Arizona voters to decide on competing constitutional amendments addressing primary elections and electoral changes in November

Welcome to the Friday, Aug. 23, Brew.

Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day:

1. Arizona voters to decide on competing constitutional amendments addressing primary elections and electoral changes in November
2. Recall effort against four members of the Milwaukee Public Schools Board fails to go to a vote
3. Did you know that nine states allow citizens to initiate indirect state statutes?

Arizona voters to decide on competing constitutional amendments addressing primary elections and electoral changes in November

Voters in Arizona will decide on two constitutional amendments related to the state’s electoral system on Nov. 5. Proposition 140 and Proposition 133 both address primary elections. Proposition 140 would establish primaries in which candidates, regardless of partisan affiliation, appear on a single ballot. Proposition 133 would require partisan primaries.

Arizona is one of four states with measures on the ballot that aim to replace partisan primaries. The other states are Idaho, Nevada, and South Dakota. Arizona is one of two states with measures that aim to prohibit open primaries. The other state is Alaska.

As Propositions 140 and 133 conflict, the one with the most votes will be enacted should both receive at least a majority of votes.

Currently, Arizona has semi-closed partisan primaries, where independents can vote in the partisan primary election of their choice. The candidate who receives the most votes advances to the general election, where the candidate competes against other political parties’ nominees and independent candidates. This is slightly different for the Arizona House of Representatives, which has two representatives per district. Two candidates can, therefore, advance to the general election from each partisan primary.

Arizona is one of 15 states where at least one political party uses semi-closed primaries for congressional and state-level elections.

Proposition 140 is a citizen initiative and election officials certified it for the ballot on Aug. 15. In addition to the proposed changes noted above, it would also:

• require candidates to receive a majority of votes in general elections;
• require the use of ranked-choice voting in general elections when three or more candidates advance from the primaries (for one-winner general elections); and
• prohibit using public funds to administer partisan primaries at the federal, state, and local levels, except for presidential preference primaries that allow independents to participate.

Make Elections Fair PAC is the group supporting the proposition. Other supporters include former officials such as House Speaker Russell Bowers (R), Rep. Cesar Chavez (D), Attorney General Terry Goddard (D), Rep. Aaron Lieberman (D), and Gov. John Fife Symington III (R).

Sarah Smallhouse, chair of the Make Elections Fair PAC, said, “With independent and unaffiliated voters now accounting for the largest part of the Arizona electorate it’s illogical to confine voter choices in the primaries to the very parties they’ve chosen to separate from. Let all candidates compete, let the voters decide and let the best candidates win.”

Jeff DeWit, former chair 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 Arizona Free Enterprise Club has sued the state, saying the initiative violates the state constitution’s separate-vote requirement. The Maricopa County Superior Court ruled in favor of the state on Aug. 9. The case has been appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Proposition 140 isn’t the first ballot initiative to try to change Arizona’s primaries. In 2012, voters rejected Proposition 121, a citizen initiative to replace partisan primaries with top-two primaries, 66.93%-33.07%.

The Arizona Legislature referred a competing measure, Proposition 133, to the ballot. If approved, it would add much of the existing primary system to the Arizona Constitution while prohibiting primaries where all candidates, regardless of partisan affiliation, run in the same primaries.

Republican legislators unanimously voted to put Proposition 133 on the ballot, while Democratic legislators unanimously voted against the measure (except for two who did not vote). A simple majority vote is required during one legislative session for the Arizona Legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot.

Recall effort against four members of the Milwaukee Public Schools Board fails to go to a vote

The Milwaukee Election Commission announced on Aug. 19 that the MPS School Board Recall Collaborative did not collect enough signatures to recall Milwaukee Public Schools Board of School Directors At-Large Representative Missy Zombor. On Aug. 15, the commission said the collaborative did not collect enough signatures to recall District 1 Representative Marva Herndon, District 2 Representative Erika Siemsen, and District 5 Representative Jilly Gokalgandhi. Herndon is the president of the board and Gokalgandhi is the vice president.

According to the collaborative’s website, the group launched the recall effort because it was “increasingly frustrated with the persistent issues plaguing the school system: budget mismanagement, lack of transparency, and ineffective leadership.” One of the collaborative’s organizers, Tamika Johnson, said the collaborative decided to recall Herndon, Siemsen, Gokalgandhi, and Zombor because it believed those four members “played a huge role in deception and not being transparent with the community.”

The targeted officials said they understood the community’s frustration, welcomed the Democratic process of recall, and would continue fighting for Milwaukee’s public schools.

Background

Between May and June, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction sent two letters to the school board and superintendent, saying the state was temporarily withholding the district’s $16.6 million June 2024 Special Education Aid payment because of overdue financial reports. At the time, some data was over eight months overdue. The department ultimately released the June payment after the board agreed to follow a corrective action plan from the department. In light of the department’s letters, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers (D) called for two audits of the school district.

In June, the school district parted ways with the superintendent, the chief financial officer, and the comptroller.

Path to the ballot

To get the recall on the ballot, the collaborative had 60 days to collect signatures equal to 25% of the votes cast in the last gubernatorial election for each jurisdiction. The collaborative needed to gather 5,137 signatures for Herndon, 6,809 for Siemsen, 7,759 for Gokalgandhi, and 44,177 for Zombor. According to the commission, the group submitted 1,741 signatures for Herndon, 215 for Siemsen, 300 for Gokalgandhi, and 27,531 for Zombor.

Reactions

All four of the targeted officials spoke to The Milwaukee Sentinel after the recall effort failed:

1. Herndon said, “I know for sure that in my community, I’ve been well-known for many, many years and that is true for some of the other directors as well. People know what we do in the community with our schools and with our students, and I think this is proof.”
2. Siemsen said, “Most of the people I talked to at community events or people who have reached out to me directly had concerns but felt that the board was taking action to correct anything that needed to be corrected and felt like the board had been responsible in their response to the situation.”
3. Gokalgandhi said she was thankful the commission was able to verify the number of signatures “in such an efficient manner to keep the public abreast.” She also said that she believes in their verification process.
4. Zombor said, “We’re gearing up to welcome 68,000 students back to school. This is an exciting and joyful time of year. It’s a time of year of new beginnings, so I’m grateful to continue to serve Milwaukee Public Schools’ students and families.”

The collaborative’s Tamika Johnson said the group will “persist in pushing for the removal of elected officials who exploit our students and Milwaukee residents.”

Beyond Milwaukee

Twenty-three states allow voters to recall school board members. Besides the Milwaukee Public Schools recall, two other school board recall efforts happened in Wisconsin in 2024. The recall effort against Kevin Vodak of the Baraboo School District did not go to a vote. The recall effort in the Raymond School District filed petitions against Gwen Keller and Janell Wise. Keller resigned and Wise won her recall election, defeating the effort.

We’ve tracked 33 school board recall efforts nationwide against 72 board members this year. Recall elections against six of those board members are scheduled to be held on Aug. 27, Oct. 1, and Nov. 5. Earlier recall elections in 2024 removed seven members from office and retained five.

Between 2009 and 2023, we tracked an average of 35 recall efforts against an average of 81 school board members each year. A total of 19.28% of the school board members included in the efforts faced recall elections, and 10.21% of school board members were removed from office.

Did you know that nine states allow citizens to initiate indirect state statutes? Those states are Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

According to this kind of citizen initiative, campaigns present the initiative to the state legislature once supporters collect enough verified signatures. Lawmakers then have a certain number of days to decide if they want to vote to adopt the initiative into law. If they take no action or reject the initiative, it is put on the ballot for voters to decide.

In contrast to the indirect initiative, a direct initiative goes to the ballot after signatures are verified. Twenty-five states have at least one form of a direct initiative.