Arizona Anti-Immigrant Leader Pearce: Open Primary “un-American”
By Ted Downing on October 8, 2012 in Arizona with 8 CommentsRead Time: 2 - 4 minutes
Former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce came out strongly against Proposition 121 in a statement to all voters published by the Arizona Secretary of State.
“Don’t be fooled”, the nationally known author of Arizona’s SB1070 says.
Americans love choices and we ought to have lots of them, especially in our politics and candidates. Telling Arizonans that they are only allowed to have two candidates to choose from is un-American. This initiative discriminates against smaller parties and Independents. It actually will discriminate against Republicans and Democrats too. Because most districts are very Republican or very Democrat, voters in those districts will have two candidates from the same party to choose from. In roughly 20 of Arizona’s 30 legislative district, you won’t even have two parties to choose from, so Democrats in Republican districts will only have two Republicans to choose from and Republicans in Democrat districts will only have two Democrats to choose from.
Russell Pearce claims initiative supporters want to change the rules because they want to change the type of candidate who wins. Pearce was defeated in 2011 by Jerry Lewis, a Republican, in a recall election that all voters, not just Republicans, could vote. He was the first sitting Senate President in American history to be recalled.
Pearce claims that “rigging the rules to ensure that only a specific type of candidate can win is un-American and very dangerous for Arizona.”
Frank Henry, election integrity activist in the Verde Valley of Arizona thinks the elections are currently rigged by election laws written by the two political parties. Although they let other voices, like third parties, be heard but the election is rigged so that neither they nor an independent candidate can win. In its 100 years as a state, not a single third party candidate or independent has ever been elected to statewide office or the legislature.
Henry notes that:
By law, non-Party candidates must be listed last on the ballots, need four to five times as many signatures to get on the ballot, and must pay for the voting list that is given free to the recognized political parties.
He then asks, “How is a proposition that gives all voters equal access to vote in every election “un-American?” And “how is it un-American for candidates to have equal access to be placed on the ballot?”
In contrast, non-partisan top-two elections take place in every Arizona town and municipality and at the school board level since statehood. Are these elections “un-American?” he asks.





Leave Your Comment →
8 Comments
Alex Gauthier
10.08.2012
@alexg
Excellent point made by Frank Henry. This election model is used in many other places and does not have the ‘un-American’ effects as purported by Pearce. One more way the two major parties are losing their grip on political hegemony.
Matt Metzner
10.08.2012
@mmetzner
Elections where everyone is allowed to participate is un-American? The current system restricts 1/3 of Arizona from voting in the primary and leaves the state with uncontentious races in the general election.
Blake Bunch
10.08.2012
@blakebunch
More than two candidates? No way – Isn’t the three party system supposed to be the basis for democracy?
Chad Peace
10.09.2012
@Chad_Peace
Elections where those who are most America don’t win are un-American [Sarcasm]
Stanley
10.08.2012
“In an improved democracy, the primary elections should be open. YES on 121…”
Cassidy Noblejas Bartolomei
10.08.2012
@cassidynb
Ted, Pearce states that Prop 121 is “rigging the rules to ensure that only a specific type of candidate can win,” which he believes “is un-American and very dangerous for Arizona.” Do you know what specific type of candidate he believes those behind Prop 121 are rigging the system in favor of?
Also, Pearce explains that Prop 121 will have a negative effect to the voting system by giving voters in very Republican districts or very Democratic districts races that are between two Republicans or two Democrats. Where Pearce argues that voters “will have two candidates from the same party to choose from,” as a negative result of Prop 121, it seems to me that this might motivate candidates to look beyond their party affiliation to appeal to voters that lie outside their typical voter-base. Is it possible then that independents and other third parties will not lose their voices, as Pearce believes, but will actually be essential to the outcome of Republican v. Republican/ Democrat v. Democrat races?
Lucas Eaves
10.09.2012
@lucaseaves
I agree cassidy. And when he talks about these very republican or democrat districts, and that the top two system will give you less choice, what he forgets is that the election is played in the primary in these districts specifically because they are very republican or democrat. And as primaries have a lower turnout and are often limited to the member of one party, this is actually a rule that limits people’s choice.
Zachery Abramson
10.10.2012
@zabramso
The argument that the top two reduces the chances of third-party candidates due to name or party recognition is indicative of how our current political leaders think. That candidates instigate change as opposed to voters.