Sponsored by

Libertarian, Green parties: Prop 121 would put us out of business

Thanks to

It’s already an uphill battle for Libertarian and Green party candidates in Arizona, but no matter what they have a place on the ballot.

However, leaders of both parties say Proposition 121 threatens to butt them out of elections for good.

“Third parties will be completely gone,” said Warren Severin, chairman of Arizona’s Libertarian Party.

Proposition 121, the Open Elections/Open Government Act, would replace the current partisan primary system with a single primary that advances the top vote-getters regardless of party.

Severin and Angel Torres, co-chair of the state’s Green Party, argue that this system would make it nearly impossible for their candidates to advance into the general election because they’d have to beat out major party candidates.

“If you are a Libertarian or a Green voter your candidates are almost guaranteed not to move on to the general election,” said Torres, who also is a candidate for state House in a Phoenix-area district.

They also say Proposition 121 would dramatically boost the number of signatures third party candidates would have to gather, making it more difficult for them to qualify for the primary.

At present, the number of signatures required to get into a party’s primary is one half of 1 percent of those registered in that party across Arizona for statewide races or in a district for legislative or congressional races.

Thanks to our donors and sponsors for their support of local independent reporting. Join Lara Rubio, Steve Elliott, and Luke Knipe and contribute today!

Proposition 121 would make the signature requirement a function of total votes cast in the previous election and require the same number of signatures for all candidates.

“Third party candidates who have neither large supporter bases nor lots of money will be left out of the picture, especially in larger districts where larger numbers of signatures are required,” Severin said.

Barbara Norrander, a political science professor at the University of Arizona, said a top-two system could harm third parties.

“It would make it much more difficult to get on the general election ballot because they would have to get more votes than they have been getting in prior elections,” Norrander said.

Severin, the Libertarian chairman, said the main goal of third parties isn’t winning but providing voters with new ideas. He said a top-two primary would kill any chance of third parties participating in debates, the main vehicle for sharing their ideas.

“Our opportunity to do what really is our goal vanishes,” Severin said.

The Open Government Committee, which put the measure on the ballot, contends the change would produce more moderate candidates, increase primary election turnout and offer independents a better chance to compete.

Former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson, one of the group’s leaders, said it’s “false” to say that third parties would wither if Proposition 121 passes. They’d just have to gather the same number of signatures as any other candidate and fight to make it to the general election, he said.

“We are not doing this for any party,” Johnson said. “We are not doing it for them, nor are we not doing it to hurt them. We are doing it for the voters.”

Joe Pamelia, a Libertarian candidate for U.S. House of Representatives in District 4, said unless a candidate in a top-two system is either with a major party or extremely wealthy he or she doesn’t stand a chance of making it to the general election.

“[Top two] says to me, ‘I’m sorry you weren’t able to make enough votes to even compete with us, you’re out the door and so we hold the power and we are going to continue to hold power,’” Pamelisa said.

Johnson said the signature requirement change proposed in Proposition 121 would help independent candidates because they currently need a greater number of signatures to get into the general election.

The requirement for independents to get on a general election ballot, because independents don’t have primaries, is 3 percent of registered voters not affiliated with an established party.

For example, to get on the ballot in the 2012 Arizona’s statewide elections Republicans had to gather 5,671 signatures and Democrats 4,765, but independents had to gather 31,111, according to Matthew Roberts, communications director at the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office.

Proposition 121 doesn’t specify what percentage of the total votes cast would be required, but the language says it would be an “amount to be established by law.”

Severin, the Libertarian chairman, said he agrees there should be something done to help independents, but not at the expense of third parties.

“The result will be that very few independents, Libertarians and Greens will make it onto the primary ballot,” he said. “And none of those will ever see a general election ballot.”

Severin and Torres, the state Green Party leader, say what they fear would happen in Arizona is already happening in California, where voters approved a similar top-two system in 2010.

A report by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California said districts with no minor party candidates were 72 percent in 2012, up from 53 percent in 2010.

Eric McGhee, a policy fellow with the group and co-author of the report, said the change in California has hurt third party candidates.

“The main message is that this reform has been hard on them,” McGhee said. “And there is no getting around that.”

David Berman, a senior policy fellow at Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy, said a top-two system in Arizona would put third parties in an “uncomfortable position” and cost them visibility in the general election.

“Given their failure to gather in many votes or win offices even under the existing system, the overall impact of top-two on the success of third parties may be minimal,” Berman said in an email.

- 30 -
have your say   

Latest comments on this storyRead all 4 »

4
1517 comments
Oct 19, 2012, 9:34 am
-1 +0

@junegenis

I could be inclined to agree with you…if I didn’t live in Southern Arizona. Before I rant here, keep in mind that, as of last year (or the year before) There are more Republicans than anyone else, then independents, then Democrats, in that order. Yes, even we indies outnumber the Dems. OK, here we go with my rant…

Grijalva is slovenly and unkempt, and called for an economic boycott of his own state during an economic crisis, and he gets reelected. Does that sound right to you?

The City Council has mismanaged millions. $230 million disappeared under the guise of Rio Nuevo, and they insist on building a choo choo train while thousands of potholes go unfilled…yet every incumbent who ran last election got reelected. Does that sound right to you?

Considering what I told you about the voter split before this rant…Democrats have a stranglehold on this region, despite them being the state’s minority party even behind indies. Does that sound right to you?

What the City Council, Grijalva, and also Dupnik and Barber conclusively and abundantly show us is that whatever we’re doing now with elections isn’t working. When what you’re doing isn’t working, you try something else. We need to try something else…ANYTHING else. The Top Two is something else.

Again, I’ll concede it is not an ideal system, but what we’re doing now is obviously horribly broken, and I’ll take pretty much anything over our current system.

3
1 comments
Oct 19, 2012, 7:55 am
-1 +1

To FrankHenry and BretLinden: These same argument were offered in support of CA’s prop 14 but they have not delivered.  Meanwhile in WA where TopTwo has been in effect longer the minor parties, and the ideas they contribute to the discussion, have been virtually silenced.

There are real reforms which can be instituted without harming alternative voices.  These include instant runoff (ranked choice) voting and proportional representation.  Top Two sounds good but it doesn’t deliver.  We need to hear more voices not less and Top Two will silence all but two voices during the important general election period.

Please visit http://www.fairvote.org for more information.

2
7 comments
Oct 18, 2012, 11:40 pm
-1 +1

A YES Vote for Prop 121 is a vote for all voters of Arizona.

A YES for 121 will allow:

1.  All voters to have EQUAL ACCESS to be placed on all
    ballots.

2.  All voters to have EQUAL ACCESS to vote all ballots.

3.  All political parties to work hard to support issues and
    candidates that support their ideas and beliefs.

Its true that the Libertarians, Green and other small parties
have had to work harder than the “big” parties…and now if
121 passes the small parties will now have the advantage
over the “big” parties….because the small parties are use
to working hard for their candidates/issues.

Good Luck to the voters , the parties, and the YES vote for
121.

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment

Click image to enlarge

Natasha Khan/Cronkite News Service

Warren Severin, chairman of Arizona’s Libertarian Party, says Proposition 121′s plan to eliminate partisan primaries in favor of a single primary for all candidates would hurt third parties.

States with top-two primaries

  • California (passed in 2010)
  • Washington (passed in 2008)
  • Louisiana (passed in 1978)
  • Nebraska (passed in the 1930s)
  • A
  • A
  • A
  •   Share:
  • more»
Show previews