Supporters: Proposition 121 would level playing field for independents
Brent Fine took time off work and spent three months gathering 1,768 signatures in order to run as an independent candidate for state House in a Phoenix-area district.
The Democrat and Republican candidates for District 18 had to collect a minimum of 389 and 504 signatures to get on the primary ballot, respectively, according to the Arizona Secretary of State. For Fine, who has no primary as an independent, the minimum to get on the general election ballot was 1,351.
“Most candidates can’t afford to do that,” Fine said. “Lowering the requirements of the signatures would make a big difference.”
Proposition 121, dubbed the Open Elections/Open Government Act, would replace the current partisan primary system with a single primary that advances the top vote-getters regardless of party. It would also require that all candidates collect the same number of signatures.
“The initiative would equal the playing field,” Fine said.
The current signature requirement to qualify for a primary is equal to one-half of 1 percent of those registered in the party across Arizona for statewide and U.S. Senate races, and 1 percent of those registered in that party within a district for candidates running for state legislative races or races for U.S. representative.
Independent candidates in all scenarios must gather an amount equal to 3 percent of registered voters not affiliated with an established party.
Besides Fine, there are two other independent candidates in the general election, both also running for the state Legislature.
“Proposition 121 addresses the discrimination that exists with independent candidates and independent voters today,” said former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson, a leader of the Open Government Committee, which put forward the measure. “It does that by changing the rules to say that all candidates and all voters must be treated the same regardless of how they’re registered.”
In addition to having to gather more signatures, independent candidates currently have to pay for costly voter registration lists that state law requires counties to provide for free to political parties.
State law also requires that independent candidates be listed after partisan candidates in races on the general election.
Among its provisions, Proposition 121 would require that all candidates get equal treatment under statutes and regulations governing elections regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof.
About a third of Arizona’s registered voters aren’t affiliated with political parties, and that share has grown steadily in recent years. Those vote primary elections.
“Prop 121 ensures that candidates have to address all voters – Democrats, Republicans and independents,” Johnson said.
Doug Quelland, an independent running for Arizona State Senate in a north Phoenix district, said that Proposition 121 would allow all Arizonans to choose the candidates that end up on the general ballot.
“From an independent standpoint I’m not particularly enthralled with helping independents, Republicans or Democrats,” Quelland said. “I want to help Arizonans, and if this passes I think that it will help Arizonans.”
In 2009, the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission removed Quelland, then a Republican state representative, from office after accusing him of exceeding spending limits he agreed to in return for public campaign money.
Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, who heads Save Our Vote, the main group opposing Proposition 121, called the benefits for independents “illusory.” He noted that California, which has a system similar to that proposed by Proposition 121, now has fewer independents on general election ballots.
“If you’re a challenger under an open primary, it’s almost cost-prohibitive to be able to get that kind of exposure,” Montgomery said. “It necessarily gives an advantage to the two dominant political parties.”
Barbara Norrander, a political science professor at the University of Arizona, said even with the change proposed by Proposition 121 independent candidates would continue to lack attention unless they spend a lot of their own money.
“They’re going to face the same hurdles they face now in terms of getting their message out,” Norrander said.
[ -- Sarah Pringle, Cronkite News]
Political parties united in dislike of ‘top two’ primaries
They don’t agree on much, but a plan to create “top two” primaries has Arizona’s major and minor political parties on the same page – or at least close to it.
The responses range from outright opposition from Republican, Libertarian and Green leaders to noncommittal dislike from the Arizona Democratic Party.
Proposition 121, dubbed the Open Elections/Open Government Act, would replace the current partisan primary system with a single primary that advances the top vote-getters regardless of party.
The Open Government Committee, led by former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson, contends the change would produce more moderate candidates and increase primary election turnout.
Tim Sifert, spokesman for the state’s Republican Party, said voters should be able to elect the candidates of their choice and that political parties should maintain the right to elect their own candidates.
“We are adamantly opposed to this constitutional amendment,” Sifert said.
The state Democratic Party hasn’t taken an official stand on the measure, but Executive Director Luis Heredia said there is little support for it.
“We believe that Prop. 121 does not resolve what the proponents believe, which is to moderate the state,” he said.
Leaders of Arizona’s Libertarian and Green parties argue that the initiative would make it virtually impossible for their candidates to make it onto the general election ballot.
“It will destroy third parties in Arizona,” said Warren Severin, chairman of Arizona’s Libertarian Party.
“There is a reason we have partisan primaries in Arizona,” said Angel Torres, co-chair of Arizona’s Green Party and a candidate for state House in a district representing the Phoenix area.
“Whether you are a member of the Democratic Party or the Republican or Libertarian or Green Party, those voters can vote for the candidates that can best represent their views and their values in the general election.”
If passed, the measure could create general elections with Democrats running against Democrats or Republicans running against Republicans in state, local or federal elections. The change wouldn’t apply to presidential elections.
Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, a Republican, has become the public face of the group Save Our Vote AZ, a coalition that is the main opposition to Proposition 121. The group fought the measure five times in court, twice reaching Arizona’s Supreme Court, but failed to keep it off of the ballot.
Montgomery said that once he did his homework he found the initiative “woefully inadequate” in meeting its promises to voters, including producing better candidates and increasing voter turnout.
“You may wind up only having a choice between two people from the same party,” he said. “Not much of a choice.”
Montgomery said Save Our Vote AZ will be stepping up its fundraising and media campaigns in the coming weeks.
“I’m putting a lot of miles on my car getting around and talking to as many folks as I can,” he said.
The Open Government Committee, supporting the measure, had raised over $1 million as of Sept. 27, but much of that money was spent trying to Proposition 121 on the ballot.
As of Sept. 27, Save Our Vote AZ had raised $108,226, according to the group’s post-primary election report filed with the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office. Most of its funding came from a group called Americans for Responsible Leadership, which has contributed $75,000.
Americans for Responsible Leadership, which lists a Phoenix post office box as an address, has a website dedicated to its opposition to Proposition 121 and Proposition 204, which would make permanent a one-cent-per-dollar sales tax dedicated primarily to education.
Its site said the group, which has donated $500,000 to the campaign against 204, educates the public on “concepts that advance government accountability, transparency, ethics and related public policy issues.”
The League of Women Voters, which participated in the lawsuits against the measure, contends that Proposition 121 would limit choice and could harm third parties.
“One of our greatest concerns is that on the general ballot there could be only one party to choose from,” said Barbara Klein, the group’s president.
Although those opposing the measure are against it for a variety of reasons they are connected by the status quo, said David Berman, a senior research fellow at Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy.
“I think the organizations which are opposing are pretty much concerned about the loss of influence to their parties and their groups,” Berman said.
[ -- Natasha Khan]
Guest Commentary by Danny Tyree
Guest commentary by Jon Beydler
Guest commentary by Mike McClellan
Guest Commentary by Jan Ting
Guest commentary by Mike McClellan
By Mark Scarp, contributing columnist
Guest commentary by Susan E. Edwards
Guest commentary by Thomas Naifeh