Arizona Top-Two Primary Initiative, Proposition 121 (2012)
|"Open Government Act"|
|Referred by:||Arizona Open Government Coalition|
|Topic:||Administration of government|
|Status:||On the ballot|
The measure would implement a top-two style open primary system. In a top-two open primary, candidates for a government position run on the same primary ballot regardless of party affiliation. All registered voters are then able to cast their vote for the candidate of their choice. The two candidates with the most votes are then placed on the November general election ballot, regardless of party affiliation. The proposal was introduced by former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson.
Text of the measure
The short title of the measure reads as follows:
|“||This measure will allow all Arizonans, regardless of party affiliation, to vote in a single open primary for the candidates of their choice. The two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary will compete in the general election. There will be a level playing field for all voters and candidates, and the current system of taxpayer-funded partisan primaries will be abolished. This reform will promote open government and encourage the election of candidates who will work together for the good of the state.||”|
The following is information obtained from the supporting side of the measure:
- The Arizona Open Government Coalition is the group behind the measure. The group is led by former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson.
- According to Johnson, about a third of state residents are not registered with either the Democratic or Republican party. There are now more independents in the state than Democrats, Johnson says.
- Johnson also stated that the 2012 initiative “is about trying to change the outcomes so that we end up with a more reasoned debate and more people are included in the process."
- The main opposition to the measure is the group Save Our Vote.
- The group is being led by Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery.
- On June 7, 2012, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce’s public policy committee voted to recommend that the full chamber board oppose the measure.
- According to Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb, in a column published on July 11, 2012, "...the two-top primary will probably prove another disappointing attempt to change election outcomes by changing the rules. There's really no substitute for better candidates running better campaigns."
- In column by Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute, Bolick stated, "...because Arizona is a conservative state, the net result will be to move our state to the left. At a time when our state’s sovereignty is all that stands between us and an ever-growing federal government, we can ill afford a system designed to sabotage our freedom spirit. Proposition 121 is complex. Please take time to explain it to your friends who may be taken in by the benign-sounding rhetoric being used by its supporters."
- Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, stated her group's concern is rooted in the provision of the measure that states that the initiative would set aside 10 percent of the first $1 bill raied for the a new "family stability and self-sufficiency fund," stating that this could mean that the money could be used for abortion services.
- The Arizona Daily Sun stated: "It's time Arizona voters, especially independents, stood up and demanded a voice in the selection of candidates in the election that really matters: the primary. Make the candidates appeal to the broadest possible values from the start, and we'll wind up after the general election with elected leaders truly representative of our state."
- The Yuma Sun stated: "The bottom line is most voters simply want the best office holder possible, no matter their party, and the open primary system helps achieve that. It deserves our support."
- The Arizona Republic stated: "Arizonans increasingly are rejecting the Republican and Democratic parties and registering with no affiliation. Yet elections are rigged for the two major parties, diminishing the voice of independent candidates and voters. Proposition 121, the Open Elections/Open Government initiative, reshapes the process to fit the way voters are redefining themselves."
- The Sonoran Alliance stated: "Proposition 121 would give political insiders and unscrupulous consultants the vehicle they want to corrupt the candidate selection process. Special interests would pour millions into primaries to elect sham candidates. The voters need clear choices. They need confidence in the honesty of candidate identity. They need protection against corruption in the election process. The party primary system provides these safeguards. Proposition 121 destroys them. The measure should be soundly defeated on Election Day."
|2012 measure lawsuits|
| Arizona • Arkansas • Colorado • Florida • Maryland |
Michigan • Massachusetts • Minnesota
Missouri • Montana • Nevada
North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma
Oregon • Rhode Island
|By lawsuit type|
|Ballot text |
Motivation of sponsors
- See also: List of ballot measure lawsuits in 2012
Maricopa County Court Case
On July 23, 2012, a lawsuit was filed with Maricopa County Superior court aimed at blocking the measure from the ballot. According to reports, the lawsuit against the measure was filed by opponents of the measure, who are represented by Attorney Michael Liburdi, who claims the initiative has "a legion of unintended consequences." Liburdi continued by saying that the proposal violates the state single-subject rule.
Initiative proponents' campaign spokesman Joe Yuhas said thought the lawsuit would fail because the residents who signed the petition are entitled to have a say on the measure.
Judge Mark Brain stated that there was no reason why a prohibition on public funding for party activities should be included in the initiative.
According to reports, supporters of the initiative, The Open Government Committee, appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court to overturn the ruling on August 7, 2012. On August 17, 2012, the high court ruled, without comment, that the measure be placed on the ballot, if enough signatures were found to be collected by the petition drive.
Editor's Note: Court case name and link were not immediately posted by news reports.
Open Government Committee v. Ken Bennett
On August 24, 2012, a lawsuit was filed by the Open Government Committee regarding Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett's office disqualifying more than 100,000 signatures on initiative petitions that lead to the measure's exclusion from the 2012 ballot.
Supporters of the measure stated that the secretary's office used an incorrect formula to calculate the results of the random sample and that Maricopa County officials invalidated signatures that should have been counted.
A hearing was scheduled for August 28, 2012.
A counter lawsuit was filed by opponents of the measure asking for the measure to be kept off of the ballot. The court case can be found here.
However, according to reports, challengers stated they wanted another two hours to make their case in court.
According to Liburdi, "Given the magnitude of the controversy -- a proposed constitutional amendment that will fundamentally change the manner in which public officers are elected -- it was unreasonable and an abuse of discretion not to provide (challengers) with more time to present their case."
- During the days of October 4-11, 2011, a poll was conducted by Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy concerning the topic of nonpartisan ballots in primaries. The survey asked state state residents if they favored a nonpartisan primary ballot system. The results of the poll follow. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.
|Date of Poll||Pollster||In favor||Opposed||Undecided||Number polled|
|Oct. 4-11, 2011||Morrison Institute for Public Policy||58%||33%||9%||600|
Path to the ballot
- See also: Arizona signature requirements
In order to qualify for the 2012 statewide ballot, supporters were required to collect a minimum of 259,213 valid petition signatures by July 5, 2012.
According to reports, on June 4, 2012, supporters of the initiative stated that they had collected enough signatures to make the ballot. Reports stated that petition drive organizers had collected more than 280,000 signatures from state voters.
Although enough signatures were allegedly collected, supporters said at the time that they would keep collecting them leading up to the deadline in order to ensure that they had room for error.
On the day of the deadline, July 5, supporters turned in signatures to the Arizona Secretary of State's office. According to reports, however, state elections officials checked 5 percent of the signatures on the submitted petitions and found 30 percent of signatures checked were invalid. Using that formula, more than 100,000 signatures were deemed invalid, leaving the initiative drive short of signatures to be placed on the ballot.
However, a court ruling overturned this finding, allowing the measure to be placed on the ballot.
- 2012 ballot measures
- Laws governing the initiative process in Arizona
- Arizona 2012 ballot measures
- Arizona Legislature
- List of Arizona ballot measures
- Initiative would switch Arizona primary to 'top 2'
- Arizona Top-Two Primary Initiative Expected to Qualify for Ballot This Year
- Caivn.org, "Open Government Committee launches top-two open primary ballot initiative in Arizona", August 15, 2011
- Business Journals, "Paul Johnson Ballot iniative...", Retrieved October 3, 2011
- Associated Press,"Initiative would switch Arizona primary to 'top 2'," September 27, 2011
- Arizona Secretary of State, "Ballot Measures", September 17, 2012
- Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- My Fox Phoenix, "Arizona Group Wants to Abolish Party Primaries", August 5, 2011
- The Arizona Republic,"Group seeks single primary to counter Ariz. party extremists," August 4, 2011
- Arizona Daily Star, "Arizona initiative would put all candidates in one primary", September 28, 2011
- Tuscon Citizen, "Push is on for open primary in Arizona", May 9, 2012
- KJZZ.org, "Maricopa County Attorney opposes open primary initiative", September 5, 2012
- Arizona Capitol Times, "Vote of no confidence on two ballot measures", June 8, 2012
- Arizona Central, "'Top-2 primary' no magic pill for moderation", July 11, 2012
- Tuscon Sentinel, "'Open Elections' initiative a Trojan Horse", September 12, 2012
- Think Progress, "Anti-Abortion Group Opposes Tax Increases In Arizona Because The Funds Might Go To Planned Parenthood", October 11, 2012
- Arizona Daily Sun, "Open primary system is the game-changer Arizona sorely needs", October 12, 2012
- Yuma Sun, "Open primary has advantages for state voters", October 12, 2012
- Arizona Republic, "Leveling the playing field", October 11, 2012
- Sonoran Alliance, "Proposition 121 Corrupts Arizona’s Election System", October 1, 202
- East Valley Tribune, "Open primary foes file lawsuit to keep measure off Arizona ballot", July 16, 2012
- East Valley Tribune, "Judge to hear arguments in Arizona open primary initiative", July 25, 2012
- The Voting News, "Judge blocks top-two initiative from Arizona ballot", August 7, 2012
- Arizona Capitol Times, "Top-two primary supporters appeal to high court", August 8, 2012
- Tri Valley Central, "AZ high court puts ‘top two’ initiative back on Nov. ballot", August 21, 2012
- Arizona Daily Sun, "Initiative backers sue for spot on Arizona ballot", August 24, 2012
- Arizona Republic, "Judge OKs top-2 primary plan", August 31, 2012
- Arizona Daily Sun, "Open primary opponents want 2 more hours", September 5, 2012
- Arizona Daily Star, "Open-primaries measure to be on Arizona ballot", September 7, 2012
- Cronkite News Online, "Poll: More than half of Arizonans support a nonpartisan ballot in primaries", November 14, 2011
- KPHO.com, "Open elections initiative appears headed to ballot", June 4, 2012
- Arizona Republic, "Backers: 2 Arizona ballot initiatives have enough signatures", June 6, 2012
- The Daily Courier, "Petitions filed for 2 Arizona ballot measures", July 5, 2012