The following is the opinion and analysis of the writers:
Mark Kimble
Christina Werther
It’s simple — an independent voter is someone who chooses not to join any political party — a term used for years in Arizona to differentiate an unaffiliated voter from a political party member.
That is why the Secretary of State’s decision to let the No Labels Party rename itself the “Arizona Independent Party” was wrong. The decision had no basis in law and allowed a political party to take the name of an existing group of voters and changed how that word works in our elections. It would force election officials, including the Commission, to make a raft of changes to voter registration, election day preparation and voter education without a plan or a budget.
As members of the Clean Elections Commission and independents, that is why we voted to challenge the secretary.
A recent guest opinion in the Star (“Independent Party wants to make elections competitive again”) misrepresented our intentions, claiming we are seeking to uphold existing signature requirements for candidates.
The writer points out that state law requires unaffiliated candidates to collect far more signatures than Republicans and Democrats to appear on the ballot. That is true.
The writer further claims that the Clean Elections Commission worked with state Republican and Democratic parties to prevent any changes to this law. That is untrue.
The nonpartisan commission acted independently, not in concert with any party. And signature requirements are enshrined in state law. We have not taken a position on whether those requirements should change.
Our concern is narrow and specific.
The Secretary of State’s decision to implement the No Labels Party’s rebrand itself as the Arizona Independent Party would blur a long-established distinction in Arizona election law — one relied on by election officials, poll workers, and, most importantly, voters.
Suppose you are an independent voter. Are you a member of the Arizona Independent Party, or are you an unaffiliated voter who has long been called an independent?
Do you want to register as a member of a political party, or do you want to remain unaffiliated?
This is not just about words. A voter who signs up for the Independent Party is no longer an independent voter under Arizona law — even if the voter believes they are simply rejecting the two major parties. That change in legal status is immediate and not easily undone. The burden shifts to voters to detect and avoid a change in meaning they had no reason to expect.
This outcome is not theoretical. In California, many voters joined the American Independent Party believing they were registering as independent voters. Later, they learned they had actually joined a political party and lost their unaffiliated status. The issue was not voter intelligence, but the reuse of a familiar term to mean something different.
This dispute is not about blocking competition. Arizona law already allows new parties to form and candidates outside the major parties to run for office. Competition is healthy.
But changing the meaning of an existing voter category is not reform. If Arizona wants to change how independent candidates get on the ballot or receive public funding, that decision belongs to the legislature or to voters —not to the Secretary of State acting alone.
In Arizona, independence is not a slogan or a brand. It is a legal choice that grants voters specific rights to participate in elections. Those rights should not be taken away through administrative rebranding.
The leaders of the No Labels Party may be dissatisfied with their party’s name, but they are not entitled to appropriate a term that state law already assigns to an existing group of voters.
Follow these steps to easily submit a letter to the editor or guest opinion to the Arizona Daily Star.
