## Facts

- A political committee and individual electors challenged Proposition 121, a voter-initiated constitutional amendment titled the “Open Elections/Open Government Act.”
- Proposition 121 sought to replace most partisan primaries with a single “top-two” primary in which all candidates appear on one primary ballot and all voters may vote for any candidate; the top two vote-getters would advance to the general election regardless of party preference.
- The measure also changed how partisan identifiers appear on ballots by using party “preference” rather than party nomination.
- The measure included provisions affecting the role of political parties and public financing within the proposed election structure, including limits on using public funds for certain party-related election activities.
- Opponents argued the initiative combined multiple constitutional amendments in one proposition, preventing voters from voting separately on each change.
- The superior court agreed and enjoined the Secretary of State from placing Proposition 121 on the ballot.
- The initiative’s sponsor appealed; the Arizona Supreme Court reversed by order before the election and later issued an opinion explaining that result.

## Issues

1. Whether Proposition 121 violated Article 21, § 1 of the Arizona Constitution by combining more than one constitutional amendment in a single measure.
2. Whether Proposition 121’s provisions were sufficiently related—topically and functionally—to constitute a single amendment rather than impermissible logrolling.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s judgment and held that Proposition 121 did not violate the separate-amendment rule.
- The Court concluded the provisions were topically related to restructuring Arizona’s primary election system, including the role of political parties and public funding within that system.
- The Court further concluded the provisions were sufficiently interrelated as parts of a comprehensive election-system plan, not discrete and unrelated changes forced into a single vote.
- The injunction against placing Proposition 121 on the ballot was lifted.

## Legal Principles

- Article 21, § 1 requires that multiple proposed constitutional amendments be submitted so electors may vote for or against each amendment separately; the rule aims to prevent logrolling.
- A measure may contain multiple provisions and still be a single amendment if (1) the provisions are topically related and (2) they are sufficiently interrelated to form a consistent and workable whole on the general topic addressed.
- The separate-amendment rule is applied with sensitivity to the initiative power; it should not be construed to unnecessarily restrict the people’s ability to amend the constitution by initiative.
- The rule does not require each distinct policy choice to appear in a separate proposition; it bars bundling provisions that lack a logical and functional relationship.

## Conclusion

Proposition 121 was upheld as a single constitutional amendment because its ballot, party-role, and funding-related provisions were part of a unified restructuring of the primary election system and were sufficiently connected to operate together without violating Arizona’s separate-amendment rule.


Save Our Vote, Opposing C-03-2012 v. Bennett, 291 P.3d 342 (Ariz. 2013)