Dual Ballot Battles: Arizona and Nebraska Voters Confront Conflicting Measures—What’s Next?

Arizona and Nebraska voters will confront competing ballot measures in the upcoming November elections, one focused on abortion rights and the other on primary election formats. The outcomes may lead to judicial scrutiny if both measures receive approval.

Under Arizona’s and Nebraska’s constitutions, conflicting measures that pass will lead to the one with the most affirmative votes taking precedence. However, the reality is more intricate. The legal framework could spark challenges over which specific provisions clash and if components of each measure can coexist.

Michael Gilbert, vice dean at the University of Virginia School of Law, notes that conflicting ballot measures are not uncommon. Such scenarios warrant careful analysis, especially given past examples in other states.

In the case of Nebraska, the discourse stems from recent changes to abortion laws. Following the Supreme Court’s decision to relax federal abortion protections, the state imposed a 12-week restriction with limited exceptions. In response, abortion-rights advocates are gathering signatures for a constitutional amendment asserting a woman’s right to abortion until fetal viability, which typically occurs after 20 weeks.

Simultaneously, abortion opponents are promoting an initiative to constitutionalize existing laws, limiting abortions in the second and third trimesters, again with certain exceptions. The Nebraska Constitution mandates that the measure earning the most votes prevails, but legal controversies may follow.

If the abortion rights measure receives majority support, it could nullify the restrictive legislation entirely. Conversely, a victory for the restrictive measure could result in partial enforcement, potentially recognizing abortion as a fundamental right in the first trimester while imposing restrictions thereafter.

Arizona’s situation mirrors this complexity with respect to its primary election system. The current partisan primary process is established under state law. However, a proposed amendment aims to establish open primaries, allowing candidates from all parties to compete on the same ballot. If approved, the winning measure would dictate the primary structure moving forward.

Legal precedents in Arizona reflect a tendency to harmonize competing measures, as illustrated in a previous case concerning the state mine inspector. With voters potentially approving both measures, the state’s election future lies in judicial interpretation.

John Matsusaka, head of the Initiative and Referendum Institute, emphasizes the phenomenon of conflicting measures. While voters often display an understanding of such dynamics, outcomes can differ if the electorate rejects one or both proposals entirely.

As Arizona and Nebraska head toward a significant decision in November, the implications of these ballot measures could reverberate well beyond election day.