Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey
Arizona Proposition 133, Require Partisan Primaries and Prohibit Primaries Where Candidates Compete Regardless of Party Affiliation Amendment (2024)
| Arizona Proposition 133 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 5, 2024 | |
| Topic Elections and campaigns and Electoral systems | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
Arizona Proposition 133, the Require Partisan Primaries and Prohibit Primaries Where Candidates Compete Regardless of Party Affiliation Amendment, was on the ballot in Arizona as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 5, 2024. The ballot measure was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to:
|
A "no" vote opposed amending the Arizona Constitution to require partisan primary elections for partisan offices, maintaining the status quo of requiring partisan primaries by state statute. |
Election results
See also: Results for ranked-choice voting (RCV) and electoral system ballot measures, 2024
|
Arizona Proposition 133 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 1,286,640 | 42.18% | ||
|
|
1,763,711 | 57.82% | ||
Overview
Would the constitutional amendment have changed elections in Arizona?
The constitutional amendment would have required partisan primaries for partisan offices, meaning that members of political parties would nominate their own candidates at primaries for general elections. This was the current practice in Arizona at the time of the election; the constitutional amendment would have added this practice to the constitution, prohibiting future changes without another constitutional amendment.[1] In Arizona, unaffiliated voters can also choose to vote in a party's primary election—something that the amendment would not have changed.[2]
The constitutional amendment would have also provided that the state's direct primary election law supersedes local laws, charters, ordinances, and rules that are inconsistent with that law.[3]
State Rep. Austin Smith (R-29), who sponsored the amendment in the Legislature, said the amendment would have prohibited primaries in which candidates "run in the same primary regardless of party." He cited California, which uses top-two primaries, and Louisiana, which uses majority-vote primaries, also known as jungle primaries.[3] An additional example is top-four primaries, which are used in Alaska, and paired with ranked-choice voting general elections. In 2012, voters rejected Proposition 121, which would have established top-two primaries in Arizona.
How did the constitutional amendment relate to ranked-choice voting?
Before the Senate Elections Committee, Rep. Smith said he did not think the amendment itself would prohibit ranked-choice voting (RCV).[4] On Twitter, Rep. Smith said the amendment would help gird the state against RCV.[5] He also sponsored a bill, House Bill 2552 (HB 2552), to prohibit ranked-choice voting, which passed the Legislature; Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) vetoed the bill.[6] The governor cannot veto a constitutional amendment. Together, the amendment and HB 2552 would have prohibited electoral systems that combine top-four primaries, as used in Alaska, and top-five primaries, as proposed in Nevada, and ranked-choice voting general elections.
Richard Winger, political analyst and publisher of Ballot Access News, said, "If it passes, then future initiatives for a top-two, top-four, or top-five would not be possible without repealing the provision. ... The bill does not restrict Ranked Choice Voting, even though many news stories have asserted that it does."[7]
Voters in Arizona decided on two constitutional amendments related to electoral systems — Proposition 133 and Proposition 140. Republicans in the Arizona State Legislature voted to place Proposition 133 on the ballot, while Proposition 140 was a citizen-initiated ballot measure from the Make Elections Fair PAC. Voters rejected both ballot measures.
Proposition 133 would have added the existing system of partisan primaries to the Arizona Constitution. Proposition 140 would have required primaries in which candidates, regardless of partisan affiliation, appear on a single ballot and a certain number advance to the general election, such as top-two or top-four primaries.[8] These two systems would have contradicted. In Arizona, when two constitutional amendments contradict and both pass, the measure that receives the most votes supersedes the other at points of conflict. However, determining those points of conflict could have required the courts to intervene. Barry Markson, a legal analyst for KTAR, said, "It definitely could result in litigation, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it did. My expectation would be that the now-losing proposition would say that although part of the referendum was in conflict with the other, not the entire thing was. They may try to have part of their initiative stay."[9]
2024 ballot measure trend
- See also: State ballot measure trends, 2024
Proposition 133 was part of a state ballot measure trend related to electoral systems in 2024.
The ballot initiative has played a prominent role in proposing changes to state and local electoral systems across the United States. In 2024, voters decided on a record number of statewide ballot measures on ranked-choice voting (RCV), all of which were rejected. In Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon, voters rejected measures to adopt RCV. In Alaska, voters decided on an initiative to repeal RCV, which was adopted in 2020. Voters in Washington, D.C., approved a ranked-choice voting initiative. In Missouri, voters approved a constitutional amendment that would preempt RCV.
There were other electoral system changes on the ballot, some of which could have led to the adoption of RCV. In Arizona, Proposition 140 would have replaced partisan primaries with primaries in which candidates, regardless of partisan affiliation, appear on a single ballot and a certain number advance to the general election, such as top-two or top-four primaries. Arizona Proposition 133, on the other hand, would have prohibited systems like top-two and top-four primaries, meaning Proposition 133 and Proposition 140 were competing measures. Both were rejected. In Montana, voters rejected two electoral system measures, one to adopt top-four primaries and another to require a majoritarian vote system for general elections, such as run-off elections or RCV.
In South Dakota, voters defeated Amendment H, which would have replaced partisan primaries with top-two primaries.
| State | Type | Title | Description | Result | Yes Votes | No Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AK | Ballot Measure 2 | Repeal the top-four ranked-choice voting (RCV) system that was adopted in 2020 |
|
160,230 (50%) |
160,973 (50%) |
|
| AZ | Proposition 133 | Require partisan primary elections for partisan offices and prohibit primary elections where all candidates, regardless of political party affiliation, run in the same primary election, such as top-two, top-four, and top-five primaries |
|
1,286,640 (42%) |
1,763,711 (58%) |
|
| AZ | Proposition 140 | Require primaries in which candidates, regardless of partisan affiliation, appear on a single ballot and a certain number advance to the general election, and require general election candidates to receive a majority of votes |
|
1,284,176 (41%) |
1,823,445 (59%) |
|
| CO | Proposition 131 | Establish top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal and state offices in Colorado |
|
1,385,060 (46%) |
1,595,256 (54%) |
|
| DC | Initiative 83 | Establish ranked-choice voting for elections in Washington, D.C. |
|
212,332 (73%) |
78,961 (27%) |
|
| ID | Proposition 1 | Establish top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal, state, and certain local offices in Idaho |
|
269,960 (30%) |
618,753 (70%) |
|
| MT | CI-126 | Establish top-four primaries for federal and state offices in Montana |
|
287,837 (49%) |
300,664 (51%) |
|
| MT | CI-127 | Require an electoral system in which candidates for certain offices must win a majority of the vote, rather than a plurality, to win the election |
|
228,908 (40%) |
348,805 (60%) |
|
| NV | Question 3 | Establish top-five primaries and ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal and state offices in Nevada |
|
664,011 (47%) |
747,719 (53%) |
|
| OR | Measure 117 | Establish ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal and state offices in Oregon |
|
893,668 (42%) |
1,219,013 (58%) |
|
| SD | Constitutional Amendment H | Establish top-two primaries for federal, state, and certain local offices in South Dakota |
|
141,570 (34%) |
270,048 (66%) |
Text of measure
Ballot title
The official ballot title was as follows:[10]
| “ |
AMENDING ARTICLE VII, SECTION 10, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA Descriptive Title NOTWITHSTANDING ANY CONTRARY CITY LAW, THE DIRECT PRIMARY ELECTION FOR PARTISAN OFFICES WOULD BE CONDUCTED TO ALLOW EACH RECOGNIZED POLITICAL PARTY TO NOMINATE AS MANY CANDIDATES FOR EACH OFFICE AS THERE ARE OPEN POSITIONS FOR THAT OFFICE IN THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION AND ALLOW OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE CANDIDATES TO BE NOMINATED [11] |
” |
Ballot summary
The official ballot summary was as follows:[10]
| “ | A "yes" vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to require direct primary elections for all partisan offices to be conducted in a manner prescribed by the Legislature, notwithstanding any city law, regulation, or policy to the contrary. The primaries would be conducted in a manner so that each political party represented on the ballot may nominate for each office a number of candidates equal to the number of positions to be filled for that office in the ensuing general election, and all otherwise eligible candidates who were nominated be placed on the ballot for the next general election.
|
” |
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article 7, Arizona Constitution
The ballot measure would have amended Section 10 of Article 7 of the Arizona Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added:[12]
Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
A. The Legislature shall enact a direct primary election law, which shall provide for the nomination of candidates for all elective State, county, and city offices, including candidates for United States Senator and for Representative in Congress, and which supersedes any contrary or inconsistent provision of any charter, law, ordinance, rule, resolution or policy of any city.
B. The direct primary election for partisan offices shall be conducted in a manner so that each political party that has qualified for representation on the ballot shall be permitted to nominate for each office a number of candidates equal to the number of positions to be filled for that office in the ensuing general election, and all otherwise eligible candidates who are so nominated shall be placed on the ballot in the next ensuing general election.
C. Any person who is registered as no party preference or independent as the party preference or who is registered with a political party that is not qualified for representation on the ballot may vote in the primary election of any one of the political parties that is qualified for the ballot.[11]
Readability score
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2024
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.
The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 15, and the FRE is 9. The word count for the ballot title is 75.
The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 20, and the FRE is 16. The word count for the ballot summary is 119.
Support
Supporters
Officials
- State Sen. Jake Hoffman (R)
- State Sen. Anthony Kern (R)
- State Sen. Janae Shamp (R)
- State Sen. Justine Wadsack (R)
- State Rep. Joseph Chaplik (R)
- State Rep. Justin Heap (R)
- State Rep. Laurin Hendrix (R)
- State Rep. Rachel Keshel (R)
- State Rep. Alexander Kolodin (R)
- State Rep. Cory McGarr (R)
- State Rep. Steve Montenegro (R)
- State Rep. Jacqueline Parker (R)
- State Rep. Barbara Parker (R)
- State Rep. Austin Smith (R)
Political Parties
Organizations
- Arizona Free Enterprise Club
- Fair Elections Fund
- Heritage Action for America
Arguments
Opposition
Opponents
Officials
- State Sen. Priya Sundareshan (D)
- Tucson Mayor Regina Romero (D)
Political Parties
Organizations
Arguments
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia did not identify campaigns registered to support or oppose the ballot measure.[13]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Oppose | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Total | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
Background
Primary elections in Arizona
- See also: Primary elections in Arizona
As of 2023, Arizona state law provided for semi-closed primaries, meaning that a voter generally must be registered as a party member in order to participate in that party's primary. Under semi-closed primaries, a previously unaffiliated voter can participate in the primary of his or her choice. As of 2023, winners in Arizona primary elections were determined via plurality vote, meaning that the candidate with the highest number of votes would win even if he or she did not win an outright majority of votes cast.[14][15][16][17][18]
Partisan primaries and nonpartisan primaries
- See also: Primary election types by state
Primary elections can take several different forms. In a partisan primary, voters select a candidate to be a political party's nominee for a given office in the corresponding general election.[15]
Nonpartisan primaries are used to narrow the field of candidates for nonpartisan offices in advance of a general election. A top-two primary is an example in which all primary candidates are listed on the same ballot, regardless of political party affiliation, and the two top vote-getters advance to the general election. Consequently, it is possible for two candidates belonging to the same political party to win in a top-two primary and face off in the general election.[15]
Ranked-choice voting (RCV)
- See also: Ranked-choice voting
Ranked-choice voting is a voting system where voters are able to rank candidates based on preference on their ballots. Ballots are processed in rounds. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, that candidate is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate in last place is eliminated, lifting the second-choice preference on the ballots. The process is continued until a candidate wins the simple majority (50% plus 1) of the votes.[19]
Arizona House Bill 2552
The Arizona state legislature passed House Bill 2552 (HB2552), which was designed to prohibit ranked-choice voting under state law. The House passed the bill by 31-28 on March 1, 2023, and the Senate passed the bill by 16-14 on April 5, 2023. It was later vetoed by Governor Katie Hobbs (D) HB 2552 on April 12, 2023.[20]
Janae Stracke, Vice President of Field Operations of Heritage Action, said that HB2552, combined with the Require Partisan Primary Elections Amendment (HCR 2033), would prohibit ranked-choice voting in the state. Stracke said, "We urge Governor Hobbs to sign this bill into law and protect Arizona’s elections from the significant problems associated with ranked-choice voting. Coupled with the Arizona Legislature’s passage of HCR 2033, which will appear on the 2024 ballot, this policy will be a key measure to ensure it is easy to vote and hard to cheat in the Grand Canyon State."[21]
Gov. Hobbs, in her veto letter, said, "Ranked choice voting is an election process that is used successfully elsewhere in the country. As it is not currently utilized in Arizona, this bill is unnecessary."[22]
History of electoral system ballot measures in Arizona
- See also: Electoral systems on the ballot
From 1912 to 2023, voters in Arizona addressed four ballot measures related to electoral systems.
- In 1922, voters rejected Measure Nos. 102-103, which would have repealed the requirement that the Arizona State Legislature provide for direct primaries. Instead, the legislature would have been allowed to pass other laws regarding the nomination of candidates for public office. The vote was 23% 'Yes' to 77% 'No'.
- In 1988, voters approved Proposition 105, which required run-off elections for state executive elections, including gubernatorial elections, when no candidate receives a simple majority vote. The vote was 56% 'Yes' to 44% 'No'.
- In 1992, voters approved Proposition 100, which repealed Proposition 105, passed four years earlier. Proposition 100 repealed the run-off requirement for state executive elections and required a plurality vote for a state executive to be elected. The vote was 67% 'Yes' to 33% 'No.'
- In 2012, voters rejected Proposition 121, a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment to replace partisan primaries with top-two primaries. The vote was 33% 'Yes' to 67% 'No.'
In 1998, voters also approved a ballot measure, Proposition 103, to allow unaffiliated and independent voters, as well as those who are members of parties without ballot recognition, to vote in partisan primaries. This changed Arizona primaries from being closed to semi-closed.
There was at least one local ballot measure related to electoral systems. In 2008, voters in Glendale, Arizona, rejected Proposition 404, which was designed to enact ranked-choice voting for municipal elections.
Path to the ballot
Amending the Arizona Constitution
- See also: Amending the Arizona Constitution
A simple majority vote is required during one legislative session for the Arizona State Legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot. That amounts to a minimum of 31 votes in the Arizona House of Representatives and 16 votes in the Arizona State Senate, assuming no vacancies. Amendments do not require the governor's signature to be referred to the ballot.
House Concurrent Resolution 2033 (2023)
The constitutional amendment was introduced into the legislature as House Concurrent Resolution 2033 (HCR 2033). HCR 2033 progressed through the legislature between February 6 and March 28, 2023.[12]
- February 6: State Rep. Austin Smith (R-29) introduced HCR 2033.
- February 15: The House Municipal Oversight and Elections Committee voted 6-4 to recommend the adoption of HCR 2033.
- February 27: The House Rules Committee voted 8-0 to recommend the adoption of the amendment.
- March 1: The Arizona House of Representatives voted 31-28, with one absence, to pass the amendment. All 31 House Republicans voted yes, while 28 House Democrats voted no, with one Democrat absent.
- March 20: The Senate Elections Committee voted 5-3 to recommend the adoption of the amendment.
- March 28: The Arizona State Senate passed the amendment by 16-13, with one absence. All 16 Senate Republicans voted yes, while 13 Senate Democrats voted against the amendment, with one Democrat absent.
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in Arizona
See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in Arizona.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Arizona State Legislature, "HCR 2033 Senate Fact Sheet," accessed August 5, 2023
- ↑ Arizona State Legislature, "House Concurrent Resolution 2033," accessed August 4, 2023
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 Arizona State Legislature, "House Municipal Oversight & Elections Committee," February 15, 2023
- ↑ Arizona State Legislature, "Senate Elections Committee," March 20, 2023
- ↑ Twitter, "Rep. Austin Smith," March 28, 2023
- ↑ Arizona State Legislature, "House Bill 2552," accessed August 4, 2023
- ↑ Ballot Access News, "May 2023 Ballot Access News Print Edition," May 29, 2023
- ↑ The Arizona State Legislature would have needed to pass a bill to determine the number of candidates that advance from primaries to general elections. Legislators would have had until November 1, 2025, to pass the legislation. If that did not occur before the deadline, the Arizona Secretary of State would have determined the number. Legislators could have changed the number after that, but not for six years.
- ↑ KTAR, "Proposition 133 and Proposition 140 will shape the future of elections in Arizona," September 26, 2024
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 Arizona Secretary of State, "Official Ballot Measure Language," accessed July 27, 2024
- ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 12.0 12.1 Arizona State Legislature, "Arizona House Concurrent Resolution 2033," accessed April 4, 2023
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "Election Funds Portal," accessed March 15, 2023
- ↑ FairVote, "Who Can Vote in Congressional Primaries," accessed August 17, 2017
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 National Conference of State Legislatures, "State Primary Election Types," July 21, 2016
- ↑ Arizona Revised Statutes, "Section 16-467," accessed August 23, 2017
- ↑ Arizona Revised Statutes, "Section 16-401," accessed August 23, 2017
- ↑ Arizona Constitution, "Article 7, Section 7," accessed August 23, 2017
- ↑ Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, "What is RCV?" November 22, 2022
- ↑ Arizona Legislature, "AZ HB2552," accessed May 20, 2023
- ↑ Heritage Action, "Arizona Legislature Strengthens Election Integrity, Passes HB 2552," April 5, 2023
- ↑ Arizona Legislature, "Hobbs Veto Letter," April 12, 2023
- ↑ Arizona Revised Statutes, "Title 16, Section 565," accessed July 18, 2024
- ↑ Arizona generally observes Mountain Standard Time; however, the Navajo Nation observes daylight saving time. Because of this, Mountain Daylight Time is sometimes observed in Arizona.
- ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 Arizona Secretary of State, "Voters," accessed July 18, 2024
- ↑ Arizona Secretary of State, "Arizona Voter Registration Instructions," accessed July 18, 2024
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "No. 24A164," accessed August 22, 2024
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Supreme Court allows Arizona voter-registration law requiring proof of citizenship," August 22, 2024
- ↑ Bloomberg Law, "Supreme Court Partly Restores Voter Proof-of-Citizenship Law ," August 22, 2024
- ↑ Reuters, "US Supreme Court partly revives Arizona's proof of citizenship voter law," August 22, 2024
- ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
- ↑ ArizonaElections.gov, "What ID Do I Need to Vote Quiz," accessed March 14, 2023
- ↑ Arizona State Legislature, “Arizona Revised Statutes 16-579,” accessed July 19, 2024
 |
State of Arizona Phoenix (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
