Nov 3, 2026 general election · Governor, U.S. House and 7 other statewide races
Phones at the polls: Arizona law bars taking photos or videos at a polling place or within 75 feet of it (Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 16-515). You may not be able to look things up on your phone while you vote, so consider printing a cheat sheet with the Print my ballot button on any race or county page. Paper notes are generally allowed; ask your election office if unsure. Source: NCSL, Secrecy of the Ballot and Ballot Selfies (accessed Oct 20, 2026)
Election results for Nov 3, 2026: official state sources →
General election: Tuesday, Nov 3, 2026. Dates below are for that election, from official state election sources; rules can change, so confirm with the linked source.
Thomas "Jay" Feely IV (R) vs. Amish Shah (D) + 1 other candidate. See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareEli Crane (R) vs. Jonathan Nez (D) + 1 other candidate. See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareYassamin Ansari (D) vs. David Redkey (G) + 1 other candidate. See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareGreg Stanton (D) vs. Zuhdi Jasser (R) + 1 other candidate. See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareMark Lamb (R) vs. Elizabeth Lee (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareJuan Ciscomani (R) vs. JoAnna Mendoza (D) + 2 other candidates. See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareAdelita Grijalva (D) vs. Daniel Francis Butierez Sr. (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareAbraham "Abe" Hamadeh (R) vs. Bernadette Greene-Placentia (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
ComparePaul Gosar (R) vs. Danielle "Dani" Sterbinsky (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareKatie Hobbs (D) vs. Andy Biggs (R) + 2 other candidates. See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareKris Mayes (D) vs. Warren Petersen (R). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareAdrian Fontes (D) vs. Alexander Kolodin (R) + 1 other candidate. See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareElijah Norton (R) vs. Nick Mansour (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareKimberly Yee (R) vs. Teresa Leyba Ruiz (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareWalter "Les" Presmyk (R) vs. Brian Matlock (D). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareKevin Thompson (R) vs. Jonathon Hill (D) + 3 other candidates. See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareJohn R. Lopez IV (NP). See where each candidate stands, in their own words with sources, plus voting records where they exist.
CompareAll 60 Arizona legislative races on the Nov 3 ballot, from the official candidate list.
See the racesEvery candidate we list for Arizona's statewide races, with background, positions and votes.
Local and district races: every Arizona county.
Yes/No text is the official “effect of a yes/no vote” wording printed on the ballot, quoted from the 2026 Arizona Publicity Pamphlet. Plain-English summary (Ballotpedia, secondary source): Proposition 141 would prohibit the state and local governments from doing two things. First, they would not be able to impose a tax or fee based on the number of miles an individual travels in a motor vehicle, also known as a vehicle miles traveled tax. Second, state or local governments would be unable to create a law that limits or monitors the number of miles traveled in a motor vehicle. A Yes vote means: A “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending 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. These prohibitions do not apply in certain instances to interstate commercial vehicles or to vehicles owned by the state or local governments. A No vote means: A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current constitutional language related to taxation. Supporters say: Supporters, including Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, argue: “As we have seen in other states, governments left to their own devices will succumb to radical attempts to track, tax, or limit their citizens’ transportation miles. These environmental schemes have no place in a free and prosperous society.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Southern Arizona Leadership Council, argue: “Keep options open for the roads ahead. Southern Arizona needs roads that can keep pace with our economy and workable ways to pay for them.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution’s current prohibition against preferential treatment or discrimination by the state based on race, ethnicity, or other classes, to specifically prohibit: (1) compelling individuals to support preferential treatment or… A Yes vote means: A “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution’s current prohibition against preferential treatment or discrimination by the state based on race, ethnicity, or other classes, to specifically prohibit: (1) compelling individuals to support preferential treatment or discrimination based on race or ethnicity as a condition of education, employment, or contract opportunities; (2) spending public money on positions in public education responsible for promoting preferential treatment or discrimination based on race or ethnicity; and (3) implementing disciplinary practices that treat students or employees differently based on race or ethnicity. Prohibited conduct includes requiring or asking an applicant, employee, student, or contractor to provide a statement in support of race-based diversity, equity, and inclusion beyond upholding the federal Equal Protection Clause or asking such a person to discuss the person’s race or ethnicity or experience with others’ race or ethnicity. The amendment contains certain exceptions for health services, legal, and other reasons. A No vote means: A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current prohibition in the Arizona Constitution against preferential treatment or discrimination by the state based on race, ethnicity, or other classes. Supporters say: Supporters, including Center for Arizona Policy, argue: “This measure ends taxpayer-funded favoritism in state hiring, including DEI. State jobs should go to the most qualified person.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Will of the People, argue: “Voting by mail is used reliably by most Arizonans. This will lead to its eventual elimination.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to: (1) require voters to show proof of identity when voting in each election, including when voting by mail; (2) changing existing proof of identity requirements to limit acceptable documentation to government-issued ID; (3)… A Yes vote means: A “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to: (1) require voters to show proof of identity when voting in each election, including when voting by mail; (2) changing existing proof of identity requirements to limit acceptable documentation to government-issued ID; (3) require election officials to provide all voters the option to have their ballot tabulated at their voting location on election day; (4) prohibit foreign nationals from contributing or spending to influence elections in Arizona and prohibit anyone from knowingly accepting such contributions, similar to prohibitions that already exist in federal law; (5) create a new standard for judicial review of election laws under the Arizona Constitution, which may make it harder to challenge election laws; and (6) require the legislature to appropriate money necessary to implement these provisions. A No vote means: A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining current constitutional provisions governing elections. Supporters say: Supporters, including Arizona Free Enterprise Club, argue: “Rarely do Republicans and Democrats find common ground on election policy. But in this year’s Maricopa County primary, officials from both parties recognized the benefit of an option Prop 144 would guarantee statewide: on-site tabulation.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Will of the People, argue: “Voting by mail is used reliably by most Arizonans. This will lead to its eventual elimination.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Ballotpedia, secondary source): If adopted by voters, Proposition 316 would do two things. First, it would stop cities or local tax jurisdictions from increasing the sales tax on groceries above 2% of the base price. For cities or local tax jurisdictions where the tax rate is already above 2%, the tax rate would not be abolished or decreased, but the tax rate could never increase. A Yes vote means: A “yes” vote shall have the effect of: (1) retroactively prohibiting local governments from adopting or increasing a tax on groceries from July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2027; and (2) after that time, prohibiting local governments from adopting or increasing a tax on groceries without voter approval and limiting any new or increased tax to a maximum rate of 2%. A No vote means: A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current laws relating to local government taxation. Supporters say: Supporters, including State Rep. Leo Biasiucci (R-30), argue: “This is really a thing that I believe in personally. I don't believe that we should be taxing essential foods like eggs and milk and meat.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Gilbert Chamber of Commerce, argue: “The Chamber opposes additional restrictions on revenue options available to local municipalities. Preserving local authority over revenue decisions allows communities to evaluate and respond to their specific needs, priorities, and economic conditions.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Ballotpedia, secondary source): Proposition 317 describes drug cartels as any association of persons in which members engage in human trafficking, drug trafficking for profit, or any act of terrorism. It describes threat as anything designed to disturb, violate, or harm the public welfare or individual rights guaranteed under the constitution. A Yes vote means: A “yes” vote shall have the effect of: (1) declaring drug cartels as terrorist organizations and directing the Arizona Department of Homeland Security to do everything in its authority to address threats posed by drug cartels; (2) defining “drug cartel” to mean an ongoing formal or informal association of persons engaged in human smuggling, drug trafficking, or any act defined as terrorism under Arizona law; and (3) clarifying that this measure does not support an alien’s asylum claim. A No vote means: A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current laws relating to terrorism and the Arizona Department of Homeland Security. Supporters say: Supporters, including Arizona Speaker of the House Steve Montenegro (R-29), argue: “Arizona is on the frontlines of a war that Washington has refused to fight until President Trump arrived.” Opponents say: Opponents, including State Sen. Catherine Miranda (D-11), argue: “It is...weaponizing the ballot to push the Right's anti-immigrant agenda.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a “yes” vote shall have the effect of: (1) requiring private schools, public schools, and athletic associations to designate every athletic team as male, female, or coed/mixed based on sex and to prevent males from joining female teams; existing law imposes this requirement only on public schools… A Yes vote means: A “yes” vote shall have the effect of: (1) requiring private schools, public schools, and athletic associations to designate every athletic team as male, female, or coed/mixed based on sex and to prevent males from joining female teams; existing law imposes this requirement only on public schools and those competing against them; (2) prohibiting schools and athletic associations from authorizing anyone to use private spaces (such as restrooms) not designated for that individual’s sex; (3) defining “sex” as an individual’s biological status as male or female as recorded at birth on an original birth certificate; and (4) authorizing athletes to sue schools and athletic associations that knowingly violate this law. A No vote means: A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current laws relating to student athletics. Supporters say: Supporters, including State Rep. Selina Bliss (R-1), argue: “Women’s sports were created because biological differences matter. When those differences are ignored, girls lose roster spots, scholarships, and opportunities they earned.” Opponents say: Opponents, including Will of the People, argue: “A brazen attempt by legislators to expand state power with a one-size-fits-all sports mandate that treats kindergartners the same as college athletes.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a “yes” vote shall have the effect of: (1) prohibiting state agencies and local governments from using photo enforcement systems to identify violators of traffic laws unless the agency or government contracts to use those systems by December 31, 2026; and (2) requiring local governments to obtain… A Yes vote means: A “yes” vote shall have the effect of: (1) prohibiting state agencies and local governments from using photo enforcement systems to identify violators of traffic laws unless the agency or government contracts to use those systems by December 31, 2026; and (2) requiring local governments to obtain voter approval of existing photo enforcement systems at the next regular general election and every 10 years afterward to continue using photo enforcement systems. A No vote means: A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current laws governing photo enforcement systems. Supporters say: Supporters, including State Sen. John Kavanagh (R-3), argue: “Police officers exercise discretion as to when they will pull somebody over. Photo radar, on the other hand, concerning speeding, is [giving] anybody doing 11 miles or more over the speed limit a ticket.” Opponents say: Opponents, including State Sen. Lauren Kuby (D-8), argue: “Prop 319 does not ban or regulate surveillance cameras—it only dismantles traffic safety tools. Do not confuse red-light and speed safety cameras with ALPR license plate tracking.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side. Plain-English summary (Vote Book, from the official Yes/No wording): If approved, a “yes” vote shall have the effect of: (1) requiring school districts with 7,500 or more students in any county or that operate in a county with 500,000 or more people to spend at least 60% of their operational spending on direct instructional expenses; (2) requiring the state Auditor General to… A Yes vote means: A “yes” vote shall have the effect of: (1) requiring school districts with 7,500 or more students in any county or that operate in a county with 500,000 or more people to spend at least 60% of their operational spending on direct instructional expenses; (2) requiring the state Auditor General to define “operational spending” and “direct instructional expenses”; (3) requiring non-compliant school districts to gradually adjust their spending each year until they are in compliance; and (4) requiring the state Department of Education to reduce funding from the state Classroom Site Fund by 25% each year for non-compliant districts, subject to limited waivers that the state Superintendent of Public Instruction may authorize. A No vote means: A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current laws governing school district budgets. Supporters say: Supporters, including State Rep. Matt Gress (R-4), argue: “We have over 3,000 teacher vacancies. … And yet we’re spending more money outside of the classroom year after year after year. We have to reverse that.” Opponents say: Opponents, including State Sen. Denise Epstein (D-12), argue: “If a school district spends 59%, they shouldn’t start losing their funding that goes to performance pay for teachers. That is the wrong idea.” Arguments: Ballotpedia (secondary source). Listed in equal length; Vote Book does not endorse either side.Proposition 141: Taxation (vehicle miles traveled)
Proposition 141 would prohibit the state and local governments from doing two things.Official ballot wording
AMENDING ARTICLE IX, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, BY ADDING SECTION 26.
Proposition 142: Prohibition of Preferential Treatment and Discrimination
If approved, a “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution’s current prohibition against preferential treatment or discrimination b…Official ballot wording
AMENDING ARTICLE II, SECTION 36, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA.
Proposition 144: Election Requirements
If approved, a “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to: (1) require voters to show proof of identity when voting in each ele…Official ballot wording
AMENDING ARTICLE VII, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, BY ADDING SECTION 19.
Proposition 316: Municipal Transaction Privilege Tax (groceries)
If adopted by voters, Proposition 316 would do two things.Official ballot wording
AMENDING TITLE 42, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 42-6015, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES.
Proposition 317: Arizona Department of Homeland Security (drug cartels)
Proposition 317 describes drug cartels as any association of persons in which members engage in human trafficking, drug trafficking for profit, or any act of…Official ballot wording
AMENDING TITLE 41, CHAPTER 41, ARTICLE 1, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 41-4256.
Proposition 318: Student Athletics
If approved, a “yes” vote shall have the effect of: (1) requiring private schools, public schools, and athletic associations to designate every athletic team…Official ballot wording
AMENDING SECTION 15-120.02, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES.
Proposition 319: Photo Enforcement Systems
If approved, a “yes” vote shall have the effect of: (1) prohibiting state agencies and local governments from using photo enforcement systems to identify vio…Official ballot wording
AMENDING SECTION 28-1201, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING TITLE 28, CHAPTER 3, ARTICLE 21, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 28- 1207.
Proposition 320: School District Budgets
If approved, a “yes” vote shall have the effect of: (1) requiring school districts with 7,500 or more students in any county or that operate in a county with…Official ballot wording
AMENDING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 9, ARTICLE 1, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES BY ADDING SECTION 15-917.
Know someone voting? Send them this page.