Will the Arizona No Labels Party make a difference?

It could create a path for pragmatic problem-solvers to reach the general election ballot. But making it such will require extraordinary organizational prowess.

The redistricting melodrama in Texas is a useful illustration of how the two-party duopoly is stifling true democratic expression and good governance.

Republicans fear that, in 2026, voters will give their control of at least the House the boot. Rather than trying to persuade voters of the virtues and benefits of their tenure, Republicans are attempting a highly unusual mid-decade redistricting in Texas to squeeze out another three to five safe GOP House seats, making the hurdle to a Democratic takeover a bit higher. Legislative Democrats have fled the state to deny the GOP majority the quorum necessary to effectuate the naked power grab. Not exactly a confidence-inspiring example of democracy in action.

Now, gerrymandering has a long history in this country. Both parties manipulate political boundaries to their advantage when and where they can. In response to the Texas GOP gambit, California and New York are mooting plans to override their independent redistricting commissions to make their state’s House delegation even more lopsidedly Democratic.

As I’ve written before, I think the two-party system has served the country well for most of our history. It has certainly provided more stable and productive governance than most of the multiparty parliamentary systems in place in other democratic countries.

However, I also think that utility has run its course and the country badly needs to move into some sort of post-partisan electoral system. Now, I’m not naive about this. Under any system, people with similar views or interests will organize to increase their political influence or leverage.

However, how the two parties have evolved makes it difficult for pragmatic problem-solvers on the center-left or the center-right to make it to the general election ballot. This is a more acute problem on the right, given the primary election dominance of Donald Trump and his MAGA movement. In the overwhelming majority of cases, even what used to be known as a full-spectrum conservative, if also a pragmatic problem-solver, will lose out in a GOP primary to a fire-breathing MAGA demagogue promising to own the libs.

This isn’t as fully true yet on the left. Pragmatic problem-solvers still can get through a contested Democratic primary from time to time, but the energy and momentum is with leftist populists who pledge to ignore everything that has been learned about political economy in the last 250 years.

The duopoly’s stifling of true democratic expression and good governance is particularly acute here in Arizona. Arizona is clearly a center-right state. We have a long history of electing, and being well-served by, problem-solving leaders of both political parties. That history has come to an end. A center-right, problem-solving candidate has no practical path to the general election ballot, even though that kind of a candidate best fits what the body politic as a whole wants.

That makes the developments with the Arizona No Labels Party intriguing.

In 2024, the national No Labels movement toyed with the possibility of fielding a ticket for president and vice president, but abandoned the effort. In preparation, the movement formed an official political party in Arizona and achieved ballot access.

However, the movement only wanted to compete for the presidency. It sued to prevent candidates for other offices from running under the party’s banner. Bafflingly, the national movement won at the trial court level. Arizona law is prescriptive about what recognized political parties do, including holding state-administered primary elections. What is required to get on a party primary election ballot is also prescribed. These aren’t optional statutes. An appeals court correctly found that, having cleared the hurdle of gaining ballot access, the Arizona No Labels Party couldn’t opt out of actually fielding candidates chosen in a party primary.

Rather than contest the issue further, the national No Labels movement has ceded party leadership to a group actually committed to fielding candidates. The group is headed by Paul Johnson, a former Phoenix mayor and Democratic nominee for governor. I’m a regular panelist on his podcast, The Optimistic American. Frequently, I’m offering the pessimistic take.

Johnson, long an independent, has led efforts for an open primary in Arizona, in which all candidates compete in the same primary irrespective of party or lack thereof. Voters have rejected the reform twice, although I think the major reason it lost in 2024 was ambiguity about how the general election was to be conducted, including the possibility that it would be through ranked-choice voting.

The Arizona No Labels Party does offer the potential for a pathway to the general election ballot for the kind of pragmatic, problem-solving candidates largely excluded by the duopoly, particularly in the Republican Party. Previously, the only pathway was to run as an independent. But Arizona makes independent candidacies difficult and few have ventured forth. Getting on the No Labels primary ballot will actually be easier than getting on the Republican or Democratic one.

Still, a viable third party isn’t the ideal way to solve the problem of general-election ballot access for pragmatic problem-solvers. With three viable parties, there perpetually will be minority governments elected with 40% of the vote or so. Some sort of binary final choice, such as a non-partisan top-two system would provide, is a beneficial feature in an electoral system, however the winnowing out to get to that point is conducted.

Of course, the Arizona No Labels Party is a long way from being a viable third party and the path to making it such is difficult and treacherous. There are currently only about 40,000 registrants. It will be a huge organizational challenge to make the party’s nominees the sort of pragmatic problem-solvers of the new leadership’s aspiration, and not a political playground for unserious candidates and cranks.

There are, however, over 1.5 million Arizonans registered as independents, over a third of the overall electorate. I don’t think the frequent characterization of independents as closet partisans is accurate, at least in Arizona. Arizona election results can’t be explained except through the existence of hundreds of thousands of voters who cast split ballots, voting for a Democratic in one race and for a Republican in another.

Regardless, this large number of independents have chosen not to join the duopoly. Johnson says he wants to change the name of the party. As a matter of first impression, I thought the Arizona Independent Party might be a way to describe the kind of candidate the party hoped to field and signal affinity with independent voters, who would be able to participate in the No Labels primary without actually changing their registration status.

There’s been some claim that the party name cannot be legally changed. I find that a dubious claim and there’s no statute explicitly forbidding it. However, upon reflection, the existing name might serve just as well, or even better.

If the problem is excessive, virtually tribal, partisanship that overrides pragmatic problem-solving, a party that eschews partisanship, rather than offering a third flavor of it, might have some merit and appeal. “No Labels” does a decent job of conveying that.

There is a tactical issue that is likely to haunt the Arizona No Labels Party, as it did the national movement when it was considering fielding a presidential ticket. Democrats are likely to put intense pressure on party leaders and potential candidates, making the argument that fielding substantive candidates will split the non-MAGA vote, making it easier for MAGA candidates to win. That’s a serious and valid tactical consideration.

Of course, depending on the qualities of the No Labels candidates, they might offer an alternative to right-leaning voters who aren’t MAGA but find the Democratic alternative a bridge too far.

Both tactical scenarios assume that the No Labels candidates can’t win, but only influence the outcome of the duopoly contest. In the short run, that is likely the case. It would be a political miracle if No Labels could actually win some elections in 2026.

In the long run, however, flinching from trying to break up the duopoly due to tactical concerns about relative effects on the duopoly perpetuates and props up the duopoly. At a minimum, the new Arizona No Labels Party offers a possible path to the general election for pragmatic problem-solving leaders the overall electorate would prefer. That’s a useful step forward.

Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.