Arizona — Proposition 107 (1996)

Overview

Arizona voters adopted Proposition 107 (1996), establishing a system of voter instruction directing Members of Congress to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The measure included provisions authorizing informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the voter instruction.

The measure formed part of the ballot-instruction phase of congressional term-limits reform that followed U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995).

Measure Identification

  • Measure name: Proposition 107

  • Year: 1996

  • Adoption method: Citizen initiative constitutional amendment

  • Election date: November 5, 1996

  • Result: Approved

Ballot Language

Proposition 107 instructed Arizona’s Members of Congress to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The proposed amendment specified limits of:

  • three terms for Members of the House of Representatives
    two terms for Members of the Senate

The amendment also authorized informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the voter instruction.

Institutional Architecture

Voter Instruction Mechanism

The amendment instructed Arizona’s congressional delegation to support a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

The instruction expressed the position of Arizona voters regarding the proposed amendment.

Ballot Information Architecture

Proposition 107 authorized informational ballot statements to appear on election ballots identifying candidates who did not support the voter instruction concerning congressional term limits.

These statements communicated candidate positions regarding the proposed amendment.

Candidate Declaration / Pledge Mechanism

Candidates could declare whether they supported the proposed constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits.

Candidates declining to support the instruction could be identified through informational ballot statements.

Election Administration

Ballot Implementation

Following adoption of Proposition 107, Arizona election officials were authorized to implement informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the voter instruction.

Administrative History

The informational statement system remained part of Arizona law following adoption of Proposition 107.

The constitutional validity of ballot informational statements in federal elections was later affected by the Supreme Court’s decision in Cook v. Gralike (2001).

Litigation History

No separate Supreme Court litigation specific to Arizona’s Proposition 107 produced a controlling decision.

However, the broader legal environment surrounding ballot informational statements in federal elections was affected by litigation in other states culminating in Cook v. Gralike (2001).

Relationship to Cook v. Gralike (2001)

The Supreme Court’s decision in Cook v. Gralike addressed ballot informational statements used to favor or disfavor candidates based on policy positions in federal elections.

Because Arizona’s amendment authorized similar informational ballot statements, the decision affected the broader legal viability of such systems.

Institutional Design Observations

Arizona’s Proposition 107 illustrates the instruction + ballot informational statement architecture used in several ballot instruction initiatives adopted in 1996.

The amendment combined voter instruction to Members of Congress with informational ballot statements identifying candidates who declined to support the proposed amendment.

Sources

Explore related material
→ Ballot Instruction Phase (1996–2000)
→ Framework
→ FAQs
→ Case Library
→ Rotation Logic

Last updated — March 2026