Amendments to the Arizona Constitution

Since 1910, the Arizona State Constitution has been amended 162 times. Some amendments affected more than one section of the constitution. Each square below represents when a section was changed by an amendment.

Scroll through the timeline to view amendments to the constitution by year and historical context for significant amendments.
 

1920
1930
1940
1950
+45 1960
1970
1980
1990
+10
2000
2010
2020

Each block on this histogram represents a change—e.g., a substantive change, repeal & replace, or renumbering—to an individual section rather than an amendment. Some amendments result in multiple changes, resulting in multiple blocks being attributed to one amendment. Likewise, a section may be amended more than once in an year, but these amendments will only appear as one block on the histogram. When a block or blocks are marked red in a specific year, that means that a new constitution went into effect that year.

The Arizona Constitution & Its Amendments

Arizona had one of the longest roads to statehood in the nation. Originally a part of the New Mexico Territory, the Arizona Territory was established in 1863. The relative sparsity of Anglo-American residents in the territory stood as a major barrier to the state’s admission to the Union. However, the territory nonetheless began lobbying for statehood as early as 1872. Nearly 20 years later, in 1891, residents of the territory organized a convention, drafted a constitution, and petitioned Congress for admission. This petition was denied, and in 1903, Congress proposed admitting the New Mexico and Arizona Territories as a single state. Arizonans opposed the idea, in part due to the different racial demographics of the two territories. Having rejected Congress’s proposal, Arizona was not authorized to become a state until 1910.

The Arizona Enabling Act placed numerous restrictions on the contents of the Arizona Constitution. These restrictions assuaged Congressional and presidential fears of the “rising tide of radicalism in the West,” a movement exemplified by the Oklahoma Constitution’s inclusion of the initiative and referendum power, Oregon’s adoption of the recall power, and Colorado’s push for direct primaries and railroad regulation. The enabling act also required the inclusion of certain provisions in the state’s constitution, such as a prohibition against polygamy and conditions for the management of federally-granted lands, and directed the convention to draft these provisions in a way that would prevent future amendments without Congress’s consent

The final barrier to Arizona’s statehood was an attempt to include the recall power, including recall of judges, in the Arizona Constitution. Anticipating President Taft’s opposition to the provision, Congress made Arizona statehood conditional on an immediate popular vote on whether to retain the judicial recall provision. But Taft was dissatisfied with this compromise, as it allowed the possibility that the judicial recall provision would remain in the constitution, and vetoed the resolution admitting Arizona to the Union. Congress then conditioned Arizona’s admission on voters rejecting the judicial recall provision. With this condition looming, voters overwhelmingly approved an amendment exempting judges from the recall provision and Arizona finally became a state on February 14, 1912.

The Arizona Constitution can be amended in three ways: legislative proposal, citizen initiative, and constitutional convention. Legislatively proposed amendments must be approved by a majority of members of both chambers of the legislature. Initiated amendment proposals must gather the signatures of qualified electors equal to 15 percent of votes in the last gubernatorial race. Finally, the legislature may call a constitutional convention, which may propose amendments or a new constitution. All three methods require that proposals be approved by a majority of voters voting on the proposal.

Arizona State Capitol, Phoenix. Warren LeMay.

2024

Right to Abortion

After the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the Arizonans initiated an amendment to enshrine abortion protections in the Arizona Constitution. The measure was one of eight amendment proposals on the ballot that year and the only amendment that voters approved. At the same time that proponents were working to get the amendment on the ballot, the state legislature was working to repeal a near-total abortion ban that remained in statute from 1864. That statute, which the Arizona Supreme Court had ruled was enforceable, mandated a two- to five-year prison sentence for any doctor who performed an abortion for any reason other than saving a woman’s life. The legislature successfully repealed the law before it was set to resume effect and prior to the passage of the 2024 amendment. 

2022

Single-Subject Requirement for Ballot Initiatives

Arizonans approved an amendment in 2022 requiring citizen-initiated ballot measures to embrace only a single subject or issue, which must be expressed in the title of the measure. Although the amendment aligned the initiative process with long-standing legislative requirements, opponents argued that citizens lack the same resources and time as legislators and that single-subject requirements were “just another way to undermine the will of the people” by forcing citizens to propose multiple, piecemeal initiatives. The requirement, opponents reasoned, would open the door to challenges regarding what qualifies as a single subject for the purpose of obstructing otherwise popular measures. Supporters argued that the measure “stops special interests from hiding parts of their agenda” and would prevent the practice of logrolling, whereby voters may be induced to approve unpopular measures that are combined with popular ones. The proposal was ultimately ratified with 55% of the vote.

Although advocates of direct democracy were unsuccessful in opposing the single-subject amendment, they succeeded in opposing a separate amendment on the ballot that year, which would have allowed the legislature to amend or repeal initiative or referendum measures containing provisions ruled unconstitutional by the Arizona Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court. Opponents to the amendment argued that the proposal was a “sneaky way to undermine” the limits on amending or repealing voter-approved measures by allowing the legislature to alter or repeal the entire measure even if only a small portion of the measure was deemed unconstitutional. 

Lieutenant Governor

Arizonans also ratified an amendment to create the office of lieutenant governor within the executive department and to establish a joint-ticket system for electing the governor and lieutenant governor, beginning in 2026. When the amendment was first proposed, Arizona was just one of five states without a lieutenant governor, and the secretary of state was designated as the successor to the governorship. Supporters argued that the joint-ticket model was advantageous because it avoided potential mid-term changes in party and because the secretary of state “[was] elected to handle administrative election duties and state records, a far cry from serving as the state’s chief executive.” To ensure the new office wouldn’t “grow government,” the legislature passed a law during the 2022 legislative session, conditioned on the amendment’s ratification, requiring that the lieutenant governor occupy an existing high-level executive position within the governor’s administration, such as chief of staff or agency director. 

Arizona State Capitol Executive Tower. Chris English

2006

English as Official State Language

Approved by voters in 2006, Article 28 of the Arizona Constitution designates English as the official language of the state. At the time of the amendment’s adoption, 27 other states had a statute or constitutional provision designating English as the state’s official language. The effort to enshrine English as the official state language in Arizona can be traced back at least as far as 1988. In 1988, the people of Arizona initiated and approved an amendment making English the state’s official language. However, that provision swept broadly, requiring all state and local government officials and employees to “act” only in English during the performance of government business. Following a decade of litigation, the Arizona Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the measure violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Court concluded it was “not content-neutral; rather, it constitutes a sweeping injunction against speech in any language other than English.” 

The new amendment that passed in 2006 cured the flaws the court had identified. For example, it clarified that only “official actions” must be conducted in English. Although the original proposal making English the state’s official language passed by a thin margin in 1988, with only 50.5% of the vote, the 2006 iteration was approved by nearly three-quarters of the electorate. Today, more than 30 states and five U.S. territories have designated English as the official language, and on March 1, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order declaring that English was the official language of the United States.

In 2006 the Constitution was Changed 14 Times

1998

Unaffiliated Voters in Primary Elections

One of four amendments that passed in 1998 allowed unaffiliated voters to vote in the partisan primary of their choice. (The other three amendments addressed the public retirement system, state investments, and the ability of the legislature to amend initiative or referendum measures.) Such semi-open primaries were a departure from the state's former primary system, under which only voters who were registered members of one of the four major political parties—Democrat, Libertarian, Reform or Republican—were eligible to vote in their party’s primary. Both major parties, as well as then-Governor Jane Hull, supported the amendment, which was viewed as a way to accommodate the growing number of political independents in the state.

In Arizona Libertarian Party, Inc. v. Bayless, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected one application of this new system: It held that the Libertarian Party had a right under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to exclude nonparty members from voting in elections for Libertarian Party precinct committee members.

Repeal and Amendment of Initiative or Referenda

In 1914, voters approved an amendment prohibiting the legislature from amending or repealing initiative or referendum measures approved by a majority of voters participating in that election. In 1998, two competing constitutional amendments seeking to alter this prohibition were placed on the ballot. Both proposals responded to the Arizona Supreme Court’s interpretation of the 1914 amendment by applying the limits on legislative power to all approved initiative and referendum measures. The first, proposed by the legislature, would have given the legislature the authority to amend such measures with a two-thirds vote and limit the prohibition on repeal to five years. The second, which was ultimately approved, expanded the legislative repeal to all approved measures and gave the legislature the limited power to amend or supersede such measures only in ways that further the purpose of the original measure and by a three-fourths vote.  Any other changes to the measures must be approved by a majority of voters.

Proponents of the prevailing amendment pointed to the legislature’s attempt to immediately amend an initiated statute that passed in 1996. Although voters ultimately rebuked the legislature by rejecting the amendment in a referendum vote, concerns remained that the existing prohibition on repeal and amendment of initiative and referendum measures was insufficient to keep the legislature from thwarting voters’ will.

Campaign signs for the 2006 Arizona elections, including for Proposition 107, a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment. Guroadrunner.

1992

Repealing the Runoff Election Provision

Only four years after voters approved a constitutional amendment requiring candidates for state executive offices to receive a majority of votes cast to win an election, voters reverted to a system of plurality elections and repealed the runoff requirement. Supporters of a return to the old system argued that the runoff requirement was a failed experiment that had been “shown to be impractical and expensive.” Following the 1990 election, the gubernatorial race went to a runoff election; proponents of the 1992 amendment observed that the runoff did not change the result of the election. Opponents were less inclined to abandon the new system after only one implementation of the provision, stating it was “too soon” to reverse the change and that the “recent runoff election . . . did not harm the operation of state government.” The measure ultimately passed with over 66% of the vote. 

For more on the election of state executive officers, see 1988.

Public Participation in Judicial Appointments

In 1992, voters also passed an amendment providing greater opportunities for public participation in the process of appointing and evaluating judges and justices subject to the merit selection appointment system. First, the amendment required the judicial selection commissions to hold public hearings, take public testimony, and hold a public vote before the commissions could nominate a candidate to the governor for appointment. Second, it provided for the creation of citizen committees that would recommend individuals for appointments to the judicial selection commissions. Finally, the amendment adopted a judicial evaluation system that involved soliciting feedback from voters.

In addition to these reforms, the amendment required all judicial appointments to be made in “an impartial and objective manner with primary consideration given to merit.” It further provided that the commission should consider the diversity of the state’s or county’s population when making its recommendations to the governor.

For more on judicial appointments, see 1974 and 1976. 

In 1992 the Constitution was Changed 30 Times

Article IV. Legislative Department
Section 21.

Terms limits of members of state legislature

Article V. Executive Department
Section 1.

Executive department; state officers; terms; election; residence and office at seat of government; duties

Article V. Executive Department
Section 1.

Executive department; state officers; terms; election; residence and office at seat of government; duties

Article V. Executive Department
Section 1, Version 1.

Term limits on Executive department and state officers; terms lengths; election; residence and office at seat of government; duties

Article V. Executive Department
Section 10.

Ineligibility of state treasurer to succeed himself

Article V. Executive Department
Section 12.

Compensation of elective state officers; commission on salaries for elective state officers

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 12.

Superior court; term of office

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 28.

Justices and judges; dual office holding; political activity; practice of law

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 30.

Courts of record

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 35.

Continuance in office; continued existence of offices; application of prior statute and rules

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 36.

Commission on appellate court appointments and terms, appointments and vacancies on commission

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 37.

Judicial vacancies and appointments; initial terms; residence; age

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 38.

Declaration of candidacy; form of judicial ballot, rejection and retention; failure to file declaration

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 40.

Option for counties with less than two hundred fifty thousand persons

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 41.

Superior court divisions; commission on trial court appointments; membership; terms

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 42.

Retention evaluation of justices and judges

Article VII. Suffrage and Elections
Section 7.

Highest number of votes received as determinative of person elected

Article VII. Suffrage and Elections
Section 18.

Term limits on ballot appearances in congressional elections

Article VIII. Removal From Office
Section 4.

Special election; candidates; results; qualification of successor

Article IX. Public Debt, Revenue, and Taxation
Section 20.

Expenditure limitation; adjustments; reporting

Article IX. Public Debt, Revenue, and Taxation
Section 22.

Vote required to increase state revenues; application; exceptions

Article XII. Counties
Section 5.

Charter committee; charter preparation; approval

Article XII. Counties
Section 6.

Amendment of charter

Article XII. Counties
Section 7.

County charter provisions

Article XII. Counties
Section 8.

Government and other powers

Article XII. Counties
Section 9.

Self-executing provision

Article XV. The Corporation Commission
Section 1.

Term limits on Corporation Commission; Composition; election; office and residence; vacancies; qualifications.

Article XIX. Mines

Mines

Article XIX, Version 1. Mines

Mines

Article XXII. Schedule and Miscellaneous
Section 22.

Judgments of death

1988

Commission on Judicial Conduct

A legislatively-referred amendment renamed the Commission on Judicial Qualifications to the Commission on Judicial Conduct. This name better reflected the commission’s role and reduced confusion with the commissions on judicial selection. The 1988 amendment also expanded the commission from nine to eleven members and included municipal court judges in the commission’s jurisdiction. This would provide a single location for citizens to file an ethical complaint “with the knowledge that an investigation will follow.” Finally, the amendment gave the commission and the supreme court an additional means of disciplining a judge by adding the possibility of suspension without pay. The then-current law only provided for censure or removal. 

For more on the Commission on Judicial Conduct, see 1970.

Removing Language Restricting Eligibility for State Office to Men

The 1988 ballot also included a measure to modernize language in the state constitution by removing the requirement that a person must be male to be eligible for state office. The measure passed through the legislature with unanimous approval before it was ratified by voters. Although the state’s attorney general had already concluded in 1984 and that the male-only requirement was superseded by another provision guaranteeing the right of officeholding to men and women, the male-only language was regarded as conveying an “appearance of unfairness,” and proponents urged that “the constitution should directly say what it means.”

Requiring State Executives to Receive Majority Vote

Concerned by the prospect that a candidate could receive the support of less than half of the voters and still win an election, in 1988, voters passed an amendment to require that successful candidates receive at least a simple majority of the vote. This provision operated until its repeal four years later. Under its requirements, if no candidate received a simple majority, the amendment provided for a runoff election between the two highest vote-getters. Opponents of this measure called it “an overreaction” by the legislature spurred by “recent furor over a . . . governor who had received less than a majority” vote. Governor Evan Mecham had carried the governorship in a surprise victory the year earlier with only 40% of the total vote. Governor Mecham was subsequently indicted on felony counts of perjury, fraud, and failure to report a campaign contribution. Following his indictment, citizens successfully initiated a recall election, but before the recall election could take place, the Arizona legislature impeached and convicted Mecham, removing him from office. Governor Mecham was eventually acquitted on the felony charges, but his later attempt to run for governor failed. 

For more on the election of state executive officers, see 1992.

Governor Fife Symington and Mayor Terry Goddard, who faced off in a run-off election in 1991 for the governorship. David Valdez & Gage Skidmore.

In 1988 the Constitution was Changed 15 Times

Article V. Executive Department
Section 1.

Executive department; state officers; terms; election; residence and office at seat of government; duties

Article V. Executive Department
Section 2.

Eligibility to state offices

Article VI.I. Commission on Judicial Conduct

Commission on Judicial Conduct

Article VI.I. Commission on Judicial Conduct
Section 1.

Composition; appointment; term; vacancies

Article VI.I. Commission on Judicial Conduct
Section 2.

Disqualification of judge

Article VI.I. Commission on Judicial Conduct
Section 3.

Suspension or removal of judge

Article VI.I. Commission on Judicial Conduct
Section 4.

Retirement of judge

Article VI.I. Commission on Judicial Conduct
Section 5.

Definitions and rules implementing article

Article VII. Suffrage and Elections
Section 7.

Highest number of votes received as determinative of person elected

Article VIII. Removal From Office
Section 4.

Special election; candidates; results; qualification of successor

Article XXVIII. English as the Official Language

English as the Official Language

Article XXVIII. English as the Official Language
Section 1.

English as the official language; applicability

Article XXVIII. English as the Official Language
Section 2.

Requiring this state to presereve, protect and enhance English

Article XXVIII. English as the Official Language
Section 3.

Prohibiting this state from using or requiring the use of languages other than English; exceptions

Article XXVIII. English as the Official Language
Section 4.

Enforcement; standing

In 1980 the Constitution was Changed 16 Times

Article V. Executive Department
Section 10.

Ineligibility of state treasurer to hold office for more than two consecutive elected terms

Article IX. Public Debt, Revenue, and Taxation
Section 2.

Property subject to taxation; exemptions

Article IX. Public Debt, Revenue, and Taxation
Section 2.1.

Exemption from tax; property of widowers

Article IX. Public Debt, Revenue, and Taxation
Section 2.2.

Exemption from tax; property of disabled persons

Article IX. Public Debt, Revenue, and Taxation
Section 2.3.

Exemption from tax; increase In amount of exemptions, assessments and Income

Article IX. Public Debt, Revenue, and Taxation
Section 8.

Local debt limits; assent of taxpayers

Article IX. Public Debt, Revenue, and Taxation
Section 8.1.

Unified school district debt limit

Article IX. Public Debt, Revenue, and Taxation
Section 17.

Economic estimates commission; appropriation limitation; powers and duties of commission

Article IX. Public Debt, Revenue, and Taxation
Section 18.

Residential ad valorem tax limits; limit on increase in values; definitions

Article IX. Public Debt, Revenue, and Taxation
Section 19.

Limitation on annual increases in local ad valorem tax levies; exceptions

Article IX. Public Debt, Revenue, and Taxation
Section 20.

Expenditure limitation; adjustments; reporting

Article IX. Public Debt, Revenue, and Taxation
Section 21.

Expenditure limitations for school districts and community college districts

Article XV. The Corporation Commission
Section 2.

"Public service corporations" defined

Article XV. The Corporation Commission
Section 10.

Railways as public highways; other corporations as common carriers

Article XVIII. Labor
Section 8.

Workmen's compensation law

Article XXII. Schedule and Miscellaneous
Section 18.

Nomination of incumbent public officers to other offices

1976

Senate Confirmation of Gubernatorial Appointments

In 1976, voters initiated and approved five amendments to the constitution requiring senate confirmation of the governor’s appointments of superior and appellate judges, members of the Commission on Judicial Qualifications, members of the State Board of Education, regents and other members of state educational institution governing bodies, and the Director of Insurance for the Corporation Commission. The governor was already required to obtain senate confirmation for appointments to other offices prior to these amendments; these five amendments expanded the number of offices subject to that confirmation process. Although senate confirmation was a “traditional legislative check” on gubernatorial power, there were some concerns that this requirement improperly encroached on gubernatorial freedom of selection and the governor’s power over entities within the executive branch.

1974

Judicial Article Overhaul

In 1974, Arizona voters approved a citizen-initiated amendment making large-scale changes to the judicial article of the constitution, including:

Replaced the state’s system of nonpartisan judicial elections with the “Missouri plan,” involving a merit-based selection system paired with retention elections. The merit-based system only applies to appellate court and superior court judges who serve a county with more than 150,000 residents. (This was later raised to 250,000 residents in 1992.) Counties with fewer than 150,000 residents had the option to adopt the merit selection process in a referendum election called by the county’s board of supervisors.

Created two commissions on judicial appointments, each comprising the chief justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, three attorneys, and five non-attorneys, to make recommendations to the governor for the appointment of trial and appellate court judges.

Instituted a mandatory retirement age of 70 years old.

Barred judges and justices from holding office in a political party or taking part in political campaigns other than their own.

Provided that a judge or justice automatically forfeits their position on the bench if they file nomination papers for any elective office other than a superior or local court serving a county with fewer than 150,000 residents.

Proponents argued that merit selection would reverse political capture of the judicial selection process and that retention elections would require judges to receive affirmative confirmation from voters to remain in office, rather than remaining in office by default in the absence of a challenger. Opponents responded that merit selection and putting the final decision in the hands of the governor made the judicial selection process susceptible to interest group capture and took away the people’s ability to choose the judges of their choice—restricting voters to a simple yes or no vote on a judge chosen by politicians. Both sides raised fears that the other side’s option created too few options for voters to rid themselves of a judge who fails to faithfully serve the public.

For more on judicial appointments, see 1976 and 1992. 

Yuma County Courthouse. Cbl62.

In 1974 the Constitution was Changed 20 Times

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 3.

Supreme court; administrative supervision; chief justice

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 4.

Supreme court; term of office

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 12.

Superior court; term of office

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 20.

Retirement and service of retired justices and judges

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 28.

Justices and judges; dual office holding; political activity; practice of law

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 30.

Courts of record

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 35.

Continuance in office; continued existence of offices; application of prior statute and rules

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 36.

Continuance in office; continued existence of offices; application of prior statute and rules

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 36.

Commission on appellate and trial court appointments and terms, appointments and vacancies on such commissions

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 37.

Judicial vacancies and appointments; initial terms; residence; age

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 38.

Declaration of candidacy; form of judicial ballot, rejection and retention; failure to file declaration

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 39.

Retirement of justices and judges; vacancies

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 40.

Option for counties with less than two hundred fifty thousand persons

Article VI.I. Commission on Judicial Conduct
Section 1.

Composition; appointment; term; vacancies

Article VIII. Removal From Office
Section 3.

Resignation of officer; special election

Article IX. Public Debt, Revenue, and Taxation
Section 8.1.

Unified school district debt limits

Article IX. Public Debt, Revenue, and Taxation
Section 11.

Taxing procedure; license tax on registered vehicles

Article XI. Education
Section 5.

Regents of university and other governing boards; appointment by governor; membership of governor on board of regents

Article XV. The Corporation Commission
Section 2.

"Public service corporations" defined

Article XV. The Corporation Commission
Section 5.

Power to issue certificates of incorporation and licenses

1972

Reapportionment and Size of the Legislature

Although the Arizona House of Representatives had been reapportioned on the basis of population, at least in part, since 1918, the constitution did not contemplate population-based legislative districts for the Arizona Senate until 1972.  And, with respect to the House, in 1953, Arizona transitioned away from a purely population-based method to one requiring some measure of geography-based apportionment; that year, voters approved an amendment that provided one representative per county, with additional seats distributed based on the number of voters participating in the prior gubernatorial election. The 1972 amendment to the apportionment clauses made no explicit reference to the factors or method of apportionment, including population. It merely simplified the redistricting provisions by directing the legislature to create 30 legislative districts, each entitled to one senator and two representatives. However, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1963 decision in Reynolds v. Sims, which established the principle of “one person, one vote” for state legislative apportionment, guaranteed that these new legislative districts would be roughly equal in population.

For more on reapportionment, see 1918.

The floor of the Arizona State Senate. Gage Skidmore.

1970

Elective State Officers Compensation Commission

In 1970, Arizona voters approved an amendment to establish the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers. The commission, comprising five unpaid individuals appointed by the governor, legislative leaders, and the chief justice, is tasked with reviewing the salaries of state officials and judges. Based on their findings, the commission makes salary recommendations every other year. Although the governor and legislature retain ultimate authority over the salaries of executive officers and judges, voters retain authority over legislative salaries. From 1970 to 2014, the commission recommended 18 salary increases for legislators, but voters only approved two—once in 1980 and the second in 1998. Since 2014, the commission has not placed a salary increase on the ballot, which is due, at least in part, to vacancies that deprive the commission of a quorum. 

Commission on Judicial Conduct

The amendment establishing the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers was proposed as a part of a pair of amendments to “improve the quality of public service in Arizona.” The second proposal created the Arizona Commission on Judicial Qualifications, now called the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct. The commission was formed to make recommendations to the state supreme court on the censure, removal, or retirement of judges. Proponents of the measure focused on the creation of a mechanism to retire judges whose ability to serve on the bench becomes impaired after their election. This amendment left the judicial recall in place, providing an additional mechanism for the removal of judges. 

For more on the Commission on Judicial Conduct, see 1988.

1968

Abolishing the Office of State Auditor and Extending the Terms of State Officers

In 1968, Arizona voters approved an amendment abolishing the Office of the State Auditor. Proponents argued that “State Auditor” was a misnomer—as the auditor served as an accountant and bookkeeper rather than performing audits of the state’s financial transactions—and that the position usurped the governor’s ability to implement the budget and supervise the state’s expenditures. Transferring the auditor’s duties to the governor was intended to improve financial control and ensure that financial responsibility was placed “in the executive most directly accountable to the people the State.

Simultaneously, Arizona voters approved an amendment extending the terms of state officers, including the auditor, from two years to four years. Having ratified two amendments which were seemingly in direct conflict with one another, voters turned to the Supreme Court of Arizona to harmonize the two amendments so that the constitution was “a consistent workable whole.” Guided by “the principle that the dominant canon of constitutional interpretation is to arrive at the purpose of the constitutional enactment,” the court reasoned that “the two propositions are in conflict only if the language of [the term length amendment] is literally applied in a vacuum without searching for the end sought to be attained.” The court concluded the two amendments could be harmonized by abolishing the office of the state auditor and increasing the term lengths of all remaining executive officers. In 1974, voters ratified an amendment to the language of the two provisions to reflect the interpretation reached by the supreme court.

Jack Williams, Governor of Arizona 1967-1975. Unknown Author.

In 1960 the Constitution was Changed 65 Times

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 1.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 2.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 3.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 4.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 5.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 6.

Superior court; original jurisdiction

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 6.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 7.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 8.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 9.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 10.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 11.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 12.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 13.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 14.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 15.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 16.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 17.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 18.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 19.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 20.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 21.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 22.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 23.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 24.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 25.

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 26.

Article VI. Judicial Department

Judicial Department

Article VI. Judicial Department

Judicial Department

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 1.

Judicial power; courts

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 2.

Supreme court; composition; divisions; decisions, transaction of business

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 3.

Supreme court; administrative supervision; chief justice

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 4.

Supreme court; term of office

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 5.

Supreme court; jurisdiction; writs; rules; habeas corpus

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 6.

Supreme court; qualifications of justices

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 7.

Supreme court; clerk and assistants; administrative director and staff

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 8.

Supreme court; publication of opinions

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 9.

Intermediate appellate courts

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 10.

Superior court; number of judges

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 11.

Superior court; presiding judges; duties

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 12.

Superior court; term of office

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 13.

Superior court; composition; salaries; judgments and proceedings; process

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 14.

Superior court; original jurisdiction

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 15.

Jurisdiction and authority in juvenile proceedings

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 16.

Superior court; appellate jurisdiction

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 17.

Superior court; conduct of business; trial juries; jury trial; grand juries

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 18.

Superior court; writs

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 19.

Superior court; service of judge in another county

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 20.

Retirement and service of retired justices and judges

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 21.

Superior court; speedy decisions

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 22.

Superior and other courts; qualifications of judges

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 23.

Superior court; clerk

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 24.

Superior court; court commissioners, masters and referees

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 25.

Style of process; conduct of prosecutions in name of state

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 26.

Oath of office

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 27.

Charge to juries; reversal of causes for technical error

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 28.

Justices and judges; dual office holding; political activity; practice of law

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 29.

Salaries

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 30.

Courts of record

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 31.

Judges pro tempore

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 32.

Justices of the peace and inferior courts; jurisdiction, powers and duties; terms of office; salaries

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 33.

Change by legislature in number of justices or judges; reduction of salary during term of office

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 34.

Absence of judicial officer from state

Article VI. Judicial Department
Section 35.

Continuance in office; continued existence of offices; application of prior statute and rules

Article XVIII. Labor
Section 10.

Employment of aliens

1956

Teacher Exchange Programs and Non-Citizen Employment by Public Entities

In 1946, the Fulbright Program established an exchange program of teachers, students, professors, and research scholars between the United States and participating countries. Ten years later, Arizona was the only U.S. state not participating in the program due to a constitutional provision that prevented Arizona’s public schools, colleges, and universities from employing non-citizens. At the urging of Governor Ernest McFarland, the legislature proposed an amendment to create an exemption to the prohibition on employing non-citizens for those participating in exchange programs created by federal statute. This amendment passed, finally allowing Arizona to participate in the Fulbright Program. Four years later, this provision was once again amended to create an exception allowing state universities and colleges to employ non-citizens as faculty members.

University of Arizona, Old Main. Historic American Buildings Survey.

1948

Consolidation of Superior Courts

Prior to 1948, the superior courts of the state were divided by county. However, the constitution allowed any superior court judge to hold court in another county at the request of that county’s judge. This created uncertainty as to the jurisdiction and powers of visiting judges and raised questions about whether a judge could, as a visiting judge, hear cases not specifically assigned to him by the local judge. A 1948 amendment consolidated the county superior courts into a single superior court, allowing all elected or appointed judges of the superior court to exercise the full powers and authority of the office when presiding in a superior court. Although the superior court is now a single entity, it has locations in each county, and each county has at least one superior court judge.

Gubernatorial Succession

As it was originally worded, the constitution’s provision on gubernatorial succession provided that when the governor died, the “powers and duties” of the office “devolve upon” the secretary of state. Following Governor Sidney Osborn’s death in 1948, Secretary of State Dan Garvey assumed the office of governor. However, Attorney General Evo DeConcini challenged Garvey’s right to take office, instead arguing that “Garvey did not in law or in fact become governor of Arizona” and that he only exercised the powers and duties of the office of governor as the secretary of state. Arizona’s highest court agreed, construing the section’s language to mean that Garvey was “ex officio or acting governor, invested by constitutional mandate with all the powers and duties of that high office,” but that he was “not governor de jure or de facto.”

Five months after the court’s ruling, Arizona voters approved an amendment bringing clarity to the provision, which now states explicitly that the secretary of state “shall succeed to the office of governor.” Garvey thus has the distinction of being Arizona’s longest-serving (and only) ex officio governor.

Arizona Governor Dan E. Garvey. Arizona Daily Star.

In 1925 the Constitution was Changed 1 Time

1918

Population-Based Redistricting of the House of Representatives

The original Arizona Constitution provided that “[u]ntil otherwise provided by law,” the Arizona Senate and House of Representatives would consist of a fixed number of members—19 in the senate and 35 in the house. The constitution also fixed the number of representatives allocated to each county. For example, Cochise County was allotted two senators and seven house representatives. In 1918, Arizonans initiated a constitutional amendment moving to a population-based system of apportionment for members of the Arizona House of Representatives. Each county was divided into legislative districts of 1,500 voters, who could nominate and elect one representative each. Fourteen years later, the size of the house districts increased to 2,500 voters, reducing the number of house members from 64 to 37. Throughout this time, the size and composition of the senate was left unchanged.

For more on reapportionment, see 1972.

The floor of the Arizona House of Representatives. Gage Skidmore.

1914

Repeal or Amendment of Initiatives and Referenda Prohibited

Just two years after reinstating the recall power and giving women the right to vote, Arizonans further strengthened their powers of self-governance by limiting the legislature’s ability to repeal or amend citizen initiatives. The original constitution already prevented the governor from vetoing initiated legislation, but the 1914 amendment prohibited the legislature from amending or repealing initiated measures that were approved by a majority of voters participating in that election. Although there was some contention that the prohibition extended to all enacted initiatives or referenda, the Arizona Supreme Court ultimately determined that the prohibition was more limited.

Proponents of the measure, including organized labor interests like the Arizona State Federation of Labor who sought to preserve their movements’ successes with the initiative and referendum, argued that permitting the legislature to intervene in citizen lawmaking renders the direct democracy powers “nil” and was “only a burden to the statute books of the State.” Opponents, on the other hand, felt an uninhibited initiative process would result in “cluttering up” statute books with laws that might be “harmful” or “useless.” Ultimately, the measure passed by a narrow margin of fewer than one hundred votes.

For more on the legislative repeal or amendment of initiatives and referenda, see 1998.

Arizona Territorial Capitol, Phoenix (1908). Lester Clement Barton.

1912

Recall

Faced with a choice between retaining the judicial recall provision and admission to the Union, voters approved a referendum to exempt judges from the recall provision nine to one in December 1911. This allowed Arizona to enter the Union in 1912. However, just months later, at the fall general election, Arizona voters approved a referendum to reinstate the recall power in the state constitution by a margin of almost fifty to one.

Women’s Suffrage

Despite intense lobbying and the fact that most western states already permitted women to vote, the drafters of Arizona’s first constitution rejected women’s suffrage. Then-Governor Alexander Brodie objected to women’s suffrage on the grounds that it might jeopardize the bid for statehood. Others posited that opposition was motivated by fears “the state would go dry”—i.e., pass a prohibition measure—if women were allowed to vote. Although proponents of women’s suffrage failed to get the provision passed through the convention, women gained the right to vote soon after Arizona’s admission to the Union. In 1912, voters initiated and approved an amendment granting women the right to vote and hold public office. Arizona thus became the tenth state to grant women suffrage, eight years before the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

Handbill advocating women's suffrage. Unknown.