Elections Commission Justifies Omission of Green Party Candidate from Ballot

PHOENIX — Tom Collins, the head of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, defended the agency’s decision to exclude Green Party nominee Eduardo Quintana from an upcoming debate. In his correspondence to State Senator Jake Hoffman, Collins asserted that the refusal to let Quintana participate did not breach any laws or commission rules.

Collins justified the decision to restrict the October 9 event to prominent candidates Democrat Ruben Gallego and Republican Kari Lake. He argued that including Quintana would limit the discussion time available to candidates with demonstrated public support, as evidenced by their primary vote counts.

According to Collins, Quintana does not qualify as a “candidate” under commission regulations since he lacks an official campaign committee registered with the Federal Elections Commission, a requirement for fundraising activities.

Addressing Hoffman’s concerns about possible violations of published rules, Collins pointed out that while the regulations specify write-in candidates would not be invited, they do not mandate that all individuals on the general election ballot receive an invitation. “The discretionary decision about who to invite to the 2024 debates did not transgress an existing administrative rule,” he said.

Hoffman, who leads the Senate Government Committee, requested clarification on why the commission established a threshold of at least 1,239 primary votes for candidates to join the debate, equating to 1 percent of total votes cast. Quintana received only 282 votes during the primaries, primarily due to the Green Party’s restricted voting process that prevented independents from participating.

This limit sparked frustration for Hoffman, who expressed concerns about the commission’s adherence to the law regarding rule changes. “It appears they chose to subvert the voter-approved process,” he remarked, alluding to a 1998 ballot measure that established the commission to enhance public funding for candidates and facilitate voter education through debates.

In light of the commission’s recent actions, Quintana is contemplating legal action. The candidate noted that despite his write-in status, the Green Party submitted approximately 63,000 signatures for ballot access, reflecting a legitimate voter base.

The political implications of excluding third-party candidates are significant. Historically, Green Party candidates have drawn votes from Democrats, while Libertarians have targeted Republican voters. There is no Libertarian candidate in this Senate race, further complicating the dynamics.

Hoffman criticized the commission’s shift in procedures, suggesting it favors Gallego against Lake. Conversely, Lake’s campaign argued that the commission should avoid disenfranchising third-party candidates to protect Gallego’s interests. However, a representative for Gallego asserted that Lake initially agreed to the rules governing this debate.

The race to succeed retiring Senator Kyrsten Sinema has captured national attention, heightening the stakes. All recent polls indicate Gallego holds a slight lead over Lake, both vying for a seat that could significantly impact Senate power dynamics.

Collins, in an extensive letter to Hoffman, emphasized that setting a threshold serves the commission’s mandate for public education. Historically, debates were broadcast from KAET-TV until disputes arose over events in the 2022 campaign, prompting the commission to enlist the Arizona Media Association and the Rieser Advertising Agency for this year’s debates.

As a result, the upcoming debates will feature no commercials, a move that broadcasters view as a potential risk. Collins warned that stations may opt out of airing the debate if it is perceived as not prioritizing viable candidates, which could undermine the educational mission of the commission.

Quintana expressed disappointment with the rationale provided by Collins, questioning why the commission would exclude a viewpoint representing the Green Party from the debate. “I don’t understand why they had a discretionary decision to exclude an entire perspective,” he said.