Arizona voters will decide in November whether local governments and state agencies may keep relying on cameras to ticket drivers for speeding and running red lights, and whether any new camera programs can start at all.
Proposition 319 was placed on the ballot by the Legislature as Senate Concurrent Resolution 1004. The Senate passed it Feb. 26, the House passed it June 12, and it was filed with the Secretary of State on June 15, according to the resolution.
What a yes vote would do
According to the impartial analysis written by the Arizona Legislative Council, the measure would prohibit cities, towns and state agencies from ticketing speeders or red-light runners with cameras unless they have signed a camera contract no later than Dec. 31, 2026.
Communities that beat that deadline would then need approval from their own residents, on the first general election ballot after the law is in force, to keep the cameras running. If voters say no, the program must shut down within 90 days of that election.
If voters say yes, the system can run for 10 years, after which the question returns to the ballot, and again every 10 years after that.
The resolution says lawmakers intended to keep enforcement in the hands of trained officers, to shield residents from what it describes as abuses that come with handing enforcement to private companies that profit from it, and to keep law enforcement from becoming a revenue tool for governments.
ABC15 noted that the measure gives communities without a contract by the deadline no path to ask their voters to start a program later. A no vote leaves the state's current photo enforcement law unchanged.
Supporters
State Sen. Wendy Rogers, who sponsored the measure according to KJZZ, has urged a yes vote on her campaign website. "These scam 'Photo Radar' systems were never really about safety," she wrote, arguing that cities split ticket money with camera companies and that drivers have "no real chance to explain yourself."
Marilyn Rodriguez of Tempe, a supporter, told ABC15 that voters should weigh in on enforcement tools. "We don't need to sacrifice privacy for safety," she said.
