Arizona Proposition 209, Healthcare Debt Interest Rate Limit and Debt Collection Exemptions Initiative (2022)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Arizona Proposition 209
Flag of Arizona.png
Election date
November 8, 2022
Topic
Healthcare and Property
Status
Approveda Approved
Type
State statute		Origin
Citizens

Arizona Proposition 209, the Healthcare Debt Interest Rate Limit and Debt Collection Exemptions Initiative, was on the ballot in Arizona as an initiated state statute on November 8, 2022. The measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported:

  • setting a limit on interest rates for debt accrued from receiving healthcare services equal to either the weekly average one-year constant maturity treasury yield or 3%, and 
  • increasing the amount of value for certain property and earnings exempt from attachment, execution, forced sale, and any other debt collection processes.

A "no" vote opposed:

  • setting a limit on interest rates for debt accrued from receiving healthcare services equal to either the weekly average one-year constant maturity treasury yield or 3%, and 
  • increasing the amount of value for certain property and earnings exempt from attachment, execution, forced sale, and any other debt collection processes.


Election results

Arizona Proposition 209

Result Votes Percentage

Approved Yes

1,747,363 72.01%
No 679,089 27.99%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Overview

How did Proposition 209 change policy toward debt interest rates and collection?

See also: Measure design

Proposition 209 was designed to set a limit on interest rates for debt accrued from receiving healthcare services as equal to either the weekly average one-year constant maturity treasury yield or 3 percent, whichever is less. It was also designed to increase the amount of value for certain property—including homestead, household furnishings, motor vehicles, and bank account funds—and earnings exempt from attachment, execution, forced sale, and any other debt collection processes.[1][2]

The amount of a homestead exempt from debt collection increased from $250,000 to $400,000. The value of household furnishings exempt from debt collection increased from $6,000 to $15,000. The equity of a motor vehicle exempt from the debt collection process increased from $6,000 to $15,000, and if the individual who owes a debt, or their dependent, has a physical disability, this amount increased from $12,000 to $25,000. The initiative was designed to adjust the above values yearly by the increase in the cost of living.[2]

The amount of money held in a bank account or other financial institution exempt from debt collection increased from $300 to $5,000. The disposable earnings subject to debt collection changed to 10 percent, or 60 times the minimum wage, whichever is less.[2]

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding the ballot measure?

The Arizonans Fed Up With Failing Healthcare PAC (Healthcare Rising Arizona) was registered to support Proposition 209.[3] The campaign has received $12.8 million in total contributions and has spent $12.8 million in expenditures. The top donor was SEIU United Healthcare Workers, contributing $8.8 million to the PAC. The other top donors were Healthcare Rising Arizona, contributing $3.54 million, and the SEIU UHW Political Issues Committee, contributing $500,000. These numbers are according to campaign finance reports which covered up to December 31, 2022.[4]

Ballotpedia has not identified a campaign registered in opposition to Proposition 209.[5]

What is Arizona’s policy toward debt collection, and debt from healthcare services?

See also: Arizona policy toward debt collection and debt from healthcare services

When an individual has an outstanding debt due, that balance may be sent to a debt collector or debt collection agency in order to collect the money owed. The debt collector will be responsible for contacting the individual who owes a debt in order to collect the money owed. Collectors may also report delinquent debts to credit bureaus.[6]

For a debt collector to garnish wages or bank accounts, the debt collector must take the individual to court before the statute of limitations runs out. In Arizona, for medical debt, the statute of limitations is six years.[7] If the debt collector is granted a judgment against the individual who owes the debt, creditors can garnish disposable earnings, place a lien on real estate property, or place a levy on personal property. A debt collector may also seize money in the individual’s bank account, though under Arizona law the first $300 within the account are protected from seizure.[7]

Arizona debt collectors must abide by certain federal regulations, as well as state regulations. [8] At the time of the election, Arizona law protected $250,000 of the value of a home from debt collection.[9] Arizona asset protections were capped at $6,000 for a motor vehicle, $300 in a bank account from garnishment, and $6,000 in household goods.[10] These amounts were set change after voters approved Proposition 209.

Aftermath

Lawsuit

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png This article contains a developing news story. Ballotpedia staff are checking for updates regularly. To inform us of new developments, email us at editor@ballotpedia.org.


Lawsuit overview
Issue: Is Proposition 209 clear about whether the provisions apply to old debts or new debts, and is this measure enforceable?
Court: Maricopa County Superior Court
Plaintiff(s): Arizona Creditors Bar Association Inc, et al.Defendant(s): State of Arizona

  Source: Verified Special Action Complaint

On December 5, 2022, a lawsuit against the State of Arizona was filed by the Arizona Creditors Bar Association, the Protect Our Arizona PAC, and other plaintiffs. The lawsuit questioned the constitutionality of Proposition 209, specifically the Savings Clause within the initiative which states that the law applies prospectively only, but that it does not apply to "right and duties that matured" before the effective date of the law.[11] On December 7, 2022, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge John Blanchard signed a temporary restraining order preventing the enforcement of Proposition 209.[12] On December 20, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge denied the lawsuit. The ruling said that "Prop. 209 should be permitted to take effect, without guidance or restriction from the court," and that "While the scope of the law is wide-ranging and impacts important and long-standing processes for collecting debts, the language at issue is neither vague nor unintelligible."[13]

Measure design

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of the constitutional amendment.

Homestead exemptions: Increases the amount of homestead exempt from debt collection

Proposition 209 was designed to increase the amount of homestead exempt from debt collection from $250,000 to $400,000. This amount will be adjusted yearly by the increase in the cost of living.

Household furnishings: Increases the amount of value in household furnishings

The measure was designed to increase the value in household furnishings exempt from debt collection process from $6,000 to $15,000. This amount will be adjusted yearly by the increase in the cost of living.

Motor vehicles: Increases the amount of value for motor vehicles exempt from debt collection

The equity of a motor vehicle exempt from the debt collection process increased from $6,000 to $15,000. If the debtor or debtor’s dependent has a physical disability, this amount increased from $12,000 to $25,000. This amount will be adjusted yearly by the increase in the cost of living.

Money in financial institutions Increases amount exempt from debt collection

Proposition 209 increased the amount of money held in a single account of any financial institution that is exempt from debt collection from $300 to $5,000.

Disposable earnings: Decreases amount of disposable earnings subject to debt collection

The maximum part of disposable earnings subject to debt collection was decreased to 10 percent or earnings that exceed 60 times the minimum wage, whichever is less. This was a decrease from 25 percent or earnings that exceed 30 times the applicable minimum wage, whichever was less.

Interest rates: Caps interest rates on medical debt at 3 percent per year

The interest rate on medical debt is limited to the interest rate equal to the average 1-year constant maturity yield, but is capped at not be more than 3 percent per year. This maximum interest rate will also apply to any judgments on medical debt.


Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:[1]

“
Proposition 209
Proposed by initiative petition relating to predatory debt collection protection


Official Title

Amending sections 12-1598.10, 33-1101, 33-1123, 33-1125, 33-1126, 33-1131, and 44-1201, Arizona revised statutes; relating to predatory debt collection protection.

Descriptive Title

The law would reduce maximum interest rates on medical debt from 10 percent to 3 percent annually; increase the amount of certain assets exempt from debt collection; annually adjust exemptions for inflation beginning 2024; and allow courts to reduce the amount of disposable earnings garnished in cases of extreme economic hardship. [14]

”

Ballot summary

The official ballot summary was as follows:[1]

“ A “YES” vote shall have the effect of reducing maximum interest rates on medical debt from ten percent to no more than three percent per year; increasing exemptions from all debt collection for certain personal assets, including a debtor’s home, household items, motor vehicle, and bank account from debt collection; adjusting exemptions from all debt collection for inflation beginning in 2024; decreasing the amount of disposable earnings subject to garnishment to no more than ten percent of disposable earnings but allowing a court to decrease the disposable earnings subject to garnishment to five percent based on extreme economic hardship.

A “NO” vote shall have the effect of retaining existing laws related to debt collection. [14]

”

Full text

The full text of the ballot initiative is below:[1]

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2022

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 secretary of state wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 13, and the FRE is 16. The word count for the ballot title is 73.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 14, and the FRE is 36. The word count for the ballot summary is 113.


Support

Healthcarerising.jpeg

The Arizonans Fed Up With Failing Healthcare PAC (Healthcare Rising Arizona) was leading the ballot initiative.[3]

Supporters

Officials

Political Parties

Unions

  • Arizona Education Association
  • SEIU United Healthcare Workers West
  • Southwest Carpenters
  • UNITE HERE Local 11
  • Western States Regional Joint Board

Organizations

  • Arizona Building and Construction Trades Council
  • Arizona Faith Network
  • Arizona Jews for Justice
  • Arizona Public Health Association
  • Arizona Students Association
  • Arizona Wins
  • Be a Hero PAC
  • Case Action
  • Center for Economic Integrity
  • Civic Engagement Beyond Voting
  • Living United for Change Arizona
  • NAACP East Valley Branch
  • One Arizona
  • Our Voice Our Vote
  • Peoples Defense Initiative
  • Phoenix Workers Alliance
  • RIP Medical Debt
  • Rural Arizona Action
  • Southern Arizona AIDS Foundation
  • Southwest Fair Housing Council
  • Vets Forward
  • Wildfire AZ


Arguments

  • Kelly Hall, executive director of the Fairness Project: “No one should have to declare bankruptcy, be harassed by debt collectors, or lose their home because they sought treatment for an illness or injury. This is a matter of basic economic justice. If passed, this ballot measure will provide direct relief to Arizona families whose lives are upended by medical debt. It will also help to ensure people don’t avoid getting care they need out of fear of going into debt—something that is essential while we are still in a pandemic.”
  • Rodd McLeod, spokesperson for Healthcare Rising: "These are protections that people generally agree with, that you shouldn't lose your car. If you have debt you have to pay off, in Arizona, you need a car to get to work. Losing their car doesn't help them pay off the debt."
  • Raquel Terán, chair of the Arizona Democratic Party: "Unexpected healthcare bills are a major source of stress and anxiety for too many Arizonans, and become even more so when that debt is bought by a predatory collection agency. Why are they called predatory? These unscrupulous agencies buy debt for just a fraction of what is owed and can then come after people and demand payment in full. This initiative will tighten up existing consumer protections, so that these collectors can’t harass, threaten, and ruin the lives of hardworking Arizonans."
  • Will Humble, executive director of the Arizona Public Health Association: "Proposition 209 doesn’t give people in debt a ‘free pass’. Far from it. But it does level the playing field so people will have an opportunity to pay back their debts without spiraling into poverty. The Predatory Debt Collection Protection Act brings Arizona more in line with the recommendations provided by the National Consumer Law Center, enabling people in debt to pay off what they owe without losing their ability to meet their daily living needs. For example, it limits the amount of wage income that can be garnished to 10% or less of disposable earnings so that families don’t get pushed below the federal poverty level. Right now, 25% of a person’s wages can be garnished, even if it sends them under the poverty limit. It also limits interest rates on medical debt to 3% so families don’t get trapped in an unending cycle by sky-high interest rates. Working and middle-class families will also be protected from predatory debt collectors taking their homes and cars because it includes common-sense updates to state law that account for the rising costs of homes and cars."
  • Andrew Hudson, co-director of the Phoenix Workers Alliance: "Year after year, Arizona families work hard, do everything right, and still get landed with life-altering medical bills, even with good health insurance. Now we have an opportunity to push back against this abusive system, and finally put a real check against the predatory debt collection policies that land so many families into a cycle of collections that they can never break free of."


Opposition

Opponents

Political Parties

Organizations

  • Americans for Tax Reform
  • Arizona Bankers Association
  • Arizona Retailers Association
  • Goldwater Institute
  • Greater Phoenix Chamber
  • Protect Our Arizona


Arguments

  • Todd Sanders, president and CEO of Greater Phoenix Chamber: “The Chamber is opposed to a new initiative that would make it harder for lenders to collect on debts. This could make it more difficult for people in Arizona to get access to credit and amplify the current housing affordability issue, making it more difficult for people to buy homes and start businesses in Arizona. The passage of this initiative would be a disaster for Arizona and should be avoided at all costs.”
  • Joe Setyon, spokesperson of Goldwater Institute: “This deceptive, foolhardy, and immoral proposal is being sold to voters as limiting the interest rate on borrowing to pay medical expenses, so that Arizonans can obtain affordable healthcare without being saddled with debt. But the proposition would inflict economic damage far beyond what voters are being told … The proposal would make it hard, and maybe impossible, for lenders or other people who are owed money to be repaid—regardless of whether those debts have any relationship to medical care.”
  • Danny Seiden, president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry: “If you’re somebody in Arizona who makes under $50,000 a year – which is over half of our population – this would essentially make you untouchable by creditors. That might sound great, but what it really means is that nobody will lend to you if there’s no way to ensure they’ll get their money back.”
  • Todd Sanders, president and CEO of the Greater Phoenix Chamber: "This proposed initiative, once again brought forward by a subgroup of out-of-state interests, would have devastating consequences for Arizona businesses and consumers. While the intention of the ballot initiative may be to protect consumers from unfair medical debt collection practices, the language of the measure could have unintended consequences that make it more difficult for lenders to collect on all legitimate debts."
  • Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club: "The language of this measure is confusing, intentionally trying to mislead Arizona voters by its deceptive name that implies protections from predatory lenders. In reality, its provisions have much bigger and broader impacts that will result in higher interest rates for everyone, cause the price of goods to skyrocket, and punish those who actually borrow responsibly to reward those who don’t."


Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Arizona ballot measures
The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recently scheduled reports processed by Ballotpedia, which covered through January 17, 2023.


The Arizonans Fed Up With Failing Healthcare PAC was registered to support the ballot initiative. The committee received $12.8 million, and spent $12.8 million.[15]

Ballotpedia did not locate political action committees opposing the ballot measure. You can share information about ballot measure committees, along with source links for this information, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Support $6,940,543.86 $5,934,132.62 $12,874,676.48 $6,867,651.59 $12,801,784.21
Oppose $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.[15]

Committees in support of Proposition 209
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Arizonans Fed Up With Failing Healthcare $6,940,543.86 $5,934,132.62 $12,874,676.48 $6,867,651.59 $12,801,784.21
Total $6,940,543.86 $5,934,132.62 $12,874,676.48 $6,867,651.59 $12,801,784.21

Donors

The following were the top donors who contributed to the support committees.[15]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
SEIU United Healthcare Workers $3,313,967.14 $5,403,100.94 $8,717,068.08
Healthcare Rising Arizona $0.00 $3,541,704.29 $3,541,704.29
SEIU UHW Political Issues Committee $500,000.00 $0.00 $500,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Background

Debt in collections in Arizona and nationwide

As of 2022, according to data from the Urban Institute, 27 percent of Arizonans had debt in collections, compared to 26 percent of Americans at the national level. The median debt Arizonans had in collections was $1,903, compared to $1,739 at the national level. For Arizonans, as of 2022, the credit card debt delinquency rate was 3 percent, while the median credit card delinquent debt was $441.[16]Twelve percent of Arizonans also had medical debt in collections.[16] Sixteen percent of Arizonans with a credit file had medical debt in collections.[17] As of 2022 at the federal level, according to the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, 20 percent of U.S. households had medical debt. Of the bills sent to debt collection agencies, 58 percent included medical debt. And according to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis published in 2022, 23 million Americans had a medical debt of at least $250.[18]

Arizona policy for debt from healthcare services

As of 2022, debt collectors in Arizona must adhere to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which establishes certain rules and regulations regarding debt collection. Debt collectors cannot contact an individual before 8:00 a.m. or after 9:00 p.m., must restrict all communications to an attorney if the individual has one, may not contact the individual at work if the employer prohibits these communications, may not make threats of any kind, and may not make false statements in any kind to collect a debt.[19] As of 2022, Arizona state statute also required that collection agencies be licensed and provide a bond, according to both § 32-1021 and § 32-1055 of the Arizona Revised Statute. And in accordance to § 32-1051 of the Arizona Revised Statute, licensees must not “engage in any unfair or misleading practices or resort to any oppressive, vindictive or illegal means or methods of collection.”[20]

As of 2022, Arizona law protected $250,000 of the value of a home from debt collection, and Arizona asset protections were capped at $6,000 for a motor vehicle, $300 in a bank account from garnishment, and $6,000 in household goods.[17]

Healthcare measures 2022

See also: Healthcare on the ballot
  1. Montana LR-131, Medical Care Requirements for Born-Alive Infants Measure (2022)
  2. Oregon Measure 111, Right to Healthcare Amendment (2022)
  3. South Dakota Constitutional Amendment D, Medicaid Expansion Initiative (2022)
  4. California Proposition 29, Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative (2022)
  5. Colorado Proposition 122, Decriminalization and Regulated Access Program for Certain Psychedelic Plants and Fungi Initiative (2022)
  6. Massachusetts Question 2, Medical Loss Ratios for Dental Insurance Plans Initiative (2022)
  7. Vermont Proposal 5, Right to Personal Reproductive Autonomy Amendment (2022)

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Arizona

The state process

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 2022 ballot:

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.

Details about this initiative

  • Arizonans Fed Up with Failing Healthcare (Healthcare Rising AZ) filed the initiative with the secretary of state on April 22, 2021.
  • On July 7, supporters of the measure submitted 472,296 signatures.[21]
  • On August 17, 2022, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Frank Moskowitz rejected a challenge to the measure that alleged that paid petition circulators were improperly registered with the secretary of state's office. According to the secretary of state, the campaign had submitted an estimate of 333,958 valid signatures and qualified for the ballot.[22][23]

Sponsors of the measure hired Fieldworks LLC to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $6,045,788.96 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 $25.44.


Lawsuit

  
Lawsuit overview
Issue: Does the summary of the initiative communicate objectively false or misleading information?
Court: Superior Court of Arizona Maricopa County
Ruling: The plaintiff's argument is rejected. The term secured debt is commonly understood to mean involuntarily secured debt, and that the summary, when read as a whole, is not objectively false or misleading.
Plaintiff(s): Protect Our ArizonaDefendant(s): Katie Hobbs, et al.
Plaintiff argument:
The last sentence of the 98-word summary, which says the measure "does not change existing law regarding secured debt" is inaccurate because the measure only affects involuntarily secured debt		Defendant argument:
The summary is not misleading or objectively false.

  Source: Moskowitz Ruling

On August 17, 2022, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Mikitish rejected a legal challenge to the measure. The challenge argued that the last sentence in the 98-word summary of the measure was inaccurate or misleading. The sentence said that the measure "does not change existing law regarding secured debt." The plaintiff, Protect Our Arizona, argued that this sentence was misleading or objectively false because the initiative only affects involuntarily secured debt. Judge Mikitish ruled that the term secured debt was commonly understood to mean involuntarily secured debt, and that the summary was not objectively false or misleading.[24] The case has been appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court. On August 25, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected the challenge to the initiative.[25]

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Arizona

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

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Arizona Secretary of State, "2022 Initiative, Referendum and Recall Applications," accessed April 22, 2021
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Arizona Secretary of State, "Initiative Petition I-03-2022," accessed April 22, 2021
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Healthcare Rising AZ, "Homepage," accessed Sep 26 2022
  4. ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "See the Money," accessed August 27, 2022
  5. ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "See the Money," accessed August 27, 2022
  6. ↑ Lending Tree, "Arizona Debt Relief: Your Guide to State Laws and Managing Debt," accessed Sep 9, 2021
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named debt
  8. ↑ Federal Trade Commission, "Fair Debt Collection Practices Act," accessed Sep 25, 2022
  9. ↑ AzLeg.gov, "33-1101. Homestead exemptions; persons entitled to hold homesteads; equity," accessed Sep 25, 2022
  10. ↑ AzLeg.gov, "Arizona Revised Statutes Title 33," accessed Sep 25, 2022
  11. ↑ Superior Court of the State of Arizona, "Verified Special Action Complaint," December 5, 2022
  12. ↑ Yahoo.com, "Arizona judge puts part of Proposition 209, which gives medical debt relief, on hold," December 8, 2022
  13. ↑ AZCentral.com, "Judge denies challenge to Proposition 209, which gives medical debt relief to Arizona consumers," December 22, 2022
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 Arizona Secretary of State, "See the Money," accessed August 27, 2022
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Urban Institute, "Debt in America: An Interactive Map," accessed Sep 9, 2022
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Grand Canyon Institute, "Predatory Debt Collection Protection Act Policy Paper," accessed Sep 9, 2022
  18. ↑ Debt.org, "Medical Debt and Collections," accessed Sep 9, 2022
  19. ↑ Federal Trade Commission, "Fair Debt Collection Practices Act," accessed Sep 9, 2022
  20. ↑ Arizona State Legislature, "Arizona Revised Statutes," accessed Sep 9, 2022
  21. ↑ AZ Central, "Ballot measures to expand voting access, identify campaign donors and limit medical debt submit signatures," accessed July 7, 2022
  22. ↑ US News & World Report, "Judges Reject Challenges to 2 Arizona Ballot Initiatives," accessed August 20, 2022
  23. ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, Initiative, Referendum and Recall," accessed August 20, 2022
  24. ↑ Superior Court of Arizona Maricopa County, "Moskowitz Ruling," Aug 17, 2022
  25. ↑ AzCentral.com, "2 initiatives on debt protection and dark money qualify for November ballot; 3rd goes into overtime," Aug 25, 2022
  26. ↑ Arizona Revised Statutes, "Title 16, Section 565," accessed March 14, 2023
  27. ↑ Arizona generally observes Mountain Standard Time; however, the Navajo Nation observes daylight saving time. Because of this, Mountain Daylight Time is sometimes observed in Arizona.
  28. ↑ 28.0 28.1 Arizona Secretary of State, "Registration Requirements," accessed March 14, 2023
  29. ↑ Arizona Legislature, "HB2492," accessed March 14, 2023
  30. ↑ ArizonaElections.gov, "What ID Do I Need to Vote Quiz," accessed March 14, 2023
  31. ↑ FindLaw.com, "Arizona Revised Statutes Title 16. Elections and Electors § 16-579. Procedure for obtaining ballot by elector," accessed March 14, 2023
v • e
2022 ballot measures
I&R States
 • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Ohio • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming
Non I&R States
 • Alabama • Connecticut • Georgia • Hawaii • Iowa • Kentucky • Kansas • Louisiana • New Hampshire • New York • Rhode Island • South Carolina • Tennessee • Texas • Vermont • West Virginia
Political topics
Other
Flag of Arizona
v • e
State of Arizona
Phoenix (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

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

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Arizona_Proposition_209,_Healthcare_Debt_Interest_Rate_Limit_and_Debt_Collection_Exemptions_Initiative_(2022)&oldid=9129712"