Foes file suit against minimum wage, open primaries proposals on AZ ballot

PHOENIX — The Arizona Restaurant Association is trying to block a public vote on a ballot measure that could raise the state’s minimum wage in two years to $17 an hour or more.

And two different political groups want to keep a measure off the November ballot that would create a system of open political primaries.

In the case involving hiking the minimum wage, foes contend that many of the more than 350,000 signatures collected are legally invalid. Attorney Kory Langhofer says some of the signers are not registered voters and that some of the signature lines are missing the required date.

Potentially more significant, the lawsuit filed Friday in Maricopa County Superior Court contends that some of those who circulated petitions were not properly registered with the Secretary of State’s Office. That is a requirement for those who do not live in Arizona or are paid for their work.

If a circulator is disqualified, so are all the signatures he or she gathered.

The measure, Proposition 212, needs to have at least 255,949 of those signatures judged valid to go to voters.

If approved, it would increase the state minimum wage by $1 on Jan. 1 and by another dollar at the beginning of 2026. That would be on top of the existing requirement that the minimum — currently $14.35 — be adjusted annually to account for inflation.

It also would phase out a provision in current law that allows restaurant operators to pay their tipped workers $3 an hour less as long as their tips bring them up to the minimum wage.

Attorney Jim Barton, representing the initiative backers, said the legal challenge is flawed, and he doubts foes can prove their allegation that about 150,000 of those who signed the petitions are not registered.

He said that leaves claims of problems on petitions signed by 55,000 others. Even if they were all disqualified, there would still be enough valid signatures to put the issue on the ballot.

Arizonans have previously approved minimum wage increases in 2006 and 2016, taking it to the current $14.35, while the federal minimum remains at $7.25. Barton predicted this third effort will also meet with voter approval.

“If you work full time, you should be able to make enough money to live,’’ he said. “These jobs are not jobs that are being held by somebody as an after-school job to save money to Europe. These are people that are trying to feed their kids.’’

Open primaries proposal

The two lawsuits against the open primaries initiative, called the Make Elections Fair Act, were also filed late Friday.

One by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, which generally aligns itself with Republican and business interests at the Capitol, contends it violates constitutional provisions that limit such ballot measures to a single subject.

In legal papers filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, attorney Andrew Gould says what would be Proposition 140 does more than create a system of open primaries. It also has new rules for running the general election, eliminates state funds for partisan primaries and empowers the secretary of state to decide how many candidates can advance from the primary to the general election.

That is “blatant logrolling,” Gould said. That concept involves putting multiple provisions into a single all-or-nothing proposal, forcing voters who may want one provision to accept everything else, including things they oppose.

A similar challenge comes from three individuals, represented by attorneys Roy Herrera and Daniel Arellano.

“The act cobbles together several distinct amendments to the Arizona Constitution,’’ wrote Herrera. “Each should have been presented separately to the voters.’’

This lawsuit also alleges a host of other problems that could keep the issue from voters.

Most involve the signature-gathering process to qualify for the ballot, including whether circulators were properly registered and whether the circulators were volunteers or paid. The lawsuit also claims some of the signatures themselves are invalid for one reason or another.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

The three plaintiffs are identified as registered voters in Maricopa County. Messages to their attorneys seeking more information, including who is financing the lawsuit, were not immediately returned.

But the firm has a history of representing the Arizona Democratic Party and Latino civil rights organizations.

The goal of this lawsuit is the same as the one filed for the Free Enterprise Club: an order barring Secretary of State Adrian Fontes from putting the measure on the November ballot.

Political consultant Chuck Coughlin, who is running the Make Elections Fair campaign, acknowledged the initiative would amend several different sections of the Arizona Constitution. But he said he believes both challenges will fail.

“Our work is all interrelated and topical,’’ he said of the provisions, saying the provisions are sufficiently tied together to survive a challenge based on the single-subject requirements in the Arizona Constitution.

Backers of the initiative contend the current system of partisan primaries is flawed. “There’s no way to address the problem other than the way we’re addressing it,’’ Coughlin told Capitol Media Services. “If you want to fix it, this is the way to have to fix it.’’

In most legislative districts, one party or the other holds an insurmountable edge among registered voters. That means whoever survives the partisan primary — often someone who appeals to the more hard-core members of that majority party — becomes a virtual shoo-in at the general election where everyone can vote.

The initiative would open the primary to all voters regardless of party affiliation, with all candidates running against each other. Then, at least the top two vote-getters would face off in the general election, regardless of party, something that could put two Democrats, two Republicans or even two political independents — or any combination thereof — on the November ballot.

It also would allow the Legislature to decide that up to five candidates can advance to the general election. And if that is the case, it would require the use of ranked-choice voting.

That system has voters rank their choices. Then, if no one gets at least 50% of the votes, the person with the fewest votes is dropped from the list and the choices of those who picked that person as first are redistributed based on those voters’ second choices.

The counting process repeats until someone gets a majority.

To do all that, however, requires multiple constitutional changes. That includes not just eliminating the public funds that now run partisan primaries but also ending the current process under which those running for office as political independents have to get more signatures on nomination papers than candidates for any recognized party.

Coughlin said he believes the courts will decide this all relates to a single goal.

He also said it is no surprise that the challenges apparently come from opposite ends of the political spectrum.

“Our opponents are diametrically opposed political parties intent on holding on to power which they have today,’’ he said.

“Our primary elections system is broken,’’ Coughlin said. “Our partisan primary system suppresses American freedom and shackles Arizonans to the two parties that are failing all of America today.’’

Scot Mussi, president of the Free Enterprise Club, countered that the initiative was drafted by “special interests’’ seeking “to undermine the will of Arizona voters for future elections’’ while ignoring the laws on ballot measures.

“This egregious disregard for law and order exudes arrogance from these parties and should disqualify their measure from the November ballot,’’ he said in a prepared statement.

No date has been set to hear the challenges, or determine whether they should be merged into a single lawsuit.

State lawmakers themselves have put a competing measure on the ballot.

Proposition 133 would cement into the Arizona Constitution the right of each party to have its own primary and choose its own candidates. If voters were to approve both, the one that gets more votes would take precedence.