Overall, the 2026 midterm elections ballot measures were a victory for increasing avenues of funding for transportation measures. However, a statewide ballot initiative in Arizona to prohibit taxes or fees on vehicles miles traveled passed by a narrow margin. Proposition 141 will prohibit the state from taxing vehicle miles traveled or imposing rules to monitor or limit vehicle miles traveled without individual consent. The measure passed with 51% of the vote. Another statewide proposition, Proposition 319, prohibiting the use of traffic photo enforcement systems without voter approval passed with 62% of the vote.

While distinct measures that received different levels of support, both measures sit at the intersection of two key issues for transportation policymakers to consider: user privacy and funding for transportation systems. The outcomes of both measures will limit the ability of lawmakers to monitor roadway behavior for the purposes of safety and infrastructure funding.

Arizona Ballot Results

Arizona’s election results overall saw a Democratic shift from 2024. Democrat Katie Hobbs maintained the governors’ seat with 55.6% of the vote. A number of statewide races also flipped from Republican to Democrat including the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Treasurer, State Mine Inspector, and Corporation Commission. The 51/49 split for the ban on VMT fees and monitoring was closer than the vote split for Governor; without exit polling it’s difficult to determine the party breakdown of support and opposition, though the proposal was supported by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, a conservative free-market advocacy group. Proposition 319 was the most popular ballot initiative for the state and with a 62% level of support, demonstrating cross-party opposition to the usage of traffic enforcement cameras. The support for a ban on a VMT tax was much closer, with a 51/49 split.

The majority of Arizona’s roadway infrastructure funding comes from the state’s 18-cent gas tax which has lost much of its purchasing power as construction costs have increased and as vehicles have become more fuel efficient. Arizona also exceeds the national average for the percent of electric vehicles out of the total vehicle fleet in the state, according to 2024 data from the Department of Energy. The passage of the proposition by a slim majority will make Arizona the first state to eliminate a potential VMT tax as a method to approach transportation infrastructure funding.

The Arizona ballot measure was unique amongst other ballot initiatives this cycle in that it prohibited a tax, and specifically a hypothetical tax that had not been formally proposed and was not tied to any list of projects the tax would fund. In comparison, other tax measures found success on the midterm ballots, such as those in the Bay Area and Colorado, when they provided voters with a tangible outcome of the tax. On the other hand, it is also notable that these transit funding initiatives were not user-based payments but rather provided additional funding through tax authorities for the general public to pay for transit and rail projects.

The vote against the potential usage of a VMT system also comes at a time when vehicle users have heightened awareness about their cost to drive. Exit polling from Arizona showed that 60% of voters were very concerned about the cost of gasoline and diesel for their personal finances. Following the 2026 midterms, six new Democratic Senators shared viewpoints in favor of a temporary suspension of the gas tax. However, since the federal gas tax is levied when fuel comes out of refineries, there is no guarantee that a suspension of the gas tax would fully be passed on to consumers.

User-Pay Strategies

The concept that users should pay for the transportation assets they benefit from is a foundational concept in the U.S.’s transportation funding history, and is the basis of support for the Highway Trust Fund. For more than fifty years the Highway Trust Fund was the source of all federal highway dollars and was funded wholly through “user fee” revenues including gas and diesel taxes and truck taxes. Today though, as much as 40% of spending out of the Highway Trust Fund exceeds those user fee revenues and instead is paid for through General Fund transfers into the HTF. This means that the Highway Trust Fund is no longer a pure user pay system, since both drivers and non-drivers are contributing to the HTF through the general trust fund transfers. The gas tax has not been able to keep up with transportation spending levels as vehicles have become more fuel efficient and as vehicles miles traveled have not increased as quickly as inflation in construction costs. Since TEA-21 the growth of spending authorities for transportation programs authorized by Congress have outpaced the growth of Highway Trust Fund revenues.

User-pay systems are created as authorities for federal agencies to collect fees directly from users, in amounts that directly offset agency spending. Examples of user pay systems include entrance fees for national parks used to fund park maintenance and filing and inspection fees for regulatory activities such as those collected by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Patent and Trademark Office. User-pay systems are a useful way for agency fees to be covered by those who directly benefit from the agency service and enable ensured sustained funding without yearly Congressional appropriations. Even when solvent, the HTF was more of an approximation of a user-fee system, as the taxes that fund the trust fund are indirect approximations of the benefit to users.  That approximation has become weaker in recent years due to fuel efficiency, which has also made the HTF taxes more regressive because those with access to more expensive, highly fuel-efficient vehicles pay less for driving.

The BUILD America 250 Act, the current House T&I Committee’s proposed surface reauthorization bill, does not address the inadequacy of the existing HTF user fees relative to transportation spending, but would address the free rider problem of electric vehicle drivers not paying at all, by adding a yearly fee for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles. The aim of the measure is to provide additional revenues to the Highway Trust Fund from roadway users who are paying less or no federal gas tax because they are driving more fuel efficient or non-internal combustion engine vehicles. Even with the new electric vehicle fee, there would continue to be a significant funding shortfall of approximately $150 billion to keep the Highway Trust Fund solvent and cover the program expenses through 2031.

Unlike the gas tax and registration fees, a vehicle-miles traveled fee would be a more direct measure of roadway usage and could raise significant funds for transportation infrastructure. According to the Eno Center, a tax of 2.4 cents per mile would raise $78 billion per year for highway and transit programs.

Several states already require registration fees on electric and hybrid vehicles and per-kWh charging fees at public or commercial charging stations. Currently, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Virginia offer optional VMT programs. These programs were specifically designed for drivers of fuel-efficient vehicles or drivers with lower mileage usage to opt-into as an alternative to vehicle registration fees. In three of the states, the programs are capped at the state’s annual fee amount, so drivers do not end up paying more than they would if not participating in the program.

The narrow passage of the Arizona ballot measure to prohibit VMT fees cannot yet be extrapolated to how other jurisdictions will act. However, the inclusion of the ballot measure indicates that states are looking for alternative or additional means for raising transportation revenues.

A VMT program could even more efficiently price usage of roads if it included price differences based on vehicle weight, emissions, congestion, time of day, and location. Such systems could pose their own challenges though. Manual systems provide enhanced user privacy, but would not be able to provide dynamic pricing. In-vehicle telematics and smart phone applications could be utilized for VMT tracking but require general public and private sector buy-in to be fully implemented. VMT programs will also require state by-in, particularly if state DMVs bear the administrative responsibility of a VMT-based user pay system. The shift towards a VMT-system would turn some states into donor states, meaning they would pay more into the Highway Trust Fund than they would get out of it the program.

Traffic Camera Ban

The strong opposition to the traffic camera ban ballot measure should also be monitored by policy makers interested in a user-pay system that requires increased vehicle surveillance. Traffic cameras are utilized in Scottsdale, Tempe, and Phoenix. In May 2025, Tempe started using speed and red-light cameras in response to a shortage of law enforcement, and according to Tempe Mayor Corey Woods, there was a 21% reduction in fatal crashes and collisions. Under Proposition 319, the Phoenix and Tempe cameras will be able to stay in place. However, new cameras will not be allowed without specific voter approval, and cities with existing cameras must gain approval for the cameras in 2028 and would need new approval every ten years. Traffic speed cameras have also received pushback from the Trump Administration and were removed as a potential funded activity for the Safe Streets for All discretionary program and were removed from the Federal Highway Administration’s proven safety countermeasures webpage.

The measure only targets cameras utilized for traffic safety purposes, so Flock cameras, which have received increased scrutiny for their surveillance technology, can still be utilized by cities using automated license plate readers for criminal investigations. Several Arizona cities have independently canceled their Flock contracts, and the Attorney General launched an investigation into the usage of Flock cameras. The technological capabilities of automatic license plate recognition could enable VMT-based pricing, but policymakers should be wary of privacy concerns that would come with such a system.

Conclusion

The midterm elections were a positive moment for the support of transportation funding, primarily through ballot measures approved by voters to increase or continue funding for transit and rail systems. However, two ballot measures in Arizona, a ban on VMT-based fees and tracking and a ban on traffic ban cameras, highlight ongoing challenges for policymakers to maintain adequate transportation funding and roadway safety, and may be continuing evidence of a weakening of the user-pay principle for transportation spending. At a time when individuals are feeling increased stress on their transportation budgets, initiatives to increase or change user fees should clearly communicate to the public what roadway usage charges support and how charges can best be equitably distributed amongst roadway users. Additionally, at a time when there is increased concern around surveillance technologies, there should be proactive education and transparency around technologies that monitor roadway usage for the purposes of enhancing safety outcomes and ensuring fair user-based transportation funding programs.