Behind the Ballot - Salit & Stewart on Role of Indies in Election

Posted by Cathy L. Stewart on December 03, 2024 at 11:47 AM

On November 21st, Respect Voters co-founders and hosts of Behind the Ballot, Katie Fahey and Brittany Buford, talked with Jackie Salit, President of Independent Voting, and Cathy Stewart, Vice-President for National Development of Independent Voting, about the recent election, and the role of independent voters.

Watch the Full Conversation Below!

Here are some highlights from the conversation...

Katie Fahey asked,

"What do you guys believe are the most important structural forms to democracy right now? Are there any that stand out to you? And do any of them seem particularly important or poignant for the independent voter movement?"

Stewart:

"One thing that I would say, a fundamental bottom line that didn't come from an analysis, it didn't come from academia, it didn't come from studies on democracy, it came from independent voters. It’s the issue of all voters being able to vote in all rounds. To me, this is a fundamental fairness issue. It's a fundamental voting rights issue. And we just, we have to take care of that. We have to give all voters equal access to shaping what's on the ballot in November. And again, we've been championing that issue for decades. And it came from the voters we were talking to, independent voters, who were saying, I can't vote in the primary."

At the end of the interview, Katie Fahey asked Jackie,

"If there's anything else that you want to end on for us to think about when it comes to respecting voters?"

Jackie shared:

"I think that we're at kind of a pivot moment, a hinge moment, in the country. And I know people have very intense feelings about the results and fears and concerns and for some people, excitement. There are opportunities here to do new things and new ways and all of that. I think I feel all of that too. And I think this is a good environment to build in. And I think we have to build smart. I think we have to cast off some of our own presuppositions and premises that we've been carrying around for however many years. This is a growth moment for our movement and for our country. And I hope we can make good things out of it. I think the possibility of that exists...."

You can learn more about Respect Voters Coalition here!

Arizona Rejected Primary Reform in 2024, But Voters Don't Support the Status Quo Either

Posted by Cathy L. Stewart on November 15, 2024 at 11:00 AM

By Shawn Griffiths, originally posted Nov. 12, 2024 on Independent Voter News

Photo by Nils Huenerfuerst on Unsplash

Election Day was mostly a rough night for election reformers across the board, from primary reform to new voting methods to gerrymandering. However, it would be a mistake to suggest that this means voters are okay with the status quo.

Especially, when US adults have overwhelmingly voiced their frustrations and disapproval with a system that gives them the same two options every election cycle.

In fact, when Arizona voters were given a chance to enshrine the partisan-controlled system currently in place in the state constitution, they rejected the proposal by nearly the same margin as nonpartisan reform.

Arizona's Proposition 133 would have done 3 things:

One, it required partisan primaries across the state for partisan offices. Two, it banned the use of all-candidate and all-voter nonpartisan primaries. Three, it ensured the state's direct primary law superseded local charters.

In other words, local jurisdictions would not have been allowed to decide what election systems work best for their communities. 

Prop 133 was one of several initiatives referred to the ballot by the Arizona Legislature. It was overwhelmingly supported by the Republican majority, as well as GOP-aligned groups like the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AFEC).

The AFEC led lawsuits against Proposition 140 to end taxpayer-funded party primaries. 

In support of Prop 133, State Rep. Alexander Kolodin said:

"Most voters are not centrist. Most voters are left, or most voters are right. And so, by structuring a system where all we can get out of it is moderates, nobody gets their first choice."

The claim is certainly disputable, but it is also a paradoxical statement. The argument made by election reformers is for a system that gives voters an equal voice and more choice in the process. 

If Kolodin believes the outcome of this would lead to less ideologically rigid elected officials, then perhaps that is actually what voters want. It also tells on the current system, because party primaries do force specific types of candidates on voters.

In opposition to Prop 133, Democratic State Sen. Priya Sundareshan said:

"With this, we are preempting the ability of local, political subdivisions from holding elections in a certain format that they may see fit for their own political locality."

She added, "What we should be doing is allowing the laboratories of democracy to participate as the laboratories of democracy."

Voters rejected Proposition 133 with nearly 58% of the vote. This is an overwhelming majority of Arizonans who agree that the state should not shut down prospects for reform.

So Why Did Prop 140 Fail?

Prop 140 may have been similarly rejected because of an ambiguity surrounding it. The measure called for the end to taxpayer-funded party primaries, including in presidential preference elections if parties wanted to keep them closed.

This is pretty cut and dry. The proposal demanded equal access to elections for all voters and candidates, regardless of party. However, it didn't offer a specific replacement. 

And this is where the ambiguity exists.

The measure took a novel approach in that it called for a nonpartisan primary system but allowed state lawmakers and/or the secretary of state to assign the type of system used.

This ensured more seats at the table to discuss and decide the future of elections, as long as all voters and candidates were treated equally. It also meant lawmakers couldn't say they were snubbed in the decision process.

That said, it didn't give voters a specific systemic solution to support. It was unclear to voters what elections would look like and those who benefit from the status quo capitalized on any voter confusion that existed.

This included creating their own confusion by suggesting the measure was something it wasn't.

Arizona voters appear open to their cities, counties, and their state to be laboratories for fairer, more accountable, and more representative elections. Fundamental to change is understanding how to make this happen.

The importance of a strong grassroots and/or voter education campaign cannot be understated. Voters need to understand the systemic mechanisms that incentivize putting party loyalty above the needs of voters.

This, in turn, can bolster their desire and enthusiasm for specific reform proposals to bring more voice and more choice to elections. But the cart cannot be placed before the horse. 

And perhaps this is the lesson reformers will take away from the 2024 election cycle. 

The path to reform is not an easy one. It can take years to build up the necessary grassroots movement in each state to create change. It requires dedication and a commitment to voter education -- along with patience.

Primary reform came up short this election

Posted by Cathy L. Stewart on November 14, 2024 at 11:00 AM

A note from Cathy Stewart:

I wanted to share an email update from John Opdycke of Open Primaries that was sent on Wednesday, November 6th, 2024

Though the open primaries movement came up short last night, we won big in our nation's capital. Congratulations to Lisa Rice and her brilliant team on a job well done!  Lisa outworked the (mostly Democratic Party) opposition and made the campaign personal:

“I’m an independent and I can’t vote. That’s wrong and it’s not just me - there are tens of thousands of us in D.C.  We need to let all voters vote.” 

Well done team DC!  

All the votes have yet to be counted in Alaska, and we’re still hoping that the campaign perseveres, but we came up short in Montana, South Dakota, Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado.

People support our core values of fairness and a level playing field. This year, we couldn’t convert public support into policy change on a wide scale. We’ve yet to build deep trust with average voters - there is still lots of education needed to build understanding of why open primaries are relevant. We’ve underestimated the partisan special interests that want to maintain the status quo. 

Post Election Thought Number One: Thank you. We came up short. But thousands of you gathered signatures, wrote checks, knocked on doors, made phone calls and talked with friends and family. It was inspirational. The open primaries community grew and showed up - BIG TIME.  

Post Election Thought Number Two: There are no shortcuts when it comes to making this happen. We’ve got to build a movement, support local leaders, and inspire tens of millions of our fellow Americans. We need to get better at listening and building trust. Voters need to believe reform is not a trojan horse.  We think we have all the answers. But we don’t. We have ideas and vision and we need to bring that to the people and listen to what they say in response.  

Post Election Thought Number Three: Open Primaries is all about full voting rights for independents. We need to build an army of millions of independents to shout that to the rafters. Just like Lisa did in DC, we have to make this personal all across the country.  

Yesterday was tough. But the number of independents continues to soar. Neither party has the vision or the trust of the American people to remake our democracy. We have our work cut out for us, but we have a lot to work with. Our plan is to analyze honestly, create conversation and learning, and get busy organizing.  

Thank you for all of your hard work and support this year. Onward!

John Opdycke, President

Open Primaries