The principal objective of the top-two primary initiative shouldn't be sugarcoated.
It isn't to increase voter turnout or eliminate discriminatory barriers to independent candidates. Those might be desired byproducts. But they are not the main event.
The principal objective, the main event, is to reduce the influence of conservative Republicans in state government and politics. Those who don't like the outcomes of Arizona elections want to change those outcomes by changing the rules.
It's really about reducing conservative power
Plainly stating the principal objective shouldn't settle the argument, even for conservative Republicans. For there is something else that should be plainly stated: The current system of partisan primaries doesn't fit today's political demography in Arizona.
Under the current system, state law establishes conditions for having a political party recognized. Taxpayers pay for recognized parties to hold primary elections to select their general election candidates. Parties get other advantages, such as preferential access to the voter roll.
Independents do have to gather more signatures to get on the ballot than party candidates. But, then again, independents go directly to the general election ballot. They don't face the risk of getting knocked off in a primary.
Under the top-two system, all candidates face off against each other in the primary, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof. Some refer to it as a jungle primary.
The two top vote-getters then move to the general election, again regardless of party affiliation. So, the general election could feature two Democrats or two Republicans running off against each other.
There's a better argument to make for change
The theory is that successful candidates in a top-two system have to appeal to a broader segment of the electorate, advantaging more centrist, moderate candidates.
That, however, isn't the best argument for making the change. The best argument is that the current system, with taxpayer-paid preferential ballot access for political parties, is impossible to justify given current registration trends in Arizona.
A plurality of Arizonans are now registering independent. What is the justification for taxpayer-paid party primaries and preferential ballot access when a plurality of Arizonans are opting not to affiliate with a political party? There really isn't any.
On the other hand, parties shouldn't lose control over who gets to run on their label. On this issue, the top-two primary supporters play some games.
The logical reform, based upon their critique of the current system and current political demography, would be to have true, non-partisan elections. No party labels of any sort on government ballots. Political parties would be purely private associations.
Proponents still don't have it totally right
For whatever reason, top-two proponents haven't been willing to do it right. Last time around, in 2012, they had a silly provision that enabled any candidate to invent his own party and get that slogan on the official ballot. And the party affiliation of candidates would be on the ballot, irrespective of whether they actually had the support of that party.
In 2012, top-two primary proponents got smoked, losing two to one. This time around, they are punting on the party affiliation issue.
The ability to invent your own party and get a slogan on the ballot is gone. Whether party labels are on the ballot at all is left to the legislative bodies in charge of setting the rules for the election.
That's less than optimal. Government shouldn't be in the business of putting party labels on a ballot without the parties having any say about which candidates can use them. But that is no longer a direct consequence of passing the initiative.
Don't expect a lot from the changes
The top-two primary is just the latest attempt to reduce the influence of conservative Republicans by changing election rules. Previous attempts include allowing independents to vote in partisan primaries, public campaign financing, and an independent redistricting commission.
Despite these efforts, the Arizona Legislature has just gotten more conservative, as has the Republican delegation in Congress.
I suspect the top-two primary will similarly disappoint. Voter turnout is a function of political interest, and political intensity is concentrated around the conservative and liberal nodes. My guess is that pretty much the same people will turn out and elect the same kind of candidates. Change will be highly marginal.
Nevertheless, a top-two primary system better fits today's political demography. And that's hard to argue with.
Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com[1].
References
- ^ robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com (www.azcentral.com)
