On August 6, Arizona Superior Court Judge Mark H. Brain ruled that the initiative for a Top-Two Open Primary violates the single-subject rule, and therefore cannot be on the November ballot. He found that the portion of the initiative that eliminates elections for party committee members is not the same subject as imposing a top-two primary for public office. The decision is Save Our Vote v Bennett, cv2012-010717.
It is extremely likely that the proponents will appeal this decision to the Arizona Supreme Court.
The question is not whether using public funds to elect party officers is good or bad policy, but whether using public funds to elect party officers is the same subject, or a different subject, that changing the method by which public officers are elected.
This is exactly what I told the "Open Government Committee" not to do when this was being developed. The process I spoke to them about was first, any party can pay for any selection process they want to use to designate their candidate choices. Then these party choices, any other party members, independents, and write-ins would be on the open primary ballot funded by the tax payers. To make this work, the entry to get on the ballot must be as equal as possible.
The open primary voting could result with a winner if a candidate gets 60%+ votes. Otherwise you then go to the Top Two in the General Election. This could make an uncontested candidate still having to convince the electorate, as any write-in could get enough votes to cause the voters' to force a General Election.
Another twist, if the turnout is under a certain % value, there will always be a Top Two General Election.
NYC Wins When Everyone Can Vote!
Michael H. Drucker
Technorati Tag in Del.icio.us 
No comments:
Post a Comment