Arizona’s Proposition 121 and Why it Matters to Everyone Else
By Chad Peace on October 28, 2012 in Arizona's Proposition 121, open primaries, Silent Revolution with 10 CommentsRead Time: 4 - 6 minutes
Over the last several decades, party central committees, partisan special interests, and courts overseen by party-appointed judges have built an institutional wall around party power-brokers. Districts are re-drawn, with bipartisan agreements: “I’ll give you a red district X if you give me a blue district Y. Then we can focus our resources and battle it out for District Z.” The rules for ballot access, different in each state, have been similarly framed around a two-party picture: signature requirements and ballot rights are usually conditioned on a party’s historical success in prior elections. For Democrats and Republicans, this means nothing; ballot access is a given.
For Greens, Libertarians, Peace and Freedom, and everyone else, this means that marginal resources are spent to just get on the ballot instead of communicating with potential voters. If you are an independent candidate, well good luck. It’s almost impossible to get on the ballot unless you’re a billionaire or a magician. Consequentially, the political “game” occurs between the red team and the blue team.
The little known and lesser-discussed reality is that the “real” elections occur during primaries. This is because the candidates who make the general election ballot are determined during the primary, when far fewer people vote. And because most districts are pre-painted Red or Blue, the winner of the majority color’s primary wins the seat. The general election is, in reality, just a show.
Arizona’s Proposition 121 is so revolutionary because it hits the red and blue partisan structure at its core. Under the proposed system, party controlled primaries, where the purpose is for partisan voters to select a leader that best represents them, would be replaced with a non-partisan system, where all candidates and all voters participate in a single primary and the purpose is to select the top-two candidates that represent all of us. The system is modeled after Washington State’s non-partisan system, a system also adopted by California in 2010 and executed for the first time this year.
Opponents of the top-two open primary ironically argue that third party and independent candidates will not have a voice under the new system. In California’s history, no independent or third party candidate has ever won statewide office. But for the first time, five Peace and Freedom candidates are in one-on-one races. Also for the first time, two independent candidates have a shot at making history.
Further, California has gone from having the least competitive to the most competitive elections in the country, according to Ballotpedia. And five bitter-partisan incumbents who have collectively held office for more than 100 years are facing serious challenge for the first time.
Does the new system mean that third party and independents are less likely to be on the general election ballot because they have to first get passed the primary? Yes. But does it mean that the playing field is level at its foundation, so credible non-party backed candidates, regardless of party affiliation, can actually win? Yes. Does it mean that some voters sometimes won’t have anyone from “their team” on the ballot? Yes again.
But, it also means that a relatively unknown Democrat like Eric Swalwell can take on a long-time bitter partisan incumbent Democrat like Peter Stark, and actually win. It means that the voters in this blue district, whose vote for their own party candidate has never really mattered, become the deciding factor in this year’s election.
It means that we start to see that there are different shades beneath the solid paint that covers our political maps. It means that the person who is elected to represent us has to appeal to more than just the partisan base that turned out for one color’s primary.
Arizona’s Proposition 121 matters to all of us because there is a silent revolution brewing out West. In a region known for its solid colors, those who see the many shades of our political spectrum are cracking the foundation of institutionalized partisanship.
And if Arizona’s Proposition 121 passes in the face of the millions of dollars being poured into Arizona by the institutionalized special interests to paint the proposition as a special interest ploy, the revolution might not be so silent in 2014.





Leave Your Comment →
10 Comments
Blaz Gutierrez
10.28.2012
@blazgutierrez
It’s as simple as the fundamental right of access to the ballot. Why should the decision be made in June during a primary election that I might not be allowed to participate in because I’m not a member of a certain club.
So few people participate in the primaries as it is that it’s an even smaller less-representative portion of the electorate that’s making a decision of who is going to represent me for the next 4-6 years without my input. No thanks.
downing
10.28.2012
Ballot access in Top2 is based on voter nomination. Third parties have a chance to WIN, not just participate as token players. THat’s a huge difference and a good reason to support TOp 2. The winner of a Top 2 will hold a plurality of the votes.
Solomon Kleinsmith
10.29.2012
Complete and utter nonsense. Every election is “based on voter nomination”, third parties have a chance to win – when they build up enough support to rival major party candidates, and the Top Two Choke Point is the worst possible way to ensure plurality voting.
You can do the same with all sorts of runoff options, without the horribly undemocratic limitation of who makes it onto the general election ballot – where the vast majority of people participate. The only thing that the Top Two Choke Point accomplishes is limiting the options of general election voters.
Chad Peace
11.02.2012
@Chad_Peace
Non-partisanship is not about electing more third parties. Its about electing candidates that are accountable to everyone.
Michael Higham
10.28.2012
@michaelhigham
The last paragraph is on point with the Prop 121 battle. The special interests use their general villainization to their advantage, which is smart. Voters should at least know that before making a decision on Prop 121.
Dameocrat
10.28.2012
Accept the reality is that third parties are dead, dead, dead in Washington State, California and Louisiana, and so you are actually a friend of the very parties you claim to be rebelling against. Just like the gold standard fools are actually helping the fractional reserve bankers and the Bilderbergs, as the claim to be rebelling against them.
Solomon Kleinsmith
10.29.2012
What Top Two Choke Point supporters refuse to see is that there is actually a long history of Top Two Choke Point election data from state and local elections across the country, and it actually shows a small *DECLINE* in minor party and independent candidates getting through to the general election. Using this as a selling point is a bold faced lie.
Chad Peace
10.29.2012
@Chad_Peace
In a world where everything is black, white, blue and red, perhaps you are correct.
Luisiana doesn’t have Top-Two.
Robert B. Winn
11.05.2012
These top two primaries are just a Democratic Party ploy to keep independent voters from being candidates, while at the same time weakening the Republican Party. Calling this idea an open primary is the height of deception. The people of Arizona passed a real open primary initiative in 1998. It did not last very long. Democratic Arizona State Attorney General Janet Napolitano immediately proposed to the legislature that if the Presidential Primary were moved to February, she could provide an opinion that independent voters could not vote in the Presidential Primary. Accordingly, the legislature moved the Presidential Primary to February, leaving the primary for state offices in the fall, excluding independent voters from the Presidential Primary, but still allowing them to vote in the state primary. The next thing Janet Napolitano did with respect to independent voters was to sign into a law a Senate bill to remove the option to register independent from the Arizona voter registration form with the following effect on independent voter registration:
2000-2002 107,715
2002-2004 165,771
2004-2006 28,438
So if independent voters in Arizona want an open primary, they should pass another initiative to open the Presidential Primary they already opened once. Secondly, they should pass an initiative to put the option to register independent back on the Arizona voter registration form. Third, they should pass an initiative to reduce the nomination petition requirement to a number of signatures that an independent voter could obtain.
Besides this, independent voters should keep challenging the Arizona nomination petition requirement in federal court. Federal courts have ruled habitually that the provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 do not apply to independent voters. This puts independent voters in the same position black people were in before the Civil War. Federal courts and the United States Supreme Court ruled right up to the time Ft. Sumter was attacked that slavery was Constitutional. They are ruling the same way today with regard to independent voters.
The top two idea did not work for independent voters in California, and it will not work here. Independent voters need to do more than sit around and support Democratic Party ideas for limiting candidacy for office.
Chad Peace
11.05.2012
@Chad_Peace
In California, reactionaries make this same argument, except they say, “Its just a Republican Play….etc…”
How do you say top-two didn’t work in California? I can’t really follow the logic if its here.