This November, Arizona voters will decide whether to amend the state Constitution to prohibit taxes on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and restrict government monitoring of or limits on how much people drive through Proposition 141.
The proposal would bar the state, counties, cities, towns, and other political subdivisions from imposing a tax or fee based on the miles a person travels in a motor vehicle. It would also prohibit those governments from enacting mileage-monitoring or mileage-limiting laws or rules unless they require the person’s voluntary consent.
The measure reached the ballot through SCR 1004, which passed the Senate on Feb. 20, 2025, and the House on June 13, 2025. The resolution was filed with the Secretary of State on June 16, 2025.
The Legislature advanced the proposal amid debate over mileage-based charges as a source of transportation funding. Such charges assess motorists based on distance traveled.
Supporters describe Proposition 141 as the Freedom to Move Act. In a published ballot argument, Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC) President Scot Mussi urged approval for the sake of privacy, affordability, and freedom of travel.
“From wide-open highways cutting through desert landscapes, lanes carving through mountains, bridges traversing valleys and open water, the Freedom to Move is engrained in the American spirit,” Mussi wrote. “Vote YES to preserve your privacy. Vote YES to keep Arizona affordable. Vote YES to preserve your freedom to move,”
Prop 141 protects your freedom to drive without the government tracking every mile.
You already pay at the pump. You already pay sales taxes. You already pay plenty of taxes that help fund Arizona’s roads.
In an August interview with Mussi, AZFEC Vice President Aimee Yentes noted that Arizona’s transportation dollars already come from several taxes, such as the tax on fuel and sales taxes. She added, “…this would prohibit the government from tapping into a new way to tax your driving by taxing every mile that you drive…”
Arizona Trucking Association President and CEO Tony Bradley also submitted an argument supporting the measure, citing reporting, auditing, and administrative costs associated with mileage-based taxation.
“Unlike fuel taxes, which are collected efficiently at the point of sale, mileage-based taxes require ongoing reporting, oversight, and enforcement,” he wrote. “Government agencies must devote resources to audits and compliance, while taxpayers and businesses bear additional recordkeeping and reporting costs. Those dollars are spent operating the tax system instead of improving roads and bridges.”
Under the official ballot explanation, a “yes” vote would amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit: (1) taxes or fees based on motor vehicle miles traveled; and (2) laws or rules that monitor or limit motor vehicle miles traveled without consent.
A “no” vote would retain the current constitutional language on taxation.
If Proposition 141 is approved by voters, Arizona would become the first state to embed a ban on VMT taxes and mileage limits into its constitution.
Three Arizona House Republicans have requested weekly, in-person briefings from Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) Director Thomas Buschatzke on Colorado River negotiations, seeking the same information provided to Gov. Katie Hobbs.
In a September 4 letter, Reps. Gail Griffin (R-LD19), Neal Carter (R-LD15), and Chris Lopez (R-LD16) asked Buschatzke to meet with them and relevant agency staff and legal counsel at least once a week. The lawmakers proposed Tuesdays at 2 p.m., while offering to arrange another mutually agreeable time.
The request follows the federal government’s decision on Colorado River operations for 2027 and 2028, which drew mixed reactions from Arizona officials. Arizona would absorb approximately 61% of the total reductions across the three Lower Basin states, with a 760,000-acre-foot reduction compared with California’s 440,000 and Nevada’s 50,000.
Griffin chairs the House Natural Resources, Energy & Water Committee, where Lopez serves as its vice chair, and Carter is speaker pro tempore of the Arizona House of Representatives.
In the letter, the lawmakers cited the Legislature’s authority under A.R.S. § 45-106, which requires legislative approval by concurrent resolution before an agreement between the water resources director and the United States, another state, or a government involving Arizona’s sovereign rights or claims can take effect.
💧 Did you know?
Arizona’s water future depends on more than one source.
Colorado River water remains critical, but Arizona also relies on groundwater, reclaimed water, conservation, water storage, and new supply projects to support communities and future growth.
“Given our unique legislative role under A.R.S. § 45-106, we believe we are entitled to receive the same briefing you would deliver to the Governor’s office or the Governor herself, free from any filters or withholding of information,” the lawmakers wrote.
The requested meetings would allow members to receive updates, ask questions, and examine the factual, policy, and legal rationale for prospective offers, terms, or decisions. The lawmakers also asked to be informed of developments as they occur.
The letter also references two pieces of correspondence from August. They said Buschatzke confirmed on August 25 that implementing a Lower Basin Agreement would require legislative approval and committed to keeping House and Senate members informed of information relevant to their decision.
— Arizona Department of Water Resources (@azwater) September 4, 2026
The lawmakers also said Hobbs affirmed her commitment to providing relevant updates in an August 26 letter and directed Buschatzke to “continually update” them as requested.
Hobbs plans to call a special legislative session for lawmakers to vote on a water-sharing agreement between Arizona, Nevada, and California.
Hobbs highlighted her administration’s Colorado River negotiations in a June interview with 12 News. After the federal government released its proposed operating guidelines, she urged federal officials to adopt the Lower Basin states’ proposal and distribute water reductions equitably.
In August, the federal government came to an agreement with Arizona and the other Lower Basin states on Colorado River water usage. Under the deal, Arizona will lose about 61%: the most out of the Lower Basin states. The news was met with mixed reactions. Hobbs said the decision protected Arizona from deeper cuts. U.S. Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ-06) said his initial review indicated the plan avoided the most drastic options previously announced, while U.S. Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ-04) described the two-year reprieve as another short-term fix and called for durable agreements.
Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, called the deal “a total failure of leadership” in a statement posted to X. He stated that the deal “will place most of the cuts on new single family homes while data centers and apartments get unlimited water.” He added, “Conveniently, those big water users happen to be some of your biggest campaign contributors.”
This deal is a total failure of leadership. On top of that, this deal will place most of the cuts on new single family homes while data centers and apartments get unlimited water. Conveniently, those big water users happen to be some of your biggest campaign contributors. https://t.co/pLaenPuDCc
The Trump administration has finally come to an agreement with Arizona and the other Lower Basin states on Colorado River water usage.
The news was met with a mixed reaction.
Gov. Katie Hobbs described the agreed-upon deal in an announcement on Friday as adequately protecting the state from the “disastrous and unacceptable forced federal water cuts” that were floated by the federal government earlier this month.
I'm glad the federal government has chosen to implement the Lower Basin's water allocation plan. We've protected Arizona from disastrous and unacceptable forced federal water cuts.
Together, we’ve proven that the Lower Basin will work in meaningful ways to protect the Colorado…
Under the federal government’s proposal, Arizona would have seen cuts up to 77%.
Under this deal, Arizona will lose about 61%: the most out of the Lower Basin states.
While Arizona will give up 760,000 acre-feet between 2027 and 2028, California and Nevada will collectively lose 490,000 acre-feet. Overall, the cuts represent a reduction of approximately 25%.
The Upper Basin states will not see cuts under this plan.
Brenda Burman, Central Arizona Project (CAP) general manager, said the Upper Basin states needed to pull their weight.
“Lake Mead should not be sacrificed to protect Lake Powell or other Upper Basin reservoirs, and every state that relies on the river should be part of the solution,” CAP General Manager Brenda Burman said in a statement. “The Colorado River needs to be treated as the system it is.”
Some of Arizona’s elected leaders issued stand-in statements in which they disclosed that they were still reviewing the plan.
Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ-06), co-chair of the congressional Colorado River Caucus, said that upon initial review the current plan avoids the “most drastic options” previously announced by the Trump administration. However, Ciscomani intimated that long-term solutions were still lacking in this latest plan.
“The goal is clear: long-term water certainty and security for Arizona,” said Ciscomani. “I will continue working with the Administration and bipartisan leaders at every level of government to protect this critical resource for our farmers, ranchers, businesses, tribes, and every Arizona family that relies on the Colorado River.”
Rep. Greg Stanton (D-AZ-04) said that the deal provided two years of “welcome” stability, but that it was only “another short-term fix” and not a lasting solution.
“[A] two-year reprieve is not a solution. The agreements holding this decision together must be durable, and a record-breaking drought won’t suddenly resolve itself,” said Stanton. “Every two years, this same threat of ‘CAP to zero’ will hang over Arizona’s head. That’s no way to run a system millions of people depend on for water, power and food.”
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ-03) didn’t issue a statement on the plan, but did post on social media calling water “the lifeblood of Arizona,” promising “bold action to confront the climate crisis,” and including a link to the city of Phoenix’s water quality page.
Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ-07) issued a statement blending elements from colleagues Stanton and Ansari, calling for a more permanent solution among both the Upper and Lower Basin states while also urging action on climate change as the purported root causes of the prolonged drought.
Democrat Senators Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego issued a joint statement simply expressing gratitude for the two years the plan afforded Arizona, and presented a lighter look forward at the road ahead for a more “lasting” plan of action. The senators also indirectly called on the Upper Basin states to take on some of the water-cuts burden as well.
“This decision provides much-needed certainty for Arizona and the Colorado River over the next two years,” Kelly and Gallego said. “The 2027 and 2028 guidelines protect Arizona from even deeper near-term cuts while giving the seven Basin states more time to reach a long-term agreement.”
Danny Seiden, Arizona Chamber President and CEO, said that the deal was “workable,” not perfect. Seiden credited state leaders for working in a bipartisan manner to accomplish the deal, specifically Hobbs, Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14), and House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-LD29).
“We are still working through the details, but today’s decision appears to provide a workable path forward over the next two years and avoids some of the most damaging scenarios our state was facing,” said Seiden. “Arizona has already put real conservation and real cuts on the table, and the work now continues toward a long-term agreement that requires every Basin state to share in the responsibility. Arizona’s business community will continue to support our leaders as they fight for a fair, durable solution that protects our water and our economic future.”
Others weren’t so optimistic.
Scot Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, called the deal “a total failure of leadership.” Mussi criticized the deal, saying it imposes water cuts on single family homes but not data centers and apartments.
This deal is a total failure of leadership. On top of that, this deal will place most of the cuts on new single family homes while data centers and apartments get unlimited water. Conveniently, those big water users happen to be some of your biggest campaign contributors. https://t.co/pLaenPuDCc
The Protect Education Act is projected to fall more than 10,000 valid signatures short of the number required to qualify for Arizona’s November ballot after a court challenge removed thousands of petition signatures and county recorders completed their validity reviews.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) announced Monday that applying the trial court’s rulings and county signature-validity rates leaves the initiative with approximately 245,000 valid signatures. Arizona law required the campaign to produce 255,949 valid signatures.
The calculation follows an expedited ruling Thursday from Maricopa County Superior Court Judge David McDowell in Clark v. Fontes, the lawsuit challenging the petitions submitted by Protect Education, Accountability Now, the political committee behind the initiative.
At the time of McDowell’s ruling, the final outcome remained unresolved because Maricopa and Apache counties had not yet completed their reviews. The Arizona Capitol Timesreported that the Secretary of State’s initial review had reduced the campaign’s submitted total to 389,376 signatures before the court considered challenges to individual circulators, petition sheets, and duplicate signatures.
🚨 BREAKING: “PROTECT EDUCATION ACT” FALLS SHORT
Based on the trial court’s ruling in Clark (@ClarkRimsza) v Fontes and county signature validity rates, the union-backed anti-ESA initiative does not have enough valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot.
McDowell’s ruling left 348,269 signatures presumptively valid before application of the counties’ random-sample validity rates. The court also addressed 24,369 duplicate signatures and challenges involving more than 110 petition circulators.
“The court agrees that it is conceivable that a double count could occur, but the court cannot make a decision based upon a hypothetical double counting of duplicate signatures,” McDowell wrote.
The initiative’s supporters submitted 421,451 signatures on July 2. Save Our Schools Arizona and the Arizona Education Association were among the organizations backing the campaign.
The Goldwater Institute filed its challenge July 20, alleging that tens of thousands of the submitted signatures should be rejected because of duplicate entries, defects in circulator registrations, and petitions collected by people who were legally ineligible to circulate them.
The amended complaint raised more than 73,300 objections. Those included allegations involving unregistered paid circulators, signatures collected before circulator registration, inaccurate addresses or contact information, identification problems, and circulators whose felony convictions or other legal circumstances allegedly made them ineligible.
McDowell ultimately invalidated signatures collected by several circulators. Four circulators were disqualified because of criminal histories. The judge also invalidated several thousand signatures collected by circulator Tyrone Crispell after finding his denial that he misrepresented the initiative to prospective signers was not credible.
AFEC said Monday that nearly 70,000 signatures were disqualified through the challenge, including duplicates and signatures gathered by legally ineligible circulators.
“This is a major victory for Arizona parents, students, and the integrity of our elections,” AFEC President Scot Mussi said. “This anti-school choice initiative and its union backers spent more than $7 million dollars trying to dismantle school choice in our state, but they still could not collect enough lawful, valid signatures to qualify for the ballot.”
Campaign-finance figures compiled by Transparency USA from Arizona disclosure records show the Protect Education, Accountability Now committee had reported more than $7.5 million in total expenditures through July 30. The National Education Association accounted for approximately $6.57 million in cash and in-kind contributions, while the Arizona Education Association contributed another $810,000.
The Protect Education Act, designated Proposition 212 during the ballot-review process, would make several changes to Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program. The measure would generally limit eligibility to families earning $150,000 or less, with exceptions including students with disabilities, certain military families, and students assigned to poorly performing public schools.
The proposal would also establish additional requirements for participating private schools and tutors, restrict certain ESA expenditures, and generally require unused annual ESA funds to be returned to the state.
The signature dispute is separate from litigation over how Proposition 212 would be described to voters. Last week, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Julie Ann Mata ordered Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to rewrite portions of the proposition’s descriptive title and “yes” and “no” statements after finding that the existing language omitted significant provisions of the measure. Judge Daniel Martin separately ordered revisions to the Arizona Legislative Council’s publicity-pamphlet analysis.
Former Arizona Governor Doug Ducey is blasting the anti-ESA ballot measure, which is currently facing a legal challenge from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and the Goldwater Institute. Under Ducey’s leadership, Arizona became the nation’s leader in school choice.
The Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit earlier this week, challenging the validity of signatures submitted for the proposed “Protection Education, Accountability Now Act,” a ballot initiative that would place new restrictions on Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship (ESA) program.
According to the lawsuit, the initiative required 255,949 valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot but allegedly submitted enough invalid signatures to fall below that threshold. It contends that tens of thousands of petition signatures are subject to disqualification and raises concerns about the campaign’s signature-gathering process.
Goldwater claimed that more than 75% of the signatures were collected by paid circulators rather than volunteers and questioned whether some petition circulators met legal standards.
Out-of-state special interests are spending millions to buy their way onto Arizona's ballot. Today, Goldwater filed suit challenging the invalid signatures submitted for this anti-school choice measure. We will keep fighting to defend the rights of Arizona families and protect…
— Goldwater Institute (@GoldwaterInst) July 20, 2026
Ducey criticized the proposed initiative, arguing that it would eliminate educational options for families participating in the ESA program.
“Once again, we are reminded how little these out-of-state unions care about Arizona students and their parents,” stated Ducey. “This measure would strip tens of thousands of Arizona families of educational choices they have made for their children, forcing students out of the schools that are serving them well and back into schools they chose to leave. That is unacceptable, and we will vigorously challenge this measure at every possible step.”
Arizona’s ESA program currently serves more than 100,000 students, allowing eligible families to use state education funds for private school tuition, homeschooling expenses, and other approved educational costs.
Supporters of the program argue it expands educational opportunities and parental choice, while opponents have raised concerns about its cost and oversight.
The Goldwater Institute alleged that the ballot initiative is backed by out-of-state special interest groups seeking to limit Arizona’s school choice program.
“This is a shameless attack on Arizona’s parents, funded by an out-of-state union,” said Victor Riches, President and CEO of the Goldwater Institute. “They’re trying to game the system by turning in tens of thousands of invalid signatures in an effort to destroy the most successful school choice program in the country. This won’t happen on our watch.”
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club announced that it joined the legal challenge in support of the Goldwater Institute’s lawsuit. Greg Blackie of the organization will serve as a plaintiff in the case.
They Claim to Protect Children. Look Who They Hired!!
Arizona Free Enterprise Club @azfec Joins Legal Challenge to Union-Backed Anti-ESA Initiative. Save Our Schools and the teachers unions claim their anti-ESA campaign is about protecting children.
— Arizona Free Enterprise Club (@azfec) July 21, 2026
According to the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, it worked alongside the Goldwater Institute and other school choice advocates to review petition signatures and identify what they describe as “serious irregularities”.
The organization said the complaint also raises concerns about individuals hired to circulate petitions, including allegations involving circulators with criminal histories.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi released a statement, saying election laws should be enforced equally for all ballot initiatives.
“Save Our Schools and the teachers unions have spent years accusing ESA families of fraud and demanding greater scrutiny of parents, said Mussi. “Now, their own campaign is facing serious questions about the people they hired to gather signatures. Arizona’s election laws must be fully enforced. If this campaign failed to collect enough lawful and valid signatures, it must not qualify for the ballot.”
The challenged initiative is backed by Save Our Schools Arizona, the Arizona Education Association, and other organizations that have, for years, supported additional limits on ESA eligibility.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
