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.
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.”
🚨 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. #StayTuned#StopRCV
The Arizona Libertarian Party agreed, writing, “The AZLP approves this message. Prop 140 could effectively kill third-party and independent candidates. Vote no!”
The AZLP approves this message. Prop 140 could effectively kill third-party and independent candidates. Vote no! https://t.co/efBIo7vNMc
Arizona, we have a problem. Apparently, the group behind Proposition 140—a ballot initiative aimed to bring California-style elections to our state—got very creative in their signature gathering efforts. In fact, you could say that in many ways, they excelled in duplicating their work. And that’s exactly why Prop 140 should be invalidated.
Back in July, the special interests behind the idea to bring jungle primaries and ranked choice voting to Arizona submitted signatures with the Arizona Secretary of State to qualify the so-called “Make Elections Fair Act” for the November General Election. Just a couple weeks later, a lawsuit was filed after it was determined that a large portion of their signatures were collected in violation of state law. And late last week, we received some good news. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the signature challenge lawsuit against Prop 140—which was facing a potential deadline due to the printing of ballots—may continue to ensure that the 40,000 duplicate signatures submitted by the Prop 140 committee are examined and removed from the final tally.
Yes, you read that right. The group that supposedly wants to “make elections fair” is content to do so by counting duplicate signatures (i.e. voters that signed more than once). What does that say about the true nature of this initiative?
The Arizona Supreme Court may have rendered a significant blow to the future of a key ballot measure for the upcoming General Election.
On Friday, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an order in Smith v. Fontes, which was a challenge over the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act (Proposition 140). The court ruled that Prop 140 “will appear on the ballot, assuming ballots are indeed printed in the early morning hours of August 23.” However, the state’s high court projected that if a majority of its justices were to later “disqualif[y] the Initiative, the court should issue an injunction precluding any votes for the measure from being counted.”
The issue at hand involves a challenge to the signatures submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State by the committee supportive of the ballot measure. The parties contesting the submission have argued that there are 40,000 duplicative signatures in the batch, which, if discarded, would bring the initiative under the minimum number required for placement on the ballot.
Proposition 140 is an attempt from the Make Elections Fair PAC to remake the Arizona elections systems through this constitutional amendment on the ballot.
“I am grateful for this thoughtful decision from the Arizona Supreme Court,” said Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. “At no time did the trial court judge or the committee in favor of the initiative provide evidence as to why these signatures were not duplicates, but instead relied on a strategy of obstruction to run out the clock. The lateness of this challenge did not have to be the case if the lower court had only adhered to the Supreme Court’s earlier directive for all duplicates to be removed from the qualifying count. For any ballot measure – but especially one that would fundamentally transform our elections systems – Arizonans deserve complete confidence that our courts are applying all laws fairly and justly.”
Mussi added, “This isn’t a debate about dubious matches or concerns of same family members with the same name being confused as a duplicate. All the duplicates submitted to be removed were exact name and address matches that aligned with what was on the voter file. Under state law, you are only allowed to sign a petition once, so they should have been removed. Instead, thousands of people were allowed to sign the initiative petition sheets multiple times, and those signatures were counted.”
In its order, the Court wrote, “There is no statutory directive that a court resolve an election challenge like this one before the ballot printing deadline. Regardless, this Court, and indeed the trial court, has consistently endeavored to resolve initiative challenges before the ballot printing deadline… But the courts’ role is to dispense justice. Courts cannot be forced to rule rashly to meet a ballot printing deadline or provide the parties with certainty.”
According to the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, this measure “is seeking to enact a California-style election scheme built around ranked choice voting and jungle primaries.” On the other hand, an advocate for the Make Elections Fair Act recently maintained that Prop 140 “represents an opportunity to improve both our elections and our state government.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
