Clean Elections says Arizona Independent Party name change will lead to 'voter confusion'

The Citizen Clean Elections Commission is calling on Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to reverse a decision allowing one of the state’s newest political parties to rebrand itself, arguing the party’s new name will cause mass voter confusion and logistical problems for election officials.

In October, Fontes approved former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson’s request to rename the No Labels Party in Arizona as the Arizona Independent Party, effective Dec. 1.

That came after Johnson took over the party earlier this year from the No Labels national organization. That group backed a failed effort to field a third-party presidential ticket in 2024 but lost interest in running the state party after a judge ordered it to accept candidates up and down the ballot.

Johnson seized that opportunity, calling it an extension of his effort to create an open primary system that would have made it easier for unaffiliated candidates to make it onto the ballot, which Arizona voters rejected last year.

“We wanted to do that because we believe that independents ought to have equal access to the ballot. It was that simple,” Johnson said. “Now, as it turns out, that effort ended up losing, and when it lost, this party became available, and we jumped on the opportunity.”

What’s in a name?

In Arizona, 34% of voters are independents, meaning they are not registered with a specific party.

That could lead to widespread confusion amongst voters, especially those who intend to remain unaffiliated but may accidentally register with the new Arizona Independent Party, the Citizen Clean Elections Commission argues.

“This is something that will continue to cause voter confusion several election cycles from today, because we have a three decades, 30 years of history, in Arizona using the term independent and what that stands for,” Clean Elections Voter Education Director Gina Roberts told the commission at a meeting on Nov. 20.

Some commissioners believe that is all by design.

“I think that it seems like it's a deliberate attempt to confuse people, to co-opt them to join their party, because they only have 42,000 people,” Commissioner Galen Paton, a Pima County Republican, said.

In a letter to Fontes, the commission pointed to the situation in California a decade ago. At the time, the American Independent Party became the largest third party in that state with a half million members, but a Los Angeles Times survey found most of the party’s members did not know they had joined a political party.

The No Labels Party currently has 42,277 registered members, who will be converted to Arizona Independent Party members in December. They account for around 0.12% of the state’s electorate.

For comparison, there are currently over 1.5 million independent, or no party affiliated, voters in Arizona, the second largest group of voters in the state.

In October, Johnson said he did not believe the change will confuse voters, claiming his polling shows the name is popular with No Labels current members and unaffiliated voters.

“It's not confusing to independents,” he said. “It's confusing to people who believe that there should only be two parties. It's confusing to people who believe that you ought to have to choose between being a Democrat and a Republican.”

The Citizen Clean Elections Commission asked Fontes to reverse the name change or delay it until after the end of the next election cycle.

But Fontes indicated he does not plan to change course.

“While we recognize the concern from those decrying the decision, the Secretary has followed Arizona law in recognizing the name change,” according to a statement. “At this time our office is working with counties, the Governor’s Office, and Attorney General‘s office to determine how to implement the change from an administrative standpoint.”

The Citizen Clean Elections Commission argues the change also puts an undue burden on county election officials, who are already preparing for the 2026 midterm elections and must update their systems to reflect the new name.

“The burden that counties face to update their registration processes, retrain staff, or adjust their voter-facing materials by the Dec. 1 effective date is unreasonable. Late changes of this magnitude will strain limited resources and increase the likelihood of mistakes,” Clean Elections Chairman Mark Kimble, an independent himself, wrote in the letter to Fontes.

Kimble argued the change will actually put counties out of compliance with Arizona’s Election Procedures Manual, a guidebook for election officials on how to administer elections in compliance with state law.

The current manual lists “No Labels Party” as one of five recognized political parties in the state.

The Secretary of State’s Office did acknowledge the change could cause some confusion.

“The type of issues we are dealing with are how we change our voter registration system online and in the paper form to make sure there’s no confusion when voters register, how we code those issues in the voter registration system and how we address these administrative issues in the (Elections Procedures) Manual,” according to the statement.

The law isn’t clear

Shortly after Johnson made his plans known in August, the Secretary of State’s Office said it wasn’t sure whether the request was legal, noting there are no state laws that specifically deal with a political party seeking to change its name.

“It’s novel,” a spokesman for the office said at the time.

In October, Fontes agreed to approve the name change after reviewing the issue with legal counsel.

The Secretary of State’s Office determined that name changes are an internal party matter that fall under the party’s First Amendment rights, and, because state law doesn’t specifically address the issue, the state should allow it to move forward.

The Clean Elections Commission, a body created by voters in 1998 that is charged with voter education efforts, disagreed. In the letter to Fontes, it argued implementing such a change will require a significant amount of voter outreach.

“Implementing this shift on the current timeline does not provide sufficient opportunity to prepare those materials or ensure voters receive accurate information,” according to the letter.

In a memo to the commission, Executive Director Thomas Collins argued the lack of clarity in state law shouldn’t be used to justify a brand new rule and that the secretary of state failed to go through the typical rulemaking process that agencies must abide by when they implement new policies.

That process includes public notice and the comment periods, which didn’t occur before Fontes announced his decision last month, Collins argued.

“You're trying to be predictable. You're trying to be transparent. You're trying to be consistent, right?” Commission Executive Director Thomas Collins said at the November meeting. “I mean, these are pretty universally, I think, acknowledged principles.”

Typically, new political parties must meet certain requirements to qualify for the ballot in Arizona, including gathering over voter 34,000 signatures.. But Fontes’ decision to approve the name change essentially allowed Johnson to bypass those steps and co-opt the state recognition awarded to No Labels in 2023.

Commissioner Commissioner Sam Crump, a Republican, argued that is the only avenue to name a political party allowed by state law.

“I think the statute is clear,” Crump said. “And it says that there's one way to name your political party that's in (state law), and that's the gathering of signatures and so forth.

A lawsuit, a new law or both?

Collins, the Clean Elections executive director, told commissioners that there are multiple avenues to fix the problem, including asking lawmakers to pass new legislation to clarify the issue.

But that is unlikely to solve the immediate issue, he said, because the law may not retroactively apply to the Arizona Independent Party even if lawmakers do pass a new law at some point during the next legislative session, which kicks off in January.

And that law would likely not be in place in time to provide clarity ahead of the 2026 elections.

The commission or another affected party could also file a lawsuit asking a judge to determine if the name change violates the law, which could resolve the issue sooner.

“But obviously, the results there are never certain, and there is a possibility of deference to the Secretary of State's Office,” Collins said.

At its meeting last week, the Clean Elections Commission did not explicitly vote to file a lawsuit — yet. The Commission did direct its attorney to explore legal options if Fontes declines to rescind or pause the name change.