Voters in Arizona will decide on competing measures related to electoral systems—the methods used to conduct elections and count votes to determine winners. Republicans in the Arizona State Legislature voted to place Proposition 133 on the ballot, while Proposition 140 is a citizen-initiated ballot measure from the Make Elections Fair PAC.
Proposition 133 would add the existing system of partisan primaries to the Arizona Constitution, where voters select candidates to represent political parties in the general election.
Forty-five (45) states utilize partisan primaries. Five use a different system: California and Washington use top-two primaries, Nebraska uses top-two for state legislative elections, Alaska has top-four primaries, and Louisiana uses a majority-vote system.
Proposition 140 would require primaries in which candidates, regardless of partisan affiliation, appear on a single ballot and a certain number advance to the general election, such as top-two or top-four primaries.
Under Proposition 140, the legislature would need to approve a new primary system. However, if it does not pass a bill by November 1, 2025, the secretary of state would determine the primary system. Afterward, legislators could amend this system, but not for a period of six years.
The ballot initiative would require ranked-choice voting (RCV) for general elections if a primary system when three or more candidates advance is used (for one-winner general elections).
Proposition 133 and Proposition 140 are contradictory because a primary cannot be both partisan and include all candidates running in the same primary regardless of party. While Proposition 133 doesn’t state that ranked-choice voting can’t be used in general elections, Proposition 140 conditions ranked-choice voting on a primary system change.
Proposition 140 also prohibits using public funds to administer partisan primaries at the federal, state, and local levels, except for presidential preference primaries that allow independents to participate.
In Arizona, when two ballot measures of the same type (both are constitutional amendments) contradict and both pass, the measure that receives the most votes would supersede the other at points of conflict. However, determining those points of conflict could require the courts. Barry Markson, a legal analyst for KTAR, said, “It definitely could result in litigation, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it did. My expectation would be that the now-losing proposition would say that although part of the referendum was in conflict with the other, not the entire thing was. They may try to have part of their initiative stay.”
Support for Proposition 140
The Make Elections Fair PAC is leading the campaign in support of Proposition 140. Sarah Smallhouse, president of the Thomas R. Brown Foundations, is chairperson of the campaign, and Beau Lane, former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson, and Pat DeConcini are co-chairs. Proposition 140 received endorsements from Mesa Mayor John Giles (R), former House Speaker Russell Bowers (R), former Attorney General Terry Goddard (D), and former Gov. John Fife Symington III (R). Chuck Coughlin, treasurer for the Make Elections Fair PAC, said, “Our election process has been hijacked by two extreme parties. The two parties have become much more extreme over time in their views of how elections are run, because it attracts money and influence. A majority of people have chosen to disassociate themselves from those two parties.”
The PAC received $15.9 million through Oct. 19. The top five donors were Unite America ($4.9 million), Open Primaries Now, Inc. ($2.1 million), Mary Bernal ($1.5 million), Sarah Smallhouse ($1.4 million), and Robert Bertrand ($1.0 million). In 2024, Unite America also made contributions to oppose Alaska Ballot Measure 2 and support ballot initiatives in Montana, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, and D.C.
Opposition to Proposition 140
The No on Prop 140 PAC is leading the campaign opposing Proposition 140. Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb (R) and former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew W. Gould (R) are the campaign’s co-chairs. The opposition received endorsements from U.S. Reps. Andy Biggs (R) and Debbie Lesko (R), former Gov. Doug Ducey (D), and the Republican, Libertarian, and Green parties. The Arizona Democratic Party did not take a position, but several county and district chapters opposed the initiative. Jeff DeWit, former chairman of the Arizona Republican Party, said, “Republicans don’t want Democrats voting for our primary candidates, and I’m sure Democrats don’t want us voting for theirs. All unaffiliated voters, or as they are commonly referred to as, Independents, already can and do vote on the primaries to make their voices heard.”
The opposition campaign received $150,000 through Oct. 19. The three donors were Earl G. Kendrick ($100,000.00), The Concord Fund ($45,000), and Freedom Club PAC ($5,000). The Arizona Republican Party also made expenditures to oppose Proposition 140, including advertisements.
History of electoral system measures in Arizona
Propositions 133 and 140 relate to the state’s electoral system. From 1912 to 2023, voters in Arizona addressed four ballot measures related to electoral systems.
- In 1922, voters rejected Measure Nos. 102-103, which would have repealed the requirement that the Arizona State Legislature provide for direct primaries. Instead, the legislature would have been allowed to pass other laws regarding the nomination of candidates for public office. The vote was 23% ‘Yes’ to 77% ‘No’.
- In 1988, voters approved Proposition 105, which required run-off elections for state executive elections, including gubernatorial elections, when no candidate receives a simple majority vote. The vote was 56% ‘Yes’ to 44% ‘No’.
- In 1992, voters approved Proposition 100, which repealed Proposition 105, passed four years earlier. Proposition 100 repealed the run-off requirement for state executive elections and required a plurality vote for a state executive to be elected. The vote was 67% ‘Yes’ to 33% ‘No.’
- In 2012, voters rejected Proposition 121, a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment to replace partisan primaries with top-two primaries. The vote was 33% ‘Yes’ to 67% ‘No.’
In 1998, voters also approved a ballot measure, Proposition 103, to allow unaffiliated and independent voters, as well as those who are members of parties without ballot recognition, to vote in partisan primaries. This changed Arizona primaries from being closed to semi-closed.
There was at least one local ballot measure related to electoral systems. In 2008, voters in Glendale, Arizona, rejected Proposition 404, which was designed to enact ranked-choice voting for municipal elections.