Can a Party Call Itself ‘Independent’? Judge Accuses No Labels Party of ‘Bait-and-Switch’
Shawn GriffithsThe No Labels Party in Arizona cannot change its name to the Arizona Independent Party. This is the decision from Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gregory Como, who called it a “political bait-and-switch.”
The order was filed Wednesday.
To quickly catch people up. The No Labels Party of Arizona gathered enough signatures to gain party recognition in 2023, which would give it the option to field a presidential candidate in the 2024 election.
Ultimately, it did not move forward with a nominee – but it maintained its recognized party status.
In October 2025, the party petitioned Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to change its name to the Arizona Independent Party. Fontes determined that since state law does not prohibit his authority to do it, he can.
He approved the request in December and ordered county election officials to switch voters registered with the No Labels Party to the Arizona Independent Party.
This is where the judge had a problem.
Como ruled that Fontes only has authority that is explicitly designated to his office by the constitution and Arizona statute: "If the Secretary is to have such power, it must be prescribed by the Arizona Constitution or state statutes. It is not."
“By approving a party’s requested name change, without it obtaining the necessary signatures for party recognition, the Secretary permits a political bait and switch,” he asserted.
Como also noted that allowing the name change assumes all voters who petitioned for the No Labels Party are okay with it.
“When a person signs a petition on behalf of an aspiring party, it is reasonable to infer that they are largely motivated by how the party describes itself, i.e., the party’s name,” he wrote.
“Would the same 41,000 people who signed petitions to recognize the No Labels Party have signed to support the ‘Arizona Nazi Party’ or the ‘Arizona Anarchists’?”
The Republican and Democratic Parties in Arizona challenged the name change in court, along with the Citizens Clean Election Commission. They argued that it would cause confusion for state voters who are or seek to register as unaffiliated.
In January, 34% of voters were registered unaffiliated with a political party. There were 41,484 people registered as “Arizona Independent” (nearly 1% of the electorate).
Whether the parties actually care about voter confusion is subject to dispute. Both have a history of trying to snuff out third party competition. The Democratic Party of Arizona sued Fontes in 2023 when he first recognized the No Labels Party.
But there is nuance to this issue. Regardless of the parties’ sincerity, they are relying on an argument with historical evidence to back it up.
In 2014, Independent Voter News was the first to report that most voters registered with the American Independent Party (AIP) in California had done so by mistake. They thought they were registered independent of a party (which is No Party Preference in the state).
This was confirmed two years later when the LA Times published its own investigation, finding that at least 75% of AIP voters did not intend to register with a party.
Today, nearly a million California voters are registered with AIP, which was initially established as a far-right party. To its credit, AIP has shifted its mission and priorities to have a broader appeal with voters but many of its members still don't realize they are registered with a party.
This can affect their voting rights in presidential primary elections.
In most state contests in California, party registration doesn’t matter because the state uses a nonpartisan Top Two primary system. However, the state continues to use semi-closed primaries in presidential contests.
This means recognized political parties in California can decide whether or not to allow No Party Preference voters to participate in their presidential preference vote. Some parties allow it. Others don’t.
But these primary rules also require registered party members to vote in their respective party’s presidential primary. So, registered AIP voters have to vote in the AIP presidential primary.
This has a documented history of causing voter confusion in California.
The Independent Voter Project petitioned the Supreme Court to hear its challenge to California’s use of semi-closed presidential primaries when the state constitution calls for open primaries. The high court chose not to hear the case.
Arizona uses a semi-open primary system, which allows independent voters to select a party ballot in primary elections. However, registered party members are limited to their own party’s primary.
In other words, voters registered with the Arizona Independent Party could run into the same problem.
Part of the reason No Labels is changing its name is to encourage independent candidates to run for office. The path to the ballot is much simpler for candidates filed with a party than those trying to run unaffiliated.
But if voters who want to register independent of a party accidentally register Arizona Independent, they unknowingly limit their primary choices to a single party that may not have candidates they prefer.
This is a real conundrum with any party that attempts to call itself 'Independent' with a capital "I."
On the other hand, there are organizations and emerging parties trying to mobilize independent voters in elections. This can be difficult because independents are not a monolith. They exist across the political spectrum.
There are things that connect most independent voters, including dissatisfaction with the two-party system and a desire for change. It would pose a threat to the two parties if a group successfully courted independents, considering they make up a plurality of voters (nationally).
John Opdycke
There is a bill in the Arizona Legislature that would make it illegal for parties to use “independent” in their name. This is a rare action for a state to take. Louisiana is the only state that currently forbids any party from calling itself the “independent party.”
In Other Reform News…
Ranked Choice Voting, Open Primaries May Be Coming to Another Major City in New York
Unite NY presented its proposals for ranked choice voting (RCV), open primaries, and ballot access reform before the Buffalo Charter Review Commission last week – giving the city an opportunity to lead on more choice election reform in New York.
“Buffalo voters deserve a system that rewards competition, broad participation, and enfranchises all voters,” said the organization’s executive director, Anthony Thomas.
“Ranked choice voting, open primaries, and fairer ballot access are practical, commonsense reforms. The Commission should give these proposals full, timely consideration.”
If the commission moves forward on these proposals, Buffalo could become the second city in the state to adopt RCV by voter consent. New York City approved it in November 2019 after it was put on the ballot by the NYC Charter Revision Commission.
Shawn Griffiths
RCV gives voters the opportunity to rank candidates in order of preference (1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc.) If no candidate gets a majority of first choice selections, the last place candidate is eliminated, and their voters’ next choices are applied to the tabulation.
This is how RCV works in most US jurisdictions that have adopted it. There are other methods that can be adopted using ranked ballots.
Advocates of the reform argue that this allows for greater voter expression at the polls, as opposed to the strategic thinking often required under a choose-one, plurality voting method. They also assert that it leads to greater competition and civility in elections.
Candidates in large fields will need the second or even third choice support of voters who prefer another candidate, so they are incentivized to establish coalitions and ease up on attacks.
RCV was used for the first time in NYC in 2021.
Here's the thing: RCV was implemented for primary elections only and NYC uses closed partisan primaries. This means voters have to be a registered party member to participate at the most critical stage of the taxpayer-funded elections process.
This locks out approximately 21% of the city’s electorate that is registered unaffiliated. Thus, meaningful choice in the nation’s largest city – even under ranked choice voting – is restricted.
Unite NY was part of an effort to get open primaries put on the 2025 ballot, but the NYC Charter Revision Commission chose not to advance any type of reform that would allow independent voters to participate in primary elections.
Now, the organization is asking the Buffalo CRC to go a step further and consider RCV, open primaries, and ballot access reforms that give voters better competition, choice, and accountability in elections.
This development comes not long after the charter commission in Los Angeles, California, recommended RCV for city elections after a 10-1 vote. If advanced to the November ballot and approved by voters, RCV will be used starting in 2032.
Unlike NYC and Buffalo, Los Angeles uses nonpartisan all-voter and all-candidate primaries, so all voters (including independent voters), would have access to more choice reform.
Cara Brown McCormick
Legislative Efforts to Close Primaries in Alabama and Tennessee are Losing Steam
Open Primaries activist Shannon Rasmussen, reporting from the Tennessee state capitol reports that multiple bills aimed at officially closing the state’s primary elections are not going the way supporters hoped.
One bill died in committee last week in an 11-11 vote. One Senate bill was scheduled for a committee hearing, but wasn’t brought up. One couldn’t get a committee hearing because of a full docket.
And it won’t be long before the legislative session ends.
In a recent op-ed, Rasmussen described the most egregious attempts to close Tennessee primaries being SB 777 and its House version, HB 0886. These bills require party registration 90 days in advance of a primary election to vote.
“This creates a bureaucratic 'lockout' that forces voters to pledge partisan loyalty months before an election just to have a seat at the table,” she writes.
Rasmussen, an Army veteran, focused her piece on the impact this has on the veteran community. More than half of veterans identify and/or are registered independent of the two major parties.
In total, this is roughly 220,000 veterans just in Tennessee.
Her position is similar to Paul Rieckhoff, who founded Independent Veterans of America. Both argue that veterans put country above party and people above politics when they served their country. Why would we have an election system that forces them to pick a side while they serve or when they get out?
And shuts them out if they don’t?
In Alabama, it looked like a closed primary bill might sail through the legislature. However, while it passed the state House with ease, its future remains uncertain in the Senate – where it faces more scrutiny.
HB 541 requires voters to register with a political party in order to vote in the primary. The bill's sponsor, Rep. Ernie Yarbrough, has tried to argue that primary elections will remain open “in practice” because voters can switch party affiliation each election cycle.
They just have to do it at least 60 days in advance of a primary if they want to participate, which is the definition of a closed primary no matter how Yarbrough tries to spin it.
Primary elections would continue to be funded by taxpayers under HB 541, which means independents would foot the bill and then be denied access. The estimated cost of a state election is about $10 million, which is a steep price to pay to be disenfranchised.
“The idea that private organizations should have their elections paid for and administered by the state, and yet be able to control who can vote in them, is the very basis of anti-conservative big government,” said Open Primaries Senior Vice President Jeremy Gruber.
“And yet, it’s the basis for the argument of closed primaries. The Republican Party of Alabama wants it both ways. They want control over who votes in the primary, but they want the taxpayers to fund it and the government to run it. There is nothing less than conservative than that.”
While HB 541 had no problem in the Alabama State House, the debate over locking out the fastest growing voting bloc in the country and expecting taxpayers to foot the bill for the exclusion has created a rockier path in the state Senate.
Quick Takeaways
- A GOP-backed effort to repeal an anti-gerrymandering law, known as Proposition 4, failed to make the ballot. This is in part due to a campaign by Better Boundaries to get voters to remove their name from signature petitions. Prop 4 was at the heart of a redistricting dispute over the last few years that resulted in a court ordering a congressional map that essentially turns Salt Lake City into its own district.
- The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) sent a letter to Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek that urges her to veto HB 4018. CLC argues the bill weakens anti-corruption laws put in place in 2024 under HB 4024, which passed the legislature in lieu of a ballot initiative that would have gone before voters. It writes that among other things, HB 4024 “established contribution limits to candidates for elected office in the state and required transparency for the original sources of big money spent on state elections.” CLC asserts that HB 4018 denies voters all the reforms they support to better regulate money in politics.
- An Obama-appointed federal judge in North Carolina upheld the state’s 2018 voter ID law, aligning with recent legal precedent on the issue. State and local chapters of the NAACP argued that Republican lawmakers passed the law to discourage voters historically aligned with the Democratic Party. However, state lawmakers asserted that if they wanted to entrench their power they would not have approved one of the most permissive voter ID laws in the country. The 2018 law not only allows a wide range of identification types, but it also permits a free voter ID option. The judge said her decision was based on recent legal precedent.
You Might Also Like
