by Staff Reporter | Oct 23, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The financier of the ballot initiative seeking to reform Arizona’s elections with open primaries and ranked-choice voting has the impact of flipping states blue — much like its primary funder did in Colorado.
That financier, Unite America, is listed as the single biggest funder on the campaign media spending report for the entity behind Proposition 140, the Make Elections Fair PAC. Unite America gave over $1.7 million to boost the political action committee earlier this month.
Unite America’s primary funder is one of its board co-chairs, Kent Thiry, who was behind several election reforms that shifted Colorado to a blue state. Thiry acquired his wealth being the chairman and CEO of the national dialysis provider DaVita from 1999 to 2019, a role that resulted in him facing a 2021 federal indictment for violating antitrust law. A jury acquitted Thiry of the conspiracy charges in 2022.
Additionally, DaVita agreed to pay out a $34.5 million settlement earlier this year over whistleblower allegations of anti-kickback laws. The millions were a portion of the nearly $1 billion in whistleblower settlements: $450 million in 2015 over allegations of defrauding Medicare by billing the government for trashed dialysis drugs, and $350 million in 2014 for other alleged kickbacks to doctors.
Rather than reform his dialysis business over those years, Thiry trained his sights on elections.
Through his investments and organizational efforts, Thiry has taken credit for several major reforms in Colorado. Those reforms include allowing unaffiliated voters into party primaries (2016), establishing a public vote and nixing in-person presidential caucuses (2016), and thwarting gerrymandering through the establishment of an independent commission (2018).
This year, Thiry has spent millions to achieve the ultimate goal in Colorado and all other states, including Arizona: establishing open primaries and ranked-choice voting. Thiry believes that America won’t survive without those two major reforms.
“There aren’t that many great democracies that have survived more than a couple hundred years. And in order to survive, you have to modernize and modify and reflect society,” said Thiry in an interview with CPR News.
Those three gradual reforms contributed to the state’s shift from purple to blue over the years.
With Thiry’s help, Unite America has spent over $70 million since 2019 on getting states to similarly reform their elections with open primaries and ranked-choice voting.
Unite America (formerly the Centrist Project) gained more momentum in Colorado following Republican firebrand Lauren Boebert’s surprise congressional victory in 2020.
That year, Unite America successfully spent over $3 million to enact open primaries and ranked-choice voting in Alaska. In the first election cycle after those reforms, Republican House candidate Sarah Palin lost the House race, and Republican moderate Lisa Murkowski defended her Senate seat against a more conservative challenger.
In addition to Arizona, the organization has invested in state campaigns for the major election reforms that have benefited centrists and Democrats in Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Per Unite America’s research arm, Unite America Institute, their goals for election reforms include top-four nonpartisan primaries, full voting from home, ranked-choice voting used for all offices, and an independent redistricting commission.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Oct 20, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
A new report concluded that Proposition 140 — which seeks to establish ranked-choice voting and replace Arizona’s partisan primaries with open primaries — would empower the secretary of state more than voters in elections.
The Reason Foundation issued the report last week by its director of criminal justice policy, Vittorio Nastasi, several days after early voting began. (Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act voters (UOCAVA) were mailed their ballots near the end of September).
“Prop. 140 grants far too much power to the legislature or secretary of state by allowing them to determine how many candidates can compete in general elections,” said the organization. “The impact of Prop. 140 is, therefore, uncertain and could generate substantial conflict without any clear benefit.”
Arizona’s current primary elections restrict voters to voting within the primary election of their registered party; unaffiliated voters may change their registration leading up to the primaries in order to cast a ballot for their preferred primary election.
Ranked-choice voting would do away with majority vote winners in general elections with more than two candidates in most races (and more than four candidates in Arizona House races). Instead, victors would be determined by voter rankings of preferred candidates. Without any majority winner, the ranking system determines the winner(s) by eliminating the lowest vote-getter and redistributing those votes to the other candidates based on those voters’ rankings.
The report noted that Prop 140 doesn’t specify the number of candidates that would move on to the general election from the proposed open primaries, allowing either lawmakers to decide by November 1 (or the secretary of state thereafter) how many candidates move on to the general election.
The Reason Foundation’s report assessed that open primaries would violate the First Amendment.
“Political parties are fundamentally private organizations with the right to set their own rules for nominating candidates,” said the organization. “To infringe on that right is to violate the freedom of association. No matter how large or powerful the two major parties may be, the government has no role in determining the process for their primary elections.”
The organization proposed that there were “better alternatives” to meet the problem of the exclusion of nonpartisan voters: allowing minor party candidates to participate in debates and redrawing gerrymandered districts.
The Reason Foundation did side with ranked-choice voting, however. The organization said that the proposed voting method would remedy voter concerns of “wasted votes and spoiler effects” while improving opportunity for minor party candidates.
The Arizona Joint Legislative Budget Committee also issued an official fiscal impact analysis for Prop 140. The committee concluded that the proposition’s overall fiscal impact couldn’t be determined in advance due to necessary further action by state and local governments. In their review of the fiscal impact analysis, the Reason Foundation emphasized that administering elections would likely become more costly under Prop 140 by increasing the number of candidates on the general election ballot, changing the length of both sample and election ballots, and increasing the number of voters receiving a primary ballot.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Oct 14, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Regina Romero, the Democrat Mayor of Tucson, released a “Voter Guide” via Facebook on Wednesday, which calls for her supporters to vote “No” on Proposition 140. The proposition would create an open primary system in Arizona along with a system of ranked-choice voting.
As AZ Free News previously reported, a broad, bipartisan coalition has formed to oppose Prop 140 including Democrat groups such as: Coconino County Democrats, Gila County Democrats, North Scottsdale Democrats, LD 5 Democrats, LD 3 Democrats, LD 8 Democrats, LD 13 Democrats, LD 14 Democrats, South Mountain Democrats, and Democrats Abroad. And Republican groups such as: Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Center for Arizona Policy, Heritage Action for America, AMAC Action, Goldwater Institute, EZAZ, Turning Point Action, and the Republican Party of Arizona.
For Romero to find herself on the same side of an issue as some of these groups seems to indicate the profound impact the proposed changes would have on Arizona politics. Even the Libertarian Party of Arizona has lent its voice to oppose Prop 140, writing in a post to X that repeated an alert from the AZGOP, “The AZLP approves this message. Prop 140 could effectively kill third-party and independent candidates. Vote no!”
Legislative District 8 Democrats posted a brief explanation of the proposition on their website with the objection:
“This amendment to the state Constitution would open primaries to all voters, regardless of party. Proponents say this process would moderate the extremism we’ve seen on numerous contentious issues. The Legislature would be required to pass a bill to determine how many candidates would advance from the primary to the general election. This could be the top-two primaries like California, top-five primaries, or any number in between. For two-winner elections for the Arizona House, the number to advance could be from four to seven. If the Legislature fails to pass such a bill by 11/1/2025, the Secretary of State would choose the number of candidates to advance.
The proposition requires a majority of the votes to win the general election. It requires the use of ranked-choice voting in general elections where three or more candidates advance from the primary. This proposition has attractive features, but important decisions left to the Legislature make it harder to support. “
As previously reported by AZ Free News, a press release from the Arizona Free Enterprise Club warned 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.”
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.
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 Matthew Holloway | Oct 11, 2024 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
After a stunning decision by the Arizona Supreme Court that will allow votes to be tabulated for Proposition 140, which would usher in ranked-choice voting, a coalition has formed to defeat the measure.
The NO on Prop 140 Committee, co-chaired by Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould, has launched a concerted effort to defeat the measure alongside organizations on both sides of the aisle including:
In a statement, Lamb and Gould said, “Special interest groups should not decide how our elections system operates. Arizonans on all sides of the aisle agree: this scheme to transform our elections into a system found in California is a bad idea. We oppose re-writing our Constitution and imposing such a radical, convoluted scheme on Arizonans.”
According to the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, one of the groups involved in the bipartisan coaltion, 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.”
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.
