by Daniel Stefanski | Nov 7, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
An attempt to transform Arizona’s elections systems on Tuesday night fell well short after voters went to the polls.
Proposition 140, which would have imposed a mixed system of Ranked Choice Voting and jungle primaries for future elections in Arizona, was defeated with almost 60% of the vote share, as of Wednesday evening.
“We are so grateful for the Arizonans who stood up to oppose this radical transformation of our elections systems,” said Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould, co-chairs of the No on Prop 140 Committee. “Voters of all political persuasions wisely concluded that Prop 140 would do irreparable harm to our state if enacted. Arizona elections must be free, fair, and transparent, and that is what our system remains after this just result.”
One of the measure’s fiercest opponents, Scot Mussi, the President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, praised the outcome. He said, “Prop 140 was one of the worst ideas to ever be proposed in our great state, and it is fitting that it met its demise from a vast majority of Arizonans. Radical leftists, out-of-state billionaires, and scheming consultants tried to hoodwink voters into adopting this failed system, spending millions of dollars and duplicating signatures to qualify for the ballot. We are so pleased that millions of Arizonans did their homework and said ‘hell no’ to, what would have been, a disastrous transformation of our elections system. California can keep their destructive policies and systems on their side of the state line.”
The organization behind Prop 140, Make Elections Fair Arizona, did not appear to issue a statement as of Wednesday on its website or social media platforms. Immediately following the close of polls on Tuesday night, its account promised to be “back online soon with an Election Day campaign update,” but that does not seem to have materialized yet.
In a Wednesday press release, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club highlighted the defeat of Ranked Choice Voting questions in several states in Tuesday’s General Election. Those results were as follows:
- Colorado: Proposition 131 was defeated with almost 55% of the vote
- Idaho: Proposition 1 was defeated with almost 70% of the vote
- Montana: Both CI-126 & 127 were defeated
- Oregon: Measure 117 was defeated with almost 60% of the vote
- South Dakota: Amendment H was defeated with more than 65% of the vote
- Nevada: Question 3 was defeated with almost 54% of the vote
- Alaska: Measure 2, which repeals the state’s ranked choice voting system, appears headed toward passage
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Christy Narsi | Oct 28, 2024 | Opinion
By Christy Narsi |
This November, Proposition 140, the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act, will be on the ballot. Prop. 140, if passed, would create a Rank-Choice Voting (RCV) system, where voters rank candidates in order of preference. Supporters of the proposition claim it will incentivize candidates to reach out to as many voters as possible, regardless of party affiliation and “liberate us from the grip of partisan primary elections.”
But will it really make Arizona elections more fair?
RCV may seem logical on the surface, but in reality, it introduces a complex vote tabulation system that lacks transparency and often leads to weird election outcomes.
In most elections, a voter casts a single ballot for the candidate he or she likes most. With RCV’s ranking system, if one candidate receives more than 50 percent of first place votes, the election is over and the candidate with the most votes wins. If, however, no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the votes, election officials conduct a series of closed-door instant runoffs by eliminating the candidate with the fewest first place votes and redistributing those votes to the second choices on those ballots. This process continues (eliminating the last place finisher and redistributing his or her votes) until a faux majority is created for a single candidate.
Today, there is bipartisan support for ensuring every vote counts. Yet RCV guarantees the opposite, and instead will create confusion, dropped votes, and a convoluted system of ballot counting that does not represent the will of the people.
“Ranked Choice Voting can lead to bizarre outcomes where a person who was the first choice of very few voters can still win,” explained Independent Women’s Law Center’s Jennifer C. Braceras. Democratic principles are actually sidelined as RCV encourages candidates and interest groups to play games and try to manipulate outcomes by introducing additional candidates to divert attention from stronger opponents, rather than try to simply bolster their own support.
A study of ballot data from New York City’s 2013 and 2017 general election, and of New York City’s 2021 Democrat mayoral primaries, showed “ballot errors in RCV elections are particularly high in areas with lower levels of education, lower levels of income, higher minority populations, and a higher share of limited English proficient voters.”
Policymakers should be working to make voting easier and more accessible for all Arizonans. Therefore, we should reject schemes such as RCV that make voting more complicated, less accessible, and less transparent.
Voting should be simple: one person, one legal vote; may the best person win. RCV violates this principle by allowing some voters to effectively cast more than one ballot while excluding other voters whose ballots were exhausted prior to the ultimate run-off. RCV is a dangerously complex process that confuses voters and disincentivizes participation. This is a real threat to our democratic process.
Christy Narsi lives in Surprise, AZ. She is the National Chapter Director at Independent Women’s Network (IWN). Christy is passionate about developing and empowering women who make an impact in their communities.
by Daniel Stefanski | Oct 13, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
Arizona may soon be faced with an overhaul of its election system if a current ballot measure passes this November.
In the upcoming General Election, state voters will decide the fate of Proposition 140, which would transform Arizona’s election system into what has been referred to as “a California-style election scheme built around ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries.”
According to the No on 140 campaign, which is being co-chaired by Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and former Arizona State Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould, if passed by voters, Prop 140 would:
- “Allow one partisan politician (the Arizona Secretary of State) to decide how many candidates qualify for the general election ballot for every single contest, including his or her own race.
- Result in some races where candidates from only one political party appear on the general election ballot.
- Force voters to navigate two completely different voting systems on the same ballot, with some races requiring voters to rank candidates under a rank choice voting system and others that do not.
- Increase tabulation errors, create longer lines at the polls, and significantly delay election results.”
Just recently, this opposition group released a bipartisan list of organizations from around Arizona that were encouraging their followers to vote against Proposition 140. These groups included the Coconino County Democrats, the Gila County Democratic Party, Heritage Action for America, Goldwater Institute, Republican Party of Arizona, League of Women Voters, and the Libertarian Party of Arizona.
In a piece for the Goldwater Institute, Gould wrote, “Americans are understandably concerned about the current acrimony and division in politics. But rather than addressing this problem in a focused, thoughtful manner, Prop 140 takes a sledgehammer to the Arizona Constitution by imposing ranked choice voting and jungle primaries on Arizonans.”
Trent England, the founder and executive director of Save Our States and co-chairman of the Stop RCV Coalition, added, “Ranked-choice voting makes the entire election process more complicated and less transparent. That is why so many places that have tried RSV have gotten rid of it – something Alaska voters are poised to do this year. Yet the onslaught continues, thanks to just a few billionaires who would make our elections worse.”
Thanks to a heated legal battle that ping-ponged between the state’s supreme court and superior court, both sides have an extremely limited window to make their case to voters why Arizona should or should not enact this system to replace our current elections operations.
Last week, the Arizona Supreme Court made its final ruling in a matter concerning tens of thousands of duplicate signatures that threatened to upend this measure for voter consideration. Despite a special master’s determination that 99% of the signatures were, in fact, duplicates, the state’s high court allowed Prop 140 to go forward before the Arizona electorate. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club accused the proponents of this proposition of “obstruct[ing] and delay[ing] the review of the duplicate signatures for over a month.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Oct 9, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
After a lengthy court battle, a ballot measure involving a major change to Arizona’s elections system will be considered by voters in the upcoming November General Election.
Late last week, the Arizona Supreme Court finally dismissed the challenge to Proposition 140, the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act. The court simply released its decision order, promising an explanation later. All the justices on the court supported the ruling.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club, which spearheaded the challenge to the legal validity of the proposition, was disappointed in the result from the court. Scot Mussi, the President of the conservative organization, said, “We are disappointed in the ruling of the court on this matter. Our organization proved that the special interest groups attempting to hijack Arizona’s elections systems lacked the minimum number to qualify for the ballot to even be considered by voters in November. The special master in this case also ruled that 99% of the signatures in question should be disqualified. The committee behind the measure was aware of the duplicates, yet they obstructed and delayed the review of the duplicate signatures for over a month.”
Sarah Smallhouse, Chairperson of the Make Elections Fair Committee, said, “The Make Elections Fair Committee is thrilled with our latest victory for Prop. 140 before the Supreme Court. 32 days from now we will celebrate again when all Arizonans are liberated from the grip of partisan primary elections. It’s time to move forward. It’s time for open primaries in Arizona.”
“Our opponents engaged in blatant attempts to manipulate the system, undermining the democratic process with misleading tactics. This deliberate misconduct was rightfully rejected by the courts, ensuring that Arizona voters were not disenfranchised. The court’s decision upheld the integrity of our elections and protected the right of every voter to have a fair and transparent choice,” said Chuck Coughlin the campaign treasurer.
According to the Make Elections Fair PAC, Prop 140 would do the following if it is approved by Arizona voters: “Eliminates taxpayer funding for partisan elections; All candidates can run and will appear on the same ballot; Same signature requirements for all candidates; No funding for Partisan Presidential Primary unless unaffiliated voters are included; Every voter can participate in every election.”
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club has a different perspective on the ballot measure. In a press release, the Club stated that Prop 140 would do the following if enacted:
- “Allows one politician, the Arizona Secretary of State, to decide how many candidates qualify for the general election ballot for every single contest, including his or her own race
- Would result in some races where candidates from only one political party appear on the general election ballot
- Would force voters to navigate two completely different voting systems on the same ballot, with some races requiring voters to rank candidates and others that do not
- Will increase tabulation errors, create longer lines at the polls, and significantly delay election results.”
A couple of Arizona political parties weighed in on the official inclusion of Proposition 140 for voter consideration. The Republican Party of Arizona posted, “ACTION ALERT The awful California style Ranked Choice Voting measure DISGUISED as an ‘open primary’ will appear on AZ ballots. We need EVERYONE to join us on the NO ON PROP 140 campaign to Save Arizona.”
The Arizona Libertarian Party agreed, writing, “The AZLP approves this message. Prop 140 could effectively kill third-party and independent candidates. Vote no!”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Sep 21, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Earlier this week, a court-appointed Special Master confirmed that nearly 40,000 initiative signatures were duplicates and thus invalid. But on Thursday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Frank Moskowitz still ruled that, because Proposition 140 cannot be removed from the ballot, votes for the Ranked Choice Voting and Open Primary initiative will be counted.
The court’s affirmation of the initiative, despite Petition Signature Fraud being proven, sent shockwaves through the Arizona political scene.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi released a statement following the ruling, openly accusing Moskowitz of bias in favor of the initiative.
“From the moment he was unanimously rebuked by the AZ Supreme Court for blocking the removal of nearly 40,000 duplicate signatures, Judge Moskowitz has been trying to find a way to place Prop 140 on the ballot, irrespective of whether it had enough signatures to qualify. Today he issued a ruling manufacturing that outcome, deciding that the statutory method for determining the number of valid signatures for ballot initiatives is now unconstitutional. He made this radical determination despite the fact that the statute Moskowitz invalidated is nearly 30 years old and was reviewed and upheld against a constitutional challenge by the AZ Supreme Court in 2022 (Mussi v Hobbs).”
Prior to Moskowitz’s ruling, Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Ann Timmer ordered that if the Special Master ruled the signatures invalid, then the Make Elections Fair PAC would be permitted to argue against enjoining the vote count on grounds that court precedent typically required ruling prior to ballot printing, something not required in statute.
This ruling would appear to validate concerns many opponents of the Proposition have voiced, that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, defending legal council, and Moskowitz himself all sought to deliberately slow-roll the court proceedings beyond the printing date to ‘run out the clock’ and force the vote through.
In the ruling AZFEC deemed “radical” in a post to X, Moskowitz claimed that the confirmation of duplicated, invalid signatures was “moot,” having passed the printing deadline. He curiously cited a statute NOT being present in his justification and leaned purely on case law. He wrote, “Although there is no statutory authority for the proposition that petition challenges must end before ballot printing begins, there is case law that supports such a ‘bright light’ end to such litigation.”
He continued, “Here, the time pressures were such that not every duplicate signature was reviewed and verified by clear and convincing evidence before the August 23, 2024 ballot printing deadline, such that the underlying action is moot as of that deadline.”
In a staggering move, Moskowitz claimed that the court cannot grant injunction against counting the signatures, citing “Perhaps the absence of such express authority in statute,” as expressing the intent of the legislature.
In full he wrote, “That is not a sufficient basis for this Court to grant such a remedy, especially given the injunction allowable under (the law), the statute upon which Plaintiffs initially brought this action, does not include enjoining the canvassing of votes,” Moskowitz wrote. “Perhaps the absence of such express authority in statute is because the Legislature never intended for initiative challenges to go past the ballot printing deadline.”
Mussi wrote in the AZFEC statement that the organization intends to bring the matter to the State Supreme Court once again, “The bottom line is that after the removal of the duplicate signatures, Prop 140 lacks the required number of valid signatures needed to qualify for the ballot. The committee behind the measure was aware of this fact, which is why they obstructed and delayed the review of the duplicate signatures for over a month.
We are confident that after a careful review of the facts, ruling, and trial court record, the AZ Supreme Court will again overturn this outrageous ruling by Judge Moskowitz and enjoin Prop 140 from being tabulated.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
