Key Points:

• Secretary of State Adrian Fontes erred when he approved a political party name change
• Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Greg Como said Fontes allowed a “political bait and switch”
• Fontes will not participate in an appeal, given fast-approaching election season

Secretary of State Adrian Fontes did not have the authority to grant the Arizona Independent Party name change, according to a Maricopa County Superior Court judge. 

In a decision handed down March 25, Judge Greg Como said Fontes permitted a “political bait and switch” when he approved a name change request from the No Labels Party, which attempted to rebrand itself as the Arizona Independent Party. The Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission, the Arizona Democratic Party and the Arizona Republican Party sued Fontes and the Arizona Independent Party over the name change in December.

Como ruled that parties should have to go through the same petition gathering process used to get a party on the ballot to change the party’s name. Otherwise, voters who sign petitions to get one party on the ballot could suddenly find themselves registered members of the “Arizona Nazi Party” or the “Arizona Anarchists.”

“A party can gather signatures using an innocuous sounding name and then change it to something completely different,” Como wrote. “If the Secretary is to have such power, it must be prescribed by the Arizona Constitution or state statutes. It is not.”

Additionally, Como took issue with Fontes directing county recorders to designate No Labels voters as AIP voters. Attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants acknowledged during a hearing on March 18 that none of the county recorders had updated their records to reflect the AIP name.

In a post on X, Fontes capitulated to the ruling and said his office will not participate in an appeal considering “the fast approach of the election and the challenging job election administrators have before them.”

“In this case, without any statutory guidance, I acted in favor of the law as I saw it,” Fontes wrote. “And while I believe the Party organization has particular technical authority to act, the Court ruled with the voters as a whole.”

The name change dispute began when Paul Johnson, a former mayor of Phoenix and current AIP chair, struck a deal with the national leadership behind the No Labels Party to take over the group in 2025. In October, Fontes approved the party’s name change, arguing that the move was lawful because state statute does not explicitly outline procedures for party renames. 

Johnson has said on multiple occasions that the takeover of No Labels and the name change were designed specifically to give independent candidates a leg up in a system designed to shut them out. Under state law, candidates running with Arizona’s traditional designation for independent voters, “no party affiliated,” would have to gather at least 44,539 valid petition signatures to qualify for the ballot, while an AIP candidate would only have to gather 1,771 signatures.

Attorneys for the Clean Elections Commission and the two state parties argued the name change would cause confusion between AIP and the “no party affiliated” designation. Most notably, voters who register without party affiliation get to choose which party’s primary ballot to fill out, while a voter registered with AIP would only be able to vote in an AIP primary. 

The state parties also accused Johnson and other AIP leaders of effectively taking No Labels voters hostage, as the nearly 40,000 voters registered with the party at the time did not vote on Johnson’s chairmanship or the rename. Attorneys for AIP and party leaders have argued that the political entity at the center of the dispute is made up of the same people who just want a name that more accurately reflects their ideology. 

It is unclear how the ruling will impact AIP candidates like Hugh Lytle, who filed over 6,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot in his bid for governor. Teri Hourihan, who is running for governor as an AIP candidate but without a blessing from Johnson, also filed enough signatures to qualify. 

Como did not go so far as to knock those candidates off the ballot, but they will not be listed under their preferred party name. In a statement, Lytle said. “Nothing about this ruling changes what matters.”

“Today’s ruling is a reminder of how far the political parties will go to protect their grip on power. But we are still on the ballot and on a path to victory,” Lytle said.