• “It builds upon our plurality voting system that protects one-person one-vote, and ensures Arizonans have an election system that guarantees lawfully cast votes are represented in the final tally of a contest. This is an unassailable principle of an election system that upholds the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause — that someone’s legally cast vote is guaranteed to be counted in the final tally.” - Amy Yentes, Arizona Free Enterprise Club 
  

• “Ranked-choice voting is an inefficient, confusing system that is fraught with problems and fundamentally changes the way elections operate. By creating an opportunity for voters’ ballots to be cast for candidates they do not support, the ranked-choice voting scheme effectively disenfranchises voters and allows for the election of unpopular candidates. Arizona can protect the integrity of its elections by passing HB 2552 and HCR 2033, bills which would outlaw the ranked-choice voting scheme and ensure that voters have a voice at the ballot box.” - Heritage Action for America 
  

• “If you care about equal access to the ballot for all candidates, but especially grassroots candidates, then vote YES on Prop 133. Arizona has already seen the detrimental effects of the California-style jungle primaries in our big cities like Phoenix. Phoenix already suffers from one-party rule and that’s led to massive tax and water increases, a collapse of public safety, uncontrollable homelessness, and crumbling roads and infrastructure. Jungle primary schemes like what exists in the City of Phoenix causes elections to cost candidates millions of dollars just to be viable. It boxes out grassroots candidates locally supported and encourages corruption with pay-to-play schemes to get elected. Instead, Prop 133 solves this problem by guaranteeing every party is represented on the ballot with their grassroots-elected candidate.” - Restore Our American Republic PAC 
  

• “With Arizona boasting five political parties with ballot access, a YES vote on Prop 133 means voters and candidates of all affiliations have equal access to participate in free and fair elections in both the Primary and General Elections. The opponents of Prop 133 want you to believe that California-stye jungle primaries and ranked voting schemes will provide a better direction for Arizona, but we only have to look to our biggest city, Phoenix, to see not only is that a myth, but it’s a bald-faced lie. These voting schemes have led to one-party rule where voters quickly become burdened with crumbling infrastructure, unbearably high taxes, uncontrollable inflation, and priorities completely out of touch with the needs of the residents, like clean parks, safe neighborhoods, and less traffic.” - EZAZ 
  

• “A partisan election system that creates barriers to participation and treats certain voters and candidates differently – particularly independents or those who choose not to affiliate with a party is surely not a system that works for every Arizonan. Arizona’s current partisan primary provides taxpayer funds to private political party activities and excludes registered unaffiliated candidates from participating in the primary election.” - Save Democracy Arizona 
  

• “Voting NO on Prop 133 does not mean that any city or town will be required to implement Ranked Choice Voting. Voting NO simply means that cities and towns get to pick the best method of voting that works for them. The choice will belong to small cities and towns, without say from lawmakers who do not live in those districts. Small towns deserve the independence to do what works best for them if it does not impact the rest of the state. Vote NO on Prop 133 to protect against government overreach.” - Jennifer Guzman, Program Director, Common Cause Arizona  
  

• “Proposition 133 is intended to nullify key provisions of the proposed “Make Elections Fair Arizona” Initiative. Proposition 133 limits choice. It is a cynical attempt by the major parties to maintain the status quo which benefits the parties at the expense of voters. Republicans and Democrats want their control of our primary elections to continue. The current process discriminates against Independents that make up about one-third of all registered voters. All voters, including Independents pay to hold our elections, but Independent candidates don’t even appear on a primary ballot. This Republican sponsored Proposition reflects a profound disrespect and lack of trust in Arizona voters. The extreme partisanship on display at the Arizona legislature may play well on social media, but it does nothing to address the real problems facing Arizonans. If you want more choice, and the opportunity to elect leaders who care more about addressing the problems facing Arizonans than appeasing their party bosses, vote NO on Proposition 133.” - Perri Benemelis, Editor, Arizona Independent Voter’s Network 
  

• “Arizonans, it's important to vote 'No' on Proposition 133. This proposal might sound like it's about simplifying elections, but it will actually make things harder for a lot of voters. If you pass Proposition 133, primary elections would be strictly partisan, meaning that you’d only be able to vote for candidates in your own party during primary elections. That means if you don't strongly identify with a party or if you like a candidate from a different party, you're out of luck. It's not fair to limit our choices like that. Beyond limiting voter choice, this constitutional amendment will stifle diversity of thought and innovation in our political system.” - AZ Public Health Association 
  

ARIZONA PROPOSITION 133 - REQUIRE PARTISAN PRIMARIES

This question is on the ballot in Arizona as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 5, 2024. As of September 10, 2024, no committee to support or oppose the amendment has been identified. Thus, there is no record of funds raised to support either position.

ARIZONA PROPOSITION 133 - REQUIRE PARTISAN PRIMARIES

This question is on the ballot in Arizona as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 5, 2024. As of September 10, 2024, no committee to support or oppose the amendment has been identified. Thus, there is no record of funds raised to support either position.