Payne, an ardent death penalty supporter, has been frustrated by Arizona’s inability to pick up the pace of executions. The state resumed executing people in 2022 after an eight-year pause caused by difficulties in obtaining drugs needed for lethal injection.
Between then and now, it has put five people to death. It has only one execution on the docket for 2026.
There are 109 people on Arizona’s death row. Payne thinks that asking the voters to add the firing squad to the state’s execution menu will allow the state to turn more of its death sentences into executions.
But there are certain questions that even in a democracy should not be decided by majority rule. Democracy demands allegiance to ideals of human dignity and political equality, the protection of which is its animating purpose. A democratic state must never treat any citizen as entirely worthless.
Any decision that violates those principles is incompatible with democracy. That is why Arizona, and every other death penalty state, should never ask voters to decide what method it can use to take someone’s life.
RELATED | Catholic nonprofit opposes Arizona firing squad bill
Before discussing the Payne proposal further, let me describe Arizona’s long and unique history of putting methods of execution to a popular vote.
Adding the firing squad in Arizona requires a constitutional amendment because the state’s constitution explicitly describes the sole methods of execution allowable for the state. It currently states: “The judgment of death shall be inflicted by administering an intravenous injection of a substance or substances in a lethal quantity sufficient to cause death except that defendants sentenced to death for offenses committed prior to the effective date of the amendment to this section shall have the choice of either lethal injection or lethal gas.”
Arizona is unusual in having its methods of execution specified in its constitution. Generally, state constitutions only contain language about whether the death penalty is allowed or about what the limits are on all punishments.
For example, the Florida Constitution states: “Any method of execution shall be allowed, unless prohibited by the United States Constitution. Methods of execution may be designated by the legislature, and a change in any method of execution may be applied retroactively.”
Arizona is unusual in another way. It is the only state ever to put the question of how people should be executed to a vote of its people.
It did so twice. In 1933, the Legislature voted to put the following proposal on the ballot, to amend the state constitution: “Providing for the infliction of the judgment of death by administering lethal gas”; 14,999 Arizona voters voted yes; 11,585 voted no.
The gas chamber had been introduced in the United States by the state of Nevada in 1921. At the time, proponents said it was a humane alternative to hanging, which was then the execution method of choice there and in Arizona.
The proposal to amend its constitution was spurred by the botched hanging of Eva Dugan in 1930. Dugan had been convicted of murdering a wealthy rancher for whom she had worked.
In preparation for her execution, the so-called “drop distance” was miscalculated. The result was that instead of cleanly breaking her neck when she was hanged, she was decapitated.
Dugan’s execution made national news and provoked public outrage in Arizona. Specifying the gas chamber in the constitution was thought to be a way of making it hard for the state to resume hanging in response to a horrific crime.
Almost 60 years later, voters in the Grand Canyon State were again asked to decide what method of execution could be used there. This time, the ballot question was whether to amend the constitution to require that “defendants sentenced to death be executed by lethal injection” and “allow … those sentenced to death prior to this amendment to choose between lethal gas or lethal injection.”
The amendment passed easily, with almost 77 percent of voters supporting it.
Here again, a botched execution played a key role in bringing about this change. This time, it was the supposedly humane gas chamber that produced a gruesome spectacle during the execution of a serial killer named Donald Harding.In my book on botched executions, I described what happened this way: “As a cloud of cyanide gas engulfed him, Harding struggled against the straps, turned red and began convulsing. He gasped, stuttered, and continued to strain against the straps for more than 10 minutes.”
Political leaders who witnessed Harding die condemned his execution, including Grant Woods, the state’s attorney general. Woods denounced the gas chamber just as others in Arizona had once denounced hanging, saying that it was barbaric and out of step with modern standards of justice.
Under Payne’s new proposal, in November, Arizona voters will again be asked to register their views about methods of execution. While the state has had its share of botched lethal injections, the senator has embraced “the bring back the firing squad” fervor that we have seen in other death penalty states like Idaho and South Carolina.
The question that would be on the ballot would be whether people facing execution should have a choice of three execution methods: firing squad, lethal injection, or lethal gas, with lethal injection being the default method if an inmate prefers not to make that choice. Voters would also be asked to make the firing squad the sole method used to kill people convicted of murdering a law enforcement officer.
In addition, Payne’s constitutional amendment requires any execution by firing squad to be carried out by a minimum of three volunteer shooters with the use of at least one blank round.
Putting aside the cruelty of the firing squad, asking voters to decide what methods of execution should be used is a grimmer, more horrific version of asking them what the consistency of concrete to be used in a bridge should be. Choosing an execution method should be an expert judgment, made by the people’s representatives after extensive investigation and consultation.
And all such methods need to be scrutinized to see whether they can pass muster under the Arizona Constitution’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment.”
Before discussing the Payne proposal further, let me describe Arizona’s long and unique history of putting methods of execution to a popular vote.
Adding the firing squad in Arizona requires a constitutional amendment because the state’s constitution explicitly describes the sole methods of execution allowable for the state. It currently states: “The judgment of death shall be inflicted by administering an intravenous injection of a substance or substances in a lethal quantity sufficient to cause death except that defendants sentenced to death for offenses committed prior to the effective date of the amendment to this section shall have the choice of either lethal injection or lethal gas.”
Arizona is unusual in having its methods of execution specified in its constitution. Generally, state constitutions only contain language about whether the death penalty is allowed or about what the limits are on all punishments.
For example, the Florida Constitution states: “Any method of execution shall be allowed, unless prohibited by the United States Constitution. Methods of execution may be designated by the legislature, and a change in any method of execution may be applied retroactively.”
Arizona is unusual in another way. It is the only state ever to put the question of how people should be executed to a vote of its people.
It did so twice. In 1933, the Legislature voted to put the following proposal on the ballot, to amend the state constitution: “Providing for the infliction of the judgment of death by administering lethal gas”; 14,999 Arizona voters voted yes; 11,585 voted no.
The gas chamber had been introduced in the United States by the state of Nevada in 1921. At the time, proponents said it was a humane alternative to hanging, which was then the execution method of choice there and in Arizona.
The proposal to amend its constitution was spurred by the botched hanging of Eva Dugan in 1930. Dugan had been convicted of murdering a wealthy rancher for whom she had worked.
In preparation for her execution, the so-called “drop distance” was miscalculated. The result was that instead of cleanly breaking her neck when she was hanged, she was decapitated.
Almost 60 years later, voters in the Grand Canyon State were again asked to decide what method of execution could be used there. This time, the ballot question was whether to amend the constitution to require that “defendants sentenced to death be executed by lethal injection” and “allow … those sentenced to death prior to this amendment to choose between lethal gas or lethal injection.”
The amendment passed easily, with almost 77 percent of voters supporting it.
Here again, a botched execution played a key role in bringing about this change. This time, it was the supposedly humane gas chamber that produced a gruesome spectacle during the execution of a serial killer named Donald Harding.
Instead of asking voters to add the firing squad to the methods already in the state, the Arizona Legislature should ask them to abolish the death penalty entirely.
Political leaders who witnessed Harding die condemned his execution, including Grant Woods, the state’s attorney general. Woods denounced the gas chamber just as others in Arizona had once denounced hanging, saying that it was barbaric and out of step with modern standards of justice.
Under Payne’s new proposal, in November, Arizona voters will again be asked to register their views about methods of execution. While the state has had its share of botched lethal injections, the senator has embraced “the bring back the firing squad” fervor that we have seen in other death penalty states like Idaho and South Carolina.
The question that would be on the ballot would be whether people facing execution should have a choice of three execution methods: firing squad, lethal injection, or lethal gas, with lethal injection being the default method if an inmate prefers not to make that choice. Voters would also be asked to make the firing squad the sole method used to kill people convicted of murdering a law enforcement officer.
In addition, Payne’s constitutional amendment requires any execution by firing squad to be carried out by a minimum of three volunteer shooters with the use of at least one blank round.
And all such methods need to be scrutinized to see whether they can pass muster under the Arizona Constitution’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual punishment.”
RELATED | Death penalty options expanded in proposed Arizona bills
Almost 100 years ago, Arizona made a mistake when it specified methods of execution in its constitution. And now, to change or add methods, it has to go through the amendment process, which requires voter approval.
But instead of asking voters to add the firing squad to the methods already in the state, the Arizona Legislature should ask them to abolish the death penalty entirely—or at least to remove any mention of execution methods from the constitution itself.
Almost 100 years ago, Arizona made a mistake when it specified methods of execution in its constitution. And now, to change or add methods, it has to go through the amendment process, which requires voter approval.
But instead of asking voters to add the firing squad to the methods already in the state, the Arizona Legislature should ask them to abolish the death penalty entirely—or at least to remove any mention of execution methods from the constitution itself.
Source: SLATE, Austin Sarat, February 24, 2026
"One is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed,
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
but by the punishments that the good have inflicted."
— Oscar Wilde
Death Penalty News
For a World without the Death Penalty
Comments
Post a Comment
Pro-DP comments will not be published.