Briefs Submitted in Arizona Supreme Court, in Lawsuit over Top-two Open Primary

On August 10, briefs on both sides were filed simultaneously with the Arizona Supreme Court in Save Our Vote v Bennett, the case over whether the initiative for a top-two open primary should be on the November 2012 ballot. Reply briefs are due early next week.

Amicus curiae briefs on the side of the proponents were submitted by the Southern Arizona Leadership Council and the Committee for a Unified Independent Party (CUIP), also known as Independent Voting. This is the group based in New York city.

Amicus curiae briefs opposing the top-two initiative were: (1) the Goldwater Institute; (2) leaders of both houses of the legislature; (3) the Democratic Party of Maricopa County, Pima County, and the county Democratic chairs in Pinal County and Coconino County; (4) the Arizona Latino Republican Association.

The CUIP brief argues that a top-two primary system elects more moderates. In support of this idea, it mentions the California June 2012 primary in the 8th U.S. House district (California’s Mohave desert district). The brief says under top-two, a moderate Republican and a conservative Republican placed first and second, and that this will enable Democrats and independents in November to elect the moderate Republican. However, the brief has a footnote to a Daily Kos article that describes the candidates in the 8th district race. The only Republican characterized as a moderate Republican in the Daily Kos analysis is Ryan McEachron. However, McEachron placed eighth, polling only 3.9% of the vote. The top two vote-getters in the 8th district are Gregg Imus (who associates himself with the Tea Party) and Assemblyman Paul Cook, a very conservative Republican state legislator. Of course, an argument that top-two should remain on the ballot because it allegedly helps moderates win is not an argument that pertains to the issue in the case. The issue is whether the Arizona initiative violates the single-subject rule.


  1. w00t w00t! Strike down top two!!!

  2. Top three would be an increased improvement.

    People who spend time and money fighting with plurality elections and the current government elected under plurality single-winner districts are politically niave.

    One possible solution is to spend time and money uniting and pure proportional representation (PR) is the perfect tool for building that unity. We’ve spent 17 years learning about and promoting PR and we’ve connected with many very smart team players. It’s been highly satisfying.

    By identifying cool team players we’ve made great strides building our team. Focusing on actual ballots cast as proof instead of money has been part of the success.

    Currently, we’re trying to launch a national petition for PR, new web sites, new political parties, a candidate support and resource organization and we’ve developed many innovations like ranked choice consensus voting, the parliamentary go-ahead, the eballot, a parliamentary platform and the catch phrase All Party System which is a brand new open forum:

    For all of you who are thinking of spending money and time fighting top two I say to you; Quit chasing your own tale! Try pure proportional representation!

    Very Truly Yours,
    –James Ogle [Free Parliamentary]
    Volunteer Vote Counter

    “Why do you THINK they called it Google?”

  3. Quit chasing your own tail! ;>

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: