Arizona Propositions 141 and 142: What They Would Change and Why They Matter

Voter Education | The Mohave Insider

Arizona voters will decide several statewide ballot measures in the November 3, 2026 General Election. Among them are Proposition 141 and Proposition 142, two proposed constitutional amendments dealing with very different issues.

Both measures were referred to voters by the Arizona Legislature, meaning lawmakers approved placing them on the ballot, but Arizona voters will make the final decision.

For voters trying to understand more than a campaign slogan, here is a closer look at where these propositions came from, who sponsored them, what a YES vote would do, and the arguments behind them.

Proposition 141: Vehicle Mileage Taxes and Monitoring

Proposition 141 began as Senate Concurrent Resolution 1004, or SCR 1004, during the 2025 legislative session.

The measure was introduced by Sen. Jake Hoffman of Legislative District 15, with Rep. Joseph Chaplik and Rep. Laurin Hendrix also listed on the introduced version.

Because SCR 1004 proposes a constitutional amendment, it did not simply become law after passing the Legislature. Instead, it was referred to Arizona voters as Proposition 141.

What would Proposition 141 do?

Proposition 141 would add language to the Arizona Constitution prohibiting the state and its political subdivisions from imposing a tax or fee based on the number of vehicle miles a person travels.

It would also generally prohibit government from enacting laws or rules that monitor or limit vehicle miles traveled unless the person voluntarily consents, subject to certain exceptions.

Those exceptions include certain interstate commercial-vehicle arrangements involving fuel taxes and registration fees, as well as government-owned vehicles.

Why was this measure proposed?

The issue is tied to a broader transportation debate over Vehicle Miles Traveled taxes, commonly called VMT taxes.

Traditionally, road funding has relied heavily on fuel taxes. As vehicles become more fuel-efficient and electric vehicles become more common, some policymakers around the country have explored mileage-based systems as an alternative way to collect transportation revenue.

Proposition 141 would prevent Arizona state and local governments from adopting that type of mileage-based tax.

Why this matters in Mohave County

This issue has particular relevance in rural Arizona.

Residents of Mohave County often drive significant distances for:

• work;

• medical appointments;

• groceries;

• school;

• government services;

• family obligations.

A resident of Golden Valley, Kingman, Bullhead City or another rural community may drive farther simply because services and employment are spread across a large geographic area.

That raises an important policy question:

Should someone potentially pay more in transportation taxes simply because rural life requires more driving?

Proposition 141 answers that question by constitutionally prohibiting mileage-based taxation.

The privacy issue

There is also a privacy component.

Any future mileage-based system would need some method of determining how many miles a person drives.

Depending on the system, that could potentially involve odometer reporting, electronic devices or other tracking mechanisms.

Proposition 141 would place a constitutional limitation on government-required mileage monitoring without voluntary consent.

What does a YES vote mean?

A YES vote would add the proposed constitutional prohibition against mileage-based taxes and certain involuntary mileage-monitoring requirements.

A NO vote would leave the current Arizona Constitution unchanged.

A NO vote would not create a mileage tax. It would simply leave lawmakers with more flexibility to consider such policies in the future.

For voters concerned about taxation, rural driving costs and personal privacy, Proposition 141 represents a significant attempt to establish those protections before a mileage-based system is ever implemented.

Proposition 142: Equal Treatment, Preferential Treatment and DEI Policies

Proposition 142 began as House Concurrent Resolution 2044, or HCR 2044, during the 2026 legislative session.

The measure was introduced by Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro of Legislative District 29, along with numerous Republican lawmakers.

It was referred to voters as Proposition 142.

What does Arizona law already say?

Arizona’s Constitution already prohibits state government from granting preferential treatment to or discriminating against individuals or groups based on characteristics including race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in areas such as public employment, education and contracting.

Proposition 142 would expand and more specifically define those restrictions.

What would Proposition 142 change?

The proposition would prohibit public entities from requiring applicants, employees, students or contractors to endorse or support race- or ethnicity-based preferential treatment or discrimination as a condition of certain opportunities.

Those opportunities can include:

• admission;

• graduation;

• employment;

• promotion;

• certification;

• scholarships;

• public contracting.

The measure also addresses certain DEI-related requirements involving written or oral statements about race, ethnicity, privilege or other race-based concepts.

What about schools and universities?

Public education is a major part of Proposition 142.

The measure would restrict taxpayer funding for certain offices, positions, programs and activities that promote race- or ethnicity-based preferential treatment or discrimination.

It also contains provisions involving disciplinary policies and differential treatment of students or employees based on race or ethnicity.

At the same time, the measure includes exceptions for areas such as academic instruction, research, creative work, registered student organizations and certain guest speakers.

That distinction matters.

Proposition 142 is not written as a complete ban on discussing race, ethnicity or controversial social issues.

Rather, it focuses primarily on government-required preferences, compelled statements, funding and institutional policies.

Why was Proposition 142 proposed?

Supporters of the measure argue that Arizona’s existing constitutional language does not go far enough to address newer government policies operating under diversity, equity and inclusion frameworks.

Their argument is that government should treat people as individuals rather than assigning benefits, burdens or expectations based on racial or ethnic categories.

Supporters also argue that applicants, employees and students should not be required to affirm particular viewpoints about race in order to receive opportunities from a public institution.

The central question

Proposition 142 asks voters to decide how far Arizona should go in defining equal treatment.

The underlying question is:

Should government institutions be constitutionally prohibited from using race or ethnicity not only for direct discrimination, but also for preferential treatment, compelled statements and certain publicly funded programs?

A YES vote would expand those constitutional restrictions.

A NO vote would leave Arizona’s existing anti-discrimination provisions in place without adding the new restrictions.

Who Put These Measures on the Ballot?

Proposition 141

• Legislative measure: SCR 1004

• Primary sponsor: Sen. Jake Hoffman

• Introduced during the 2025 legislative session

• Referred to voters as a constitutional amendment

Proposition 142

• Legislative measure: HCR 2044

• Primary sponsor: House Speaker Steve Montenegro

• Introduced during the 2026 legislative session

• Referred to voters as a constitutional amendment

Because both are constitutional amendments, neither measure becomes part of the Arizona Constitution unless voters approve it.

Why These Propositions Deserve a Closer Look

Although Proposition 141 and Proposition 142 address different subjects, both raise a similar question about the limits of government authority.

Proposition 141 deals with taxation, driving and privacy.

Proposition 142 deals with equal treatment, race-based preferences and government institutions.

For voters concerned about limiting future taxation, protecting privacy, reinforcing equal treatment and placing clearer boundaries on government authority, both propositions present substantial policy questions worth examining beyond the campaign slogans.

The most important step is to read the actual language, understand what a YES vote would change, and compare that with what would remain in place under a NO vote.

The Mohave Insider | Stay Informed. Stay Involved.

Editor’s Note: This article is intended to explain the provisions and policy arguments surrounding Propositions 141 and 142. Readers are encouraged to review the official ballot language and legislative analyses before voting.