Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: Paul Johnson

Fontes lacked authority to approve Arizona Independent Party name change, judge rules

Key Points:
  • Secretary of State Adrian Fontes erred when he approved a 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 AIP over the name change in December.

Como argued 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 both 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, however.

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, the 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 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.

Arizona Independent Party chairman pushes favored candidate, asks rival to drop out

Key Points:
  • Two candidates are running for Arizona Independent Party’s governor nominee
  • Party leaders back Hugh Lytle, ask Teri Hourihan to drop out of the race
  • Judge Greg Como will hear arguments on the party’s legal existence in March

There are two candidates currently running for the Arizona Independent Party’s nominee for governor.

But the leaders of the state’s newest political party are openly backing only one of those. And party Chairman Paul Johnson actually asked the other one to get out of the race to provide a clear path to Hugh Lytle, the chosen contender, to be the party’s standard bearer in November.

And Johnson has said there’s absolutely nothing wrong or unfair about the decision to back Lytle.

That, however, isn’t sitting well with Glendale resident Teri Hourihan, the competition, who has submitted her own statement of intent to run as an Arizona Independent Party candidate for governor. She believes she should be given an equal chance for office — one without the influence of party officials.

And Hourihan told Capitol Media Services that Johnson, who said he was speaking on behalf of all the party leaders, tried to get her to withdraw so Hugh Lytle, the designated favorite, would have a clear, unopposed chance to ensure his name is on the Nov. 3 general election ballot.

That’s a contention that Johnson does not dispute, but in his own conversation with Capitol Media Services, he said he concluded Hourihan was not ready to run for state office — even before he recruited Lytle to run.

The intra-party dust-up comes amid uncertainty over the new party’s future.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Greg Como is set to hear arguments in March by the Arizona Democratic Party, the Arizona Republican Party, and the Citizens Clean Elections Commission about the future of the Arizona Independent Party. They all contend that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes acted illegally in allowing Johnson to simply rename what had been the No Labels Party and keep all of those who had been registered with it.

The essence of the lawsuit is the argument that Johnson, who took over after the national No Labels Party severed ties with the local group, has created an entirely new party. And that, their lawyers contend, means he has to start from scratch, including gathering the necessary signatures to get official status.

What makes all this important is that if Como rules, there is no Arizona Independent Party; anyone seeking to run for office — including Lytle and Hourihan — would be considered an unaffiliated candidate and would have to gather at least 44,539 valid signatures to get on the ballot. For context, it takes only 1,288 signatures to be considered a candidate for the newly formed Arizona Independent Party.

The more immediate issue, however, concerns Johnson’s public efforts to prevent Hourihan from submitting the signatures and getting on the ballot — and to force a primary with Lytle in which she, and not the party’s favorite, could come out on top.

Johnson said he and his backers never planned to create a party.

Their first choice was to require an “open primary,” where all candidates from all parties would have to get the same number of signatures and run against each other, with the top vote-getters facing off in the general election, regardless of party affiliation. Voters rejected that plan.

Option B, Johnson said, was the creation of an independent party that could provide equal access to the general election ballot for those not affiliated with existing parties.

“Now it’s my job to make certain we have a decent brand as a party because it can be considered, if you’re not careful, something that’s a little bit goofy,” he said.

And Johnson said that, with that goal in mind, the decision was made to court Lytle, a health care entrepreneur, to be the party’s standard bearer — and promise him the party’s support.

“This guy is talented,” he said. “And you don’t get somebody like this guy to run if you justify that you’re going to hang back.”

Johnson said that what he’s doing in promoting Lytle over Hourihan is no different from what happens in the major parties, where leadership quietly decides who is the favored candidate.

Sometimes, however, that bursts out into the open.

That’s what happened in 2024 when Jeff DeWit, chairman of the Arizona Republican Party, tried to talk Kari Lake out of running for U.S. Senate.

In a phone call, he told Lake that Republicans in Washington did not think she could win a race against Democrat Ruben Gallego after losing the 2022 gubernatorial race to Katie Hobbs. And DeWit, in the recorded call, offered to find some other job for her while she sat out the race.

It all backfired when the recording became public and DeWit quit.

As it turned out, Lake decided to run anyway — and was defeated by Gallego by more than 80,000 votes even though Donald Trump outpolled Kamala Harris in Arizona.

“Here’s the difference: I’m doing it openly, proudly,” Johnson said of his efforts to push Lytle over anyone else. “I think you’d have to be a coward not to stand up and say who you would support.”

Still, Johnson said, there’s nothing he can do to stop anyone else, including Hourihan, from running in the Arizona Independent Party primary. And if she — or someone else — gets the necessary signatures along with Lytle, there will be a contested primary.

But Johnson did more than simply endorse Lytle. He even spoke at a public announcement of his candidacy in front of Sun Devil Stadium.

Hourihan said — and Johnson confirmed — that his efforts to get her to drop out of the race included proposing she instead run for a lower office. Johnson said she needed more political experience.

“You’re not ready for this,” Johnson told the licensed professional counselor in a conversation she taped with him and made available to Capitol Media Services. He suggested she “put in the work” and enter politics at a lower level.

Hourihan, for her part, said she is ready. And part of that, she acknowledged, is her belief that God is calling her to run.

“You can believe whatever you want to believe because you want to believe it,” Johnson responded. “I would just tell you to pray some more because I gave you solid advice.”

That, in turn, led Hourihan to ask whether, if she wins the primary, Johnson will apologize.

“I will say ‘congratulations,’ ” he responded. “But I will never say ‘I’m sorry’ because I’m positive that you’re not ready, even if you won.”

But would Johnson support her if she wins the primary?

“Probably not,” he said. And Johnson, a former Democrat who lost his own race for governor in 1998 against incumbent Republican Jane Hull, said if Hourihan is the nominee of the Arizona Independent Party, “she would not be the best candidate of the three that are left to be governor.”

Nor does he believe that his position as party chair — or that of other party officials — requires them to back the person who wins the party’s primary.

“From our standpoint, we don’t have to follow their set of rules,” Johnson said.

Independent Party ‘disruptor’ enters race for governor

Key Points:
  • Hugh Lytle is running for governor as an Arizona Independent Party candidate
  • Independents are unlikely to be elected, but could play spoiler to other candidates
  • Gov. Katie Hobbs’ campaign is most likely to be impacted by Lytle’s candidacy, consultants say

An independent contender has entered Arizona’s competitive gubernatorial race, which could spell trouble for candidates in the state’s two major political parties.

On Jan. 26, local health care executive Hugh Lytle announced he would join a growing pool of challengers to incumbent Gov. Katie Hobbs, but with the backing of the Arizona Independent Party. Three Republicans — business executive Karrin Taylor Robson, U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs and U.S. Rep. David Schweikert — are also hoping to unseat Hobbs. 

Lytle is the founder of Equality Health and several other health care organizations offering services to providers. He got his start in the Grand Canyon State as a quarterback at Arizona State University, but was forced to switch gears after breaking his collarbone during a scrimmage. 

Lytle describes himself as a disruptor hoping to “bridge the partisan divide” in Arizona and provide voters with more than two options on the ballot. 

“The two parties are trapped in a fight that never ends,” Lytle said in a press release announcing his candidacy. “They argue, posture, divide — but they don’t solve the big problems.” 

Political consultants and observers agree that independent candidates, whether they’re affiliated with the newly-created Arizona Independent Party or not, still have an uphill battle to get elected in Arizona. But they could have an outsized impact on the governor’s race by siphoning votes from Hobbs or whoever her eventual Republican challenger will be. 

Chuck Coughlin, the CEO of HighGround Public Affairs, said he believes Lytle’s campaign is more likely to negatively affect Hobbs than a potential Republican opponent.

“The conventional wisdom is that an independent candidate hurts a Democrat more than a Republican, because Republican voters are more loyal, more conservative, and older, and they tend to stick to their hometown team,” Coughlin said. 

And a candidate like Lytle has more potential for causing harm to Hobbs this year because of the “immediate ballot access” provided by the Arizona Independent Party, Coughlin said. 

Traditionally, “no party affiliated” has been considered Arizona’s designation for independent voters. Under state law, candidates running without party affiliation have to gather at least 44,539 petition signatures to qualify for the ballot in a statewide race, while candidates running as Republicans or Democrats only have to gather around 7,000 signatures.

Paul Johnson, a former Phoenix mayor, saw an opportunity to skirt the barrier to entry for independent candidates when the No Labels Party fizzled after its 2024 attempt to run a third-party candidate for president. Because No Labels is a recognized party in Arizona, its candidates only have to gather 1,288 signatures.

Johnson became chair of No Labels in 2025, quickly changed the party’s name to the Arizona Independent Party, and began recruiting candidates to run as independents. That name change is the subject of ongoing litigation brought by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, the Arizona Republican Party and the Arizona Democratic Party, who all argue it will confuse voters who want to register as “no party affiliated.”

Johnson told reporters at a press conference on Jan. 27 that the AIP’s efforts will continue regardless of the outcome of the lawsuits, and the intention isn’t to draw voters away from major party candidates.

“Our goal, clearly, is not to be anti-Democrat or anti-Republican,” Johnson said. “We think both of those groups have something positive to offer, but so do independents.”

Given the tight margins in Arizona races in recent years and the decline in voter registration among Democrats, Hobbs and Democratic incumbents like Attorney General Kris Mayes and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes will need every independent vote they can get. In 2022, Hobbs beat Republican Kari Lake by just over 17,000 votes, while Mayes bested now-Congressman Abe Hamadeh by just 280 votes. 

As of January 2026, AIP has 41,484 registered voters — more than enough to have swayed either Hobbs’ or Mayes’ 2022 races. Over 1.4 million Arizonans are registered as “no party affiliated” and might also be interested in a third-party option.

“Some independents are going to be turned off by both the partisan D and the partisan R, and so they’ll vote for the third party candidate, where those votes historically … tend to go to the Democrats,” Coughlin said. 

However, Lytle shrugs off the suggestion that his candidacy will only serve as a spoiler for Hobbs or her eventual Republican challenger.

“I would say maybe that’s the case if we had 5% of the electorate, but we don’t,” Lytle said. “Recent Gallup polls show 44% of average Americans at least identify as being an independent, but they have no way to attach who’s their party leader, who’s someone who can represent the interest of independence. So spoiler, no, I think they’re spoiling me.” 

Still, Coughlin argued that even though more voters are registering without party affiliation in Arizona, the electorate is still “deeply partisan.” One Democratic consultant, speaking on background, agreed with Coughlin, noting that Arizona’s independents like to split their ballots and vote for a mix of Republicans and Democrats rather than a third-party candidate. 

That consultant said it is unlikely that Lytle will pose any real challenge to the major party candidates given the rocky launch of the AIP and its lack of resources. 

Coughlin also noted that despite the lower signature threshold for AIP candidates, both major parties will attempt to block them from the ballot in court through petition signature challenges. 

“They will use every lever at their disposal to make an independent campaign more and more difficult,” Coughlin said. “But the question becomes, what does an independent campaign have to do to be relevant? And really if you’re getting eight to 10% of the vote, you’re relevant.” 

Arizona Democrats sue to block No Labels Party rebranding

Key Points:
  • Arizona Democratic Party sues to block No Labels Party renaming
  • Democrats claim renaming could harm their candidates in upcoming elections
  • Secretary of State Adrian Fontes faces a separate lawsuit from Citizens Clean Elections

The Arizona Democratic Party is going to court to block the renaming of the No Labels Party, admitting in its legal filings that it believes the name change could harm its own candidates.

Attorney Roy Herrera contends that Secretary of State Adrian Fontes lacked the legal authority to allow the No Labels Party to change its name to the Arizona Independent Party. 

“If permitted, this last-minute rebrand will sow chaos for Arizona’s upcoming elections,” Herrera said.

He added that Fontes, a Democrat, is telling county recorders that would-be voters who write “IND Party” must be registered as members of the Arizona Independent Party. But those who write “IND” or “Independent” will be logged in as “Party Not Designated,” meaning they are true unaffiliated voters.

“In other words, in some cases, the only distinction between voters who will be registered as Arizona Independent Party members and those who will be registered as unaffiliated is the lone word ‘Party,’ ” Herrera said.

One thing that makes that critical is that actual independent voters can cast ballots in either the Republican or Democratic primaries. But that’s not true for those who might accidentally find themselves registered as members of the Arizona Independent Party, who will only be able to choose among candidates from that party.

What that also means for the Democratic Party, Herrera said, is that some people who really wanted to be true independents will no longer be able to sign petitions for Democratic candidates to get on the ballot or vote for them in the primary.

And there’s something else.

Paul Johnson, who chairs the Arizona Independent Party, has acknowledged he wants the name change to make it easier for independent candidates to qualify for the ballot. That’s because it takes only 1,288 signatures for them to qualify for a statewide race; true unaffiliated candidates need 42,303 to have their names listed in the general election on equal parity with traditional party nominees.

And the Arizona Democratic Party, which will have its own slate of candidates on the 2026 ballot, clearly wants to keep in place that higher burden which will limit the number of competitors.

“This distinction reflects a deliberate policy choice: Such laws are designed to weed out the cranks, the publicity seekers and the frivolous candidates yet not to keep out those who are serious in their efforts and have a reasonable number of supporters,” Herrera wrote.

But Charlene Fernandez, who chairs the Arizona Democratic Party — and signed the legal complaint — insists that it has nothing to do with culling out opposition.

She said it’s about the confusing name. And Fernandez said there wouldn’t be the same objection if No Labels chose some different name, like the “Blue-Red Party.”

That, however, ignores the fact that the Arizona Democratic Party filed suit in 2023 when Fontes first granted recognition to the No Labels Party. Democrats contended that No Labels was not following the rules, including by failing to disclose donors behind the effort to have it certified in Arizona.

“Arizonans deserve better and voters deserve to know who is behind this shadowy organization and what potentially nefarious agenda they are pushing,” said Morgan Dick, who was the spokeswoman for the Arizona Democratic Party at the time.

A judge rejected that effort. And Fernandez, a former legislator who was working at the time in the Biden administration, said Monday she was unaware of that lawsuit.

The Democrats are not alone in challenging Fontes’s decision to approve the name change.

He already is facing a lawsuit by the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. It also contends that the name change is illegal and confusing, and that the secretary lacks the authority to simply allow the No Labels Party to call itself something else.

Johnson, a former Phoenix mayor who ran unsuccessfully for governor as a Democrat in 1998, has repeatedly said his former political party has been openly hostile to efforts to open the election process. He noted that Herrera filed suit in 2024 to keep an “open primaries” measure off the ballot.

That measure would have required all candidates for all offices to run in a primary, with anyone registered to vote entitled to cast a ballot. Then, at least the top two vote-getters would face off in the general election, regardless of party, something that could put two Democrats, two Republicans or even two political independents — or any combination thereof — on the November ballot.

But opposition to putting Proposition 140 on the ballot was bipartisan, with a separate lawsuit filed by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, which generally aligns with Republican and business interests at the Capitol.

Both lawsuits failed. But so did the ballot measure, which went down to defeat by a 2-1 margin.

There was no immediate response from Fontes to the latest lawsuit.

But he has previously said that the name change is legal and that he is working with local election officials to minimize confusion.

Arizona lawmakers lack trust, respect for the people

107 years ago, Arizona’s founders feared that legislatures could land in the pockets of special interests. They believed that ultimately, the people in power had to be accountable to the...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Arizona GOP lodges complaint against top-two primary group

The Arizona Republican Party filed a complaint against a group that wants to create a “top-two” primary in the state, claiming the organization failed to report large contributions to election...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Top-two primary advocates eye January launch

Former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson is hoping to have final language for his revamped top-two primary measure in November, with plans to launch the campaign and signature-gathering effort in January....

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Disrupt the status quo in health care!

Paul Johnson Most businesses are unaware of the real financial impact of the Affordable Healthcare Act… but they soon will. Businesses that don’t comply with the...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

Grand Canyon Institute: Tax cuts haven’t worked in Arizona

A centrist research group has concluded that tax cuts, in the long term, haven’t boosted Arizona’s economy and have instead led to fewer government resources. The Grand Canyon Institute, whose...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.