Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Arkansas Issue 5, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2020)
| Arkansas Issue 5 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 3, 2020 | |
| Topic Electoral systems | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
Arkansas Issue 5, the Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative, was not on the ballot in Arkansas as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020.
The measure was certified for the ballot on August 21, 2020. Secretary of State John Thurston found on July 14 that signatures for the ranked-choice voting initiative and the redistricting initiative were insufficient, but provisionally certified both measures for the ballot "for coding purposes and preparation purposes only, pending the outcome of the litigation." On August 27, 2020, The Arkansas Supreme Court blocked both measures from appearing on the ballot.[1]
Measure design
As of 2020, Arkansas state law provided for open primary elections, meaning that a voter does not have to be registered with a party in advance in order to participate in its primary. Each party had a separate ballot listing its own candidates. In Arkansas, a primary candidate must win a majority of the votes cast in order to win the election; if no candidate meets that threshold, a runoff primary is held between the top two vote-getters. Winners of the parties' primary elections run against each other in the general election, where the winner is the candidate who received the most votes.[2][3][4][5]
The measure would have applied to primary and general elections for federal congressional office, state general assembly, and statewide elected offices including Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer of State, Auditor of State, Attorney General, and Commissioner of State Lands.
The measure would have changed primary elections so that all candidates for a single office would appear on one ballot. Under the measure, voters could vote for one candidate for each office. The top four vote-getters for each office would have proceeded to the general election.[6]
The measure would have created a top-four ranked-choice voting system (also called an instant-runoff system) for general elections. Candidates would have all appeared on the same ballot regardless of political affiliation and could have chosen to have their political affiliation included on the ballot. Under the measure, voters could have ranked up to four candidates but are not required to rank more than one candidate. Under the measure, a candidate would have needed a simple majority of the vote (50%+1) to be declared the winner of an election. If no candidate wins a simple majority of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes would have been eliminated. People who voted for that candidate as their first choice would have had their votes redistributed to their second choice. The tabulation process would have continued as rounds until one candidate had a majority of votes.[6]
Text of measure
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
The measure was sponsored by Open Primaries Arkansas. Arkansas Voters First, which sponsored the Redistricting Commission Amendment, assisted Open Primaries Arkansas with signature gathering.[7]
Committee members
Members of the Open Primaries Arkansas committee included the following:[8]
- Republican state representative Dan Douglas
- Former Republican state representative Davy Carter
- Founder and CEO of Propak, Inc. Steve Clark
- Former Arkansas Director of Elections and Democratic 2018 Secretary of State candidate Susan Inman
Supporters
Organizations
Arguments
Opposition
Opponents
Organizations
Polls
The League of Women Voters of Arkansas commissioned Mercury Analytics to conduct a poll of 600 Arkansas voters from July 16-July 18, 2020. Respondents were asked if they supported or opppsed "allow[ing] voters to rank their top four candidates when voting in the general election so voters can have more say in their second choice candidate." Poll results are summarized below.[9]
| Arkansas Redistricting Commission Amendment (2020) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Support | Oppose | Margin of error | Sample size | |||||||||||||||
| Mercury Analytics poll 7/16/20 - 7/18/20 | 60.0% | 28.0% | +/-4.00 | 600 | |||||||||||||||
| Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. | |||||||||||||||||||
Campaign finance
Open Primaries Arkansas was registered with the Arkansas Ethics Commission to support the measure. The committee reported $103,193 contributions. The top donors were Action Now Initiative ($100,000 cash) and Represent.Us ($3,112 in-kind). Ballotpedia had not identified committees registered to oppose the measure.[10]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $100,081.00 | $3,111.85 | $103,192.85 | $7,539.00 | $10,650.85 |
| Oppose | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Total | $100,081.00 | $3,111.85 | $103,192.85 | $7,539.00 | $10,650.85 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for Open Primaries Arkansas.[10]
| Committees in support of Issue 5 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Open Primaries Arkansas | $100,081.00 | $3,111.85 | $103,192.85 | $7,539.00 | $10,650.85 |
| Total | $100,081.00 | $3,111.85 | $103,192.85 | $7,539.00 | $10,650.85 |
Donors
Represent.Us was the sole donor to Open Primaries Arkansas according to reports information covering through June 30, 2020.[10]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Represent.Us | $0.00 | $3,111.85 | $3,111.85 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Background
Primaries in Arkansas
- See also: Primary elections in Arkansas
As of 2020, Arkansas state law provided for open primary elections, meaning that a voter does not have to be registered with a party in advance in order to participate in its primary. In Arkansas, a primary candidate must win a majority of the votes cast in order to win the election; if no candidate meets that threshold, a runoff primary is held between the top two vote-getters.[2][3][11][12]
Top-four primary election
- See also: Top-four primary
As of 2020, no states utilized a top-four primary for state or federal elections. In a top-four primary, candidates for an office, regardless of party affiliation, are listed on a single ballot. The top four vote-getters advance to the general election. A measure in Alaska to create top-four primaries and ranked-choice voting was on the ballot in Alaska as an indirect initiated state statute on November 3, 2020.
California and Washington passed ballot initiatives to replace their partisan primaries with top-two primaries, in which the two candidates receiving the most votes, regardless of party affiliation, proceed to the general election. Voters in Florida also decided a top-two primary ballot initiative, titled Amendment 3, at the election on November 3, 2020.
Learn more about top-two primary ballot measures:
| Ballot measures related to primary election systems | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year | Measure | System type | Yes votes (%) | No votes (%) | Outcome |
| 2004 | Washington Initiative 872 | Top-two primary | 59.85% | 40.15% | 
|
| 2004 | California Proposition 62 | Blanket primary | 46.17% | 53.83% |  |
| 2008 | Oregon Measure 65 | Top-two primary | 34.06% | 65.94% | |
| 2010 | California Proposition 14 | Top-two primary | 53.73% | 46.27% |
|
| 2012 | Arizona Proposition 121 | Top-two primary | 33.07% | 66.93% | |
| 2014 | Oregon Measure 90 | Top-two primary | 31.77% | 68.23% | |
| 2020 | Florida Amendment 3 | Top-two primary | 57.03%[13] | 42.97% | |
Ranked-choice voting
- See also: Ranked-choice voting
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is a voting method in which voters rank candidates according to their 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.
As of 2020, one state—Maine—used ranked-choice voting for some state and federal elections.
How ranked-choice voting works
Broadly speaking, the ranked-choice voting process (sometimes referred to as instant runoff voting) unfolds as follows:
- Voters rank the candidates for a given office by preference on their ballots.
- If a candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes (i.e., 50 percent plus one), he or she will be declared the winner.
- If, on the other hand, no candidates win an outright majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated.
- All first-preference votes for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots.
- A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won an outright majority of the adjusted voters.
- The process is repeated until a candidate wins a majority of votes cast.
Maine Question 5 (2016)
On November 8, 2016, voters approved a ballot initiative—Maine Question 5—to establish a first-in-the-nation statewide system of ranked-choice voting. Voters approved the initiative 52.12 to 47.88 percent. Support for the initiative was stronger in southern coastal Maine, whereas the counties along the state's northern border with Canada voted against the measure.
Question 5 defined ranked-choice voting as "the method of casting and tabulating votes in which voters rank candidates in order of preference, tabulation proceeds in sequential rounds in which last-place candidates are defeated and the candidate with the most votes in the final round is elected."[14]
New York City Ballot Question 1 (2019)
New York City voters approved Ballot Question 1 in 2019, making New York City the most populous jurisdiction in the U.S. to approve the use of the ranked-choice voting election method. Question 1 provides for ranked-choice voting in primary and special elections for mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president, and city council members. It allows voters to rank in order of preference up to five candidates, including a write-in candidate. Before the measure, the city’s charter provided for plurality voting, also known as first-past-the-post, and run-off elections, depending on the office and type of election.
Path to the ballot
The state process
In Arkansas, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated constitutional amendment for the ballot is equal to 10 percent of the votes cast for governor in the most recent gubernatorial election. Proponents must collect signatures equaling at least half of the designated percentage of gubernatorial votes in at least 50 of the state's counties. Signatures remain valid until the date of the next general election following the certification of ballot language. 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 2020 ballot:
- Signatures: 89,151 valid signatures were required.
- Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was July 3, 2020.
If the secretary of state certifies that enough signatures were submitted in a petition, the initiative is put on the ballot. If a petition fails to meet the signature requirement, but the petition has at least 75 percent of the valid signatures needed, petitioners have 30 days to collect additional signatures or demonstrate that rejected signatures are valid.
Details about this initiative
- The initiative was filed on May 29, 2020.[15]
- Open Primaries Arkansas reported submitting over 94,000 signatures to the Secretary of State on July 6, 2020.[7][16]
- The state Board of Election Commissioners voted 5-1 not to certify the measure's ballot title on July 22, 2020. Open Primaries Arkansas said it would challenge the determination in the state Supreme Court.[17]
- Open Primaries Arkansas reported submitting 59,000 additional signatures to the Secretary of State on August 20, 2020. The state supreme court had granted the group a provisional 30-day cure period.[7][18]
- Secretary of State John Thurston issued a statement of insufficiency for the redistricting initiative and the top-four ranked-choice voting initiative on July 14, 2020. Thurston determined that signatures that were submitted on July 6 for the initiatives were insufficient under § 7-9-601(b)(3), which requires sponsors to certify that canvassers passed background checks.[7]
- Thurston provisionally certified the measure for the ballot on August 21, 2020. On August 27, 2020, Arkansas Supreme Court ruled in favor of John Thurston, removing the measure from the ballot and ordering votes for the measure not to be counted.[19]
Open Primaries Arkansas and Arkansas Voters First lawsuits
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the certifications that petition circulators passed background checks are in accordance with Arkansas Code § 7-9-601(b)(3) and, consequently, whether or not the signatures collected are valid | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of John Thurston; measures removed from ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arkansas Voters First, Open Primaries Arkansas | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston |
| Plaintiff argument: The background check certifications comply with state law and signatures are valid | Defendant argument: The background check certifications do not comply with state law and signatures are therefore not valid |
Source: Arkansas Times
Secretary of State John Thurston issued a statement of insufficiency for the redistricting initiative, top-four ranked-choice voting initiative, and the casino initiative on July 14, 2020. Thurston determined that signatures that were submitted on July 6 for the three citizen initiatives were insufficient under § 7-9-601(b)(3), which requires sponsors to certify that canvassers passed the background checks. Arkansas Wins in 2020, sponsors of the amendment to authorize 16 additional casinos, failed to file the certification. Arkansas Wins in 2020 challenged the insufficiency, but dropped their legal challenges and ended their attempt to qualify for the 2020 ballot on August 7, 2020. Arkansas Voters First (sponsors of the redistricting measure) and Open Primaries Arkansas (sponsors of the ranked-choice voting measure) submitted certifications stating that the background checks were acquired, but did not say they were passed. Thurtson's statements of insufficiency for the measures came a day after Special Master Mark Hewett determined signatures submitted on January 31 for the optometry referendum were invalid for the same reason. Hewett's report was filed with Arkansas Supreme Court for a final determination.[20][21] Retired Circuit Judge John Fogleman was appointed by the Arkansas Supreme Court on July 24, 2020, as a special master to resolve the disputes between Arkansas Voters First, Open Primaries Arkansas, and the Secretary of State concerning petition circulator background check certifications and signature validity. The report was submitted to the state supreme court on August 10, 2020. Fogleman concluded that the Supreme Court must decide whether or not the campaigns' certifications comply with Arkansas Code § 7-9-601(b)(3), which requires sponsors to certify that canvassers passed the background checks. Fogleman said if the court finds that the certifications do not comply with state law, then neither petition has enough valid signatures to qualify for a cure period to collect additional signatures to cure insufficiency. Fogleman said if the court finds that the certifications do comply with state law, then the Secretary of State erroneously rejected 586 signatures for Open Primaries Arkansas' measure.[22] The ranked-choice voting initiative and the redistricting initiative were certified for the ballot on August 21, 2020, 74 days before the November 2020 general election. Secretary of State John Thurston certified both measures for the ballot "for coding purposes and preparation purposes only, pending the outcome of the litigation." Under Arkansas Code § 7-5-204, if the secretary of state has not determined a petition's sufficiency by the 75th day before the general election or if a measure is being challenged in court, the measure must be placed on the ballot. If the measure is later declared insufficient or invalid, votes for the measure will not be counted or certified.[23] On August 27, 2020, Arkansas Supreme Court ruled in favor of John Thurston. Associate Justice Robin Wynne, who wrote the majority opinion, said, "Simply acquiring or obtaining a background check is not sufficient under the plain language of the statute. The results of the background checks are not required to be filed with the Secretary of State, and the certification is the only assurance the public receives that the paid canvassers ‘passed’ background checks." The state supreme court ruled, "In sum, we hold that petitioners did not comply with Arkansas Code Annotated section 7-9-601(b)(3) when they failed to certify that their paid canvassers had passed criminal background checks. Accordingly, the initiative petitions at issue are insufficient and petitioners are not entitled to a cure period or any other relief." Justice Josephine Linker Hart dissented, writing, "Today, the majority has disenfranchised more than 90,000 citizens. By signing the petition, these registered voters clearly manifested their desire to have these issues placed on the ballot. ... there is no evidence that the certification language directly affected the validity of even a single petition part."[24][25] On August 28, Arkansas Voters First asked the Supreme Court to rehear the case.[26] |
| Lawsuit overview | |
| Issue: Whether the certifications that petition circulators passed background checks are in accordance with Arkansas Code § 7-9-601(b)(3) and, consequently, whether or not the signatures collected are valid | |
| Court: Arkansas Supreme Court | |
| Ruling: Ruled in favor of John Thurston; measures removed from ballot | |
| Plaintiff(s): Arkansas Voters First, Open Primaries Arkansas | Defendant(s): Secretary of State John Thurston |
| Plaintiff argument: The background check certifications comply with state law and signatures are valid | Defendant argument: The background check certifications do not comply with state law and signatures are therefore not valid |
Source: Arkansas Times
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ Arkansas Secretary of State, "Statement from Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston Regarding Statewide Ballot Measures," accessed August 21, 2020
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 FairVote, "Who Can Vote in Congressional Primaries," accessed August 17, 2017
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 National Conference of State Legislatures, "State Primary Election Types," July 21, 2016
- ↑ Arkansas Code, "Section 7-7-308," accessed August 23, 2017
- ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Primary runoffs," accessed August 23, 2017
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, "Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative full text," accessed June 4, 2020
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Talk Business, "Redistricting, open primaries efforts submit signatures for ballot," accessed July 6, 2020
- ↑ Talk Business, "Open Primaries group names committee members," accessed July 22, 2020
- ↑ League of Women Voters of Arkansas, "Arkansans Overwhelmingly Support Non-Partisan Redistricting and Open Primaries Ballot Initiatives," accessed July 22, 2020
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 Arkansas Ethics Commission, "Filings," accessed August 21, 2020
- ↑ Arkansas Code, "Section 7-7-308," accessed August 23, 2017
- ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "Primary runoffs," accessed August 23, 2017
- ↑ A 60% supermajority vote was needed to pass the amendment.
- ↑ League of Women Voters of Maine, "Citizen Referendum on Ranked Choice Voting," accessed November 13, 2014
- ↑ University of Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service, "State Ballot Issues in Arkansas," accessed June 4, 2020
- ↑ [https://twitter.com/OpenPrimariesAR/status/1280265961174528000 OpenPrimariesAR on Twitter, "Jul 6 2020 6:22 PM Tweet," accessed July 6, 2020]
- ↑ The Roanoke Times, "Arkansas board approves ballot title for proposed amendment," accessed July 24, 2020
- ↑ [https://twitter.com/OpenPrimariesAR/status/1296829424734797824 OpenPrimariesAR on Twitter, "Aug 21 2020 11:20 AM Tweet," accessed August 21, 2020]
- ↑ Arkansas Online, "Amendment bids certified for state ballot," accessed August 21, 2020
- ↑ Arkansas Times, "Secretary of state kills three amendment drives," accessed July 15, 2020
- ↑ Ballotpedia staff, communication with David Couch, July 15, 2020
- ↑ Arkansas Times, "Special master says unmeetable canvassing requirement could doom open primary and legislative redistricting amendments," accessed August 13, 2020
- ↑ Arkansas Secretary of State, "Statement from Arkansas Secretary of State John Thurston Regarding Statewide Ballot Measures," accessed August 21, 2020
- ↑ Talk Business, "Arkansas Supreme Court disqualifies redistricting, open primaries efforts," accessed August 27, 2020
- ↑ Arkansas Judiciary, "BONNIE MILLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ARKANSAS VOTERS FIRST AND OPEN PRIMARIES ARKANSAS, BALLOT QUESTION COMMITTEES V. JOHN THURSTON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ARKANSAS SECRETARY OF STATE," accessed August 27, 2020
- ↑ Talk Business and Politics, "Legislative redistricting group files federal suit for ballot access," accessed September 11, 2020
 |
State of Arkansas Little Rock (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 |
