By Mary Goldmeer
Mail | Independent Newsmedia

Arizona voters will weigh in Nov. 5 on two proposed constitutional amendments that could alter the state’s primary election system. Proposition 133 and Proposition 140 offer conflicting approaches to how candidates are selected for general elections.

Proposition 133, which was referred to the ballot by the state legislature, seeks to amend the Arizona Constitution. This proposition aims to standardize the direct primary election process and ensure uniformity across various levels of government, including state, county, city and federal offices.

The amendment would require that the state’s direct primary election law take precedent over any conflicting local provisions, including city charters, laws, ordinances or rules. It mandates that each political party qualified for the ballot can nominate the same number of candidates as the number of positions to be filled in the general election.

“I worry about the encroachment on our charter cities,” said Senator Priya Sundareshan. “With this bill we are prohibiting local political subdivisions from holding elections in a certain format that they see fit for their own locality.”

According to bill sponsor Representative Austin Smith, this change is intended to provide a consistent process for candidate nominations across different jurisdictions and to avoid ranked or jungle primaries.

Proposition 133 would allow voters registered without party affiliation or with non-qualified parties to vote in the primary elections of any qualified party.

The proposal maintains the existing system where partisan primaries are used to select candidates, preserving the traditional role of political parties in the electoral process.

Supporters of Proposition 133 argue the measure will provide clarity and consistency in the nomination process, ensuring local and state election procedures align with the state’s overall election laws.

Proposition 140, a measure initiated by citizens, proposes a series of changes designed to alter the state’s primary and general election procedures.

The proposition would require that all candidates, regardless of their party affiliation, appear on the same primary ballot. This approach, similar to top-two or top-four primary systems, allow voters to select candidates based on their qualifications rather than party affiliation.

For general elections where three or more candidates advance from the primary, Proposition 140 calls for the use of ranked-choice voting. This system requires voters to rank candidates in order of preference, which proponents believe will lead to more representative outcomes and reduce the impact of vote splitting.

Some voters in opposition are unconvinced with the new structure’s application in Arizona when states like California have seen fewer Republican candidates be elected after implementing ranked choice elections.

“We’re not just talking about ‘California-ing’ our Arizona systems,” said Arizona Republican Chair Gina Swoboda. “Ranked choice voting is a disaster.”

The measure proposes that public funds cannot be used to administer partisan primary elections, except for presidential preference primaries, where independent voters can participate. This provision seeks to limit public spending on partisan processes and promote a more equitable approach to election funding.

Proposition 140 would allow all qualified voters to participate in any primary election, regardless of their party affiliation.

This change is intended to enhance voter engagement and ensure a wider range of perspectives are considered in the primary process.

Supporters of Proposition 140 argue these changes will make the electoral system more inclusive and better reflect the preferences of Arizona’s electorate. In an interview with Tucson Metro Chamber of Commerce, Sarah Smallhouse, president of the Thomas R. Brown Foundation and advocate of Proposition 140, said the growing number of independent voters need a system that accommodates their participation and quiets partisanship.

“Any voter can vote for any candidate they like,” Smallhouse said. “(Proposition 140) encourages diversity of thought, innovation and it helps promote positive campaign.”

These two propositions are in conflict, however. If both receive majority approval, only the measure with the higher vote count will take effect.

Proposition 133 and 140 represent fundamentally different approaches to electoral reform. Proposition 133 aims to maintain and standardize the existing partisan primary system, while Proposition 140 seeks to introduce a more non-partisan process.

The choice between these measures will shape how candidates are nominated and how elections are conducted, reflecting voters’ preferences on the future of the state’s electoral system.