On January 16, Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said he will the decision in No Labels Party v Fontes, 2:23cv-2172. The decision said that No Labels Party has a freedom of association right to block candidates for congress and partisan state office from filing to get on its primary ballot.
The decision is correct, in my view. It recognizes their associational rights.
Nevertheless, No Labels should CHOOSE to run candidates for Congress in swing states (of which Arizona is one) in case they are successful in deadlocking the electoral college.
@WZ,
Who is “they”? The Arizona apparatchiks who were appointed by the corporate overlords of No Labels, Inc. in Washington, D.C.; or the 19,000 Arizonans who have changed their affiliation.
The “party” doesn’t want to associate with the voters?
Corporate overlords in DC. Let’s not pretend that no lube is a grassroots movement. It’s 100% astroturf.
“@WZ,
Who is “they”? The Arizona apparatchiks who were appointed by the corporate overlords of No Labels, Inc. in Washington, D.C.”
Yes. They committed the resource that made it happen. They MAY invite the opinions of registered voters, but they are not obliged so to do. Conversely, registered voters who are disappointed with this, may freely choose to go elsewhere.
What they essentially have done is reconstruct something similar to the Congressional Caucus system which existed prior to nominations by convention. The voters who identified with the Federalist and Jeffersonian Republican parties had no direct input into the nomination process. They voted either for one of the other. When they became dissatisfied with this, they chose new parties that adopted the convention system, which was considered a democratic improvement over what preceded it.
The capacity of new parties to form using completely different methods of organization and nomination demonstrates the great flexibility of our federal system in general, and of the electoral college in particular. If we had a unitary system of government, with popular election of the President, every step of the process would have to be spelled out in the Constitution, and related federal enabling legislation.
Some folks seem greatly to desire just that, but, I for one, like the flexibility built into our federal system.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
The petition reads:
“I, the undersigned, a qualified elector in the county of [Winslow], state of Arizona, hereby petition that a new political party become eligible for recognition, and be represented by an official party ballot at the next ensuing regular primary election, to be held on the [6th day of August 2024] and accorded a column on the official ballot at the succeeding general election to be held on the [5th day of November 2024].
…
Said party shall be known as [No Labels Party].”
The 10 representatives of the party filed the petition along with a statement:
“We, the ten undersigned qualified electors of the state of Arizona, request that the signers of the attached petitions be recognized as a new political party, to be called the [No Labels Party]”
The 41,000+ signers of the petition wanted the party to appear on the primary ballot. The organizers said it was the body of electors that was being recognized as the new political party.
Bollocks. Few of them ever read that statement. They responded to a pitch by the petitioners hired by the national organization that most likely had nothing whatsoever to do with primaries. If you think tens of thousands of people are clamoring for a No Labels party to have a primary in any state, you’re out of touch with reality and how such petition drives are conducted.
@HL,
Your proof that the circulators defrauded the petitioners?
I’m well aware of prevalent practices in that industry. If you have any doubts that I’m correct, try surveying a sampling of those 41k and ask them why they signed and whether it had anything to do with a state primary to elect candidates for state and local office. I’m willing to bet few if any signed for that reason.
@JR
But the petition does not say that the party must put candidates on said primary ballot, and a ballot with zero candidates, well…
Also, what do you mean “the” primary ballot? In Arizona?
HL,
Given that language, some of the petitioners probably pitched it as “let independent voters have a vote in the primary” ..just a guess.
@AC,
They specified the date of the primary under Arizona statute. Under Arizona law, a “political party” is the body of voters who affiliate with the party. Candidates for nomination by a party file with the state, who actually conducts the election.
The federal district court should have deferred to the Arizona courts as to the meaning of the petition.
So, voters probably thought they were signing for so called “open primaries.”
IGT,
Are you channeling your inner Shana Bellows, Maine SOS?
No, my outer cynic, based on extensive experience.
@IGT,
What experience do you have?
Plenty, the details of which are not for public consumption.