From the archive: This story is more than 10 years old.

Comments on

Az Supreme Court rules open-primary initiative will make Nov. ballot

Ending a lengthy legal battle, the Arizona Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for voters to decide in November whether to switch from partisan to open primaries for state offices.

Read the full story »

Comments are temporarily disabled on TucsonSentinel.com while we upgrade our system.

have your say   

3 comments on this story

Sep 7, 2012, 9:07 am
-1 +3

I’m pleased about the decision. The two-party system is ruining our system of government, and our whole country. I support anything that weakens the two-party system, and this open primary law very well may do just that.

Sep 7, 2012, 4:38 pm
-0 +0

I agree with you Bret, and term limits stink as well.

Sep 7, 2012, 4:47 pm
-0 +0


Well, I half-agree about term limits. I don’t like the idea of a term limit on paper, but I would like the electorate to infuse new blood into an office every few years just because it’s the right thing to do. Unfortunately, the Southern Arizona electorate can’t be trusted to do that (Grijalva, Dupnik, Shirley Scott, Regina Romero, probably others), so perhaps term limits being law might be the lesser of two evils.

Considering Congressional seats and term limits…it is my opinion that the Framers of the Constitution decided on two-year terms as a way of discouraging individuals from making a career out of Congress. The pain in the ass of a campaign every two years should be a deterrent, and in it’s own way serve as sort of a term limit. However, I don’t think the Framers envisioned an electorate who is so apathetic they not only take for granted their right to vote, they outright disrespect it. So, they just rubber-stamp the same old, corrupt people in over and over again.

OK, now term limits don’t seem so bad.

— 30 —


Best in Internet Exploder