Shawn Griffiths
Photo Credit: Paul Campbell / Unsplash+
The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that voter pamphlet language describing a nonpartisan primary reform initiative as a ranked choice voting initiative can stay.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Melissa Iyer Julian ruled earlier this month that Arizona lawmakers intentionally wrote the opening description for the Make Elections Fair Act to mislead voters.
The initiative, which will appear on the ballot as Proposition 140, seeks to end the use of partisan primaries in Arizona in favor of a nonpartisan election system.
What system the state uses would be up to the state legislature, governor, or secretary of state. The only requirement is that primaries have to be open to all voters and candidates, regardless of party.
Voters would not pick between party ballots but would use a single ballot to select any candidate who has qualified for each election. All candidates would have the same signature requirements to gain ballot access.
At issue here is that the opening paragraph for Prop. 140 in voter pamphlets -- the paragraph that should best sum up an initiative's intent -- says it allows "for the use of voter ranking at all elections."
Prop. 140 specifically requires the use of nonpartisan primaries. It allows for leeway in how state lawmakers want to conduct general elections but calls for elections that ensure majority winners.
This could mean using a ranked voting method if the state adopts a primary that advances more than 3 candidates in elections for a single-winner office. This, however, is an 'if,' not a requirement.
Make Elections Fair AZ, the campaign behind Prop. 140, challenged the description language adopted by state lawmakers in court and got an initial victory in Maricopa Superior Court.
Judge Ayer wrote that the legislative council tasked with writing the description used a "'rhetorical strategy’ devised to dissuade voters from supporting the Initiative by confusing when and how voter ranking would be used."
Thus, it violated the requirement that lawmakers have to publish a nonpartisan analysis of proposed ballot measures in pamphlets that are meant to educate voters on what's on the ballot.
The Arizona Supreme Court, however, overturned this decision. The justices wrote that not only did lawmakers comply with state law, but it didn't matter if they were trying to deceive voters as long as the description is technically correct.
The court wrote:
“The analysis describes the changes in separately numbered, short paragraphs, which permits an interested voter to understand the proposed amendments. It is not for the courts to decide what aspects of the Initiative are most important and deserving of description in the analysis’ initial paragraphs.”
Make Elections Fair said in a statement that it was not too surprised by the outcome as the court is stacked with partisan appointees.
“Prop. 140 does not require Rank Choice voting but provides it as a reform opportunity for the Legislature the Governor and perhaps the Secretary of State to consider,” the group said.
“Prop. 140, in fact, does create an open primary, (and) we believe any fair and impartial analysis should begin by explaining what the imitative does do, not what it may do.”
Proposition 140 is one of 6 statewide ballot measures that, if approved, would implement nonpartisan primaries. The other states are Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and South Dakota.
Check out more updates in nonpartisan election reform here.