Skip to main content
The Full Record
Menu

Proposition 316: Local Taxes on Groceries

Statewide — all of Arizona

General election · Tuesday, November 3, 2026

  • Referred to the ballot by the Arizona Legislature as House Concurrent Resolution 2021 (2025), which passed the House 37-21 on March 4, 2025 and the Senate 23-5 on June 20, 2025, per Arizona Legislature floor-vote records.[3]
  • Per Ballotpedia, the original version of the resolution would have prohibited all local taxation of groceries; amendments added the 2 percent cap and voter-approval requirement.[4]

The question on the ballot

PROPOSITION 316. REFERRED TO THE PEOPLE BY THE LEGISLATURE RELATING TO MUNICIPAL TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE TAX. OFFICIAL TITLE: AMENDING TITLE 42, CHAPTER 6, ARTICLE 1, SECTION 42-6015, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE: RETROACTIVELY PROHIBITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM ADOPTING OR INCREASING A TAX ON GROCERIES WITHOUT VOTER APPROVAL AND SETS A MAXIMUM RATE OF 2%.[2]

Limits a city, town or other taxing jurisdiction's ability to impose a transaction privilege, sales, use, franchise or similar tax or fee on food and certain closed-container nonalcoholic beverages intended for home consumption. Jurisdictions that had such a tax on or before Jan. 1, 2025 could raise the rate only with voter approval and not above 2 percent of the tax base (jurisdictions already at 2 percent or more could not raise it); jurisdictions with no such tax could adopt one only with voter approval and at no more than 2 percent. No rate increases or new taxes may occur between June 30, 2025 and June 30, 2027.[1][2]

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.

Arguments made for

  • League of Arizona Cities and Towns (Kevin Hartke, Mayor of Chandler and League President, and Rene Guillen Jr., Executive Director): "Prop 316 offers a balanced approach to managing the food tax going forward. Cities and towns would retain their existing resources, so city services are not negatively impacted."[2]

Arguments made against

  • Gayle Shanks and Clive Sommer, co-founders of Changing Hands Bookstore, Tempe: "Smaller or rural Arizona communities often rely heavily on grocery sales taxes as their primary source of municipal income. For these towns, capping this revenue could be financially devastating."[2]

On record in support

  • League of Arizona Cities and Towns (Chandler Mayor Kevin Hartke, League President, and Executive Director Rene Guillen Jr.) signed or sponsored an argument for Proposition 316 printed in the official publicity pamphlet.[2]

On record in opposition

  • Civic Engagement Beyond Voting (Co-Directors Melinda Iyer and Catherine Sigmon) signed or sponsored an argument against Proposition 316 printed in the official publicity pamphlet.[2]
  • Changing Hands Bookstore co-founders Gayle Shanks and Clive Sommer, Tempe signed or sponsored an argument against Proposition 316 printed in the official publicity pamphlet.[2]
  • Arizonans for Freedom (Director Timothy Everhard) signed or sponsored an argument against Proposition 316 printed in the official publicity pamphlet.[2]

Research notes & limits

Slate: the Secretary of State's official 2026 General Election Publicity Pamphlet (hosted by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission; azsos.gov itself returned a bot-protection block and was not bypassed) lists exactly eight statewide measures: Propositions 141, 142, 144, 316, 317, 318, 319 and 320. Ballot question, 'yes'/'no' text: copied from the pamphlet's 'Ballot Format' page for this proposition. Arguments: excerpts of arguments published in that pamphlet, attributed to the signer and sponsoring organization it prints; the pamphlet prints many arguments per side (it reproduces spelling and punctuation as submitted), so these are a selection of 1 for and 1 against, not the full set. Legislative vote counts are from the Arizona Legislature's floor-action records. The pamphlet contains no fiscal estimate for this measure. Required vote: a majority of those voting. Items attributed to Ballotpedia (court ruling or campaign details) were not independently confirmed from the underlying primary source. The pamphlet prints one 'for' argument and three 'against' arguments for this measure; one of each is shown. Supporters and opponents listed are organizations and officials that signed or sponsored arguments printed in the official publicity pamphlet (taken in the pamphlet's print order, counting each organization or official once and skipping arguments signed only by private individuals with no organization or office; capped at the first six per side, the same way on both sides, and a side with fewer than six lists every such organization or official the pamphlet prints); signing or sponsoring an argument is taken as the stance. No committee finance totals were found (seethemoney.az.gov is a script-driven portal and no reputable report of totals was located), and the pamphlet and Legislative Council analysis contain no fiscal estimate or current-law description beyond the yes/no text.

Sources · 4

Researched 2026-10-19. Green citations are official government records.

  1. 1.Analysis by Legislative Council, Proposition 316 · Arizona Legislative Council · 2026 Official record
  2. 2.Arizona 2026 General Election Publicity Pamphlet (November 3, 2026) · Arizona Secretary of State (Citizens Clean Elections Commission hosting) · 2026 Official record
  3. 3.Arizona Legislature floor-action and vote record · Arizona Legislature · 2026 Official record
  4. 4.Arizona Proposition 316 (2026) · Ballotpedia · 2026-10-16 Reference