Arizona Voters Reject Nonpartisan Primaries in Prop. 133 & 140 Decision

PHOENIX — Arizona voters have decisively opted to maintain the current system for nominating and electing public officials, as preliminary returns indicate a resounding rejection of Proposition 140. The measure, which aimed to eliminate partisan primaries across federal, state, and local elections, was turned down by a margin of nearly 2-1.

Proposition 140 was designed to allow all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, to compete on a single ballot. This meant that registered voters would have the opportunity to choose from a wider pool of candidates. However, the measure’s complexity stemmed from its provision that empowered the Legislature—or the secretary of state if lawmakers did not act—to determine how many candidates would advance to the general election.

While the original proposal offered a simple runoff between two candidates, it also provided for the possibility of up to five candidates progressing, necessitating a ranked-choice voting system. This system would have complicated the electoral process, requiring voters to rank their preferences. If no candidate secured at least 50% of the vote initially, the candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated, redistributing votes based on the next preferred choices.

Opponents of Proposition 140 targeted the ranked-choice component, arguing that it would introduce unnecessary confusion into the voting process, ultimately swaying public opinion against the change.

Additionally, voters appeared to reject Proposition 133, a measure that sought to constitutionalize the current partisan primary system. Supporters argued that this would clarify political choices for voters at general elections. However, preliminary results indicate it failed by roughly the same 2-1 margin as Proposition 140.

Critics noted that Proposition 133 would not only bolster partisan primaries but also allow lawmakers to override existing practices for nonpartisan council elections in most cities. Tucson, notably, would remain an exception to this rule.