Originally published by 12new.com on October 16, 2024
Thom Reilly, co-director of ASU's Center for an Independent and Sustainable Democracy, breaks down three voter trends that could affect the presidential race.
By the AZ Republic Editorial Board, originally published Oct. 10, 2024 on AZcenral.com
In today’s politics, those with the most extreme views are winning office, powered by partisan primaries and the small percentage of fervent party members who vote in them.
Look what has happened in Arizona, where moderates and non-MAGA conservatives have been censored, harassed, threatened with violence and replaced by fringe candidates.
House Speaker Rusty Bowers is gone because he refused Trump’s repeated asks to help decertify Arizona’s 2020 election results.
Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer lost this year’s primary because he debunked unfounded theories about illegal ballots being cast or vote manipulation that cost Trump and other MAGA candidates.
Moderates can't withstand the primary
Other democracy defenders also are gone. Maricopa County Supervisors Clint Hickman and Bill Gates called it quits, and Supervisor Jack Sellers got bounced in the primary after backlash from the party and threats against him.
Even before the emergence of election deniers, those who bucked the party got punished. That’s why U.S. Sen. Jeff Flake is gone and why the late U.S. Sen. John McCain went through hell to get past his last Republican primary.
Moderates such as state lawmakers Heather Carter and Paul Boyer, who worked with and at times voted alongside Democrats, got “primaried out” or saw no path to party nomination.
This has gone too far.
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.
We can do that by passing Proposition 140, the “Make Elections Fair Act” on the Nov. 5 ballot.
The measure would level the playing field for all candidates and all voters by ending partisan primary elections, which have empowered party loyalists to dictate our choices on the general election ballot.
Proposition 140 would:
Why an open primary and not the traditional Democratic and Republican primaries?
An open primary would force candidates to speak to everyone and find common ground, rather than to appeal to the far-left or far-right that typically votes in partisan primaries with promises that leave candidates beholden to the fringe.
Importantly, it gives moderate candidates without party support a fighting chance to make it to the general election. Candidates not affiliated with a political party would no longer need six times the number of nominating signatures to qualify to run.
Party leaders and traditionalists argue that we shouldn’t tinker with a primary system that protects the rights of Democrats and Republicans to choose the candidates who best reflect their values and platform.
That’s all well and good if that status quo benefits not just the two parties, but all Arizonans.
But the status quo no longer works in our state. Not when 1 in 3 of us are now independent voters.
Presently, independents must request a Republican or Democratic ballot to cast a ballot in primary elections — whether that’s to get an early ballot in the mail or to vote in person.
About 9 in 10 don’t, meaning they have little voice to determine which candidates make it to the general election.
More often than not, the candidates who advance are those handpicked and backed by party insiders.
Neither Engel nor Ciscomani:Are as extreme as they say
And because most of Arizona’s congressional and legislative districts are “safe districts” — meaning the way the boundaries are drawn strongly favor one party or the other — whoever emerges out of the partisan primaries goes on to win office.
Increasingly, those candidates are the most extreme.
An open primary would have offered a fighting chance for independents like U.S. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who decided not to run again after she was all but pushed out of the Democratic Party, and for moderate Republicans who are pushed out in the primary by a narrower and more populist base.
When candidates more closely match the values and priorities of the wider electorate, everyone wins.
Opponents of Proposition 140 raise a number of objections to the initiative, though most of them amount to scare tactics or exaggerations:
It’ll raise the likelihood that only one party’s candidates would advance to the general election, they say.
True, especially given the number of “safe districts” with voter registration favoring one party over the other. But it also means that more moderate candidates within that party — including the aforementioned “primaried out” individuals — could advance to the general.
It’ll give Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, exclusive power to decide how many top vote-getters advance to the general election, opponents argue.
That’s misleading. The Legislature is authorized to make that determination. Only if state lawmakers fail to act would the secretary of state be allowed to step in to set the number.
Other political parties who field a candidate are guaranteed representation in the general election. They will lose that right, opponents say.
True, but should the Green Party or the Libertarian Party produce candidates who appeal to the general electorate, they would stand the same chance as a Democratic or Republican candidate to advance to the general election.
Ranked choice voting will confuse voters and make ballots longer and more complex, opponents claim.
Maybe. That depends on how many candidates the Legislature decides to advance to the general election for each office. If it chooses to move forward the two candidates that receive the most votes for each state Senate seat, for instance, the ballot won’t get longer than it is now.
And ranking candidates on preference in a general election is probably not as difficult or confusing as some might think, given that the candidates’ party affiliation will remain on the ballot as a guide.
Don’t California my Arizona elections, opponents say.
A clever scare tactic. But California’s electorate is not the same as Arizona’s. Democrats outnumber Republicans and dwarf independents even more there. An open primary system won’t automatically replicate their progressive politics here.
Arizona’s independents account for a third of the electorate, and Republicans have a registration advantage over Democrats of more than 250,000, or 6 percentage points.
The arguments against Proposition 140 don’t hold.
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.
This is an opinion of The Arizona Republic's editorial board.
By Joe Smyth, Scottsale - Originally published Oct. 3, 2024 by Fountain Hills Times INDEPENDENT
Joe Smyth
Far too often, it seems that we can complain all we want about politics, but nothing ever gets better.
But the 2024 election gives Arizonans a rare chance to actually improve our state’s politics.
Far too often, it seems that we can complain all we want about politics, but nothing ever gets better.
But the 2024 election gives Arizonans a rare chance to actually improve our state’s politics.
If approved, Proposition 140 would establish one primary election that’s open to all registered voters. The top two vote-getters, regardless of their party affiliation, could face off in the general election. This would give us real choices, and better choices.
All registered voters would have the right to vote. The primary election would become a public election, not just for Democrats or Republicans. More than half of us no longer want to be associated with what the Democratic and Republican parties have become. Why should our taxes pay for primary elections to select their candidates, and then not have our votes matter much in the general election because the parties have used gerrymandering to make most districts uncompetitive?
The state’s 2022 congressional elections show just how ridiculous the state’s party primaries are. Between 8% and 21% of registered voters nominated the winning candidate in all nine Arizona congressional districts.
In each of those districts, one party or the other had stacked the deck so its primary winner was virtually assured of victory in the general election. Isn’t something wrong when as few as 8% of registered voters can effectively control an election? Yes, and the Democrat and Republican primaries are what’s wrong.
One primary election in which everybody can vote — without having to join any political party — would be less expensive for taxpayers and more representative for voters. That’s what Prop 140 will do. You could call it a “right to vote law.”
Elections that have been rigged over the years by both parties would finally be history, and good riddance! Both parties have made a mess of it. Now they’re opposed to Prop 140 because they like things just as they are: a mess. That’s why they’ve even proposed their own Prop 133 to keep things as they are: a mess.
It’s time for voters to matter again. We can clean up the mess. Open nonpartisan primary elections would give us better candidates, more competitive races and higher voter turnouts. Let’s seize this opportunity by voting NO on Prop 133 and YES on Prop 140.
Editor’s note: A former journalist, now retired in Scottsdale, Joe Smyth is the author of Fixing America’s Broken Politics. The opinions expressed here are his own. Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at [email protected].