Do bruising defeats mean the end of open primaries as a reform?

Looking at the electoral challenge somewhat differently.

The open primary initiative this election, Proposition 140, failed badly, gathering just 41% of the vote. An earlier attempt in 2012, Proposition 121, did even worse, attracting just 33% of the vote.

Does that mean that an open primary is dead as a reform measure, the political equivalent of Brussels sprouts that the body politic just refuses to eat? I don’t think so, although I openly admit that this might be what Samuel Johnson, in a wildly different context, deemed the triumph of hope over experience.

In my view, the reform was premature in 2012. In Arizona, there was not the widespread dissatisfaction with the nominees of the two major parties that exists today. The Democratic Party produced nominees and general election victors of the caliber of Janet Napolitano and Terry Goddard. Our two U.S. senators were Republicans John McCain and Jon Kyl, both nationally significant legislators. There wasn’t really a case to be made in 2012 that the two-party system was broken.

Napolitano and Goddard might still be able to win a Democratic primary today. However, Kyrsten Sinema, a pragmatic center-left politician and a highly effective legislator, was chased out of the party. I don’t think McCain or Kyl could win a contested primary in today’s MAGA Republican Party. For a broad segment of the body politic, there is now a case to be made that the two-party system has become a hindrance to good governance and authentic democratic expression.

However, I think Proposition 140 had a fatal design flaw that doomed its prospects.

Proposition 140 would have created an open primary, in which all candidates compete on an equal basis in a primary election open, also on an equal basis, to all voters. No more requiring independents to select a ballot from a party they have consciously chosen not to affiliate with in order to participate.

From there, however, the initiative punted on what was to happen in the general election. It could take the form of a top-two system, in which the top two vote-getters in the primary, irrespective of party affiliation or lack thereof, moved on to the general, winner take all. Or multiple candidates could move on to the general election, with the final decision rendered through ranked-choice voting. In ranked-choice voting, the candidate receiving the fewest first preference votes is eliminated and those votes redistributed to the second preference selections. The process is continued until one candidate has a majority of the redistributed votes.

The proposition left the decision as to whether to go top-two or ranked-choice up to the Legislature. And if the Legislature failed to act, the secretary of state would make the decision unilaterally.

Voters naturally regard the general election as the more important one, in which the final selection of who holds the office is made. Leaving how this decision was to be made up in the air was fatal in its own right. Deferring the decision to the Legislature or a single politician was the nail in the coffin.

The open-primary reform movement is divided between those who would prefer a top-two general and those who want ranked-choice among multiple candidates. One of the lessons of Prop. 140’s defeat should be the end of ranked-choice as an option.

I believe that top-two makes for superior democratic decisions. As a pragmatic matter, however, ranked-choice is complicated and difficult to explain in a campaign in which simplicity is an advantage. Top-two resembles the existing system with which voters are familiar, just reduces the disproportionate influence of partisan primary voters in determining the general election nominees. Moreover, as a practical matter, ranked-choice just doesn’t fit Arizona, given the large number of elected positions in the state.

In 2022, there were 13 elected positions up for grabs that would be potentially subject to ranked-choice voting under Prop. 140. So, under the existing system and under a top-two system, voters had 13 distinct choices to make in the general election. If there were four candidates for each seat under ranked-choice, voters filling out their ballot completely would have 52 distinct decisions to make, marking all candidates for all races in order of preference. That’s too big of a democratic ask and too big of a sell in a ballot measure campaign.

So, what are the grounds for hope for an open-primary, top-two system in the future?

I think it begins with viewing the electoral challenge somewhat differently.

There is a tendency to accept current partisan affiliation in considering the electoral challenge, and view success as coming from some combination of a certain percentage of Democrats, a certain percentage of Republicans, and a certain percentage of independents.

Instead, I think the target audience should be all general election voters who don’t participate in partisan primaries, irrespective of their party affiliation.

In 2024, the turnout for the primary election was 31%. The turnout for the general election was 78%. There were 2.1 million general election voters who didn’t participate in the partisan primaries. Irrespective of party affiliation, they obviously don’t have a firm attachment to the existing partisan primary system. And there is a not insignificant number of participants in the partisan primaries who aren’t really that hot about them.

Now, both parties will be adamant opponents of an open-primary, top-two system, for very different reasons.

Democrats currently hold both U.S. Senate seats and the most important state offices: governor, secretary of state, and attorney general. The political demography of Arizona favors center-right candidates. In an open-primary, top-two system, Democrats might not hold any of these offices. They have benefited mightily from a partisan primary system in which Republicans field candidates who cannot win a general election.

Today’s Republican Party and its primary electorate, unlike that which existed in 2012, is dominated by MAGAism. Maintaining this dominance is more important to its adherents than actually winning seats in a general election. True MAGA Republicans are perhaps 15% of the overall electorate. Partisan primaries greatly amplify their influence.

Success for an open-primary, top-two system will require going over the heads of existing party officials and politicians and making a convincing case to the broad spectrum of voters dissatisfied with the choices the two parties are churning up through partisan primaries. A pretty thorough argument needs to be made that an open-primary, top-two system will be both familiar and yield superior and broader general election choices, and thus better governance and more authentic democratic expression.

And this leads me to an unconventional thought, about which I don’t have a great deal of confidence. But it keeps tugging at my sleeve, so here goes.

The conventional wisdom is that an open-primary reform stands the best chance at an election in which the president is on the ballot. Those elections produce the largest turnout, and increased turnout among groups more likely to support an open primary, such as young voters and independents. That’s solid thinking.

However, if success requires a thorough argument communicated over the heads of party officials and politicians, the ability to compete for political attention also matters.

Arizona elects most state offices in off-presidential elections. A well-financed initiative could compete for political attention with campaigns for governor, the only state office likely to be high profile and big spending. An initiative has difficulty competing for political attention with campaigns for president or U.S. Senate in a swing state. The resources brought to bear in those races are overwhelming and make it exceedingly tough for other political messages to get through.

Prop. 140 wasn’t a widely visible or discussed matter in the 2024 election. There were more than 300,000 general election voters who skipped over Prop. 140.

While an off-presidential election would have a lower and less favorable turnout, there would be a better chance to secure the political attention necessary to make the argument through the chaff thrown out by the defenders and beneficiaries of the partisan primary system. In 2022, which had high primary election turnout from contested races in both parties, there were still 1.1 million general election voters who did not participate in the primaries.

In 2026, when state offices are on the ballot, there will be no presidential or U.S. Senate race. In 2028, the president and a U.S. Senate seat will be on the ballot. In 2030, there will also be a U.S. Senate seat up for grabs.

I can’t imagine that, after such a bruising defeat, reform efforts for an open primary can be revved back up to make a run at the 2026 ballot. But to the extent competing for political attention is as important, or more important, than a more favorable turnout, the next chance to avoid competing with a presidential or U.S. Senate race wouldn’t come around until 2038. Again, I’m far from confident about the political attention vs. turnout tradeoff.

In any event, I believe that, one way or another, some time or another, an open-primary, top-two system is in Arizona’s future. The partisan primary system doesn’t fit today’s political demography and yields suboptimal and dissatisfying general election choices. A system that gives such disproportionate influence over general election nominees to small, unrepresentative subgroups cannot prevail forever.

Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.