Arizona Judge Demands Revisions to Deceptive Open Primary Initiative Description

A state judge has mandated the Arizona Legislature to amend its description of a forthcoming ballot initiative, citing misleading aspects that favor certain elements over others. This ruling comes ahead of a critical election in November, where voters will decide on an initiative aimed at establishing open primary elections.

The proposed initiative intends to allow all candidates, irrespective of party affiliation, to appear on a single ballot, a departure from the traditional separate primaries for Republicans and Democrats. Additionally, it introduces the possibility of implementing ranked choice voting for general elections, contingent upon decisions made by the Legislature, the secretary of state, or voters themselves.

The analysis, which will be mailed to all registered voters, has been criticized for prioritizing the contentious ranked choice voting option before adequately explaining the open primary system. Judge Melissa Julian highlighted that the legislative council’s emphasis on voter rankings misleadingly suggested that their adoption would uniformly apply to future elections.

Under the proposed changes, ranked choice voting would only be utilized if multiple candidates progress from the open primary. The Legislature holds authority over how many candidates may advance, and absent legislative action, the secretary of state would determine this number for the subsequent election. Additionally, voters could initiate another ballot measure to address the candidate progression rules.

Judge Julian stated, “The court finds that this is a rhetorical strategy to dissuade voters from supporting the initiative.” She expressed concern that the phrasing used in the analysis lacks the necessary context, thereby risking voter confusion about how ranked choice voting would function under the initiative.

Arizona House Republicans defended the order in which information was presented, asserting that technical accuracy suffices for impartiality. However, Julian countered this claim, emphasizing that even accurate information could mislead if presented selectively, particularly regarding the implications of a proposed measure.

Make Elections Fair Arizona, the committee backing this initiative, initiated legal action against the Legislature in July, seeking a clearer representation of the initiative’s intent. Chuck Coughlin, the committee’s treasurer, pointed out the unpopularity of ranked choice voting in the state, arguing that the legislative ability to limit candidates makes the concept less likely to be enacted.

The lawmakers contended that introducing voter rankings first was logical due to its broad application across elections. Yet, Julian refuted this rationale, asserting that the initiative’s ambiguous stance on voter rankings does not qualify as a substantive change and thus should not take precedence in the analysis.

Additionally, Make Elections Fair Arizona challenged a statement in the analysis that implied voter rankings would automatically apply if the initiative passed. Julian rejected this, clarifying that previous sentences in the text expressly state that ranked choice voting would only be applied when three or more candidates advance to the general election.

Judge Julian has granted the Legislature until August 29 to revise the misleading analysis. Coughlin expressed hope for an amicable resolution without the need for an appeal, urging legislative leaders to adopt proposed revisions promptly. The defendants have not yet responded to requests for comment.