Description of Arizona's open primaries ballot measure is biased, suit alleges

Backers of a citizen initiative that would change Arizona's elections say the way lawmakers want to describe the measure to the public is backward and misleading.

Supporters of the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act are asking a court to reword the description to strike a neutral tone. They argue in a lawsuit filed Wednesday in Maricopa County Superior Court that the language approved by a legislative panel detracts from the measure's main goal of opening up elections to voters of all stripes.

By making an early reference to ranked-choice voting, a controversial proposal in some political circles, the description implies that is the main goal of the act, attorney Andrew Pappas wrote on behalf of the committee that is promoting the initiative.

In fact, he wrote, any kind of voter ranking of candidates would only be permitted — not required — for a general election and only if the Legislature, the secretary of state or the people decide to do so.

"The decision to amplify voter rankings over the mandated changes to primary elections has no rational basis, and the Legislative Council offered none," Pappas said.

"This choice resulted in a biased analysis that buries the primary-election reforms the Initiative requires."

The Legislative Council is a bipartisan panel of lawmakers. They are required to review descriptions of ballot propositions prepared by staff attorneys and ensure they are impartial. The descriptions are published in a publicity pamphlet mailed to all Arizona voters ahead of the Nov. 5 election.

What would the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act actually do?

The Make Elections Fair Arizona Act would create open primaries, where all candidates for an office compete, regardless of political affiliation. It would replace the current system of partisan primaries that are open only to members of a given political party, even though the election is funded by all taxpayers.

The act suggests a range of how many candidates would advance from a primary, ranging from two to as many as eight. The Legislature — or if it does not act, the secretary of state or the voters at large — would determine how many names would be put on the general election ballot.

The act also would create a level political playing field for independent candidates, who currently face higher hurdles to run for office. The act would require the same number of voter signatures on nomination petitions for independents as it does for Republicans and Democrats. Currently, independents can be required to gather as many as six times more signatures than partisan candidates.

And it would benefit independent voters by ensuring their tax dollars would no longer be used to fund partisan primaries.

What kind of changes do supporters want to see?

The complaint filed Wednesday argues the council's description of the act is backward, leading with what it would allow, instead of what it would require. A clearer approach would be to lay out for voters what would change if the act passed, then follow with other changes it would allow, the complaint states.

The Joint Legislative Council earlier this month voted 14-0 to approve the language that would describe the Make Elections Fair Act in a publicity pamphlet that is mailed to all voters.

The complaint notes lawmakers might have had an ulterior motive for the phrasing of the description: They want to keep partisan primaries. It notes the Legislature has already referred a competing measure to the ballot, Proposition 133, which would enshrine partisan primaries in the state Constitution.

This is the second challenge to the council's work.

Supporters of the Arizona Abortion Access Act for Arizona are in court, arguing the word "fetus" should replace the term "unborn human being" in the publicity pamphlet description. That would make the language consistent with medical terminology and keep the description neutral, they argue.

The case is pending in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Reach the reporter at maryjo.pitzl@arizonarepublic.com or at 602-228-7566 and follow her on Threads as well as on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, @maryjpitzl .

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Description of Arizona's open primaries ballot measure is biased, suit alleges