By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
PHOENIX -- Ignoring threats to be sued themselves, members of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission voted Friday to go to court to block the No Labels Party from rebranding itself as the Arizona Independent Party.
On a 4-1 margin the panel voted to challenge the decision last month by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to permit the change in name. Commission members have contended the name change is not only illegal but could confuse people who, when registering to vote, want to be truly independent of any party but find themselves signed up with the Arizona Independent Party.
That concern drew derision from Paul Johnson who chairs the newly renamed party. He said the purpose of the party is to provide a home for independents who believe they are not represented by either of the two major parties.
More to the point, he said by having such a party -- and naming it that way -- it makes it easier for independents to actually run for office.
That's because someone running for statewide office as a true independent -- meaning unaffiliated with any party -- needs about 45,000 signatures to get on the general election ballot; it takes only about 6,000 to try to become the nominee for the Republican or Democratic party. And it would take far less to vie to be the nominee of the Arizona Independent Party.
And Johnson accused the commission of doing the bidding of the two major parties who want to continue to make it more difficult for independents to run for office, get on the general election ballot -- and compete for votes.
``This is lawfare by candidates and by parties who don't want the 35% of the people who are independent to be able to participate,'' he said..
And Johnson, backed by attorneys representing the Arizona Independent Party, said if the commission goes ahead with the lawsuit they will be fighting not just Fontes.
``We're going to follow our constitutional rights,'' he said.
``And we're going to make a fight out of this,'' Johnson continued. ``We're not going to just walk away from it.''
Fontes, however, believes the law is on his side.
``The Secretary (of State's) Office has no authority to block a party from changing its name if it chooses to do so,'' said Fontes press aide Calli Jones. She said that constitutional rights of free speech, free association and equal protection apparently provide such protection.
And Jones said this isn't about protecting political parties, even with Fontes as a Democrat seeking reelection next year.
``We are a neutral filing office,'' she said. ``And we will always interpret the law objectively and treat political parties fairly.''
Collins, however, said that ignores the possibility of voter confusion.
``The name they chose has a pre-defined use in Arizona law,'' he said.
For example, the statutes define an ``independent candidate'' as someone who is not affiliated with any party who has filed nomination papers following procedures set in state law. And it even spells out how the commission, which provides public funds for candidates who decline special interest donations, determines how much someone gets in financial aid.
But Anthony Raminez, an attorney representing the Arizona Independent Party, said there's no basis for legal objections by the commission.
``The letter to the Arizona secretary of state does not identify fraud, wrongdoing, or any statutory violation,'' he told commissioners. ``It relies instead on speculative concerns, vague confusion, and generalized administrative burden -- precisely rationale the U.S. Supreme Court has warned government officials cannot be used to suppress new or independent parties.''
And he, like Johnson, said the objections have political overtones.
``The Arizona Clean Election Commission cannot protect the comfort of the two major parties by burdening new competitors,'' Ramirez said.
There's also something else.
Ramirez said nothing in the voter-approved statutes which created the commission in 1998 gives it the power over political parties.
``This is not your role,'' he said. ``This is not your mandate and it is absolutely not your legal authority.''
What that means is that one of the first issues a judge will need to decide is if the commission has the legal ``standing'' to sue in the first place.
Courts generally require a plaintiff to show a particularized injury if they are challenging a law or legal action. And without it, a case goes away even before its merits are decided.
Collins, however, said the commission's role, aside from administering public financing for candidates, specifically includes voter education. And he said any move that undermines the ability of voters to understand the process runs afoul of that.
Friday's meeting also raised another concern.
There are about 47,000 people who signed up with the No Labels Party. And the move by Fontes appears to now automatically change their registration to the Arizona Independent Party.
That drew a complaint from Richard Grayson who is a member of the No Labels Party and ran as its nominee earlier this year in the special election in CD 7 to replace Raul Grijalva.
He argued that the Arizona Independent Party is not simply a home for those who don't align with the major parties. Instead, he said, it has a belief system of its own.
As proof, he cited the party's web page which, among its beliefs, lists the U.S. military as being the ``strongest in the world,'' supports ``strong borders and a workable immigration system,'' and an ``all-of-the-above energy strategy'' including oil, gas, nuclear and renewables.''
``So it's not an independent party,'' Grayson said. ``They have an ideology.''
But Jones, speaking for Fontes, said if voters are unhappy with their new party affiliation they are free to change it, something that can be done online.
Johnson said it wouldn't be necessary to have an Arizona Independent Party to make it easier for candidates to qualify for the ballot had voters in 2012 approved a system of open primaries, where all candidates from all parties -- and even political independents -- would run against each other. Then the top two vote-getters then would run against each other in the November general election, even if both were from the same party or no party at all.
It was defeated by a 2-1 margin with heavy funding against it from the Arizona Republican Party.
Backers were back with a similar measure in 2024 for open primaries along with ranked-choice voting. It fared only slightly better, picking up just 41.3% of the vote.
--
On X, Bluesky, and Threads: @azcapmedia