Photo by Levi Meir Clancy on Unsplash

Arizona voters will have several ballot measures to consider when they receive their November ballot. Among them is Proposition 140, which if passed would end partisan primaries in the state and give independent voters and candidates level footing in the elections process.

“The current existing system is unfair. Today about one-third of all voters are either independent or unaffiliated voters and they are discriminated against in a wide variety of ways,” said Paul Johnson, former Phoenix mayor and chair of Proposition 140. 

He made this comment during a debate on the measure sponsored by Clean Elections, Arizona’s nonpartisan voter education agency, in collaboration with the Arizona Media Association.

Johnson explained that the ways independent voters and candidates are discriminated against include shutting out these voters from taxpayer-funded presidential preference elections, and requiring independent candidates to gather several times the number of signatures required of Republicans and Democrats. 

“You need 6,000 signatures if you run as a Democrat, 6,000 signatures if you run as a Republican – you need almost 40,000 signatures to run as an independent,” said Johnson

Further, under Arizona’s current electoral system, independent voters can participate in most partisan primary elections, but the state requires them to request a ballot while party members automatically receive them – and their choices are limited to candidates of a single party.

Prop. 140 does 3 specific things:

One, its primary goal is the equal treatment of independent voters and candidates. The Arizona Legislature would be required to assign a ballot petition requirement for all candidates and would not be allowed to discriminate against candidates based on party affiliation or lack thereof.

Two, the measure says if the Republican and Democratic Parties hold presidential preference elections that exclude independent voters, then they have to pay for those elections. They cannot use taxpayer money from people who are not allowed to participate.

Three, it requires the use of an open nonpartisan primary for elections where all candidates run, regardless of party, and they compete against each other. All eligible Arizona voters have the opportunity to choose any candidate they want.

Prop. 140 does not explicitly assign what nonpartisan system Arizona would use. It leaves it up to the Arizona Legislature and governor to make this decision, and if they fail to enact new election rules, the secretary of state would decide what system would be best.

The secretary of state in most states, including Arizona, is the chief elections officer.

Once a new election system is chosen, it cannot be changed again for another 6 years. Since the measure does not assign a system, the legislature could choose a Top Two system like in California, a Top Four system like in Alaska, a Top Five system as proposed in Nevada, or do something different like a Top Three system.

The point, according to Johnson, is to create an equal elections system for independent voters and candidates.

The opposition represented in the debate mentioned things like “patchwork ballot,” “voter confusion,” and said it “will” implement ranked choice voting in the general election, even though ranked choice voting is not required by Prop. 140.

As previously explained on IVN, Prop. 140 is a primary reform measure, not a ranked choice voting measure. Its principal requirements pertain to the access and administration of taxpayer-funded primary elections.

The measure offers leeway when it comes to general elections, though there is a provision that says if 3 or more candidates advance to the general election in a contest that produces a single winner then lawmakers have to ensure a majority winner. 

Prop. 140 mentions a ranked method of voting in this hypothetical, which like the nonpartisan system used, would be determined by state lawmakers. Johnson also explained that even in this scenario, ranked choice voting is not a requirement.

However, ranked choice voting (RCV) has been a sticking point for opponents of the measure, including partisan elected officials. Make Elections Fair Arizona, the group spearheading Prop. 140, filed a lawsuit over description language adopted by the Arizona Legislative Council that focuses on RCV. 

The group initially got a victory in Maricopa County Superior Court. Judge Melissa Iyer Julian ruled that state lawmakers intentionally used a “‘rhetorical strategy’ devised to dissuade voters from supporting the Initiative by confusing when and how voter ranking would be used.”

The Arizona Supreme Court, however, overruled this decision stating that because the proposition raises the hypothetical in its language, lawmakers’ intent doesn’t matter as long as they can say it is technically true that RCV is possible.

Even if it is not required nor the focus of the measure. 

Make Elections Fair has repeatedly found itself in court over challenges to Prop. 140 on the grounds of the state’s single subject rule, the issue of ballot and description language, and challenges to petition signatures.

These challenges have come from both Republicans and Democrats. It’s been an ongoing saga that has neared its end as a Maricopa County Superior Court ruled most recently that Prop 140 will be on the ballot and votes on it will be counted. 

The decision has been appealed to the state Supreme Court, which has allowed the legal drama to continue well past the printing of state ballots. Even now, it is possible the court could decide that votes on Prop 140 won't count. 

There is currently no polling to suggest how Arizona citizens feel one way or the other on Prop 140. The measure will be on Arizona’s statewide November 5 ballot. Early and mail-in voting begins on October 9. The deadline to vote early in person is November 1.