39 Comments

Prop 140 has consistently polled above 52%. That despite noise from both parties opposing it.

So let's skip to the part where the 2026 election has two survivors of the open primary running for election to our State Legislature. Which is where almost all clear thinking folks expect this to go. (not 5 or any other number - just 2).

The Center for the Future of Arizona has told us for years what the vast majority of voters from both parties want -- properly funded schools always (almost) tops that list.

Imagine an Arizona election where every competitive candidate promises a vision for moving Arizona out of absolutely last place in funding. And in Ratios of Students to Teachers.

Where the question is not "If We Do It" -- But how we do it, how fast, and how much. That's an amazing thought. And once again - far more than "good enough" reason to vote yes on 140.

Too bad my last kids just graduated. They never once attended a decently funded school in their 15 years from Pre-K in 2010 through 2024. Their first year the State first slashed school funding. During their 1st and 2nd grade years the M&O Override failed, teacher pay was cut, and 120 SUSD Teachers received RIF Notices.

Their High School years would have been worse, had they not joined their Teachers to walk out in 2018.

Two thousand SUSD kids who graduated last year all suffered that same decade and a half of abuse. As did 80,000+ seniors throughout the State.

Prop 140 will do far more than just move the dial a little. It will change the lives of the next generations of kids. It will change the lives of Teachers who don't want to take a vow of poverty just to teach - but do.

As a side bonus, I can't wait to see Koloden, Chaplick and Kavanagh shuffled out. Already giddy about that moment. Too bad Ugenti-Rita isn't still in office. I'd love to see the look on her face when she came in 6th out of 6.

Expand full comment

We have a chance to achieve actual governance if Proposition 140 passes. Citizens are beyond tired of spending millions of dollars on a party dominated Legislature that is more interested in "gotcha" politics than leading our State toward a better version of itself. Michael is right; it is a tragedy that his children were never provided the educational boost our abysmal school funding debacle shorted them on. We must do better--and Proposition 140 offers the chance to demonstrate that we can. The parties can continue to play their game, but on their dime, not ours. And, if we are persistent, leaders will emerge who choose to collaborate on solutions to real issues we have known about for years. YES on 140 is a vote for governance that serves, not obscures.

Expand full comment

Prop 140 is worth it if all it ever accomplishes is properly funded education. Including Charters. They're just as starved as Districts.

Expand full comment

Given that the 2.5% flat tax is now in effect, we are going to have to prioritize education at the expense of other budget items. It is difficult to imagine raising tax rates to accommodate all the needs of the citizens. That is what is wrong with having rate cuts based on 50% of legislators & tax increases at higher percentages of legislators.

Expand full comment

The State Land Trust could solve two problems. Activate land for housing. And generate revenue for schools.

Just think what the 33,000 acre McDowell Sonoran Preserve could accomplish if the ugly segments of that land was put up for 99 year leases instead of what it became.

Expand full comment

My impression is that the Arizona Republican Party doesn’t like Prop 140 because it will reduce the influence of the more extreme members that control the party now and many Arizona Democrats don’t like Prop 140 because less extreme Republican candidates probably means a slower shift in the balance of power between parties in AZ.

As an independent, it sounds like a great idea and I voted yes.

Expand full comment

I think you stated that issue perfectly. And I agree.

Expand full comment

Left unsaid is whether the candidates will have their party designation after their name on the ballot. No one seems to have an answer. If party designations are not present and voters do not have information about the candidates, a frequent occurrence with down ballot races, how will they decide?

Every election will be a judicial retention election.

Expand full comment

Under Prop 140, it will be up to the legislature to decide if party affiliations can be listed on the ballot, but the amendment says: "IF APPLICABLE LAW ALLOWS A CANDIDATE TO LIST THE CANDIDATE'S POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION NEXT TO THE CANDIDATE'S NAME ON THE BALLOT, THE BALLOT MUST ALSO INCLUDE A STATEMENT THAT A CANDIDATE'S POLITICAL PARTY AFFILIATION IS NOT AN INDICATION THAT A CANDIDATE HAS BEEN NOMINATED OR ENDORSED BY THAT POLITICAL PARTY, BUT ONLY REFLECTS THE POLITICAL PARTY REGISTRATION OF THE CANDIDATE."

(If 140 passes, I'm sure y'all will allow for party affiliations to be listed on the ballot, given how partisan the legislature is... for now ... mwaaa hahaha 😎)

Expand full comment

John, the onus is on you as the candidate to introduce yourself to voters. Hopefully, you will bring your best to compete with other candidates who likewise are introducing themselves to voters. Competition is always better than non-competition for effective voting.

I agree with you that judicial retention is more difficult for voters since there is no "running for office" in the first place. As I recall, judges aren't allowed to run a campaign when they are on the ballot. So we are stuck with information which is more difficult to process. But just because it is more difficult doesn't mean that it isn't worthwhile.

Expand full comment

I have great faith in the ability of the AZ GOP to keep its constituents informed. The yellow cards on my door tell me precisely which School Haters should be elected - to the Legislature, State Office, and, of course, District Governing Boards.

Promising to defund Schools will immediately become the greatest way to assure a loss. Maintaining the current abysmal funding will be the second sure fire reason to lose. The Decade and a half of attrocious State funding will come to an end.

Good riddance to those who imposed that pain on our schools.

Expand full comment

My attitude is the current system under highly gerrymandered districts keeps electing folks like Gosar and gives us a state legislature that refuses to approve department heads bc the gov is a D and continues to three money at affluent parents sending kids to private schools and their friends and family running businesses ancillary to "non profit" charter schools. Time to try something different.

Expand full comment

I predict a stampede of folks ready to run against Gosar.

Expand full comment

Hope so. I have a hard time believing anyone could be worse. Even Biggs isn't as delusional.

Expand full comment

Prop 140 can definitely weed out the crazy stuff that AZ has the reputation for. Far lefts & far rights wont like it but great things will get done sooner.

Expand full comment

A somewhat confusing Proposition. To say the least. I have changed party affiliation in the past to vote in another partys primary. Looks like it is split nearly 50-50. Just like so many items. Anybody miss Sam Steiger?

Expand full comment

😂😂

Expand full comment

I am a registered I for the same reason. I am a D in my soul, but a realist and there were times I lived in districts that were reliably R. I wanted to vote for the least crazy R. Now, they are mostly all crazy.

Expand full comment

Thanks for the great explanation - Hope it passes!

Expand full comment

Way to minimize one of the most significant risks of Prop 140 —

Shorter Prop 140:

Ds, relinquish your hard fought wins the last 15 years and hand the keys to the Kingdom over to Ducey-like Rs for the next decade.

They ultimately squeaked by — but WA folks were sweating this open primary outcome:

washingtonstatestandard.com/2024/08/07/rep…

Expand full comment

Your link to the WA story is broken.

You’d need at least a 67% solid Republican voter base to have two Republicans knock out a Democrat challenger, and we don’t have that in any legislative district, nor statewide. So I’m kinda scratching my head about why that’s a real risk for Ds. Alaska is redder than AZ and they just had a Dem beat out Palin in 2022 with open primaries and ranked choice.

//views my own

Expand full comment

It might be that thinking the Dem's have almost reached parity in a State about as heavily gerrymandered as the R's could have possibly done, and by proving your better with one hand tied behind your back means an even more impressive victory...?

I'm all for 140, I think especially with rank-choice voting there will be a whole lot more capable people willing to run. I can totally see why the major parties don't want this.

Expand full comment

A return to the Republican Party of McCain, Woods, and Flake would be a restoration of sanity. I'm positive I'm not the only R who tore up their card since 2019. I'd enjoy choosing between a moderate R and an equally moderate D. Especially since each would need a lot of I's to win.

Expand full comment

My DH is like you. When I met him 40byears ago he was squarely R - now, doubt that that pendulum can swing back enough forbhim to vote R (or its replacement) while we are still above ground.

Expand full comment

I want to see more progressive Ds elected not more moderate Rs. Prop 140 is the Hail Mary pass of the moderate Rs at the expense of progressive Ds. Not a deal I am interested in . . .

Expand full comment

How do you suggest that might be accomplished? Moderate Rs and Is could get elected. Progressive Ds only get elected when they run against a Kari Lake freak.

Expand full comment

Statewide races and unlimited political spending — can buy the November ballot — as almost happened in Washington State:

https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2024/08/07/republicans-hold-top-two-spots-in-wa-lands-commissioner-race-will-it-last/

Expand full comment

This piece is terrific, but I don’t understand the subject line.

Seems like the idea is to explain the initiative in simple terms, but the subject line seems pejorative. I wonder why?

Rob Draper

Tucson, AZ

Expand full comment

What can I say -- I'm a sucker for catchy titles.

Expand full comment

I’ll be glad when it passes so I don’t have to keep changing parties for each primary season. It will be interesting to see if party affiliation changes. Independents may pick a side, or not.

Expand full comment

Thanks for this article - I found the proposition confusing and this was very helpful

Expand full comment

Prop 400 is an attempt by the Chamber of Commerce to ensure that the legislature is always well stocked with corporatists. Conservatives and progressives are both "inconvenient" roadblocks to Arizona's largest corporations using the state as a perpetual piggy-bank to re-distribute taxpayer money to them. That is why conservatives and progressives both hate Prop 140. Here's how it works:

1. If the legislature and governor can't agree on a bill within one year, the Secretary of State gets to unilaterally re-write Arizona election law concerning primaries and, if he so desires, implement a ranked-choice voting system of his choosing.

2. After having a free-hand to re-write Arizona election law to his own advantage, the Secretary of State then primaries Hobbs.

3. The state legislature gets an establishment majority. While there will still be Rs and Ds, and we will still make a great show about fighting over things, behind the scenes everyone will raise a glass and toast to the public being robbed blind to the benefit of their cronies.

Expand full comment

Maybe you can explain some of this.

1, What does "Secretary of State then primaries Hobbs" mean? I don't see how Hobbs wont be on the 2026 general ballot, regardless of open/closed primaries, top-two/RCV.

2, How will open primaries and/or RCV lead to "an establishment majority"? Is your thinking that "all moderates are corporate establishment" as a rule?

3, Do you see no hope for popular independent candidates who moderate on wedge issues but also reformers on class issues?

Expand full comment

1. I mean just what I said, Fontes has been positioning himself to take her out in the next election. Getting to choose the number of candidates, as well as how candidates will be weighted in a ranked choice system, will surely help with this.

2. Yes. And that has also been my experience in the legislature.

3. No I don't. As general rules I posit: (i) To fight to reform the fundamentals of the power structure, or, what you crudely term "class", one must be a radical, and (ii) moderates are not radicals.

Expand full comment

Thanks. I wasn't familiar with the political lingo of "to primary someone" as in beating someone in the primaries.

I agree with your general rules as far as the status quo, but I hope we start seeing some candidates who are moderate on the wedges and radical on the power structure reforms. I know they're out there as people, but I don't see them running as candidates (yet).

Expand full comment

Look man, all I can say is there is a reason that the Walton family and the Arizona Banker's Association are supporting this and it ain't to bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat!

Expand full comment

You’d be a fun person to talk political philosophy with. And I owe you a call about water policy anyway.

Expand full comment

Any time (although maybe wait until after the election)!

Expand full comment