PHOENIX — Saying it could lead to "political bait and switch,'' a judge is blocking the move by the No Labels Party to rebrand itself as the Arizona Independent Party.
In a newly released ruling, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Greg Como said if party officials want to operate under a new name, they need to start from scratch and complete all the procedures necessary — including gathering sufficient signatures on petitions — to form a new party.
More than 41,000 people signed up to be members of the No Labels Party before party Chairman Paul Johnson sought and got permission from Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to change the name, the judge said.
Only thing is, Como concluded, Fontes lacked the legal authority to do that. And the judge said there's a good reason for that.
He said the whole purpose for requiring parties seeking formal recognition to get signatures is to show that it has "a meaningful level of support'' among Arizona voters. Conversely, Como said, it keeps the ballot from exploding with parties with minimal or no support.
"When a person signs a petition on behalf of an aspiring party, it is reasonable to infer that they are largely motivated by how the party describes itself, i.e., the party's name," the judge wrote. "Would the same 41,000 people who signed petitions to recognize the No Labels Party have signed to support the 'Arizona Nazi Party' or the 'Arizona Anarchists'?''
And that, said Como, is why Arizona law denies Fontes the power to allow a party that has been called one thing — and signed up voters under that name — to later change that name.
"By allowing a party's requested name change, without it obtaining the necessary signatures for party recognition, the secretary permits a political bait and switch,'' the judge wrote. "A party can gather signatures using an innocuous sounding name and then change it to something completely different.''
Less clear is what happens to the more than one dozen candidates who have already submitted signatures on petitions to run for office this year as candidates of the Arizona Independent Party.
"Unfortunately, due to the court order, this question is unaddressed,'' said Calli Jones, a spokesman for Fontes. She said that may have to be decided through future litigation — or even challenges to the candidacies by other political parties.
Johnson said he filed for an appeal late Wednesday. But Johnson said that even if Como's decision stands, those Arizona Independent Party candidates will simply appear on the ballot as members of the No Labels Party.
Johnson said that even if Como's decision stands, those Arizona Independent Party candidates will simply appear on the ballot as members of the No Labels Party.
Nor does he believe it will make a difference to voters.
"At the end of the day, it's the exact same party,'' Johnson said.
And to emphasize that, he said that the logo for the No Labels Party will be altered to also include the word "independent,'' something that is unlikely to be prohibited by any law.
What's behind the move to rename the No Labels Party — and the legal wrangling — is Johnson's contention that the two major parties have rigged the system to keep political independents from gaining equal access to the ballot.
Under current law, unaffiliated candidates can get their names on the ballot now. But a statewide candidate now needs to gather at least 44,539 signatures on petitions.
By contrast, for organized major parties, the threshold, based on voter registration totals, is much lower: 7,558 for Republicans and 6,761 for Democrats.
Johnson acknowledged that one reason he sought permission from Fontes to rename the party with the name "Independent'' in it was to allow political independents to join — and qualify for the ballot with just 1,771 signatures.
That action by Fontes provoked lawsuits from both the Democratic and Republican parties, who argued that he had no such authority.
There was also a separate legal action filed by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, which argued that Arizonans understand the word "independent'' to mean unaffiliated with any organized party. Its lawyers argued that allowing a party with that word would confuse people when they sign up to vote, finding themselves registered with the Arizona Independent Party when they really wanted nothing to do with any party at all.
Labeling aside, the commission argued that confusion could be critical given Arizona's "open primary.''
In general, only those registered with a recognized party can vote in the partisan primaries.
But Arizona law allows those who are truly unaffiliated to request a ballot ahead of each primary election for either the Republican or Democratic primary. A federal court ruling exempts the Arizona Libertarian Party from the open primary system.
The concern was that people who registered with the Arizona Independent Party — whether intentionally or not — would be eligible to receive only a primary ballot from that party, and be able to choose only among those seeking that party's nomination.
Como combined all three legal claims, and his ruling resolves each of the lawsuits.
