Arizona Voters Face Crucial Decision on Open vs. Partisan Primaries with Props 133 and 140

In the upcoming November election, Arizona residents face a crucial decision: whether to open the state’s primary elections to all voters and candidates or to maintain the current closed, partisan system.

A diverse coalition of Republicans and Democrats has emerged in support of keeping primary elections strictly partisan. This alignment is largely driven by concerns over power retention within the two major parties, as highlighted by former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson during a recent debate about the proposed changes.

The Make Elections Fair Act, or Proposition 140, seeks to amend the state constitution to allow open primary elections. This measure would enable all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, to appear on the primary ballot, making it possible for all voters to choose any candidate. Proponents argue this system would create a more equitable electoral process for independent candidates and aspire to reduce political divisiveness.

Under current Arizona law, partisan primary elections are designed to limit participation to registered voters within the respective parties. While independents can vote in these elections, they must select a party ballot, complicating the voting process.

In response to a feared ranked-choice voting initiative, Arizona Republicans introduced Proposition 133. This measure aims to prevent open primaries and ban ranked-choice voting entirely, asserting concerns over electoral confusion and integrity.

The ranked-choice voting system allows voters to rank candidates, with an elimination process that continues until a candidate secures a majority of votes. While backers of ranked-choice voting adjusted their proposal to focus on open primaries, the implications of Prop. 140 remain contentious.

Should both measures pass, the one with more votes will be implemented. Critics, including leaders from the Arizona Republican Party, warn that Prop. 140 would lead to voter confusion by introducing “California-style” primaries. They assert that such a system undermines electoral clarity.

Johnson and other advocates refute these claims, arguing that the initiative’s goal is to enable a broader electoral engagement. Prop. 140 would still mandate legislative discretion over candidate advancement from primaries to the general election, complicating the potential introduction of ranked-choice voting.

A critical point of contention involves who decides how many candidates progress to the general election. If the state legislature does not make a determination by November 2025, this responsibility would fall to the secretary of state, currently held by Democrat Adrian Fontes.

Critics, including election expert Brennan Bowen, assert that Prop. 140 could marginalize entire parties from general elections. He emphasized that the initiative would allow self-interested politicians to dictate who progresses past the primaries.

In contrast, Johnson argued that the current primary system, which sees low voter turnout, is broken. He stressed the importance of inclusive dialogue in politics, advocating for the disruption of entrenched partisan processes.

Additionally, proponents claim that the current signature requirements for independent candidates unfairly disadvantage them compared to their party-affiliated counterparts. Prop. 140 aims to standardize these thresholds to foster greater electoral fairness.

Opposition to the Make Elections Fair Act has been fierce, with the NO on Prop 140 Committee formed to campaign against it. Co-chairs, including Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb, argue that the initiative represents an undue influence from special interest groups and risks undermining Arizona’s electoral integrity.

The committee includes supporters from diverse political backgrounds, including far-right groups and left-leaning organizations, indicating the widespread concern regarding the proposed changes.

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club has also challenged the constitutionality of Prop. 140 in court, arguing it violates the single-subject rule for amendments. Despite these hurdles, the courts have affirmed that the initiative will appear on the ballot in November, positioning voters to make a significant decision regarding Arizona’s electoral future.

Supporters of the Make Elections Fair Act include prominent figures from both parties, suggesting a bipartisan backing for efforts to reform the electoral system in the Grand Canyon State.