(C) Arizona Mirror This story was originally published by Arizona Mirror and is unaltered. . . . . . . . . . . Supreme Court lets legislature’s description of ‘open primaries’ measure stand [1] ['Jerod Macdonald-Evoy', 'Jim Small', 'Ashley Murray', 'Caitlin Sievers', 'More From Author', '- August', '.Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus-Coauthors.Is-Layout-Flow', 'Class', 'Wp-Block-Co-Authors-Plus', 'Display Inline'] Date: 2024-08-28 The Arizona Supreme Court sided with Arizona legislators over a trial court judge who concluded their description of a ballot proposition to end partisan primaries was “misleading,” overturning the lower court’s ruling. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Melissa Iyer Julian previously ruled that a legislative panel responsible for writing summaries of ballot measures that are sent to every Arizona voter wrote a description of Proposition 140, a citizen initiative also known as the Make Elections Fair Act, that was intentionally misleading. If voters approve it in November, the measure would create an open primary system where all candidates for federal, state and local offices would face off in a single primary election instead of segregated partisan elections. Those primaries would also include candidates who are politically unaffiliated. All registered voters would be able to choose from all the candidates in the primary, and the top vote-getters would advance to the general election, even if they don’t represent different parties. The number of candidates that would advance from the primary to the general is something that the ballot measure directs state lawmakers to address in 2025, though that decision making would go to the secretary of state — currently Democrat Adrian Fontes — if legislators fail to act. Depending on how many candidates are allowed to go to the general election, lawmakers would also be authorized to enact ranked-choice voting, in which voters rank the candidates from favorite to least favorite. When voting is over, a process of elimination takes place: The lowest vote-getter in the first round is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to higher vote-getters, according to how voters ranked the other candidates. The process continues until a single winner is identified. Ranked-choice voting is currently used in Alaska and Maine, and in cities like Minneapolis and New York City. Make Elections Fair Arizona, the political committee that gathered signatures to get Prop. 140 on the ballot, filed a lawsuit contending that the Legislative Council’s description of the measure unfairly focuses on the possibility for ranked-choice voting, which is not mandated by the proposed constitutional amendment. A trial court agreed and lawmakers appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which ruled Wednesday that the trial court’s analysis was wrong, ordering the legislature’s analysis to be printed in the publicity pamphlet that will be sent to every Arizona voter. At the heart of the matter is the order in which the description outlines what Prop. 140 would do. Lawmakers contend that the order they chose best describes the initiative, while its backers claim it intentionally draws attention to a mechanism that would allow for — but not require — ranked-choice voting in order to stoke voter opposition. The trial court ruled that the legislature’s description does not supply the proper context on voter ranking and renders the description misleading. But the Arizona Supreme Court disagreed. “We unanimously conclude that the [Legislative] Council’s analysis substantially complies [with the law],” Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer wrote in the ruling. “The Council’s analysis in the first numbered paragraph therefore accurately describes this provision by stating that the Initiative would amend the constitution to ‘[a]llow for the use of voter ranking at all elections held in this state to determine which candidate received the highest number of votes.’” The trial court had ruled that the order of the description was a “rhetorical device” meant to confuse or dissuade voters, but the Supreme Court ruled that the order didn’t matter if the description was factually true. “We disagree that the first numbered paragraph’s reference to the fourth numbered paragraph of the analysis was an improper rhetorical device that encouraged voters to ‘skip over’ provisions describing proposed changes to the primary and general election procedures,” Timmer said. “The analysis describes the changes in separately numbered, short paragraphs, which permits an interested voter to understand the proposed amendments. It is not for the courts to decide what aspects of the Initiative are most important and deserving of description in the analysis’ initial paragraphs,” she continued. The Arizona Supreme Court ordered that the Secretary of State print the original analysis. The ultimate fate of Prop. 140 is still up in the air. The ballot proposition, which has faced numerous challenges, is still facing a challenge on its signatures that could invalidate the proposed constitutional amendment. Prop. 140 would still appear on the ballot if the court rules the signatures invalid, though votes for it would not be counted. At issue now is determining whether some 40,000 signatures that were already deemed valid are, in fact, duplicates, which would jeopardize the measure’s place on the ballot. A trial court judge had earlier ruled against the signature challenge, determining that Prop. 140 had about 32,000 petition signatures more than needed. But the Supreme Court said the lower court judge improperly refused to consider the evidence plaintiffs said proved there were tens of thousands of duplicate signatures, and told the judge he needs to reopen the case and examine that evidence to determine whether Prop. 140 has the needed signatures to go before voters in November. Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick, whose wife is Republican lawmaker Shawnna Bolick, recused himself from the case. [END] --- [1] Url: https://azmirror.com/2024/08/28/prop-140-supreme-court-lets-legislatures-description-of-open-primaries-measure-stand/ Published and (C) by Arizona Mirror Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds: gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/azmirror/