AZ Supreme Court Reverses Course: Votes for Prop 140 Get New Life Amid Disqualification Debate

As the election approaches, uncertainty looms over a proposed ballot measure to eliminate partisan primary elections in Arizona. Recent actions by the Arizona Supreme Court have only intensified this confusion.

On Monday, the Supreme Court vacated part of its earlier ruling from August, which indicated that if a trial court found the Make Elections Fair Act lacked sufficient voter signatures, the Secretary of State should not count votes for the measure. Chuck Coughlin, leading the campaign behind the act, expressed concern about the impact of this ambiguity on their efforts. “It’s been extremely deleterious to our campaign. It’s unfair and a violation of civil rights,” he stated.

The ballot for the upcoming election has already been printed, listing the Make Elections Fair Act, also known as Proposition 140. However, the critical issue remains whether votes for this proposition will be counted.

Proposition 140 aims to amend Arizona’s Constitution to establish an open primary system. This system would allow all candidates for federal, state, and local offices to compete in a single primary election, regardless of party affiliation. The initiative seeks to mitigate partisan influence in elections.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Frank Moskowitz had previously approved the proposition for the ballot, confirming that the political action committee behind it gathered over 40,000 more valid signatures than required. However, he initially declined to consider evidence from opposition groups challenging the validity of these signatures.

Following the Supreme Court’s intervention, Moskowitz was instructed to reopen the case. On Wednesday, he will examine evidence from opponents who argue that many submitted signatures were duplicates, potentially invalidating the proposition.

The Supreme Court emphasized that if the trial court finds the proposition insufficient in signatures, Moskowitz should instruct Secretary of State Adrian Fontes not to count any votes for it. Both Fontes and the Make Elections Fair campaign argued that allowing such a court challenge after ballots were printed contradicts established legal precedents and could disenfranchise voters.

In the recent court order, Chief Justice Ann Timmer indicated that the trial court should consider the potential disenfranchisement of voters in its ruling. The issue will benefit from thorough examination, she noted.

Coughlin remains hopeful the matter will be resolved before further arguments are necessary. A random sampling indicated that the majority of the 560,000 signatures collected were valid. However, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, along with several voters, contends that too many duplicates were submitted to qualify the initiative for the ballot.

Coughlin mentioned that about 9,000 challenged signatures had already been removed from their count. “You can’t eliminate them twice,” he stated confidently, highlighting their belief in the validity of their collected signatures.

Opposition to Proposition 140 also includes concerns regarding the introduction of ranked-choice voting in general elections. This measure would let voters rank their preferred candidates, though it would ultimately be up to the Arizona Legislature to determine the implementation.

The challengers of the proposition did not respond to requests for comment. They previously criticized Fontes for purportedly using taxpayer resources to advocate for counting votes for the Make Elections Fair Act, irrespective of the ongoing legal disputes.

Moskowitz’s upcoming hearing will focus on the claims made by the opposition. Should the judge rule that the signatures are inadequate, then the campaign will be tasked with arguing against voter disenfranchisement.

Coughlin anticipates a ruling from the judge within the week, underscoring the urgency of the situation as the election date nears.