Arizona voters reject Propositions 136, 137 and 138: AP forecast

PHOENIX – The Associated Press is predicting defeat for three ballot measures in Arizona involving ballot initiatives, court appointments and worker tips.

Proposition 136 – Allow legal challenges to ballot measures before the election

According to the state Legislative Council's analysis of the proposal, the measure would have amended the state constitution and allowed a person to challenge the constitutionality of a ballot measure at least 100 days before the day voters decide on the measure(s) in question , to challenge.

The analysis states that courts currently “generally cannot rule on challenges to the constitutionality of an initiative measure until the initiative measure has been approved by voters.”

Proposition 137 – Judicial Accountability Act

The measure would have made a number of changes to the state constitution, according to their analysis, including:

• Allows state judges and merit-based judges who have not reached the statutory retirement age of 70 to serve “in good behavior.”
• No more automatic retention vote for judges and justices appointed through the merit selection process.
• An expanded Judicial Performance Review Commission, which includes a member appointed by the Arizona State House and the Arizona State Senate.
• A requirement for the JPR Commission, upon written request from a state legislature, to investigate allegations that a judge or judge “has engaged in a pattern of misconduct in office” and to determine that such judge or judge has failed to meet judicial performance standards, if so the case is determined that the pattern of misconduct occurred.

Had voters approved the measure, the results of this year's judicial retention election would have been overturned.

Read more: Judicial elections: What you should know about voting for judges in Arizona

Proposition 138 – Tipped Worker Protection Act

According to their analysis, the measure would have amended the state constitution by adding a provision regulating pay for tipped workers.

If voters had approved the measure, employers would have been allowed to pay employees who habitually and regularly receive tips or benefits up to 25% per hour less than the minimum wage.

However, the employer must demonstrate that the employee in question is paid at least the minimum wage plus $2 per hour for all hours worked.

Currently, the analysis states that employers can pay tipped employees up to $3 less than the minimum wage if it is determined that tips or benefits are added to the tipped employees' wages , at least the minimum wage was paid for all hours worked.