by Staff Reporter | Oct 30, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The outcome of a new poll is indicating the defeat of Proposition 140, the “Make Elections Fair Act,” which proposes to overhaul Arizona elections with ranked-choice voting and open primaries.
The Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) released the poll on Tuesday, conducted by Data Orbital. The pollster surveyed over 500 voters over the past weekend to gauge their support for Prop 140; only 42 percent of respondents expressed support for the measure, with those who have already voted at 38 percent in support.
AFEC President Scot Mussi stated in a press release that the poll results indicated an opposition to election reforms similar to those adopted by California.
“This latest poll demonstrates that Arizonans do not appreciate these special interests attempting to commandeer our elections for their radical agenda,” said Mussi. “Arizona voters are diligently doing their research on Prop 140, and they are being turned off by its dangerous effects on our state’s elections and future.”
Mussi remarked that the defeat of Prop 140 would be “sending a message to these out-of-state billionaires and California liberals” that Arizonans won’t adopt “a system run by a partisan election official and his band of unelected bureaucrats.”
By “partisan election official,” Mussi was referring to the Secretary of State — under Prop 140 reforms, the secretary decides the number of candidates who may qualify for the general election ballot in every race, even their own. Theoretically, that could mean a general election ballot consisting of only one party.
AFEC also criticized Prop 140 for its speculated potential to increase tabulation errors, lengthen voting lines, and delay election results.
41 percent of respondents said they were not supportive of the measure. Eight percent said they were undecided, and five percent said they could not recall on how they had already voted on the measure.
The poll surveyed 261 males and 289 females, and respondents were nearly evenly split on whether they were “extremely likely” to vote (291) or had already voted (231). A select few were only somewhat likely (15) or “50/50 likely” (13).
A majority of respondents were 65-and-over, white, Republican, in possession of some college education but no degree, and had voted in the last four elections.
Respondents were heavily weighted in the 65-and-over crowd at 33 percent (182 respondents), with decreasing numbers of participation as the age brackets went younger: 17 percent at ages 55 to 64, 14 percent at ages 45 to 54, 14 percent at ages 35 to 44, 13 percent at ages 25 to 34, and eight percent at ages 18 to 24.
A majority of respondents self-identified as white (71 percent), followed by Hispanic (20 percent), African American (four percent), Asian (two percent), and other (two percent).
Also, more respondents were Republicans: 39 percent. 32 percent of respondents were Democrats, 25 percent of respondents were independents or unaffiliated, and about four percent were “other” voters.
42 percent of respondents received some college education but no degree. 25 percent had a bachelor’s degree, 15 percent had a high school degree or an equivalent, over 14 percent had a graduate degree or higher, two percent didn’t have their high school diploma, and one percent refused to answer.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us 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 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 | 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.
