This week, I testified before the Arizona Legislature regarding SB 1609, legislation that seeks to restrict the use of the word “Independent” in a political party name. The substance of the bill raises serious constitutional questions. The conduct of the hearing raises institutional issues.
On the day testimony proceeded, the timer initially displayed two minutes. Before public comment began, it was reduced to one minute and thirty seconds for all speakers. That reduction applied uniformly. It was not personal. But one minute and thirty seconds is not sufficient to meaningfully address a complex constitutional question involving ballot access, political speech, and associational rights.
When my time expired, I respectfully requested an additional thirty seconds to complete a prepared legal sentence. Chair Wendy Rogers responded loudly and unequivocally, “Negative.”
It is worth noting that Senator Rogers has previously been formally censured by the Arizona Senate for conduct toward colleagues, including rhetoric deemed inappropriate by members of her own party. That history informs public perception of tone and discretion in the chair.
Context also matters.
On February 11, the first day the bill was scheduled for hearing, the committee convened approximately two hours and forty five minutes late. After hearing roughly forty minutes of testimony, a hard stop was called at 4:30 p.m., leaving citizens unheard. On February 18, the committee again began more than an hour late and the bill was not heard. On February 20, after three appearances and extended waiting, I requested thirty additional seconds to complete a legal argument.
The issue is not that the rules were enforced. The issue is proportionality. When a committee can begin hours late and adjourn early, but cannot allow thirty additional seconds to complete a constitutional sentence, the asymmetry is difficult to ignore.
After the buzzer, I continued briefly and stated that if the bill were to pass, we would challenge it in court, and that I urged the members to vote no. At that point, Chair Rogers stated that I had exceeded my privilege and therefore would not be allowed to answer questions from the seven senators present, Republicans and Democrats alike, who ultimately voted 7-0 in favor of the bill.
Technically, she was correct. The timer had expired. Under the rules, she was within her authority to enforce the limit.
But the practical effect was that no member was required to publicly engage the constitutional arguments presented. No questions were asked. No dialogue occurred. The vote proceeded unanimously. Rather than escalate the exchange, I gathered my materials and exited.
Earlier in the hearing cycle, Senator Ortiz addressed the crowd and told them that the Capitol was “their house,” emphasizing the public’s right to speak. She also expressed concern that several individuals had been locked out of the building because they had been trespassed for disruptive conduct during prior testimony.
The principle that citizens have a right to speak in their Capitol is one I share. But the contrast was difficult to ignore. Those who disrupted proceedings were described as having been denied access to “their house.” An unaffiliated voter who presented a constitutional argument and requested thirty additional seconds to complete it was cut off and denied the opportunity for questions.
The issue is not personal indignation. It is symmetry and incentive.
The central premise offered in support of SB 1609 was that voters may be confused by the use of the word “Independent,” and that unaffiliated voters who consider themselves independent might mistakenly enroll in the Independent Party.
Arizona voters are capable of reading a ballot. They are capable of making intentional choices. Unaffiliated voters are the largest registration bloc in the state. The suggestion that they are likely to join a political party by accident understates their competence.
History reinforces that point.
Arizona has previously allowed parties using the word “Independent” on its ballot. The American Independent Party appeared on the Arizona ballot in 1968 and again in 1972. Numerous states have permitted parties containing the word “Independent” or “Independence” in their names. There was no systemic collapse. There was no documented mass confusion.
The United States Supreme Court has recognized that party names implicate associational rights and political speech. In Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, the Court affirmed that political parties possess associational protections under the First Amendment. In Norman v. Reed, the Court invalidated restrictions on party names absent sufficient justification. Under the Anderson and Burdick framework, the state must demonstrate that burdens on political association are justified and proportionate. Speculation about confusion is insufficient.
The timing of SB 1609 is also significant. Arizona’s statutes were silent for years on party name changes. Only after independent political organization became competitive did emergency legislation appear.
Legislators operate within partisan primary systems. They answer primarily to primary voters within their parties. Unaffiliated voters, despite being the largest bloc in Arizona, lack comparable leverage in those primaries. Incentives shape behavior. That structural reality explains much of what unfolds in committee rooms.
If SB 1609 becomes law, it will be challenged in court. Judicial review exists to determine whether legislative action comports with constitutional guarantees of equal protection and free association.
The broader question is whether electoral competition will be treated neutrally or constrained when it becomes inconvenient.
Arizona voters are not confused. They are engaged. The Constitution presumes their competence.
