Lawsuit against Fontes seeks to reverse Arizona Independent Party name change

A new lawsuit filed Tuesday seeks to void the name change of the Arizona Independent Party, arguing it will cause widespread voter confusion.

The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission — a voter-created election agency — is suing Democratic Secretary of State Adrian Fontes.

Fontes approved a name change in October for the political party, which was originally called the No Labels Party. The change is effective as of Monday.

The national No Labels Party decided not to bother running the Arizona state chapter after losing a lawsuit trying to block candidates from running in down-ballot races.

Party Chair Paul Johnson decided to take over and rebrand the party, under a new name.

Johnson said the Arizona Independent Party is not an intentionally confusing name, but was chosen because the third party is welcoming of moderate and unaffiliated voters.

“Why would we be intentionally confusing? We're opening up the door to independents and unaffiliates, and those two groups [Democrats and Republicans] have done everything they can to box them out,” Johnson said.

But, the commission argues Fontes shouldn’t have approved the change.

That’s because the word “independent” is already used as a term to describe voters unaffiliated with a particular party.

The commission argues in its complaint that the new Arizona Independent Party label nullifies the generally understood meaning of the word “independent” in the state.

“This forced ambiguity will cause widespread voter confusion during registration, petition signing, qualifying contributions, and primary-ballot selection in the 2026 cycle,” the complaint states.

Johnson said his party already filed an action of claim with the court on Monday in response to the commission’s lawsuit, hoping to stop it.

Johnson said this case directly affects the Arizona Independent Party and the commission’s case goes against precedent of political parties throughout the country’s history changing their names.

He also noted the word independent has been used in party names before, including as the American Independent Party which was established in 1967.

“[The commissioners] are doing the work of the two political parties, they’re just using the taxpayers funds to be able to pay for the litigation,” Johnson said.

He joked that he owes the commission some thanks because whenever they take action against his party, it increases publicity and support among voters.

“There’s no real confusion, there's something else that's driving this,” Johnson said of the lawsuit.

Roughly 42,000 Arizonans are part of the Arizona Independent Party and will see their registration change to that new name, which could be confusing.

As for the unaffiliated voters who identify as independent, and make up about a third of all Arizona voters, there could be another wave of confusion if they register for the Arizona Independent Party without realizing it’s a third party, and are then unable to select their preferred primary ballot.

When Johnson initially requested the name change, Fontes’s office consulted legal counsel because state law doesn’t specify the correct procedure for a political party to change its name.

The commission has a different interpretation on the vagueness of state law.

“Arizona law lets the secretary recognize new parties, not rename existing ones into something entirely different. Approving “Arizona Independent Party” was not permitted,” the commission said in a statement.

In response to the lawsuit, Fontes’ spokesperson Calli Jones said the office’s position remains unchanged.

“Currently our office is working with counties, the Governor's Office, and Attorney General’s Office to determine how to implement the changes from an administrative standpoint,” Jones said in a text. “We recognize the concern from those decrying the decision and share their frustration in the lack of resources for voter wholesale. We encourage the Citizens Clean Election Commission (CCEC) and the state legislature to provide funding to avoid the type of confusion they cite in this specific case,” she wrote.