If You Drive on the Road, You Help Pay for It

Vote No on Prop. 141 and Close Tax Loopholes

Arizona Proposition 141 · November 3, 2026 General Election

Prop 141 would write a permanent exemption into the Arizona Constitution, so a growing number of vehicles never pay for the roads they use. Everyone else picks up the bill.

Vote No.

Add Your Business

Voting No Doesn’t Raise Anyone’s Taxes.

A No vote keeps the Constitution exactly as it is today. It simply keeps Arizona free to make sure every vehicle on the road pays its fair share, instead of handing a permanent pass to some and the bill to everyone else.

How Arizona Pays for Roads

Same Roads. Same Wear and Tear. Not the Same Bill.

Arizona repairs its roads largely with the gas tax. Every time you fill up, part of what you pay goes to fixing potholes, repaving highways, and keeping bridges safe.

Electric and alternative fuel vehicles don’t buy gas, so they skip that tax. They use the same roads and put the same wear on them. The drivers and businesses who still fill up cover the difference.

Every year there are more of these vehicles on Arizona roads, and the gap keeps growing. Prop 141 would make sure it can never be closed.

Read the Fine Print

What Prop 141 Actually Does

Bans the Fix Before It’s Written

It outlaws any tax or fee based on miles driven, the most direct way to make sure every vehicle pays its fair share for the roads it uses.

Locks It Into the Constitution

This isn’t a law that can be adjusted later. Once it’s in the Constitution, it takes another statewide vote to undo it.

Leaves You Holding the Bill

Potholes still need fixing. If some vehicles are exempt for good, the cost falls on drivers who already pay the state gas tax, local communities, and the Arizona businesses that depend on roads that work.

Join the Coalition

Arizona Runs on Good Roads

Builders, haulers, contractors, dealers, farmers, and Main Street shops all depend on roads that are safe and kept up. So do the first responders who need to reach every call fast. Add your business to the coalition of Arizona employers saying No on 141.

Common Questions

  • No. A No vote leaves the Arizona Constitution exactly as it is today. It doesn’t create any new tax or fee.

  • Mostly drivers who buy gas, through the state gas tax. Electric and alternative fuel vehicles don’t buy gas, so they don’t pay it, even though they drive the same roads.

  • A regular law can be fixed when circumstances change. A constitutional amendment can only be undone by another statewide vote. Prop 141 would tie Arizona’s hands for years to come.

  • Yes, through certain vehicle-related taxes and fees and other funding mechanisms. However, fully electric vehicles do not purchase gasoline and therefore do not contribute through the gasoline tax in the same way gasoline-powered vehicles do.

    This creates an ongoing policy question about how different types of vehicles should contribute to the cost of maintaining transportation infrastructure.


  • Fuel taxes are generally assessed on the amount of fuel purchased rather than the distance traveled.

    As vehicles become more fuel-efficient, they can travel farther while consuming less gasoline. Fully electric vehicles do not purchase gasoline at all. These changes have prompted discussions across the country about whether existing transportation funding methods will remain sufficient over the long term.

  • Yes. Proposition 141 would place a prohibition on mileage-based taxes and fees in the Arizona Constitution, subject to the measure's specified exceptions. Changing that prohibition in the future would require another constitutional amendment approved by voters.

  • No. A vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fee does not inherently require GPS tracking, government surveillance, or monitoring where someone drives. Mileage can be calculated through simple methods such as periodic odometer readings, without collecting any information about a driver's location, destinations, or travel habits. Importantly, a mileage-based road usage fee is a method of calculating contributions toward road infrastructure, not a restriction on someone's freedom to travel. It does not inherently limit how far someone can drive, where they can go, or when they can travel. The specific privacy protections and reporting requirements would depend on how any future program was designed.