Prop 140 Aims to Transform Arizona’s Elections with California-Style System

By Daniel Stefanski |

Arizona’s election system may soon undergo significant changes, depending on the outcome of Proposition 140 in the upcoming General Election this November.

This ballot measure aims to institute a system centered around ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries, drawing comparisons to California’s election structure. However, a robust opposition exists, led by figures such as Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and former Arizona State Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould.

The No on 140 campaign raises several concerns about the implications of passing this measure. They argue it would empower the Arizona Secretary of State to unilaterally determine candidate qualifications for the general election ballot, potentially resulting in races with only candidates from a single political party. Additionally, they warn that voters would face confusion from navigating two distinct voting formats on the same ballot—some requiring ranked choices, while others do not. These changes, they assert, could lead to increased tabulation errors, longer waiting times at polling places, and delays in election results.

Recently, the opposition coalition published a bipartisan list of organizations urging constituents to vote against Proposition 140. This list includes notable groups such as the Coconino County Democrats, Gila County Democratic Party, Goldwater Institute, and the League of Women Voters, among others.

In a statement featured by the Goldwater Institute, Andrew Gould criticized the proposal, stating that it “takes a sledgehammer to the Arizona Constitution” by imposing complex voting changes without addressing the current political divide thoughtfully.

Trent England, co-chairman of the Stop RCV Coalition, echoed these sentiments, highlighting the complications and lack of transparency introduced by ranked-choice voting. He pointed out that many regions that previously adopted this system have since reverted to simpler methods, referencing Alaska’s potential move to repeal it this year.

Legal disputes surrounding this proposition have left both advocates and opponents with little time to present their arguments to voters. The Arizona Supreme Court recently ruled on a case involving thousands of duplicate signatures that could have jeopardized Prop 140’s consideration. Although a special master claimed that 99% of the signatures were duplicates, the court has permitted the measure to proceed to the electorate.

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club has accused Prop 140’s proponents of intentionally delaying the signature review process, further intensifying the controversy surrounding this ballot measure.

Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.