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.
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 Staff Reporter | Oct 1, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer and State Senator Ken Bennett filed amicus briefs in defense of a Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) ballot initiative with the Arizona Supreme Court last week.
Bennett served as the secretary of state from 2009 to 2015. He filed his brief jointly with Helen Purcell, the former Maricopa County recorder who served nearly 30 years.
Richer said in his filing for Smith v. Fontes that the votes should be counted for RCV, or Prop 140, the “Make Elections Fair Act” — regardless of the existence of a disqualifying number of duplicate signatures gathered — because the “election has already begun” and, he says, state law prohibits the prevention of counting votes cast.
“Hiding the results or attempting to prevent the vote from being tabulated is an inequitable result,” said Richer. “And it is at odds with Arizona public policy that demands government transparency. Not counting the vote does not mean it did not happen.”
Richer said all arguments concerning the initiative’s qualifications to be on the ballot were rendered moot after the deadline passed to certify and print the ballots.
“To be resolved with a high degree of certainty may not be currently possible given the election time constraints,” said Richer. “The issue has now, at least partially, gone to the people. The Recorder believes there is benefit to allowing the vote to occur, and assuming it is otherwise constitutional, to count.”
Richer stated that his office had already printed over 21,500 different ballot styles and mailed many of them out to in-state residents as well as military and overseas voters, some of which have been returned: over 1,100 out of about 8,500.
“Recorder submits that once the ballots are printed, the time for signature challenges must end,” said Richer.
Richer also said that state law prohibits the destruction of any public record of a vote, and that Maricopa County’s tabulation machines would tabulate the votes returned.
The recorder noted that state law does allow for courts to enjoin the certification and printing of ballots, but not the power to enjoin the counting of votes.
“[I]f the voting tally is a public record, the Recorder does not see how Maricopa County can either destroy it or fail to release it,” said Richer.
Similarly, Bennett and Purcell argued that their combined expertise on elections made it clear that timeliness in elections takes precedence over validity.
Bennett and Purcell cited court precedent in their argument of mootness regarding the challenge to Prop 140’s validity. Secretary of State Adrian Fontes instructed county election officials to include Prop 140 on their ballots printed in late August.
“Courts have consistently upheld the principle that pre-election challenges must be resolved before the ballot printing deadline,” said the pair. “[And] as a practical matter, invalidating Prop 140 after voting has already begun would result in electoral chaos and damage voter confidence in the efficacy of their votes.”
That ballot printing deadline occurred a day after the Arizona Supreme Court remanded the case to the Maricopa County Superior Court for review, citing the exclusion of evidence pertaining to 40,000 duplicate signatures. The exclusion of those contested signatures reduce petition signatures to what is below the total required to qualify for the ballot.
Though the Maricopa County Superior Court did find that nearly all of the 40,000 signatures were duplicates, the court ruled that the state constitution didn’t allow for those votes cast on Prop 140 to be ignored. That ruling led to the appeal which the Arizona Supreme Court now considers, and with which Richer and Bennett disagree.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
