State Supreme Court Mandates Open Primaries Measure for Voter Ballot

PHOENIX — On Thursday, the Arizona Supreme Court directed counties to place a significant measure on the upcoming ballot, giving voters an opportunity to decide on the elimination of partisan primaries. However, a key legal question continues to linger: Will their votes ultimately count?

The court’s 10-page decision confirmed that Proposition 140 proposes amendments to several sections of the Arizona Constitution. Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer, affirming the measure’s legality, emphasized that its various provisions share a topical relationship and have historically been treated as a cohesive subject. She asserted that addressing multiple constitutional sections does not fundamentally compromise its validity.

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, uncertainty surrounds whether all challenges to Proposition 140 have been conclusively resolved. On one side, the court has directed Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to include the so-called Make Elections Fair Act on the general election ballot unless stated otherwise. Conversely, the court pointed out that the issue of whether enough valid signatures were collected remains unresolved.

On Wednesday, the justices criticized Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Frank Moskowitz for neglecting to consider evidence regarding the validity of the signatures for Proposition 140. Chief Justice Timmer instructed Moskowitz to evaluate the presented evidence to determine if there were any duplicate signatures.

However, Judge Moskowitz later expressed his inability to review the nearly 43,000 signatures alleged to be duplicates by the impending deadline for printing ballots. Consequently, he postponed the hearing until September 3.

Andrew Pappas, representing Make Elections Fair, believes the move by the judge signifies the end of the challenge. “The ballot printing deadline effectively nullifies pending disputes,” he stated, but this interpretation remains contentious.

Chief Justice Timmer countered, clarifying that while courts aim to respect ballot deadlines, there is no existing law mandating rulings before such deadlines loom. Furthermore, she posited that it now falls upon Moskowitz to assess the sufficiency of the signatures and render an order, which could eventually be subject to Supreme Court review.

The implications of the ongoing disputes could impact what happens once ballots are printed. Should a judge rule that Proposition 140 should not have been included, a court might issue an order preventing election officials from counting any votes associated with it.

This legal tussle follows the Secretary of State’s Office completing a review of approximately 575,000 signatures submitted for the measure. The analysis revealed 409,474 valid signatures, surpassing the necessary threshold of 383,923 by a narrow margin.

The potential changes to Arizona’s electoral landscape hinge on the outcome of Prop 140. This proposition advocates for a shift away from strictly partisan primaries, allowing all candidates to compete for votes irrespective of party affiliation. It promises broader voter engagement by enabling independents to participate more actively.

However, the proposed measure entails more than just a simple open primary. It allows the Legislature to determine how many candidates advance to the general election and introduces the possibility of ranked-choice voting, depending on legislative decisions. Such changes could fundamentally reshape candidate selection and voter participation within the state.

Yet, the legal journey is far from over. Proponents of the initiative have contested the Legislative Council’s summary of the measure, arguing that it presents ranked-choice voting in a misleading manner. This matter remains pending as lawmakers appeal against a ruling stating the summary was crafted to discourage voter support.

Given the looming deadlines, rapid resolutions will be critical. While the court’s decisions regarding the content of voter information pamphlets are not as urgent, the forthcoming deadline for finalizing the analysis of each proposed measure is set for September 6.