On July 10, opponents of the Arizona top-two open primary initiative, or jungle primary, held a press conference. Bill Montgomery, the County Attorney for Maricopa County, Arizona, will lead the opposition. That opposition will be a campaign to defeat the measure at the ballot box and also in court. Opponents believe the initiative violates the state Constitutional provisions that require initiatives to be on a single subject, and also the provision that all initiatives must include a funding source in case the effect of the initiative is to increase government spending. See this story. The opposition group uses the name “Save Our Vote Committee.”
The initiative abolishes elections for party office. It does not seem to follow logically that a state that enacts a top-two system must also abolish elections for party office. All three of the other states with a top-two system, California, Washington, and Louisiana, continue to elect party officers.
The Arizona press seems to have no consensus about the name of the type of primary being proposed by the initiative. The article linked to calls it a “non-partisan primary”, although other Arizona articles call it an “open primary.” For over a century, “open primary” has been defined as a system in which each party has its own primaries but any voter can choose any party’s primary ballot, so “open primary” is not a good name for a system in which parties don’t have nominees. On the other hand “non-partisan primary” isn’t a good term either, because traditionally, “non-partisan” means an election with no party labels on the ballot. Arizona has true non-partisan elections for city office everywhere except in Tucson.
The Washington state press always uses the term “top-two primary”, and the California press alternates between calling it a “top-two primary” and an “open primary.” The Louisiana press calls the Louisiana system a “jungle primary.”
For over a century, “open primary” has been defined as a system in which each party has its own primaries but any voter can choose any party’s primary ballot.
But how would I, under this system, vote for candidates on both primary ballot as an independent?
Many voters today pick candidates not parties!
In all states, there are procedures for independent candidates to get on the ballot in the election itself. In 1974 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Storer v Brown that the U.S. Constitution requires states to have procedures for independent candidates to run. Prior to that ruling, New Mexico, Delaware, and Michigan had no procedures for independent candidates to run for any partisan office.
Top 2 Plurality EXTREMISTS Primary ???
WA primary
CA primary
LA primary
NE primary
add to the list.
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
NOOOOOOOO moron primaries of ANY type.
EQUAL nominating petitions for all candidates for the same office in the same area.
WAY too difficult for MORON lawyers and judges (esp. SCOTUS) to understand ???
The clubby robot party hacks can use snail mail ballot elections to choose their clubby robot party hack *leaders*.
How many private groups have snail mail ballot elections ???
How many private internet elections — with or without code stuff ???
There’s a lot here.
1) May Bill Montgomery be eloquent and get others to do so. He should use non-uniformity of referencing the concept in this initiative to advantage, maybe an ad where two discuss the initiative and the informed voice corrects the dope refering to it as an open primary but explains it’s a jungle primary or jungle first round that pre-empts the candidate you really wanted to vote for from being on the general election ballot. May the force be with you Bill.
2) the single subject rule it seems lives to quash sweeping (so often good sometimes putrid) reforms. The reality is judges can use this rule selectively without being caught. Typical legislative patterns and customs and assumptions and other soft stuff can be used to craft logic that rejects popular constitutional amendments in FL and statute law elsewhere. If the AZ judiciary doesn’t care for this top two initiative they can kill it. Hope they do.
Montgomery’s forces are looking to use new financing scheme plus new ballot qualifying scheme equals more than one subject. Seems like the adding the elimination of the election of party offices (precinct captains?) might be more inconsistent with the goal of sticking to one subject.
I say SEEMS like. If a state is so unconcerned about a political parties legitimate need to project its efforts into candidacies accomodated by the state then way is it gonna spend money assisting them determining who partisan officers are and arn’t? Worse yet why would or should a state finance the selection of hacks for TWO parties and not so coincidently that’s the same number of candidates that can survive the jungle first round process. It is profoundly disingenous to junk parties but still give the top two parties (the major parties, that single establishment)an impressive leg up with imprimater of state financed hack selection. It is the core lie about fairness that exits in WA.
If the initiative stops financing the election of partisan position it is actually to its credit insofar being consistent with being anti-party generally.
Still, top two systems force minor party partisans into major parties, where they should focus there efforts reforming partisan politics for not only the voter’s sake but there own.
May Montgomery’s forces spur the greatest overdue conversation on good and bad partisan things the state has ever heard. The top-two opposition should promise to craft–starting now–a better initiative for next time.
Gain the advantage on the idea front.
I as an independent, tax-paying voter, but can not take part in the political process of selecting the candidates I choose to vote for, is taxation without representation. Let the parties, major and minor, pay for their own selection process,then put all their selections, and any other candidates who can get on the ballot, by signatures or fees, or weite-in present themselves on one ballot.