99 Percent Of Challenged Signatures For Arizona’s Ranked-Choice Voting Ballot Initiative Are Duplicates
A court-appointed special master report revealed on Tuesday that roughly 99 percent of challenged signatures collected for a pro-ranked-choice voting Arizona ballot measure are duplicates.
In his report, court-ordered Special Master and retired Arizona Superior Court Judge Christopher Skelly disclosed that 37,657 pairs of signatures gathered in support of Proposition 140 are, in fact, duplicates. As argued by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club (AZFEC), this discovery “now place[s] Proposition 140 thousands of signatures under the constitutionally required signature threshold to qualify for the [November] ballot.”
Proposition 140 would amend the Arizona Constitution by instituting an open primary system in which candidates of all parties run in the same primary. It also paves the way for the state to potentially adopt ranked-choice voting (RCV) for general elections.
Under an RCV system, voters are asked to rank candidates of all parties in order of preference. If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of first-choice votes in the first round of voting, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and his votes are reallocated to the voter’s second-choice candidate. This process continues until one candidate receives a majority of votes.
As described by AZ Free News, Skelly’s report noted how “hundreds of the alleged duplicates were overruled and removed from consideration and 3,333 were removed from consideration by agreement of attorneys on both sides,” and that “[w]hile the signatures were classed into ‘exact matches’ and ‘near matches,’ Skelly [wrote] that he was instructed to ‘not read anything into those descriptions and … did not.’”
“Plaintiffs had proved by clear and convincing evidence that 37,657 signatures were duplicates — that the same person had signed more than once,” Skelly concluded.
The former judge was appointed to investigate the validity of Proposition 140 signatures by the Maricopa County Superior Court.
On Aug. 23, the Arizona Supreme Court allowed the signature challenge to Proposition 140 to move forward and said that if it’s determined there are enough invalid signatures to disqualify the initiative from appearing on the November ballot, it “should issue an injunction precluding any votes for the measure from being counted,” as the state already started printing ballots. The high court issued a subsequent ruling on Monday vacating that statement and permitting the initiative’s supporters to make their arguments in the trial court that, as Chief Justice Ann Timmer summarized, “Arizona courts lack the authority to grant such a remedy under Arizona law.”
The high court did not close the door on issuing an injunction voiding votes cast for the measure if it’s confirmed it lacks enough valid signatures, however.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Frank Moskowitz heard arguments on the matter during a Wednesday hearing. An expedited decision is expected sometime Thursday.
The Legal Battle Rages On
Questions surrounding the validity of Prop 140’s signatures haven’t deterred defendants from attempting to ensure votes toward the initiative are counted this November.
Prior to the Arizona Supreme Court’s Monday ruling and the release of Skelly’s findings, the Make Elections Fair PAC, the group behind Prop 140, and Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes filed separate court motions requesting that votes for the measure be counted — even if the courts determined it lacked the number of valid signatures to appear on the ballot.
“By allowing this litigation to continue beyond the start of the ballot-printing process, the [Arizona Supreme Court’s Aug. 23] order breaks with eight decades of precedent that petition challenges must end before the ballot printing begins,” Make Elections Fair’s brief reads, according to The Arizona Republic.
Meanwhile, Fontes argued the Arizona Constitution does include provisions allowing “a measure to go to the ballot, and allow millions of voters to vote on it, only for those votes to be invalidated.” Nor does the constitution or state law, he contended, permit the secretary “not to canvass a contest on the ballot.”
Fontes is a team member of Save Democracy Arizona, an organization backing Prop 140. The group’s website contains a page advocating for the initiative and directly links to Make Elections Fair’s homepage.
AZFEC President Scot Mussi issued letters last week asking Arizona’s legislative leadership as well as Attorney General Kris Mayes and Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell to investigate Fontes over an “apparent misuse of official resources to promote Proposition 140.” Mussi cited the secretary’s Save Democracy Arizona membership and court filing.
“Secretary Fontes’ personal endorsement of Proposition 140 is lawful; the use of his office to promote its legal or political fortunes is not,” the letters read. “[T]he Secretary’s insertion of his office into the Proposition 140 litigation departs from the office’s longstanding policy of neutrality in such disputes.”
When pressed by The Federalist for comment on Mussi’s allegations, Fontes Deputy Communications Director JP Martin said he did not believe he could provide a response from the secretary by publication and offered “no comment at this time.”
The More Voters Learn About RCV, the Less They Like It
Even if Proposition 140 is ultimately authorized by the courts, newly unearthed data indicates it faces an uphill battle in receiving voters’ approval.
Polling conducted by Data Orbital and obtained by The Federalist shows that the more Arizona voters learn about how Prop 140 would transform their elections, the less likely they are to support it.
When provided the summary of the initiative as described on the November ballot and asked how they would vote “if the election were today,” 46.5 percent of respondents said they would “strongly” or “somewhat” support it. Roughly one-third of those surveyed (32 percent) said they would “strongly” or “somewhat” oppose the amendment, while 18 percent said they would be “undecided.”
When respondents were given opponents’ arguments against Prop 140, however, support for the initiative declined by 13.5 percent. Data Orbital said that opponents classified the proposition as a “sprawling measure that adds 15 separate amendments to the Arizona constitution to implement California-style election schemes in Arizona.”
After hearing such arguments, only 28.1 percent said they would still “strongly” or somewhat” support Prop 140, while 41.7 percent indicated opposition to it. The percentage of those undecided also rose to 23.2 percent. (The survey was conducted among 550 Arizonans from Sept. 7-9 and has a margin of error of 4.26 percent, according to Data Orbital.)
Honest Elections Project Executive Director Jason Snead told The Federalist the poll’s data telegraphs that even if Proposition 140 “somehow survives the ongoing court challenge, it is headed for defeat in November.”
“This is hardly surprising; even the group behind this measure knows that ranked-choice voting is unpopular, which is why a leaked polling memo advised them to resort to messaging that doesn’t even mention ranked-choice voting,” Snead said.
Arizona Prop 140 Polling by The Federalist on Scribd
For more election news and updates, visit electionbriefing.com.
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
