Skip to main content

BallotQuestions.vote is an independent, nonpartisan tracker. It is not a government website and not an election authority. For official ballot information, contact your state election authority.

Proposition 145

Prohibit State Confiscation of Military Family Empowerment Scholarship Account Funds and Void Conflicting Laws Amendment

Did not qualify

Arizona · November 2026 general election · Legislative referral · Election day November 3, 2026
Topics: Education, Government structure

In plain language

Proposition 145 would have amended the Arizona Constitution to bar the state from confiscating Empowerment Scholarship Account funds belonging to the children of military families, and would have voided any future law that undermines that right, not only provisions specific to military families. The Legislature referred it as House Concurrent Resolution 2048 after a deal on broader ESA program reforms between the Arizona Education Association and House Republicans fell through. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Kreamer ruled it violated the state constitution's separate-amendment rule, and the Arizona Supreme Court upheld that ruling on August 18, 2026, removing it from the ballot.

Fiscal impact

No official fiscal note has been issued for this measure yet.

When the state publishes a fiscal analysis, it will appear here and be listed in the sources below.

What supporters and opponents say

These are summaries of arguments made by the named organizations, drawn from the sources listed below. They are their claims, not this site's, and this site takes no position on the measure.

What supporters say

  • Legislative sponsors said the measure would guarantee that Empowerment Scholarship Account funds belonging to military families' children could not be confiscated by the state, regardless of future legislative changes to the ESA program.

Attributed to the sources cited below.

What opponents say

  • Voucher critics told the Arizona Supreme Court the measure was an unconstitutional 'Trojan horse' because its provision voiding any future law that undermines the military-family right would also have voided unrelated future legislation, not just rules specific to military families.
  • Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Kreamer ruled the measure violated the separate-amendment rule, finding that although its two components were facially similar, they concerned multiple sections of the constitution, combined subjects historically treated separately, and were qualitatively dissimilar — the void-conflicting-laws provision also reached the constitutional right of citizens to propose their own laws, a subject distinct from ESA funds for military families.

Attributed to the sources cited below.

Official ballot language

The certified ballot text is not yet available for this measure. Once the state certifies it, the verbatim wording will appear here.

Sources

Everything on this page traces to these sources. Follow them to read the original documents.

Last updated . How this page is sourced and corrected is described in the correction policy.