Arizona Proposition 140, Single Primary for All Candidates and Possible RCV General Election Initiative (2024)

Arizona Proposition 140
Election date November 5, 2024
Topic Electoral systems
Status d Defeated
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

Arizona Proposition 140, the Single Primary for All Candidates and Possible RCV General Election Initiative, was on the ballot in Arizona as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 5, 2024. The ballot measure was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported this ballot initiative to change the state's electoral system, including: replacing 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; requiring candidates to receive a majority of votes in general elections; requiring the use of ranked-choice voting in general elections when three or more candidates advance from the primaries (for one-winner general elections); and prohibiting using public funds to administer partisan primaries at the federal, state, and local levels, except for presidential preference primaries that allow independents to participate.

A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative, thus: keeping semi-closed partisan primaries in which the candidate who receives the most votes advances to the general election to compete against other political parties' nominees and independent candidates; maintaining a plurality vote system for general elections in which the candidate who receives the highest number of votes is elected to the office.

Election results

See also: Results for ranked-choice voting (RCV) and electoral system ballot measures, 2024

Arizona Proposition 140
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		1,284,176	41.32%
No		1,823,445	58.68%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

How would Proposition 140 have changed elections in Arizona?

Proposition 140 would have made changes to the state's electoral system, including primaries and general elections.

Primary elections

• System in 2024: Arizona had semi-closed partisan primaries in which voters, registered with political parties, chose their party's candidates for the general election. Independents could participate in one party's primaries. The candidate who received the most votes advanced to the general election, where the candidate competed against other political parties' nominees and independent candidates. Voters elected two candidates per district for the Arizona House of Representatives, in which case two candidates could advance from political parties' primaries.

• Proposition 140: There would have been no partisan primaries. Rather, candidates would have appeared on a single ballot, and a certain number would have advanced to the general election. Candidates could have listed their partisan affiliation, and political parties could have endorsed candidates. The Arizona State Legislature would have needed to pass a bill to determine the number of candidates that advance from primaries to general elections. That could have been top-two primaries, like those used in California and Washington, top-five primaries, or a number in between. For the two-winner elections for the Arizona House, the number of candidates advancing from the primaries could have been from four to seven. Legislators would have had until November 1, 2025, to pass the legislation. Should that not have occurred 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.

General elections

• System in 2024: The candidate who received the highest number of votes was elected to the office. With the Arizona House, the two candidates who received the highest number of votes are elected. This is known as a plurality voting system.

• Proposition 140: Candidates would have needed to receive a majority of votes in general elections, meaning they need to secure more than half of the total votes, not just the highest number. This is known as a majority voting system. When top-two primaries are used, two candidates advance to the general election, so one candidate will win more than half the votes unless there's a tie. With top-three, top-four, or top-five primaries, multiple candidates advance to the general election, and one can receive the most votes without securing a majority of votes. Proposition 140 would have required ranked-choice voting in general elections when something other than top-two primaries is used.

Other changes

Proposition 140 would have amended the Arizona Constitution to prohibit denying or restricting citizens' rights to vote, hold office, or choose candidates based on their partisan affiliation or non-affiliation.

The ballot initiative would have prohibited using public funds to administer partisan primaries at the federal, state, and local levels, as well as for political parties' precinct committee officers. However, public funds could have been used for presidential preference elections in which independents and those registered with non-qualified parties can vote in the political parties' presidential primaries.

How were Proposition 140 and Proposition 133 related?

See also: Arizona Proposition 133, Require Partisan Primaries and Prohibit Primaries Where Candidates Compete Regardless of Party Affiliation Amendment (2024)

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. 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."

2024 ballot measure trend

See also: State ballot measure trends, 2024

Proposition 140 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	IndISS	Ballot Measure 2	Repeal the top-four ranked-choice voting (RCV) system that was adopted in 2020		160,230 (50%)	160,973 (50%)
AZ	LRCA	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	CICA	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	CISS	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	Initiative 83	Establish ranked-choice voting for elections in Washington, D.C.	a	212,332 (73%)	78,961 (27%)
ID	CISS	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	CICA	CI-126	Establish top-four primaries for federal and state offices in Montana		287,837 (49%)	300,664 (51%)
MT	CICA	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	CICA	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	LRSS	Measure 117	Establish ranked-choice voting (RCV) for federal and state offices in Oregon		893,668 (42%)	1,219,013 (58%)
SD	CICA	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:

“

Proposition 140 Proposed by Initiative Petition Relating to Elections. Official Title Amending Article VII, Sections 2, 7, 10, and 11, Constitution of Arizona; Amending Article VII, Constitution of Arizona, by adding Section 19; relating to elections. Descriptive Title All primary election candidates for a given office will have the same signature requirements for ballot qualification. Eligible voters may vote for candidates regardless of party affiliation. The legislature may prescribe the number of candidates advancing to the general election. Prohibits using public monies for political party elections.

”

Ballot summary

The official ballot summary was as follows:

“

A “yes” vote shall have the effect of allowing all eligible voters to vote for any primary election candidate, regardless of party affiliation; imposing the same signature requirements on all candidates for a given office who wish to appear on the primary ballot; generally prohibiting the use of public funds for political party elections; allowing future law to determine how many candidates advance from the primary election, as well as the process by which candidates are elected at the general election; and if future law provides that three or more candidates may advance to the general election for an office to which one candidate will be elected, voter rankings shall be used. A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining current requirements related to primary and general elections processes.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article VII, Arizona Constitution

Proposition 140 would have amended Sections 2, 7, 10, and 11 of Article VII of the Arizona Constitution. Proposition 140 also would have added a new Section 19 to Article VII. The following underlined text would have been added and struck-through text would have been deleted:

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Article VII, Section 2. Qualifications of Voters; Disqualification.

A. No person shall be entitled to vote at any general election, or for any office that now is, or hereafter may be, elective by the people, or upon on any question which that may be submitted to a vote of the people, unless such person be a citizen of the United States of the age of eighteen years or over, and shall have resided in the state for the period of time preceding such election as prescribed by law, provided that qualifications for voters at a general election for the purpose of electing presidential electors shall be as prescribed by law. The word "citizen" shall include persons of the male and female sex.

B. The rights of citizens of the United States to vote and hold office shall not be denied or abridged by the state, or any political division or municipality thereof, on account of sex or of political party affiliation or nonaffiliation, and the right to register, to vote and to hold office under any law now in effect, or which that may hereafter be enacted, is hereby extended to, and conferred upon on males and females alike.

C. No person shall be denied a ballot for public office nor be restricted from selecting any candidates for public office based on the person’s political party affiliation or nonaffiliation.

D. No person who is adjudicated an incapacitated person shall be qualified to vote at any election, nor shall any person convicted of treason or felony, be qualified to vote at any election unless restored to civil rights.

Article VII, Section 7. Highest Number of Votes Received as Determinative of Person Elected; Voter Rankings

In all elections held by the people in this state, the person, or persons, receiving the highest number of legal votes shall be declared elected. This section does not prohibit the use of voter rankings to determine which person or persons received the highest number of legal votes.

Article VII, Section 10. Direct Primary Election Law.

A. The Legislature shall enact a direct primary election law, which shall provide for the nomination of candidates for all elective State, and county, and city offices and candidates for United States Senator and for Representative in Congress. 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.

B. All qualified electors who are otherwise eligible to vote for an office may vote in the primary election regardless of the qualified elector’s, or any candidate’s political party affiliation or nonaffiliation.

C. All candidates who qualify for election to an office shall be placed on the same ballot for the primary election regardless of the candidate’s political party affiliation or nonaffiliation.

D. All candidates for an office, regardless of political party affiliation or nonaffiliation, shall have the same signature requirements to qualify for the primary election ballot for the office. An otherwise qualified elector may sign a candidate nomination petition without regard to the political party affiliation or nonaffiliation of the qualified elector or the candidate.

E. This section does not prohibit a political party from endorsing or otherwise supporting a candidate as provided by law.

F. If applicable law allows a candidate to list the candidate’s political party affiliation next to the candidate’s name on the ballot, the ballot must also include a statement that a candidate’s political party affiliation is not an indication that a candidate has been nominated or endorsed by that political party, but only reflects the political party registration of the candidate.

G. As provided by law, for any office to which one candidate is to be elected, not fewer than two candidates and not more than five candidates may advance from the primary election to the general election. For any office to which two candidates are to be elected, not fewer than four candidates and not more than seven candidates may advance from the primary election to the general election. For any office to which three candidates are to be elected, not fewer than six candidates and not more than eight candidates may advance from the primary election to the general election. A candidate’s political party affiliation or nonaffiliation cannot be considered when determining how many or which candidates advance from the primary election to the general election.

H. If the legislature does not enact a law under subsection g of this section that becomes operative on or before November 1, 2025, the secretary of state shall determine the number of candidates for each office who may advance from the primary election to the general election, consistent with the requirements set forth in subsection g of this section. If three or more candidates may advance from the primary election to the general election for an office to which one candidate will be elected, and the legislature has not prescribed by law a process by which voter rankings are used to determine which candidate is elected to an office at the general election, the secretary of state shall prescribe a process that complies with section 11 of this article. Legislation may amend the secretary of state’s determinations made pursuant to this subsection, except that the legislature may not modify the secretary’s determination as to the number of candidates that may advance from the primary election to the general election less than six years after the secretary’s determination is made. This subsection does not restrict the power of qualified electors to change, through an initiative or referendum, the number of candidates who may advance from the primary election to the general election.

I. Each candidate for offices that have primary elections subject to this section may appear on the general election ballot only if the candidate qualifies for the general election through a primary election or, through a process prescribed by law, fills a vacancy created by the death or withdrawal of a candidate who is nominated at the primary election.

J. Not more than once every six years, the Legislature may enact legislation changing the number of candidates who may advance from the primary election to the general election for an office. This subsection does not restrict the power of qualified electors to change, through an initiative or referendum, the number of candidates who may advance from the primary election to the general election.

K. This section is not subject to the requirements in Article IX, Section 23.

Article VII, Section 11. General Elections; Date.

A. There shall be a general election of representatives in congress, and of state, county, and precinct officers on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of the first even numbered year after the year in which Arizona is admitted to statehood and biennially thereafter.

B. If only two candidates may advance to the general election for an office to which one candidate will be elected, the candidate who receives the majority of votes cast for that office at the general election is elected.

C. If three or more candidates may advance from the primary election to the general election for an office to which one candidate will be elected, voter rankings shall be used to determine which candidate is elected for that office at the general election. This process, at a minimum, shall allow a voter to rank all candidates for an office in order of the voter’s preference. If a majority of votes cast for that office at the general election do not rank a single candidate as the voters’ first choice preference, the procedures shall provide for the tabulation of all votes legally cast for that office and take into account voters’ rankings of candidates to determine which candidate is elected. Voter rankings may be used in other elections as provided by law.

D. For the purposes of this section, “majority of votes cast” means a majority of all votes cast for all candidates for a particular office.

E. This section is not subject to the requirements in Article IX, Section 23.

Article VII, Section 19. Prohibition on Expenditures of Public Monies for Political Party Elections.

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, public monies shall not be spent to administer political party elections, including, without limitation, the elections of precinct committee officers, the presidential preference election, and partisan primary elections to nominate a candidate for public office. This section applies to all jurisdictions in this state, including charter cities.

B. Public monies may be used to administer a presidential preference election if all persons who are registered as no party preference or independent as the political party of preference or who are registered with a political party that is not qualified for representation on the ballot may vote in the election of any of the political parties that are qualified for the ballot.

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 14, and the FRE is 5. The word count for the ballot title is 80.

The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 15, and the FRE is 30. The word count for the ballot summary is 130.

Support

The Make Elections Fair PAC led the campaign in support of Proposition 140. Sarah Smallhouse, President of the Thomas R. Brown Foundations, was chairperson of the campaign, and Beau Lane, former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson, and Pat DeConcini were listed as co-chairs.

Supporters

The campaign provided a list of endorsements, which is available here.

Officials

• Mayor of Mesa John Giles (Nonpartisan)

Former Officials

• House Speaker Russell Bowers (R)
• State Rep. Cesar Chavez (D)
• Attorney General Terry Goddard (Nonpartisan)
• State Rep. Aaron Lieberman (D)
• Gov. John Fife Symington III (R)

Political Parties

• Arizona Forward Party

Unions

• Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona

Organizations

• Arizona Bankers Association
• Arizona Independent Voter's Network
• Arizona Public Health Association
• Grand Canyon Institute
• Greater Phoenix Leadership
• Greater Phoenix Urban League
• Independent Voters for Arizona
• Open Primaries
• Represent.Us
• Southern Arizona Leadership Council
• Tucson Metro Chamber
• Unite America
• Veterans for All Voters
• VetsForward

Arguments

• Chuck Coughlin, Treasurer for the Make Elections Fair PAC: "Our election process has been hijacked by two extreme parties. The two parties have become much more extreme over time in their views of how elections are run, because it attracts money and influence. A majority of people have chosen to disassociate themselves from those two parties."
• Former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson: "Today, if you stand up in politics to your party you get primaried. This initiative to amend our State Constitution is intended to reward the individual over the party, to cherish the heroes who embrace the individual power granted to us in our sacred founding documents. To fulfill the wishes of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson who all warned us about the power of political faction. Today, we are here to give voice to the individual who wants freedom, today we are here to restore American values which celebrate individual liberty. This proposition promotes competition within our political system, to ensure that the best ideas rise to the top and that voices of all Americans are heard."
• Sarah Smallhouse, Chairperson of the Make Elections Fair PAC: "With independent and unaffiliated voters now accounting for the largest part of the Arizona electorate it’s illogical to confine voter choices in the primaries to the very parties they’ve chosen to separate from. Let all candidates compete, let the voters decide and let the best candidates win."
• Former Attorney General Terry Goddard: "Today, 80% of all Congressional and Legislative candidates are basically elected outright in low turnout partisan primaries. This reform will require more competition which creates better choices, and better results for Arizona. It will make our state stronger."
• Former House Speaker Rusty Bowers (R-25): "Competition can save our democratic republic if we simply end the duopoly which governs our elections today. Honor the individual over the party, honor the country over the party. Honor principle over party."

Opposition

No on Prop 140 led the campaign opposing Proposition 140. Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb (R) and former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew W. Gould (R) were the campaign's co-chairs.

Opponents

The campaign provided a list of endorsements, which is available here.

Officials

• U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs (R)
• U.S. Rep. Debbie Lesko (R)
• State Sen. Jake Hoffman (R)
• State Sen. Warren Petersen (R)
• State Sen. Justine Wadsack (R)
• State Rep. Joseph Chaplik (R)
• State Rep. Analise Ortiz (D)
• State Rep. Austin Smith (R)
• State Rep. Ben Toma (R)
• Tucson Mayor Regina Romero (D)
• Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb (R)

Candidates

• Abraham Hamadeh (R) - Candidate for U.S. House

Former Officials

• Gov. Doug Ducey (R)
• Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew W. Gould (Nonpartisan)

Political Parties

• Arizona Working Families Party
• Green Party of Arizona
• Libertarian Party of Arizona
• Republican Party of Arizona

Organizations

• Arizona Free Enterprise Club
• Arizona Women of Action
• Association of Mature American Citizens
• Center for Arizona Policy
• Election Transparency Initiative
• Fair Elections Fund
• Goldwater Institute
• Heritage Action for America
• Honest Elections Project
• League of Women Voters of Arizona
• Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona
• Turning Point Action

Individuals

• Gina Swoboda - Chairwoman of Arizona Republican Party

Arguments

• Jeff DeWit, former Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party: "Republicans don’t want Democrats voting for our primary candidates, and I’m sure Democrats don’t want us voting for theirs. All unaffiliated voters, or as they are commonly referred to as, Independents, already can and do vote on the primaries to make their voices heard."
• Arizona Free Enterprise Club: "This new candidate selection scheme would be in addition to the fact that their measure will result in some races where candidates from only one political party appear on the general election ballot, depriving many voters of any choice at all. If this sounds familiar, it’s because California uses this exact same system to select its candidates. That’s right. The proponents are trying to fix Arizona’s election system by bringing in ideas from San Francisco."
• Jason Snead, Executive Director of the Honest Elections Project: "Voters have a First Amendment right to freedom of association and part of that also involves also forming political parties that can then nominate candidates that will advocate for their views, for their vision, for the things that they care about."
• Former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew W. Gould (R): "The most troubling change is the provision for 'ranked choice voting.' This form of voting, which requires voters to rank every candidate on the ballot running for a particular office, is confusing, lacks transparency and, at times, can disenfranchise voters. ... And worse yet, if a voter fails to rank all of the candidates running for an office, and the tabulator 'runs out' of candidates they ranked, the ballot is considered an 'exhausted ballot'—and it is not counted for the final decisive round that determines the winner of the election. Ranked choice voting thus excludes thousands of voters from having their votes counted in the final round(s) in which actual winners are ascertained."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Arizona ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2025.

Make Elections Fair registered as a political action committee (PAC) to support the ballot initiative.

The No on Prop 140 Committee registered as a PAC to oppose the ballot initiative.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$16,959,923.89	$0.00	$16,959,923.89	$16,959,923.89	$16,959,923.89
Oppose	$150,000.00	$0.00	$150,000.00	$149,180.00	$149,180.00
Total	$17,109,923.89	$0.00	$17,109,923.89	$17,109,103.89	$17,109,103.89

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees supporting the measure.

Committees in support of Proposition 140
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Make Elections Fair PAC	$16,959,923.89	$0.00	$16,959,923.89	$16,959,923.89	$16,959,923.89
Total	$16,959,923.89	$0.00	$16,959,923.89	$16,959,923.89	$16,959,923.89

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Unite America PAC Inc	$5,850,010.00	$0.00	$5,850,010.00
Open Primaries Now, Inc.	$2,080,000.00	$0.00	$2,080,000.00
Mary Bernal	$1,500,000.00	$0.00	$1,500,000.00
Sarah Smallhouse	$1,490,000.00	$0.00	$1,490,000.00
Robert Bertrand	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees opposing the measure.

Committees in opposition to Proposition 140
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
No on Prop 140	$150,000.00	$0.00	$150,000.00	$149,180.00	$149,180.00
Total	$150,000.00	$0.00	$150,000.00	$149,180.00	$149,180.00

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Earl G. Kendrick	$100,000.00	$0.00	$100,000.00
The Concord Fund	$45,000.00	$0.00	$45,000.00
Freedom Club PAC	$5,000.00	$0.00	$5,000.00

Satellite spending

See also: Satellite spending

The Arizona Republican Party made expenditures to oppose Proposition 140, including advertisements.

Media editorials

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

The following media editorial boards published an editorial supporting the ballot measure:

• The Arizona Republic Editorial Board: "Any hesitation we may have had in the past about reforming partisan primaries is gone, too. It’s time to restore some sanity in our politics, and to do so we must begin by changing a primary system that has encouraged — and favored — the most extreme candidates. ... Partisan primaries don’t serve Arizonans anymore. Rather, they contribute to the divisive and debilitating atmosphere guiding our elected representatives. It’s time to end the status quo and pass Proposition 140."

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not identify any media editorial boards that published an editorial opposing the ballot measure.

You can share campaign information or arguments, along with source links for this information, at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Primaries in Arizona

In Arizona, candidates compete in partisan primaries for their party’s nomination, except for non-partisan offices like some local positions. The candidate with the most votes advances to the general election, while losing candidates do not. However, candidates may file as independents to run in the general election.

Here is an example from 2024: Both Democrats and Republicans held primaries for the U.S. Senate. Ruben Gallego (D) ran unopposed for the Democratic nomination. For Republicans, there were four candidates, including Kari Lake and Mark Lamb. Lake won the Republican primary, becoming the party's nominee. Gallego, representing the Democratic Party, and Lake, representing the Republican Party, advanced to the general election, alongside Eduardo Quintana (G) and write-in candidates.

The Arizona House of Representatives uses a multi-seat electoral system in its 30 legislative districts, with each district electing two representatives. Candidates first compete in partisan primaries, where each party can nominate up to two candidates per district. In the general election, voters can choose two candidates, and the two with the most votes win the seats for that district.

Partisan primaries are semi-closed for voters. Voters registered with a political party can only participate in their party's primary. However, unaffiliated voters can choose to vote in any party’s primary. For instance, a registered Democrat can vote only in Democratic primaries, while an unaffiliated voter can pick which party's primary to vote in.

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.

States with single primary for all candidates

As of 2024, four states utilized 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.

• In California and Washington, top-two primaries were used for state and congressional elections.
• In Nebraska, where the legislature is non-partisan, top-two primaries were used for state legislative elections.
• In Louisiana, a two-round electoral system is used in which there are no primaries. Instead, candidates run in a general election, and the candidate who receives a majority of the vote wins. A runoff occurs between the top two vote recipients if no candidate reached a majority.

Ranked-choice voting

See also: Ranked-choice voting

A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference and ballots are processed in rounds. The candidate in the last place is eliminated during each round and the voters' second choices get their votes. The process is continued until a candidate wins a simple majority (50 percent plus one) of the vote.

Path to the ballot

Process in Arizona

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Arizona

In Arizona, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated constitutional amendment for the ballot is equal to 15 percent of votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election. Petitions can be circulated for up to 24 months. Signature petitions must be submitted four months prior to the election at which the measure is to appear.

The requirements to get initiated constitutional amendments certified for the 2024 ballot:

• Signatures: 383,923 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was July 3, 2024.

If the secretary of state certifies that enough valid signatures were submitted, the initiative is put on the next general election ballot. The secretary of state verifies the signatures through a random sampling of 5 percent of submitted signatures working in collaboration with county recorders. If the random sampling indicates that valid signatures equal to between 95 percent and 105 percent of the required number were submitted, a full check of all signatures is required. If the random sampling shows fewer signatures, the petition fails. If the random sampling shows more, the initiative is certified for the ballot.

Stages of this ballot initiative

The Make Elections Fair PAC filed the ballot initiative on November 8, 2023. The campaign reported submitted 584,124 signatures on July 3, 2024. The office of Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) verified 409,474 signatures. At least 383,923 signatures needed to be valid.

Sponsors of the measure hired Advanced Micro Targeting to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $6,560,004.00 was spent to collect the 383,923 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $17.09.

Smith v. Fontes (Signatures)

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Were a number of signatures verified that should have been rejected?
Court: Arizona Supreme Court (Appealed from Maricopa County Superior Court)
Plaintiff(s): April Smith, Nira Lee, and Joshua Davidian	Defendant(s): Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Make Elections Fair PAC

  Source: Maricopa Superior Court

On August 21, the Arizona Supreme Court ordered the Maricopa County Superior Court to consider additional evidence from plaintiffs and "determine whether the exhibits prove any duplicate signatures by clear and convincing evidence." Plaintiffs argued that around 43,000 signatures were duplicates and should be rejected. As 409,474 signatures were verified, and 383,923 were required, no more than 25,551 signatures could be disqualified for the ballot measure to remain certified.

On September 19, Superior Court Judge Frank Moskowitz ruled that Proposition 140 would remain on the ballot. He said the case was dismissed as moot as of the printing deadline on August 23, 2024, and state law does not appear to give judges the power to enjoin vote canvassing. He wrote, "Perhaps the absence of such express authority in statute is because the Legislature never intended for initiative challenges to go past the ballot printing deadline." He also said the method used to calculate the number of invalid signatures was akin to double-counting. Judge Moskowitz stated, "This Court is unable to find any rational or other basis for ‘double counting’ invalid signatures,” which “would unreasonably hinder or restrict the Initiative…"

Sarah Smallhouse, chairperson of the Make Elections Fair PAC, responded, "This is an undeniable triumph for Arizona voters. Prop 140 is officially on the ballot and every vote will be counted. This ruling solidifies that our democratic process cannot be undermined by frivolous legal tactics." Scott Mussi, president of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, also responded, "The bottom line is that, after the removal of the duplicate signatures, Prop 140 lacks the required number of valid signatures needed to qualify for the ballot. We are confident that after a careful review of the facts, ruling, and trial court record, the AZ Supreme Court will again overturn this outrageous ruling by Judge Moskowitz and enjoin Prop 140 from being tabulated." On September 20, the plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Arizona Supreme Court.

The Arizona Supreme Court issued an order on October 4, 2024, affirming the lower court's ruling and dismissing the challenge to the initiative. The full opinion was not released with the order but would be at a later date, according to the court.

Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes (Constitutionality)

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Does Proposition 140 violate the Arizona Constitution's separate-vote requirement for constitutional amendments?
Court: Arizona Supreme Court (Appealed from Maricopa County Superior Court)
Ruling: Proposition 140 does not violate the separate-vote requirement because "provisions of the Act are topically related, sufficiently interrelated, involve matters that have historically been treated as one subject and are qualitatively similar in their effect on the law."
Plaintiff(s): Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Susan Garvey, Kathleen Liles, and John Shadegg	Defendant(s): State of Arizona, Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, and Make Elections Fair PAC

  Source: Maricopa Superior Court

On July 17, 2024, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC) filed litigation against Proposition 140, arguing that the proposal "contains multiple separate constitutional amendments" in violation of the Arizona Constitution's Article XXI, Section 1. Article XXI, Section 1 said, "If more than one proposed amendment is submitted at any election,the proposed amendments shall be submitted in such a manner that the electors may vote for or against such proposed amendments separately." This is known as a separate-vote requirement. The Honest Elections Project submitted an amicus brief in support of AFEC.

AFEC argued that Proposition 140 "contains twelve different amendments, covering not less than three separate and distinct topics of election law, amending four different sections of the Arizona Constitution, and creating an entirely new section of the Arizona Constitution."

On August 9, 2024, Judge Frank Moskowitz ruled that Proposition 140 did not violate the state constitution's separate-vote requirement. He said, "The initiative's provisions are sufficiently related to a common purpose or principle. That common purpose or principle and general topic is reforming candidate elections." He added, "While primary and general elections may serve different functions, that does not render them topically unrelated for purpose of an initiative whose common purpose or principle and general topic is reforming candidate elections." Plaintiffs appealed the case to the Arizona Supreme Court on August 9.

On August 22, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 140 was constitutional. Chief Justice Ann Timmer wrote, "Here, the provisions of the Act are topically related, sufficiently interrelated, involve matters that have historically been treated as one subject and are qualitatively similar in their effect on the law, even if the changes concern more than one section of article 7 of the Arizona Constitution."

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.

How to vote in Arizona

Poll times

In Arizona, all polling places are open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration

Check your voter registration status here.

To vote in Arizona, one must be a citizen of the United States and a resident of an Arizona county. A voter must be 18 years or older on or before Election Day. Arizona also requires voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship to vote for state and local elections

To be eligible to vote in an election one must register at least 29 days prior to the election. Individuals can register online, in person at the county recorder's office, or by mail.

Automatic registration

Arizona does not practice automatic voter registration.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Arizona has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

Arizona does not allow same-day voter registration.

Residency requirements

Arizona law requires 29 days of residency in the state before a person may vote.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Arizona requires voters to submit proof of citizenship with their voter registration application to vote in state and local elections. According to the Arizona Secretary of State's website: "A registrant who attests to being a citizen but fails to provide proof of citizenship and whose citizenship is not otherwise verified will be eligible to vote only in federal elections (known as being a 'federal only' voter)." Accepted proof of citizenship include:

• An Arizona Driver's License/Identification Number
• Indian Census Number, Bureau of Indian Affairs Card Number, Tribal Treaty Card Number, or Tribal Enrollment Number
• A photocopy of U.S. naturalization documents
• A photocopy of a birth certificate and supporting legal documentation (i.e., marriage certificate) if the name on the birth certificate is not the same as your current legal name.
• A photocopy of a U.S. passport.
• A photocopy of a Tribal Certificate of Indian Blood or Bureau of Indian Affairs Affidavit of Birth.

On August 22, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order partially granting the Republican National Committee and Arizona Republicans' request to enforce a 2022 law related to proof of citizenship requirements. The court allowed the enforcement of the provision requiring the state to reject state voter registration forms submitted without proof of citizenship. Previously, a person who submitted a state voter registration form without proof of citizenship could still be a federal only voter. After the court's ruling, a person unable to provide proof of citizenship would need to submit a federal voter registration form in order to vote in federal elections. Read more about legal challenges to this law here.

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The Arizona Voter Information Portal, run by the Arizona Secretary of State's office, allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

Arizona requires voters to present photo identification or two forms of non-photo identification while voting.

The following were accepted forms of identification as of July 2024: Click here for the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission's page on accepted ID to ensure you have the most current information.

Voters can present one of the following forms of ID that contain the voter’s photograph, name, and address:

• Arizona driver’s license
• U.S. federal, state, or local government-issued ID, issued with printed name and address
• Arizona ID card
• Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal ID

If a voter does not have one of the above forms of ID, the voter can present two of the following forms of ID that contain the voter’s name and address:

• Utility bill in the voter's name
• Bank or credit union statement that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election
• Valid Arizona vehicle registration
• Arizona vehicle insurance card
• Indian census card
• Property tax statement
• Recorder's certificate or voter registration card
• Tribal enrollment card or other tribal ID
• Valid U.S. federal, state, or local government-issued ID with a printed name and address or
• Any mailing in the voter's name that is labeled "official election material"  

Additionally, if a voter presents photo ID that does not list an address within the precinct in which he or she wants to cast a vote, that person may present the photo ID with one non-photo identification material from the second list above. The identification material should include the voter’s address.

See also

2024 measures

• 2024 ballot measures
• Elections and campaigns on the ballot
• Electoral systems on the ballot

Arizona

• Arizona ballot measures
• Arizona ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

• Arizona Proposition 140 (2024)