Election reformers zinged by reforms

People who don’t like the outcome of Arizona elections keep changing the rules in hopes of changing the results.

Over the past decade or so, reformers have made it easier to register to vote and easier to vote by mail. Independents have been allowed to vote in party primaries. Redistricting was taken out of the hands of the Legislature and a system of public financing enacted.

Yet the results in last Tuesday’s primary election seem pretty much the same. The same people voted and elected the same kind of political leaders.

Reducing the influence of conservative Republicans has clearly been one of the reformers’ goals. In their view, conservative Republicans, particularly social conservatives, are outside “mainstream Arizona.” Reformers allege a disconnect between the political leadership of the state and what most Arizonans want their government to do.

This is in part a misreading of the direction of public policy in Arizona, which has drifted steadily leftward during Gov. Jane Hull’s tenure.

But it is also based on the curious notion that public opinion polls are a more reliable indicator of the kind of leadership voters want than who they actually elect. Which suggests the next logical step for reformers: Abolish elections that yield such unsatisfactory results, and govern by polls instead.

In any event, when the dust settled last Tuesday, conservative Republicans fared pretty well, paradoxically in part because of the reforms.

Redistricting resulted in the probable election of the most socially conservative member of the Arizona congressional delegation, Trent Franks, to replace retiring Bob Stump. Franks leaped over better-known opponents in a crowded primary to win the nomination in a heavily Republican district.

Taking redistricting out of the hands of the Legislature also increased the likelihood that Republicans will retake control of the state Senate and that the Republican caucus will be more conservative.

Under the lines drawn by the independent redistricting commission, Democrats need a miracle in two west-side Maricopa districts with Republican registration advantages to maintain the current Senate split. If the maps had been drawn in the Legislature, they could have negotiated a better playing field.

The two most liberal Republican members of the Senate, Flagstaff’s John Verkamp and central Phoenix’s Sue Gerard, would have been able to craft districts more to their liking. The redistricting commission subsumed Verkamp’s district into the Navajo reservation, and he didn’t even bother to run. Gerard’s silk-stocking territory was amalgamated with three other districts, where she was the target of a spirited primary challenge, the outcome of which is still uncertain.

Public financing gave social conservative author and lawyer Andrew Thomas the resources to overwhelm his two privately-financed opponents, both much more acceptable to “mainstream Arizona” reformers, in the Republican primary for attorney general.

Jaime Molera was clearly the victim of campaign finance reform in the superintendent’s race. Not a true electoral incumbent, since he had never appeared on a ballot before, Molera was swamped by Tom Horne’s big-spending campaign financed out of his own pocket.

Campaign finance reform gave Molera no way to keep up. Public funding was capped at about a fourth of what Horne ended up spending. And strict limits on individual donations would have kept Molera from becoming competitive even if he had run privately-financed.

Of course, ordinarily, Molera wouldn’t have been the preference of the “mainstream Arizona” gang, since he was the most forthright advocate of school choice in the race. But Horne was running on the odious bilingual education issue, which is regarded as outside the “mainstream” even though abolishing it was approved by 63 percent of voters two years ago.

All of this will be attributed to the aberration of primary elections, in which committed ideologues have disproportionate influence. But that doesn’t explain why Fife Symington defeated two of the Democrats’ best candidates for governor in statewide elections, Jon Kyl’s easy victories for the U.S. Senate, or Lisa Graham Keegan’s elections as an unabashed market reformer in education.

Perhaps “mainstream Arizona” is a bit broader – more “inclusive,” to use one of their terms – than reformers believe.

Reach Robb at [email protected] or (602) 444-8472. His column appears Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays.



Comments are closed.