund is accepted, it will be paid to the property owner. If the refund is rejected, the property owner can file a cause of action in the superior court of the county to challenge the rejection. If the town, city, or county does not respond after 30 days, the property owner will receive a refund.

This measure provides that if the city, county, or town continues to not enforce existing public nuisance laws in the following tax year, a property owner is entitled to another refund.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:

“

PROPOSITION 312 REFERRED TO THE PEOPLE BY THE LEGISLATURE RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX. Official Title AMENDING TITLE 42, CHAPTER 17, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING ARTICLE 9; REPEALING TITLE 42, CHAPTER 17, ARTICLE 9, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX. Descriptive Title PROPERTY OWNERS MAY APPLY FOR A TAX REFUND FOR EXPENSES INCURRED DUE TO A GOVERNING AUTHORITY’S FAILURE TO ENFORCE CERTAIN PUBLIC NUISANCE LAWS ON OR NEAR THE OWNER’S REAL PROPERTY. THE REFUND MAY NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT THE PROPERTY OWNER PAID FOR THE PRIOR TAX YEAR IN PRIMARY PROPERTY TAXES.

”

Ballot summary

The official ballot summary was as follows:

“

A "yes" vote shall have the effect of establishing the right to apply for a refund from a property owner’s most recent property tax payment up to an amount that matches costs incurred by the property owner to mitigate the effects of a governing authority’s repeated failure to enforce laws and ordinances prohibiting illegal camping, loitering, obstructing public thoroughfares, panhandling, public urination or defecation, public consumption of alcoholic beverages, and possession or use of illegal substances. If the documented costs exceed the amount of the most recent property tax bill, the property owner would be permitted to apply for a refund from their next property tax payment(s) to cover the balance of the initial claim. Property owners would be eligible annually for refunds until the taxing entity begins enforcing the relevant public nuisance laws. A "no" vote shall have the effect of retaining the current primary property tax payment laws and regulations.

”

Full text

The full text of the ballot initiative is below:

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2024

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 10, and the FRE is 33. The word count for the ballot title is 86.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 20, and the FRE is 13. The word count for the ballot summary is 153.

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Arizona ballot measures

Ballotpedia did not identify ballot measure committees registered to support or oppose the ballot measure.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Oppose	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00
Total	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

Support

Supporters

Officials

• State Sen. Warren Petersen (R)
• State Sen. Justine Wadsack (R)
• State Rep. Ben Toma (R)

Political Parties

• Libertarian Party of Arizona

Organizations

• Arizona Free Enterprise Club
• Arizona Restaurant Association
• Goldwater Institute
• Tucson Crime Free Coalition

Arguments

• State Sen. Justine Wadsack (R-17): "We all know homelessness has been overtaking once-beautiful cities all over this country … What it really boils down to is, when we have citizens who break laws, government has a lot of tools to go after citizens that don’t follow the law. But when our government doesn’t follow the law, or enforce our law, our citizens are limited on what they can do."
• Victor Riches, president and CEO of Goldwater Institute: "Arizonans cannot trust the government to address rampant homelessness – we saw this firsthand in ‘The Zone’ in Phoenix, where law and order gave way to death and destruction as officials refused to enforce the law."
• State Rep. Ben Toma (R-27): "Arizonans have had enough when it comes to lawlessness and city inaction. Business owners and residents alike are having their property stolen, vandalized, or terrorized and are desperate for help. That’s why I sponsored HCR 2023, to hold our local governments accountable to our community members and to help provide some relief for property owners who have suffered damages because of a city’s purposeful failure to provide the public health and safety services we all pay for."

Opposition

Opponents

Officials

• Denise Epstein (D) -
• Brian Fernandez (D) -
• State Sen Priya Sundareshan (D)
• Tucson Mayor Regina Romero (D)

Political Parties

• Arizona Working Families Party

Organizations

• Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence
• Arizona Housing Coalition
• League of Arizona Cities and Towns

Arguments

• Jane Ahern, lobbyist for the League of Arizona Cities and Towns: "This bill is going to put cities in an impossible legal position … Instead of addressing the shortage of shelter capacity, this bill simply threatens to drain much needed resources and expose cities to further litigation."
• Tom Savage, representative of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns: "This measure is setting everyone up to fail. It will not solve the homelessness crisis or make homelessness encampments go away."
• Scott Greenwood, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona: "Proposition 312 reduces the tax revenue that towns, cities, and counties may collect from property owners if they claim the municipality is not properly enforcing public nuisance laws. It opens the door for municipalities to face exorbitant court fees and administrative costs – expenses that would likely result in cuts to basic services many Arizonans depend on."

Background

Martin v. Boise

In 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that cities cannot enforce anti-camping ordinances if there are not enough shelter beds for the homeless population. The case started when in 2008, six homeless plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the city of Boise regarding the anti-camping ordinance in the city. The Ninth Circuit Court ruled that "as long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter." The city of Boise petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court to rehear the case in 2019, which was rejected.

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected to hear the case in 2019, affirming the Ninth Circuit Court decision by stating, "the Eighth Amendment preclude[s] the enforcement of a statute prohibiting sleeping outside against homeless individuals with no access to alternative shelter."

Property tax ballot measures, 2024

Ten ballot measures concerning property taxes were certified to appear on the 2024 ballot in eight states.

State	Year	Ballot Measure	Type	Status
Wyoming	2024	Wyoming Property Tax on Residential Property and Owner-Occupied Primary Residences Amendment	Legislatively referred constitutional amendment	Approved
New Mexico	2024	New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 1	Legislatively referred constitutional amendment	Approved
New Mexico	2024	New Mexico Constitutional Amendment 2	Legislatively referred constitutional amendment	Approved
Colorado	2024	Colorado Amendment G	Legislatively referred constitutional amendment	Approved
Virginia	2024	Virginia Property Tax Exemption for Veterans and Surviving Spouses Amendment	Legislatively referred constitutional amendment	Approved
Arizona	2024	Arizona Proposition 312	Legislatively referred state statute	Approved
Florida	2024	Florida Amendment 5	Legislatively referred constitutional amendment	Approved
Georgia	2024	Georgia Referendum A	Legislatively referred state statute	Approved
Georgia	2024	Georgia Amendment 1	Legislatively referred constitutional amendment	Approved
Louisiana	2024	Louisiana Amendment 4	Legislatively referred constitutional amendment	Approved

History of Arizona ballot measures

In Arizona, a total of 178 ballot measures appeared on statewide ballots between 1985 and 2022. Ninety-six (96) ballot measures were approved, and 82 ballot measures were defeated. For legislatively referred state statutes, 12 were approved and six were defeated between 1985 and 2022.

Arizona statewide ballot measures, 1985-2022
Total number	Annual average	Annual minimum	Annual maximum	Approved		Defeated
				#	%	#	%
178	4.57	0	19	96	53.93	82	46.07

Path to the ballot

A simple majority vote is required during one legislative session for the Arizona State Legislature to place a state statute on the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 31 votes in the Arizona House of Representatives and 16 votes in the Arizona State Senate, assuming no vacancies. Statutes do not require the governor's signature to be referred to the ballot.

The measure, HCR 2023, was introduced to the Arizona House of Representatives on January 22, 2024. It passed the House on February 28, 2024 by a 31-28 vote. It passed the Senate on March 4, 2024 by a 16-12 vote.

Vote in the Arizona House of Representatives February 28, 2024
Requirement:
Number of yes votes required: 31  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	31	28	0
Total percent	52.5%	47.5%	0%
Democrat	0	28	0
Republican	31	0	0

Vote in the Arizona State Senate March 4, 2024
Requirement:
Number of yes votes required: 16  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	16	12	2
Total percent	53.3%	40%	6.6%
Democrat	0	12	2
Republican	16	0	0

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Arizona

See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in Arizona.

How to vote in Arizona

Poll times

In Arizona, all polling places are open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration

Check your voter registration status here.

To vote in Arizona, one must be a citizen of the United States and a resident of an Arizona county. A voter must be 18 years or older on or before Election Day. Arizona also requires voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship to vote for state and local elections

To be eligible to vote in an election one must register at least 29 days prior to the election. Individuals can register online, in person at the county recorder's office, or by mail.

Automatic registration

Arizona does not practice automatic voter registration.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Arizona has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

Arizona does not allow same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements

Arizona law requires 29 days of residency in the state before a person may vote.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Arizona requires voters to submit proof of citizenship with their voter registration application to vote in state and local elections. According to the Arizona Secretary of State's website: "A registrant who attests to being a citizen but fails to provide proof of citizenship and whose citizenship is not otherwise verified will be eligible to vote only in federal elections (known as being a 'federal only' voter)." Accepted proof of citizenship include:

• An Arizona Driver's License/Identification Number
• Indian Census Number, Bureau of Indian Affairs Card Number, Tribal Treaty Card Number, or Tribal Enrollment Number
• A photocopy of U.S. naturalization documents
• A photocopy of a birth certificate and supporting legal documentation (i.e., marriage certificate) if the name on the birth certificate is not the same as your current legal name.
• A photocopy of a U.S. passport.
• A photocopy of a Tribal Certificate of Indian Blood or Bureau of Indian Affairs Affidavit of Birth.

On August 22, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order partially granting the Republican National Committee and Arizona Republicans' request to enforce a 2022 law related to proof of citizenship requirements. The court allowed the enforcement of the provision requiring the state to reject state voter registration forms submitted without proof of citizenship. Previously, a person who submitted a state voter registration form without proof of citizenship could still be a federal only voter. After the court's ruling, a person unable to provide proof of citizenship would need to submit a federal voter registration form in order to vote in federal elections. Read more about legal challenges to this law here.

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The Arizona Voter Information Portal, run by the Arizona Secretary of State's office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

Arizona requires voters to present photo identification or two forms of non-photo identification while voting.

The following were accepted forms of identification as of July 2024: Click here for the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission's page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information.

Voters can present one of the following forms of ID that contain the voter’s photograph, name, and address:

• Arizona driver’s license
• U.S. federal, state, or local government-issued ID, issued with printed name and address
• Arizona ID card
• Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal ID

If a voter does not have one of the above forms of ID, the voter can present two of the following forms of ID that contain the voter’s name and address:

• Utility bill in the voter's name
• Bank or credit union statement that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election
• Valid Arizona vehicle registration
• Arizona vehicle insurance card
• Indian census card
• Property tax statement
• Recorder's certificate or voter registration card
• Tribal enrollment card or other tribal ID
• Valid U.S. federal, state, or local government-issued ID with a printed name and address or
• Any mailing in the voter's name that is labeled "official election material"  

Additionally, if a voter presents photo ID that does not list an address within the precinct in which he or she wants to cast a vote, that person may present the photo ID with one non-photo identification material from the second list above. The identification material should include the voter’s address.

See also

2024 measures

• 2024 ballot measures
• Taxes on the ballot
• Property on the ballot

Arizona

• Arizona ballot measures
• Arizona ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• HCR 2023