Arizona Proposition 207, Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2020)

Arizona Proposition 207
Election date November 3, 2020
Topic Marijuana
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens
List of Arizona ballot measuresArizona Proposition 207Arizona Proposition 208Submit

Arizona Proposition 207, the Marijuana Legalization Initiative, was on the ballot in Arizona as an initiated state statute on November 3, 2020. Proposition 207 was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this ballot initiative to legalize the possession and use of marijuana for persons who are at least 21 years old, enact a tax on marijuana sales, and require the state Department of Health and Human Services to develop rules to regulate marijuana businesses.

A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative, thus keeping the recreational possession and use of marijuana illegal under state law in Arizona.

Election results

Arizona Proposition 207
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,956,440	60.03%
No		1,302,458	39.97%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What changes did Proposition 207 make to marijuana policies in Arizona?

See also: Design of Proposition 207

Proposition 207 legalized the possession and use of marijuana for adults (age 21 years or older) in Arizona. Individuals were permitted to grow no more than six marijuana plants in their residences, as long as the plants are within a lockable enclosed area and beyond public view.

The ballot initiative made the Arizona Department of Health Services (DHS) responsible for adopting rules to regulate marijuana, including the licensing of marijuana retail stores, cultivation facilities, and production facilities. DHS was required to first accept license applications from existing nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries, which would be eligible to hold both nonprofit medical marijuana and for-profit marijuana licenses, and potential marijuana businesses within counties that have one or zero nonprofit dispensaries. Proposition 207 adopted a Social Equity Ownership Program (SEOP), which was designed to issue licenses to entities whose owners are “from communities disproportionately impacted by the enforcement of previous marijuana laws.”

Proposition 207 placed a 16 percent tax on marijuana sales, in addition to the existing transaction privilege tax and use tax. Revenue from the tax was divided between community college districts; municipal police, sheriff, and fire departments; fire districts; the state's Highway User Revenue Fund, and a new Justice Reinvestment Fund.

The ballot initiative provided local governments with the power to ban marijuana facilities and testing centers and give local control over elements of regulation, zoning, and licensing.

Proposition 207 also allowed anyone convicted of certain marijuana-related crimes related to possession, consumption, cultivation, and transportation to petition for the expungement of their criminal record starting on July 12, 2021.

Has Arizona voted on legalization measures before?

See also: Background or Proposition 207

As of 2020, medical marijuana was legal in Arizona, but marijuana for personal use was illegal under both federal and state law. Voters approved a medical marijuana measure in 2010. Arizonans last voted on the issue of recreational marijuana in 2016. Proposition 205, a citizen-initiated measure, was defeated with 51.3 percent voting "No." Arizona was one of five states to vote on a citizen-initiated legalization measure in 2016. Voters in neighboring California and Nevada, along with Maine and Massachusetts, approved their respective ballot measures. Stacy Pearson, a political consultant for Smart and Safe Arizona, said that Proposition 207 “incorporates lessons learned from the 2016 campaign, as well as from other states that have already legalized cannabis.” Gov. Doug Ducey (R) opposed Proposition 205 in 2016 and opposes Proposition 207 in 2020, stating, "In 2016, Arizona voters rejected legalizing recreational marijuana because it was a bad deal based on false promises. Today, the same is true with this new ballot measure."

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding the ballot initiative?

See also: Campaign finance

Smart and Safe Arizona led the campaign in support of Proposition 207. Smart and Safe Arizona had raised $6.0 million, including $1.8 million from Harvest Enterprises, Inc., a marijuana firm. CuraLeaf, a medical marijuana business, provided $750,000, and Copperstate Farms, LLC, also a marijuana firm, provided $410,000.

Opponents of Proposition 207 organized the campaign Arizonans For Health and Public Safety. The PAC had raised $1.0 million, including $268,851 from the Center for Arizona Policy Action—a 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce provided $168,559 to the opposition campaign.

Initiative design

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of Arizona Proposition 207.

Marijuana Users: use and possession of marijuana

Proposition 207 was designed to:

• allow individuals who are 21 years of age or older to possess, use, purchase, transport, or process 1 ounce or less of marijuana or 5 grams or less of marijuana concentrate.

• allow individuals to grow up to 6 marijuana plants at their homes, as long as cultivation takes place within an enclosed area (such as a room, closet, or greenhouse) with a lock and is not visible from public view.

• allow individuals to share or transfer without payment up to 1 ounce of marijuana, 5 grams of marijuana concentrate, or 6 marijuana plants to other persons who are 21 years of age or older.

• keep the consumption of marijuana or being under the influence of marijuana illegal while driving, flying an aircraft, or boating

• keep marijuana smoking illegal in public places and open spaces.

• provide that employers, schools, daycare centers, adult care facilities, healthcare facilities, corrections facilities, and government properties can prohibit or regulate marijuana on their premises.

Marijuana Regulation: regulation of marijuana production and sales

Proposition 207 made the Arizona Department of Health Services (DHS) responsible for the regulation of marijuana, marijuana retail establishments, marijuana cultivation establishments, and marijuana testing facilities in Arizona.

Proposition 207 required DHS to develop regulations that do the following:

• develop a system for licensing marijuana establishments and testing facilities;

• allow for marijuana deliveries (with deliveries beginning sometime between January 1, 2023, and January 1, 2025);

• allow for advertisement but require that individualized communications use an age affirmation method to determine whether the recipient is 21 years of age or older;

• require marijuana sold to consumers to be within "clearly and conspicuously labeled containers that contain accurate warnings regarding the use of marijuana;"

• prohibit marijuana establishments from using false or misleading packages or labels;

• prohibit the manufacturing or sale of marijuana products that resemble the form of a human, animal, insect, fruit, toy, or cartoon;

• prohibit the advertisement of marijuana products to children;

• prohibit the advertisement or sale of marijuana products with names that resemble or imitate food or drink brands marketed to children;

• require marijuana must be placed in child-resistant packaging on exit from a marijuana establishment;

• require a government-issued ID to purchase marijuana and require stores to check the ID for proof of age;

• govern the potency of edible marijuana productions "at reasonable levels upon consideration of industry standards," but no more than 10 milligrams of THC per serving, 100 milligrams of THC per package, or packages with scored servings within the limits; and

• ensure the "health, safety, and training of employees."

DHS was prohibited from stopping the operation of marijuana establishments through requirements that make the operation of establishments unduly burdensome and from stopping or interfering with a dual license holder's operation of a marijuana establishment and medical marijuana dispensary at the same location.

Marijuana Licenses and Establishments: licenses for marijuana establishments

Establishments

Under Proposition 207, the Arizona DHS was set to issue licenses to marijuana retail establishments, marijuana cultivation establishments, and marijuana testing facilities. Licenses were valid for a period of two years. DHS had the following guidelines regarding the number of licenses:

• issue no more than one marijuana establishment license per 10 pharmacies;

• issue no more than two marijuana establishment licenses in counties that contain no registered nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries;

• issue no more than one marijuana establishment license in counties with one nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries; and

• issue 26 licenses, notwithstanding the other limits, to entities qualified under the Social Equity Ownership Program.

DHS was

responsible for implement a Social Equity Ownership Program. Proposition 207 required the program to "promote the ownership and operation of marijuana establishments and marijuana testing facilities by individuals from communities disproportionately impacted by the enforcement of previous marijuana laws."

DHS required to accept applications for marijuana establishment licenses from early applicants from January 19, 2021, to March 9, 2021. Within 60 days after this period, DHS needed to begin issuing licenses to qualified early applicants. Proposition 207 defined early applicants as nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries and entities in counties with fewer than two medical marijuana dispensaries. DHS was allowed to charge fees for licenses, and the fee amount would be limited actual costs of processing applications and no more than five times the fee for medical marijuana licenses. Fees were to be deposited into the Smart and Safe Arizona Fund.

Proposition 207 provided for dual licensees, which would be entities that hold both nonprofit medical marijuana and for-profit marijuana establishment licenses.

DHS was authorized the revoke licenses for violations and penalize entities for violations.

Agents

Agents of marijuana establishments needed to be registered with the DHS. Agents needed to file a Level I Fingerprint Clearance Card or submit a full set of fingerprints for the purpose of obtaining criminal records. Agents certification cards were designed to be valid for two years. An agent needed to tell DHS where the agent works and what establishments they're associated with.

Taxation of Marijuana Sales: taxes levied on marijuana

Proposition 207 subjected marijuana and marijuana products to the transaction privilege tax (TPT) in the retail classification and use tax. As of 2020, the state TPT and use tax was 5.6 percent. Counties, cities, and towns also levied TPT retail taxes.

Proposition 207 also placed a 16 percent excise tax on non-medical marijuana sales.

Revenue from Marijuana Sales: allocation of revenue from taxes on marijuana

Smart and Safe Arizona Fund

Revenue from the excise tax and license fees was set to be deposited into the Smart and Safe Arizona Fund. First, revenue was set to be used to implement and enforce marijuana regulations. The remaining revenue was set to be allocated as follows:

• 33.0 percent for community college districts;

• 31.4 percent for municipal police and fire departments, county sheriff departments, and fire districts;

• 25.4 percent for the state's Highway User Revenue Fund;

• 10.0 percent for the new Justice Reinvestment Fund; and

• 0.2 percent for the Arizona Attorney General and local agencies to enforce the initiative.

Justice Reinvestment Fund

Proposition 207 established a fund called the Justice Reinvestment Fund (JRF). Revenue in the JRF was to be allocated as follows:

• 35 percent to local public health departments in proportion to the county’s population for the purpose of providing justice reinvestment programs or giving grants to nonprofits to provide justice reinvestment programs within the county’s area.

• 35 percent to DHS to provide grants to nonprofits to provide justice reinvestment programs in the state.

• 30 percent to DHS “for the purpose of addressing important public health issues” that affect Arizona.

Proposition 207 defined a justice reinvestment program as initiatives or programs that focus on public and behavioral health, substance use prevention and treatment, restorative justice, jail diversion, workforce development, technical assistance or mentoring services for persons with economic disadvantages in communities with high rates of arrest and incarceration, that address the “underlying causes of crime, reducing drug-related arrests, and reducing the prison population.” and that create or develop technologies and programs to help with the restoration of civil rights and the expungement of criminal records.

Local Control: local and municipal regulation of marijuana

Cities, towns, and counties (within counties’ unincorporated areas) were allowed to enact the following types of regulation to govern marijuana within their jurisdictions:

• Prohibit marijuana establishments or marijuana testing facilities.

• Limits on the number of marijuana establishments or marijuana testing facilities.

• Prohibit marijuana deliveries within their jurisdictions.

• “Reasonable zoning regulations that limit the use of land” for marijuana establishments and marijuana testing facilities to specified areas.

• Regulations on the operating time, place, and manner of marijuana establishments and testing facilities.

• “Reasonable restrictions on public signage” regarding marijuana, marijuana establishments, and marijuana testing facilities.

Cities, towns, and counties (within counties’ unincorporated areas) was prohibited from enacting the following types of regulation:

• Regulations that are more restrictive than comparable regulations on nonprofit medical marijuana dispensaries.

• Regulations that make the operation of marijuana establishments or testing facilities unduly burdensome, unless the local government has prohibited marijuana establishments or testing facilities.

• Regulations that prohibit establishments and testing facilities to transport marijuana on public roads.

• Restrictions on dual license holders of operating medical marijuana dispensaries and marijuana establishments at the same location.

• Restrictions on conduct or transactions that would be otherwise allowed.

• Penalties for violations in addition to those penalties prescribed in the ballot initiative.

Expungement: expungement of the certain marijuana-related criminal records

Proposition 207 allowed anyone convicted of certain marijuana-related crimes to petition a court for the expungement of the criminal record beginning on July 12, 2021. The following convictions were made eligible for expungement:

• possession, consumption, or transportation of 2.5 ounces or less of marijuana or 12.5 grams or less of marijuana concentrate

• possession, consumption, cultivation, or processing of not more than six marijuana plants at an individual’s residence for personal use

• possession, use, or transportation of paraphernalia related to marijuana cultivation, manufacturing, processing, or consumption

The court would be required to grant the petition unless the prosecutor establishes “clear and conceiving evidence that the petition is not eligible for expungement.”

Legal Penalties: penalties for violating the initiative's provisions

The following were the legal penalties for violating the initiative's provisions:

Violation	Charge
Possession above the legal limit of 1 ounce of marijuana, but not more than 2.5 ounces	• Petty offense
Possession above the legal limit of 5 grams of marijuana concentrate, but not more than 12.5 grams	• Petty offense
Smoking of marijuana in a public place or open space	• Petty offense
Cultivation of marijuana for personal use within a public view or outside a locked enclosed area	• First violation: Petty offense • Second or subsequent violation: Class 3 misdemeanor
For persons under the age of 21, possession, use, transportation, or sharing of 1 ounce or less of marijuana (or 5 grams or less of marijuana concentrate)	• First violation: Civil penalty and, based on a court's discretion, 4 hours of drug education or counseling • Second violation: Petty offense and, based on a court's discretion, 8 hours of drug education or counseling • Third or subsequent violation: Class 1 misdemeanor
For persons under the age of 21, misrepresentation of one's age to obtain marijuana	• First violation: Petty offense • Second or subsequent violation: Class 1 misdemeanor
For persons under the age of 21, solicitation of another person to purchase marijuana	• First violation: Petty offense • Second or subsequent violation: Class 3 misdemeanor

Proposition 207 stated that marijuana odor or the smell of burnt marijuana would not "constitute reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime," except for crimes related to driving under the influence.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

The law would allow limited marijuana possession, use, and cultivation by adults 21 or older; amend criminal penalties for marijuana possession; ban smoking marijuana in public; impose a 16% excise tax on marijuana sales to fund public programs; authorize state/local regulation of marijuana licensees; and allow expungement of marijuana offenses.

”

Full text

The full text of the ballot initiative is below:

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020

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 15, and the FRE is 5. The word count for the ballot title is 49, and the estimated reading time is 13 seconds.

Support

Smart and Safe Arizona led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative. Former Arizona Rep. Chad Campbell (D-24) was chairperson of the campaign committee.

Supporters

Officials

• U.S. Representative Ruben Gallego (D)
• State Senator Rebecca Rios (D)
• State Representative Cesar Chavez (D)
• State Representative Diego Espinoza (D)
• State Representative Daniel Hernandez Jr. (D)
• State Representative Lorenzo Sierra (D)
• Tucson Mayor Regina Romero (D)

Former Officials

• Former House Minority Leader Chad Campbell (D)
• Former Governor John Fife Symington III (R)

Political Parties

• Maricopa County Democratic Party

Corporations

• CuraLeaf
• Harvest Enterprises, Inc.

Unions

• Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona

Organizations

• ACLU of Arizona
• American Friends Service Committee
• Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice
• Arizona Dispensaries Association
• Black Male Voter Project
• Democracy for America
• NextGen Arizona

Individuals

• Dolores Huerta - Co-Founder of the United Farm Workers

Arguments

• Chad Campbell, a former state representative and chairperson of Smart and Safe Arizona: "As the name says, smart and safe. It's put together in a responsible way to sell this product to adults only and it will generate revenue, much needed revenue, for the state which is a win for everybody."
• Stacy Pearson, a political consultant for Smart and Safe Arizona: "It does the right thing by providing an option for folks who were previously convicted of low-level marijuana charges to have their criminal records sealed so they have fair access to jobs and housing. It frees up police to focus on real crime and hard drugs and unclogs the justice system which is currently backlogged with minor offenses."
• Former Gov. Fife Symington (R): "Today the evidence is overwhelmingly clear: criminalizing law-abiding citizens who choose to responsibly consume marijuana is an outdated policy that wastes precious government resources and unnecessarily restricts individual liberty. A far more logical approach would be to respect the right of adults to choose to consume marijuana while regulating and taxing its production and sale."
• Jared Keenan, president of Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice: "Not only will the Smart and Safe Act move Arizona toward a more compassionate policy on adult marijuana use, it will also provide an option for folks who were previously convicted of low-level marijuana charges to have their criminal records expunged so they have fair access to jobs and housing, while raising millions of dollars annually for much needed addiction prevention, substance abuse treatment, suicide prevention, mental health programs and other justice reinvestment projects."

Opposition

Arizonans For Health and Public Safety led the campaign in opposition to the ballot initiative.

Opponents

Officials

• U.S. Representative Andy Biggs (R)
• U.S. Representative Paul Gosar (R)
• U.S. Representative Debbie Lesko (R)
• Governor Doug Ducey (R)
• State Senator Sylvia Allen (R)
• State Senator Paul Boyer (R)
• State Senate President Karen Fann (R)
• State Senator Rick Gray (R)
• State Senator Sine Kerr (R)
• State Senator Vince Leach (R)
• State Representative Nancy K. Barto (R)
• State Representative Walter Blackman (R)
• Speaker of the House Russell Bowers (R)
• State Representative John Fillmore (R)
• State Representative John Kavanagh (R)
• House Majority Leader Warren Petersen (R)
• State Representative Steve Pierce (R)
• State Representative Bob Thorpe (R)
• Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall (D)
• State Treasurer Kimberly Yee (R)

Former Officials

• Former U.S. Senator Jon Kyl (R)

Organizations

• American Academy of Pediatrics, Arizona Chapter
• Arizona Catholic Conference Bishops
• Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry
• Arizona County Attorneys Association
• Arizona Free Enterprise Club
• Arizona Medical Association
• Arizona Sheriffs Association
• Arizona State Troopers Association
• Arizona Trucking Association
• Center for Arizona Policy
• Greater Phoenix Chamber
• Smart Approaches to Marijuana
• The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Arguments

• Garrick Taylor, senior vice president of government relations and communications for the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry: "Despite the assurances of marijuana proponents, more harm than good will result from legalization. The potential consequences of legalization are severe, ranging from an uptick in workplace accidents and lower overall workplace productivity, to jeopardizing our workforce development efforts, to costs that come with drug treatment and rehabilitation. We’re already navigating a global pandemic; we don’t need to put even more stress on the public health system."
• Robert Leger, spokesperson for Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy: "I think there's a lot here to worry about. If you have a vote that says it's OK to use it, I think those kids who might be on the fence might are more likely to say 'The voters say it's a good think to have, it can't be bad for us.' I think it makes more legitimate in the eyes of a teenager."
• Lisa James, chairperson of Arizonans for Health and Public Safety, and Todd Griffith, former director of the Arizona State Crime Lab: "We have seen the toll marijuana and other drugs take on individuals and their families. Legalizing marijuana with this misleading proposition will lead to more families suffering heartbreak. Ignore what Big Marijuana says about the proposition they wrote. The fine print in their 17 pages of new laws reveals the truth. The industry has only one interest, and it’s not yours."
• Gov. Doug Ducey (R): "The ballot measure promises new tax revenue for a variety of causes, but states like California and Massachusetts have only raised a fraction of what was promised. The promises are great, and yet the money never seems to materialize or do what’s been promised. ... Arizona has a bright future, but fully legalized marijuana doesn’t need to be part of it. The current system with medical marijuana is serving the people who need it for health-related reasons. We don’t need the wholesale expansion that full-throttle legalization will bring."

Campaign finance

The Smart and Safe Arizona PAC was registered in support of the ballot initiative. The PAC received $6.0 million in contributions, including $1.8 million from Harvest Enterprises, Inc.

The Arizonans for Health and Public Safety PAC was registered to oppose the ballot initiative. The PAC received $1.0 million in contributions, including $268,851 from the Center for Arizona Policy Action.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$5,582,498.85	$404,034.70	$5,986,533.55	$5,571,894.96	$5,975,929.66
Oppose	$1,039,263.00	$18,910.00	$1,058,173.00	$1,000,111.58	$1,019,021.58
Total	$6,621,761.85	$422,944.70	$7,044,706.55	$6,572,006.54	$6,994,951.24

Support

The contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot initiative were as follows:

Committees in support of Proposition 207
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Smart and Safe Arizona	$5,582,498.85	$404,034.70	$5,986,533.55	$5,571,894.96	$5,975,929.66
Total	$5,582,498.85	$404,034.70	$5,986,533.55	$5,571,894.96	$5,975,929.66

Donors

The following were the top five donors who contributed to Smart and Safe Arizona:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Harvest Enterprises, Inc.	$1,574,842.00	$225,000.00	$1,799,842.00
CuraLeaf	$750,000.00	$0.00	$750,000.00
Copperstate Farms, LLC	$410,000.00	$0.00	$410,000.00
Cresco Labs, LLC	$300,000.00	$0.00	$300,000.00
Oasis Dispensaries	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00

Opposition

The contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in opposition to the ballot initiative were as follows:

Committees in opposition to Proposition 207
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Arizonans for Health and Public Safety	$1,039,263.00	$18,910.00	$1,058,173.00	$1,000,111.58	$1,019,021.58
Total	$1,039,263.00	$18,910.00	$1,058,173.00	$1,000,111.58	$1,019,021.58

Donors

The following were the top five donors who contributed to Arizonans for Health and Public Safety:

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Center for Arizona Policy Action	$253,500.00	$15,350.60	$268,850.60
Randy Kendrick	$150,000.00	$0.00	$150,000.00
Arizona Chamber of Commerce	$100,000.00	$3,559.40	$103,559.40
Slade Stewart	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
Arizona Chamber Of Commerce PAC	$65,000.00	$0.00	$65,000.00

Media editorials

Support

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

• The Arizona Republic Editorial Board: "The Arizona Republic recommends passage of Proposition 207 because we need to right a historic wrong — to decriminalize marijuana use and put the responsibility back on individuals to choose wisely when it comes to low-grade substances such as marijuana and alcohol. ... But consensus continues to grow in this state and nation that we were wrong to criminalize marijuana. The moment has come to correct the mistake."
• Arizona Daily Star Editorial Board: "But nationally, federal prohibition has reigned supreme for decades. The results have been disastrous, especially for people of color and poor communities. Here in Arizona, a Black person is three times as likely as a white person to be arrested for marijuana possession, according to the ACLU. Arizonans can take change into their own hands and join six other Western states and 11 nationally by rejecting prohibition and its accompanying burdens. While a 2016 voter initiative failed, Proposition 207 is better, both policywise and for potential consumers."

Opposition

Ballotpedia had not identified media editorial boards that published editorials in opposition to the ballot measure.

Polls

See also: 2020 ballot measure polls

Arizona Marijuana Legalization Initiative (2020)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided/Refused	Margin of error	Sample size
Monmouth University Poll 10/9/2020 - 10/13/2020	56.0%	36.0%	8.0%	+/-4.4	502
OH Predictive Insights 9/8/2020 - 9/10/2020	46.0%	45.0%	9.0%	+/-4.0	600
Monmouth University Poll 9/11/2020 - 9/15/2020	51.0%	41.0%	9.0%	+/-4.8	420
OH Predictive Insights 6/6/2020 - 6/7/2020	62.0%	32.0%	6.0%	+/-4.0	600
Higher Ground Public Affairs Consultants 5/18/2020 - 5/22/2020	65.5%	25.3%	9.3%	+/-4.9	400
AVERAGES	56.1%	35.86%	8.26%	+/-4.42	504.4
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.

Background

Marijuana-related ballot measures
• 2020 marijuana ballot measures
• Marijuana on the ballot
• Local marijuana on the ballot
• History of marijuana ballot measures and laws
• Marijuana laws in the U.S.

Arizona Proposition 205 (2016)

See also: Arizona Marijuana Legalization, Proposition 205 (2016)

In 2016, a citizen-initiated measure, titled Proposition 205, appeared on the ballot. Proposition 205 would have legalized marijuana under state law. Voters rejected the ballot initiative, with 51.3 percent opposed. Arizona was one of five states to vote on a citizen-initiated legalization measure in 2016. Voters in neighboring California and Nevada, along with Maine and Massachusetts, approved their respective ballot measures.

The campaigns surrounding Proposition 205 received a similar amount of contributions. The largest donor behind the support campaign was the Marijuana Policy Project, contributing 22.5 percent of the campaign's total funds. The largest donor behind the opposition campaign was Discount Tire, which provided 15.7 percent of the campaign's total. Kevin Sabet, the co-founder of SAM Action, said the measure's defeat provided opponents of marijuana legalization with a model. He stated, "The overarching lesson was that if we could raise enough money early, we can win. Arizona was the only state where we were toe to toe with the 'yes' side, and it's the only state we started early in."

Legalization in the U.S.

See also: History of marijuana ballot measures and laws and History of marijuana ballot measures and laws

California Proposition 19, which would have legalized marijuana, appeared on the ballot in 2010. It was defeated, with 53.5 percent of voters casting "no" votes. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder commented on Proposition 19, saying President Barack Obama's (D) administration would "vigorously enforce the (Controlled Substances Act) against those individuals and organizations that possess, manufacture or distribute marijuana for recreational use, even if such activities are permitted under state law."

In 2012, legalized recreational marijuana advocates saw their first statewide victories in Colorado and Washington. Two years later, voters in Oregon, Alaska, and Washington, D.C. approved marijuana legalization. Regarding how the federal government would respond, President Obama stated, "We've got bigger fish to fry. It would not make sense for us to see a top priority as going after recreational users in states that have determined that it's legal."

In 2015, voters in Ohio defeated Issue 3, which was designed to legalize the sale and use of marijuana and authorize 10 facilities with exclusive commercial rights to grow marijuana.

Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada all had marijuana legalization initiatives on their 2016 general election ballots. The initiatives passed in all of the states but Arizona, where voters rejected the measure 51.3 to 48.7 percent.

Michigan became the first state in the Midwest to legalize marijuana after voters approved Proposal 1 in 2018. North Dakota Measure 3, which was also on the ballot in 2018, would have legalized marijuana but was defeated.

As of 2019, two states—Illinois and Vermont—had legalized the recreational use of marijuana through the legislative process and governor's signature.

The following map depicts the legal status of recreational marijuana in different states:

State political context of legalization ballot measures

The following table provides information on the political context of the states that had voted on legalization measures as of 2022.

Click "Show" to expand the table.

Political factors and marijuana ballot measures, 2012-2022
State	Measure	Year	Status	Presidential, 2008-2020	State partisan control at time of vote
Colorado	Amendment 64	2012	a	Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton-Biden)	Divided
Washington	Initiative 502	2012	a	Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton-Biden)	Democratic
Alaska	Measure 2	2014	a	Republican (McCain-Romney-Trump-Trump)	Republican
Oregon	Measure 91	2014	a	Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton-Biden)	Democratic
Ohio	Issue 3	2015	d	Pivot (Obama-Obama-Trump-Trump)	Republican
Arizona	Proposition 205	2016	d	Pivot (McCain-Romney-Trump-Biden)	Republican
California	Proposition 64	2016	a	Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton-Biden)	Democratic
Maine	Question 1	2016	a	Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton-Biden)	Divided
Massachusetts	Question 4	2016	a	Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton-Biden)	Divided
Nevada	Question 2	2016	a	Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton-Biden)	Republican
Michigan	Proposal 1	2018	a	Pivot (Obama-Obama-Trump-Biden)	Republican
North Dakota	Measure 3	2018	d	Republican (McCain-Romney-Trump-Trump)	Republican
Arizona	Proposition 207	2020	a	Pivot (McCain-Romney-Trump-Biden)	Republican
Montana	Initiative 190	2020	a	Republican (McCain-Romney-Trump-Trump)	Divided
New Jersey	Amendment	2020	a	Democratic (Obama-Obama-Clinton-Biden)	Democratic
South Dakota	Amendment A	2020	a/ot	Republican (McCain-Romney-Trump-Trump)	Republican
Maryland	Marijuana Legalization Amendment	2022	On the ballot	Democrat (Obama-Obama-Clinton-Biden)	Divided

Comparison of legalization ballot measures

The following table compares a selection of provisions, including possession limits, local control, taxes, and revenue dedications, of ballot initiatives that were designed to legalize marijuana.

Click "Show" to expand the table.

Comparison of marijuana ballot measure provisions, 2012-2022
Measure	Possession limits	Homegrown plants	Local control	State taxes	Revenue
Ballot measures that were on the ballot in 2022
Marijuana Legalization Amendment (2022)	• Not specified	• Not specified	• Not specified	• Not specified	• Not specified
Ballot measures that were approved
Arizona Proposition 207 (2020)	• 1 ounce of marijuana • 5 grams (0.18 ounces) of marijuana concentrate	• Grow up to 6 marijuana plants	• Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries	• 16% excise sales tax	• community college districts • police and fire departments and fire districts • highways • new criminal justice fund (restorative programs, mentoring, and behavioral health)
Montana I-190 (2020)	• 1 ounce of marijuana	• Individuals could grow up to four marijuana plants and four seedling in a private residence in a locked space	• A local government is not allowed to completely ban marijuana cultivators, testing facilities, wholesalers, or retail stores from operating in its limits; cannot prohibit the transportation of marijuana on public roads in its jurisdiction by those who are licensed to do so; allowed to pass ordinances to regulate an adult-use provider or adult-use marijuana-infused products that operate in its jurisdiction	• 20% sales tax	• After the tax revenue is used by the Department of Revenue to cover costs associated with implementing the initiative, 10.5% of the remaining revenue would be appropriated to the state's general fund, and the remainder would be appropriated to conservation programs, substance abuse treatment, veterans’ services, healthcare costs, and localities where marijuana is sold
New Jersey Amendment (2020)	• Not specified	• Not specified	• Not specified	• Subject to state sales tax • Prohibits additional state sales taxes on marijuana	• Not specified
Michigan Proposal 1 (2018)	• 2.5 ounces of marijuana • 0.5 ounces of marijuana concentrate	•Grow up to 12 marijuana plants	•Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries	•10% excise sales tax	•local governments •K-12 education •road and bridge maintenance
California Proposition 64 (2016)	• 1 ounce of marijuana • 0.3 ounces of marijuana concentrate	•Grow up to 6 marijuana plants	•Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries	•15% excise sales tax •$9.25/ounce cultivation tax for flowers •$2.75/ounce cultivation tax for leaves	•youth drug education, prevention, and treatment •prevent and fix environmental damage from illegal marijuana producers •marijuana DUI prevention and negative health effects programs
Nevada Question 2 (2016)	• 1 ounce of marijuana • 0.125 ounces of marijuana concentrate	•Grow up to 6 marijuana plants	•Permits local ballot measures pertaining to zoning and land use for marijuana establishments	•15% excise sales	•K-12 education
Maine Question 1 (2016)	• 2.5 ounces of marijuana and/or marijuana concentrate	• Grow up to 6 marijuana plants	• Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries	• 10% excise sales tax •The legislature added a $20.94/ounce cultivation tax on flowers and mature plants; $5.88/ounce cultivation tax on marijuana trim; $1.50 tax per immature plant; $0.30 tax per immature plant	•General Fund (legislature added public health programs and law enforcement programs)
Massachusetts Question 4 (2016)	• 10 ounces of marijuana in one's home • 1 ounce of marijuana in public • 0.2 ounces of marijuana concentrate	• Grow up to 6 marijuana plants	• Municipalities allowed to limit number of establishments and restrict the time, place, and manner of their operation • Permits local ballot measures to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries	• 3.75% excise sales tax (legislature increased to 10.75%)	• General Fund
Alaska Measure 2 (2014)	• 1 ounce of marijuana	• Grow up to 6 marijuana plants	• Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries	• $50/ounce cultivation tax	• General Fund
Oregon Measure 91 (2014)	• 8 ounces of marijuana in one's home • 1 ounce of marijuana in public • 1 ounce of marijuana concentrate	• Grow up to 4 marijuana plants	• Permits local ballot measures to ban or limit marijuana establishments	• 17% excise sales tax (legislature added the excise sales tax) • $35/ounce producer tax for flowers • $10/ounce producer tax for leaves	• K-12 education • drug prevention and treatment • state police • local law enforcement
Colorado Amendment 64 (2012)	• 1 ounce of marijuana • 1 ounce of marijuana concentrate	• Grow up to 6 marijuana plants	• Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries	•Required the state legislature to enact taxes •In 2013, the legislature's Proposition AA enacted a 15% excise tax on unprocessed retail marijuana and 10% (increased to 15% in 2017) sales tax on retail sales	• K-12 public education • Proposition AA added allocations for local governments, healthcare, substance abuse prevention and treatment, and law enforcement
Washington Initiative 502 (2012)	• 1 ounce of marijuana • 0.25 ounce of marijuana concentrate	• Illegal	• Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries	•25% excise sales tax (legislature increased the tax to 37%)	• research • drug prevention, public health education • healthcare • dropout prevention, intervention • General Fund
Ballot measures that were defeated or overturned
South Dakota Constitutional Amendment A (2020)	• 1 ounce of marijuana	• Individuals who live in a jurisdiction with no licensed retail stores could grow up to three marijuana plants in a private residence in a locked space, though not more than six marijuana plants could be kept in one residence at a time	•A local government allowed to ban marijuana cultivators, testing facilities, wholesalers, or retail stores from operating in its limits; cannot prohibit the transportation of marijuana on public roads in its jurisdiction by those who are licensed to do so	• 15% sales tax	• After the tax revenue is used by the Revenue Department to cover costs associated with implementing the amendment, 50% of the remaining revenue would be appropriated to fund state public schools and 50% would be deposited in the state's general fund
North Dakota Measure 3 (2018)	• Not specified	• Not specified	• Not specified	• Not specified	• Not specified
Arizona Proposition 205 (2016)	• 1 ounce of marijuana • 5 grams (0.18 ounces) of marijuana concentrate	• Grow up to 6 marijuana plants	• Municipalities allowed to ban or limit marijuana establishments within their boundaries	• 15% excise sales tax	• school districts and charter schools • state department of health • local governments
Ohio Issue 3 (2015)	• 1 ounce of marijuana and/or equivalent concentrate	• Grow up to 4 marijuana plants with a license	• Municipalities prohibited from banning the development or operation of marijuana establishments	• 15% tax on gross revenue of growth, cultivation, extraction, and manufacure facilities • 5% tax on gross revenue of retail marijuana stores	• research and development • local governments • mental health and addiction and treatment services

Marijuana laws ballot measuresin 2020

See also: 2020 marijuana legalization and marijuana-related ballot measures

State ballot measures

The following is a list of marijuana-related statewide ballot measures that were on the ballot in 2020:

Ballot Measure:	Outcome:
Mississippi Initiative 65 and Alternative 65A: Medical Marijuana Amendment	ot
New Jersey Public Question 1: Marijuana Legalization Amendment	a
South Dakota Initiated Measure 26: Medical Marijuana Initiative	a
South Dakota Constitutional Amendment A: Marijuana Legalization Initiative	a/ot
Montana CI-118: Allow for a Legal Age for Marijuana Amendment	a
Montana I-190: Marijuana Legalization Initiative	a

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Arizona

In Arizona, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated state statute is equal to 10 percent of the votes cast for the office of governor in the most recent gubernatorial election. Petitions can be circulated for up to 24 months. Signature petitions must be submitted four months prior to the election at which the measure is to appear.

The requirements to get initiated state statutes certified for the 2020 ballot:

• Signatures: 237,645 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was July 2, 2020.

If the secretary of state certifies that enough valid signatures were submitted, the initiative is put on the next general election ballot. The secretary of state verifies the signatures through a random sampling of 5 percent of submitted signatures working in collaboration with county recorders. If the random sampling indicates that valid signatures equal to between 95 percent and 105 percent of the required number were submitted, a full check of all signatures is required. If the random sampling shows fewer signatures, the petition fails. If the random sampling shows more, the initiative is certified for the ballot.

Stages of this initiative

On September 3, 2019, committee Smart and Safe Arizona filed the ballot initiative. On March 26, 2020, Stacy Pearson, campaign manager of Smart and Safe Arizona, said the ballot initiative had received more than 320,000 signatures. On July 1, 2020, Smart and Safe Arizona filed 428,481 signatures for the ballot initiative. At least 237,645 (about 56.6 percent) of the submitted signatures need to be valid.

On July 20, 2020, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D) announced that 415,587 signatures were eligible to undergo the verification process. Secretary of State Hobbs sent a random sample of 20,780 petition signatures to local election offices for verification; 11,882 of the signatures needed to be valid. On August 10, 2020, Secretary of State Hobbs certified the ballot measure, stating that local officials found 12,754 (of 20,780) signatures to be valid. According to Secretary of State Hobbs, 255,080 signatures were projected to be valid—17,435 more than the minimum requirement.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired AZ Petition Partners, LLC to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $1,400,000.00 was spent to collect the 237,645 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $5.89.

Petitioning of Arizona Supreme Court

Coronavirus pandemic
Select a topic from the dropdown below to learn more. Political responses overviewState reopening plansDocumenting America's Path to RecoveryElection changesChanges to vote-by-mail and absentee voting proceduresFederal responsesState responsesState executive ordersStay-at-home ordersMultistate agreementsNon-governmental reopening plansEvictions and foreclosures policiesTravel restrictionsEnacted state legislationState legislative session changesSchool closuresState court closuresInmate releasesLocal government responsesDiagnosed or quarantined politiciansBallot measure changesArguments about government responsesThe 1918 influenza pandemicPandemic Response Accountability CommitteeUnemployment filingsLawsuitsBallotpedia's polling on the coronavirus pandemicSubmit

On April 2, 2020, four ballot initiative campaigns filed a petition asking the Arizona Supreme Court to allow the campaigns to gather signatures through E-Qual, which is the state's online signature collection platform, during the coronavirus pandemic. E-Qual is available for federal, statewide, and legislative candidates but not ballot initiatives.

The legal petition stated, "The Novel Coronavirus 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic changed, quite literally, everything. ... Although this new reality is essential for public health, it is catastrophic to the Initiative Proponents’ exercise of their fundamental constitutional right. ... In short, signature gathering will halt, and the Initiative Proponents’ hard work and investment is in jeopardy. ... This Petition presents an important legal question of first impression: whether the fundamental constitutional rights of the Initiative Proponents are violated by their exclusion from an online petition signature gathering system maintained by the Secretary in the middle of a public health emergency that severely limits (or outright bars) their ability to otherwise collect initiative petition signatures."

The four ballot initiative campaigns that filed the petition are:

• Arizonans for Second Chances, Rehabilitation, and Public Safety, which is behind the Criminal Justice Procedures for Offenses Defined as Non-Dangerous Initiative;

• Smart and Safe Arizona, which is behind the Marijuana Legalization Initiative;

• Invest in Education, which is behind the Tax on Incomes Exceeding $250,000 for Teacher Salaries and Schools Initiative; and

• Save Our Schools Arizona, which is behind the Limits on Private Education Vouchers Initiative.

Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (D), who was named as the defendant, said she would not oppose the challenge from the campaigns. She stated, "I think that in light of the circumstances that we’re in right now, it’s a reasonable request. We are certainly not opposing it and would hope for a quick resolution... I plan to let the court know that my office can implement the necessary changes, should that be the court’s order... Every voter in the state is eligible to sign an initiative petition. That makes it no different than candidates for statewide office using the system to get the necessary signatures to put their own names on the ballot." Attorney General Mark Brnovich (R) disagreed with the campaigns, stating, "A health crisis is not an excuse to ignore the constitution."

On May 13, 2020, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled against the campaigns in a 6-1 decision.

James et al. v. Hobbs

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Does the ballot initiative violate state law requiring the ballot language to not be fraudulent or creating a significant danger of confusion or unfairness?
Court: Arizona Supreme Court (Originated in the Maricopa County Superior Court)
Ruling: The ballot language was sufficient for the petition circulation process.
Plaintiff(s): Lisa James, Merilee Flower, Todd Griffith, Dr. Edward Gogek, Paul Smith, Dr. Dale Guthrie, and Sally Schindel	Defendant(s): Secretary of State Katie Hobbs

  Source: Maricopa County Superior Court

On July 20, 2020, Lisa James, chairperson of Arizonans for Health and Public Saftey, and six other individuals sued Secretary of State Katie Hobbs in the Maricopa County Superior Court. James et al. argued that the ballot initiative is invalid because, according to the plaintiffs, "the measure's 100-word summary is materially misleading and creates a substantial danger of fraud, confusion and unfairness."

John Shadegg, one of the lawyers representing James et al., said, "The proponent’s summary of the initiative is confusing and deceptive in numerous ways, beginning with the very definition of marijuana." Stacy Pearson, a spokesperson for Smart and Safe Arizona, responded, "There’s no way to incorporate a 15-page document or a 12-page document into a 100-word summary. ... We’re not particularly concerned and certainly the court has, over the years, favored direct democracy."

On August 7, 2020, Superior Court Judge James Smith ruled in favor of defendants and decided that the 100-word summary was sufficient. Smith said that the key provisions of the measure were represented in the petition summary. Smith noted that plaintiffs took 25 pages to describe provisions they said were essential to the 100-word summary. Smith wrote, "Addressing legalizing a previously illegal substance must account for laws touching many parts of life. But if everything in an initiative is a principal provision, then nothing is."

On August 11, James announced that the campaign appealed the case to the Arizona Supreme Court. On August 20, the state Supreme Court affirmed Judge James Smith's decision.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Arizona

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Arizona.

How to cast a vote in Arizona

The information below covers regular voting policies in the state. Information may have not applied to the election on November 3, 2020, because of temporary changes in response to coronavirus. Click here to read about changes made for the 2020 elections. 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

2020 measures

• 2020 ballot measures
• Marijuana 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

Information

• Initiative 23 (2020)
• Official November 2020 Election Pamphlet

Support

• Smart and Safe Arizona campaign
• Smart and Safe Arizona Facebook
• Smart and Safe Arizona Twitter

Opposition

• Arizonans for Health and Public Safety campaign
• Arizonans for Health and Public Safety Facebook
• Arizonans for Health and Public Safety Twitter