Know your vote. Take a look at your sample ballot now!

Arizona Proposition 125, Adjustments to Elected Officials' and Corrections Officer's Retirement Plans Amendment (2018)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Arizona Proposition 125
Flag of Arizona.png
Election date
November 6, 2018
Topic
Pension
Status
Approveda Approved
Type
Constitutional amendment		Origin
State legislature

Arizona Proposition 125, the Adjustments to Elected Officials’ and Corrections Officer's Retirement Plans Amendment, was on the ballot in Arizona as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.[1] The measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this amendment to make adjustments to retirement plans based on cost-of-living adjustments, rather than permanent benefit increases, for correctional officers, probation officers, and surveillance officers (Corrections Officer Retirement Plan) and elected officials (Elected Officials' Retirement Plan).
A "no" vote opposed this amendment to make adjustments to retirement plans based on cost-of-living adjustments, rather than permanent benefit increases, for correctional officers, probation officers, and surveillance officers (Corrections Officer Retirement Plan) and elected officials (Elected Officials' Retirement Plan).

Election results

Arizona Proposition 125

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

1,130,219 51.72%
No 1,055,201 48.28%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Overview

What did the ballot measure change?

Proposition 125 allowed the Arizona State Legislature to make adjustments to two state pension plans—the Corrections Officer Retirement Plan (CORP) and the Elected Officials' Retirement Plan (EORP)—based on Senate Bill 1442 and House Bill 2545.[1]

Proposition 125 itself did not make changes to the two state pension plans, but rather authorized the legislature to make changes. The legislature passed two bills to implement Proposition 125:

  • Senate Bill 1442 (SB 1442) made adjustments to CORP based cost-of-living adjustments capped at 2 percent, rather than permanent benefit increases. CORP is the public retirement plan for correctional officers, probation officers, and surveillance officers. SB 1442 also required corrections officers hired on or after July 1, 2018, to enroll in a defined-contribution (DC) retirement plan, rather than the defined-benefit (DB) retirement plan. A DB retirement plan, which officers hired before July 1, 2018, continued to have, is a retirement benefits plan that guarantees a monthly or annual payment to retired employees based on a certain formula using years of employment, employee age, and employee earnings. A DC retirement plan is a retirement benefits plan that serves as a deferred compensation retirement savings, such as a 401(k).[1]
  • House Bill 2545 (HB 2545) made adjustments to EORP based cost-of-living adjustments capped at 2 percent, rather than permanent benefit increases.[1]

In 1990, Arizona adopted a permanent benefit increase (PBI) formula, which provided increases in retirement payments based on investment earnings. In 1998, the maximum possible increase was capped at 4 percent. The 2018 amendment's proposed cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) was based on the inflation rate for the Metropolitan Phoenix-Mesa Consumer Price Index, with the maximum possible increase capped at 2 percent.[1][2]

Why did this change require a constitutional amendment?

As of 2018, Article 29 of the Arizona Constitution described public retirement systems as a contractual relationship between members and the state, required that public retirement systems be funded with contributions and investment earnings, and declared that retirement system benefits shall not be diminished or impaired.[3] Article 29 was added to the state constitution in 1998 via Proposition 100.[4] Due to two court cases regarding the interpretation of Article 29—Fields v. EORP and Hall v. EORP—the Arizona State Legislature needed to amend Article 29 to make changes to pension plans that would have the effect of decreasing benefits for current and retired members.[5][6] According to the Arizona Senate Research Staff, the amendment could have a positive impact on the state’s General Fund because of the lower 2-percent cap on annual increases could decrease pension benefits.[2]

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:[7]

“

Proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article XXIX, Section 1, Constitution of Arizona; Relating to Public Retirement Systems.

The constitutional amendment and accompanying legislation would permit the state to adjust certain benefits in the corrections officers’ and elected officials’ retirement systems to alleviate pension underfunding.[8]

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:[7]

“

A “YES” vote will allow the State to adjust certain benefits for corrections officer retirees and elected official retirees in order to provide greater financial stability in the pension system; plan changes for newly-hired corrections officers include the replacement of the current permanent benefit increase with a cost of living adjustment tied to inflation and transition to a defined contribution system; plan changes for elected official retirees include a guaranteed cost of living adjustment tied to inflation.

A “NO” vote will have the effect of maintaining the current benefit and contribution rules in the Corrections Officer Personnel Retirement System and Elected Officials Personnel Retirement System.[8]

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article 29, Arizona Constitution

The measure amended Section 1 of Article 29 of the Arizona Constitution. The following underlined text was added:[1] Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Public Retirement Systems

A. Public retirement systems shall be funded with contributions and investment earnings using actuarial methods and assumptions that are consistent with generally accepted actuarial standards.

B. The assets of public retirement systems, including investment earnings and contributions, are separate and independent trust funds and shall be invested, administered and distributed as determined by law solely in the interests of the members and beneficiaries of the public retirement systems.

C. Membership in a public retirement system is a contractual relationship that is subject to article II, section 25.

D. Public retirement system benefits shall not be diminished or impaired, except that:

1. Certain adjustments to the public safety personnel retirement system may be made as provided in Senate Bill 1428, as enacted by the fifty-second legislature, second regular session.
2. Certain adjustments to the corrections officer retirement plan may be made as provided in Senate Bill 1442, as enacted by the fifty-third legislature, first regular session.
3. Certain adjustments to the elected officials' retirement plan may be made as provided in House Bill 2545, as enacted by the fifty-third legislature, second regular session.

E. This section preserves the authority vested in the legislature pursuant to this constitution and does not restrict the legislature's ability to modify public retirement system benefits for prospective members of public retirement systems.[8]

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018
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 23, and the FRE is -21. The word count for the ballot title is 27, and the estimated reading time is 7 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 28, and the FRE is -11. The word count for the ballot summary is 106, and the estimated reading time is 28 seconds.

In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here.

Support

Officials

Arguments

The Arizona’s Public Safety Personnel Retirement System Board of Trustees wrote an argument in support of Proposition 125 that appeared in the state's official voter guide. The following is an excerpt from the board's statement:[9]

“

Your YES vote on this carefully crafted bipartisan pension reform measure will help save Arizona taxpayers an estimated $275 million over the next several decades. Proposition 125 also will shore up the state’s underfunded Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan and the Corrections Officer Retirement Plan.

The passage of Proposition 125 will relieve the pressure faced by overburdened taxpayers and by municipalities, counties and state agencies all across Arizona. Prop 125 will also free up revenue to fund community services families rely on, like public safety, education, safer roads and infrastructure.

Just like Proposition 124 – a pension reform measure voters passed by a landslide in 2016 – Proposition 125 seeks a small, but meaningful change to the Arizona Constitution. This change helps protect the middle class retirement promised to members of PSPRS and puts in place a reasonable Cost of Living Adjustment for retired members – an adjustment tied to Consumer Price Index changes for the Phoenix and Mesa metropolitan-area as determined by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.[8]

”

Members of the Arizona State Legislature co-signed a statement supporting Proposition 125. The following is an excerpt from the statement:[9]

“

Proposition 125 provides a reasonable reform to stabilize and improve the pension systems that serve thousands of Arizona’s corrections officers, judges and elected officials. In 2016, Arizona voters overwhelmingly passed the similar Proposition 124 which protected taxpayers and the pension system for police officers and firefighters.

These reforms help fix budget threats to municipalities, state agencies and county governments – and help overburdened taxpayers who fund them. We are proud that these proposals are bipartisan and supported by the governor, public employee associations, local governments and business associations alike. While stakeholders in other states have obstructed necessary pension reforms and avoided addressing this crisis, here in Arizona we recognized the problem and worked together to find a solution.

This simple proposition replaces a faulty pension increase formula with a fair and reasonable cost-of-living-adjustment that is common to most public pension systems. This small but meaningful change will save Arizona taxpayers about $275 million over the next several decades and it will help bring financial health to our pensions. It also helps local governments serve their communities by freeing up funding for services like public safety, education, parks and libraries.

We voted unanimously to put Proposition 125 on the ballot because we believe it strikes the appropriate balance between fulfilling retirement promises made to public employees and lowering the burden on the taxpayers they serve.[8]

”

Opposition

Arguments

Eric Hahn of Tucson, Arizona, wrote an argument against Proposition 125 that appeared in the state's official voter guide:[9]

“

Vote Against Prop 125. Corrections Officers who are retired fulfilled their employment agreement with their employer and the retirement plan. They should get all the benefits that they were promised and successfully worked for. The Arizona State legislature should not be proposing changes to retiree pensions after the fact. The Corrections Officer Retirement plan is the strongest in Arizona. No changes need to be made except for the Arizona State Legislature to stop raiding all the trust funds and using that money for other areas. Members of the Corrections Officer Retirement plan are successful members of Law Enforcement that had one of the hardest jobs in Law Enforcement. This job class is one of the lowest paid in Law Enforcement and the promise of a good pension plan is why people put up with some of the worst job conditions in any field. If Prop 125 passes even less people will consider a career in this area of Law Enforcement and the State of Arizona and other local agencies will have a very hard time getting new employees. Why would anyone come work for a government retirement plan that is cutting benefits? Less qualified and less dedicated people will fill the open jobs. All agencies will have a higher employee turn over rate and will have to pay again and again for training new recruit Corrections Officers to replace people who are not making Law Enforcement a Career. Since training a recruit Corrections Officer can cost an agency $50,000 per employee you would think the Arizona State Legislature would be taking proactive practices to keep people in the field for a longer time to save on training costs. Please vote NO on Prop 125 and support Law Enforcement.[8]

”


Polls

See also: 2018 ballot measure polls
Arizona Proposition 125, Adjustments to Elected Officials’ and Corrections Officer's Retirement Plans Amendment
Poll Support OpposeUndecidedMargin of errorSample size
Suffolk University
9/27/2018 - 9/30/2018		 28.0%40.0%32.0%+/-4.4500
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Campaign finance

Total campaign contributions:
Support: $0.00
Opposition: $0.00
See also: Campaign finance requirements for Arizona ballot measures

There were no ballot measure committees registered in support of the measure or in opposition to the measure.[10]

Reporting dates

In Arizona, ballot measure committees filed a total of six campaign finance reports in 2018. The filing dates for reports were as follows:[11]

Background

Pension Policy Logo on Ballotpedia.png

Public pensions in Arizona

See also: Public pensions in Arizona

According to the United States Census Bureau, there were 99 public pension systems in Arizona as of 2016. Four were state-level programs while the remaining 95 were administered at the local level. Membership in Arizona's state and local pension systems totaled 487,795. Membership in Arizona's state pension systems totaled 469,828. The four state-level pension systems were the:[12]

  1. Arizona State Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (SPSPRS): the public retirement program for full-time police officers and full-time firefighters.
  2. Arizona State Retirement System (SRS): the public retirement program for public and charter school teachers, employees of public colleges and universities, local government employees, and special district employees.
  3. Arizona Elected Officials' Retirement System (EORS): the public retirement program for elected officials.
  4. Arizona Corrections Officer Retirement Plan (CORP): the public retirement program for corrections officers, local government detention officers, dispatchers, and probation officers.

Funding of public pensions in Arizona

See also: Pension health in Arizona

According to the Pew Charitable Trusts, the funded ratio for Arizona's public pension system was 63 percent in fiscal year 2015. This funded ratio was lower than the funded ratio in 2012, which was 72 percent. A funded ratio is a pension's assets to liabilities. The higher the funded ratio, the more assets the pension program has compared to liabilities. One state—South Dakota—had a funded ratio of 100 percent or more in 2015, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts. The following chart compares Arizona's funded ratio in 2015 to neighoring states:[13]

Pension health metrics from the Pew Charitable Trusts report, fiscal years 2012-2015 (dollars in millions)
State 2015 Funded ratio Net amortization
Liability Pension debt 2012 2013 2014 2015 Employer benchmark Percent paid
Arizona $65,738 $24,168 72% 72% 64% 63% $1,900 86%
California $669,956 $174,122 77% 72% 76% 74% $18,943 79%
Colorado $70,583 $27,934 63% 61% 64% 60% $2,104 65%
Nevada $46,195 $11,481 71% 69% 76% 75% $1,698 88%
New Mexico $36,736 $10,799 63% 67% 74% 71% $869 86%
Utah $31,150 $4,463 76% 80% 88% 86% $784 139%
Totals in the U.S. $3,850,168 $1,091,828 72% 72% 75% 72% $102,949 92%
Source: The Pew Charitable Trusts, "The State Pension Funding Gap: 2015," accessed August 21, 2017

Article 29 of Arizona Constitution (Proposition 100)

See also: Arizona Public Retirement Systems Rules, Proposition 100 (1998)

Article 29 of the Arizona Constitution describes public retirement systems as a contractual relationship between members and the state, requires that public retirement systems be funded with contributions and investment earnings, and declares that retirement system benefits shall not be diminished or impaired.[3] Article 29 was added to the state constitution in 1998 via Proposition 100. More than 61 percent of voters approved Proposition 100. The Arizona State Legislature referred the proposition to the ballot through a 39-16 vote in the state House and a 21-9 vote in the state Senate.[4]

Due to two court cases regarding the interpretation of Article 29—Fields v. EORP and Hall v. EORP—the Arizona State Legislature would need to amend the article to change public retirement benefits.

Fields v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan

In 2011, the Arizona State Legislature approved a bill to change the formula for the Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan's (EORP) permanent benefit increases for retired members and increased the amounts that employed members were required to contribute. The bill had the effect of decreasing the benefits increases for retired members from 4.0 percent to 2.7 percent in 2011 and zero percent in 2012 and 2013.[5]

Kenneth Fields and Jefferson Lankford—retired state judges and members of EORP—sued the state, alleging the bill violated Article 29 of the Arizona Constitution and Article I of the U.S. Constitution. In March 2013, the Maricopa Superior Court ruled in favor of Fields and Lankford, concluding that the bill violated Article 29. The court did not address whether the bill violated the U.S. Constitution.[5]

The state appealed the ruling to the Arizona Supreme Court, which agreed with the lower court's ruling that the bill was an unconstitutional diminishment or impairment of the retirement benefits. Therefore, Fields and Lankford—and the class of individuals the retired judges represented—were entitled to the permanent benefit increases established before the legislature's bill was enacted. The bill, according to the court, impaired the benefits of retired members of EORP.[5]

According to Hayleigh Crawford, published in the Arizona State Law Journal, Fields v. EORP meant that the state legislature had no power to amend permanent benefit increase formulas in ways that would reduce benefits for retired or retirement-eligible members than the members would have received under the formula at the time of their hiring.[14]

Hall v. Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan

Whereas retired members of EORP challenged the legislature's 2011 bill in Fields v. EORP, employed members challenged the bill in Hall v. EORP. Philip Hall and Jon Thompson—employed state judges and members of EORP—argued that because retirement benefits were part of their employment contracts, the legislature could not change the terms of employee's retirement benefits to their detriment. Like in Fields v. EORP, Hall and Thompson said the bill violated their rights under Article 29 of the Arizona Constitution. The Maricopa Superior Court ruled for Hall and Thompson, concluding that the bill violated Article 29. The court held that Article 29 protected the permanent benefit increases and contribution amounts of employed members at the time of their hiring because these benefits were part of the members' contractual relationship with the state. The state appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which upheld the lower court's judgment in Hall v. EORP.[6]

Proposition 124 (2016)

See also: Arizona Public Retirement Benefits Amendment, Proposition 124 (May 2016)

On May 17, 2016, voters in Arizona approved Proposition 124 in a 70-30 percent vote. Proposition 124 amended Article 29 to replace the permanent benefit increase for the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS)—the retirement plan for full-time police officers and full-time firefighters—with a cost-of-living adjustment. Increases in the COLA for the PSPRS was capped at two percent per year. Proposition 124 also allowed employees hired on or after July 1, 2017, to have a defined contribution retirement plan or a defined benefit hybrid plan.[15]

Referred amendments on the ballot

From 1996 through 2016, the Arizona State Legislature referred 49 constitutional amendments to the ballot. Voters approved 31 and rejected 18 of the referred amendments. All of the amendments were referred to the ballot for elections during even-numbered election years. The average number of amendments appearing on even-year ballots was between four and five. In 2016, two referred amendments were on the ballot. The approval rate of referred amendments at the ballot box was 63.3 percent during the 20-year period from 1996 through 2016. The rejection rate was 36.7 percent.

Legislatively-referred constitutional amendments, 1996-2016
Total number Approved Percent approved Defeated Percent defeated Annual average Annual median Annual minimum Annual maximum
49 31 63.27% 18 36.73% 4.45 5.00 1 8

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Arizona Constitution

In Arizona, a constitutional amendment must be passed by a simple majority vote in each house of the Arizona State Legislature during one legislative session.

Rep. David Livingston (R-22) introduced the amendment into the state legislature as House Concurrent Resolution 1010 (HCR 2032) during the 2018 legislative session. On February 21, 2018, the Arizona House of Representatives approved the amendment in a vote of 57 to zero with three members not voting. On March 29, 2018, the Arizona State Senate passed HCR 2032 in a unanimous vote of 30 to zero.[1]

Vote in the Arizona House of Representatives
February 21, 2018
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 31  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total5703
Total percent95.00%0.00%5.00%
Democrat2302
Republican3401
Vote in the Arizona State Senate
March 29, 2018
Requirement: Simple majority vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 16  Approveda
YesNoNot voting
Total3000
Total percent100.00%0.00%0.00%
Democrat1300
Republican1700

HCR 2032 also withdrew an amendment, the Arizona Corrections Officer Retirement Plan Measure, that was certified to appear on the ballot in November 2018. The Corrections Officer Retirement Plan Measure was passed in April 2017 and was designed to address the retirement plans of correctional officers, but not elected officials. The Adjustments to Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan and Corrections Officer Retirement Plan Measure was placed on the ballot in lieu of the former measure.[1]

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting 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.[16][17]

Registration requirements

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[18]

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.[19]

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)."[18] Accepted proof of citizenship include:[18]

  • 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.

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.[20] 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. One state, Ohio, requires proof of citizenship only when registering to vote at a Bureau of Motor Vehicles facility. 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.[21][22]

The following were accepted forms of identification as of October 2025: 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 that is dated within 90 days of the election
  • 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

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Arizona State Legislature, "House Concurrent Resolution 2032," accessed March 30, 2018
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Arizona State Legislature, "Arizona Senate Research Staff Analysis," accessed April 2, 2018
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Arizona State Legislature, "Article 29 of the Arizona Constitution," accessed April 2, 2018
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Arizona Secretary of State, "Proposition 100 (1998)," accessed April 2, 2018
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Arizona Supreme Court, "Fields v. Elected Officials' Retirement Plan," February 20, 2014
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Arizona Supreme Court, "Hall v. Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan," November 10, 2016
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Arizona Secretary of State, "Proposition 125 - Sample Ballot," accessed September 11, 2018
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 Arizona Secretary of State, "2018 General Election Publicity Pamphlet," accessed September 30, 2018
  10. ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "Campaign Finance Committee Search," accessed April 2, 2018
  11. ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "Elections Calendar & Upcoming Events," accessed December 6, 2017
  12. ↑ United States Census Bureau, "State- and Locally-Administered Defined Benefit Pension Systems - All Data by State and Level of Government: 2016," accessed April 2, 2018
  13. ↑ The Pew Charitable Trusts, "The State Pension Funding Gap: 2015," accessed August 21, 2017
  14. ↑ Crawford, H.S. "Going for Broke: Arizona’s Legal Protection of Public Pension Benefits ." Arizona State Law Journal 46, 2. (2014): pages 636-682.
  15. ↑ Arizona Legislature, "Proposition 124," accessed March 30, 2018
  16. ↑ Arizona Revised Statutes, "Title 16, Section 565," accessed July 18, 2024
  17. ↑ Arizona generally observes Mountain Standard Time; however, the Navajo Nation observes daylight saving time. Because of this, Mountain Daylight Time is sometimes observed in Arizona.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Arizona Secretary of State, "Voters," accessed July 18, 2024
  19. ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "Arizona Voter Registration Instructions," accessed July 18, 2024
  20. ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
  21. ↑ ArizonaElections.gov, "What ID Do I Need to Vote Quiz," accessed October 3, 2025
  22. ↑ Arizona State Legislature, “Arizona Revised Statutes 16-579,” accessed October 3, 2025
v • e
2018 ballot measures
I&R States
 • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington
Non I&R States
Political topics
 • Abortion‎ • Administration of government‎ • Bond issues‎ • Business regulation‎ • Campaign finance‎ • Civil and criminal trials‎ • Civil rights‎ • Civil service‎ • Constitutional conventions‎ • Constitutional language‎ • County and municipal governance‎ • Definition of a corporation‎ • Direct democracy measures‎ • Education‎ • Elections and campaigns‎ • Energy‎ • Environment‎ • Federal constitutional issues‎ • Forests and parks‎ • Gambling‎ • Government accountability‎ • Healthcare‎ • Housing‎ • Hunting and fishing‎ • Labor and unions‎ • Law enforcement‎ • LGBT issues‎ • Marijuana‎ • Natural resources‎ • Pension‎ • Property‎ • Redistricting measures‎ • State and local government budgets, spending and finance‎ • State executive official measures‎ • State judiciary‎ • State legislatures measures‎ • Statehood‎ • Suffrage‎ • Supermajority requirements‎ • Taxes‎ • Term limits‎ • Tobacco‎ • Tort law‎ • Transportation‎ • Veterans‎ • Water‎ • Welfare‎
Other
Flag of Arizona
v • e
State of Arizona
Phoenix (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Arizona_Proposition_125,_Adjustments_to_Elected_Officials%27_and_Corrections_Officer%27s_Retirement_Plans_Amendment_(2018)&oldid=9129702"