Independent voters in AZ want to watch their registrations

I watched KPNX's Sunday Square Off with Brahm Resnik today (I've said it before and I'll say it again - I'm a politics geek :) ).

Adrian Fontes, Arizona's Secretary of State was on.  At approximately the 5:30 mark of the linked YouTube video, he informed viewers that the state's No Labels party would be changing its name as of 12/1/2025.  

To "Arizona Independent" party.

As most registrants put "Independent" instead of "Party Not Declared" (PND) on their voter registration forms, this reeks of being a dirty trick intended to falsely inflate that party's registration numbers.

Fontes did report that he and staff are looking for ways to minimize confusion.

In spite of that, voters should check their registrations, especially PND voters.

What wasn't covered, and what I don't know, was if this is happening in other states, or if Arizona is serving as the guinea pig/test case for this scheme, and if it works here, it'll be exported to other states.

If this "No Labels" candidate is on a ballot, they'll probably get more votes than all other NL candidates COMBINED

From the Arizona Secretary of State's Statements of Interest page -

The latest evidence that the"No Labels" party is an R front group: they want to monetize democracy

Pointed at this by Taegan Goddard's Political Wire.

From AP -

The No Labels party asked its supporters if they would pay $100 to help choose its 2024 nominee

No Labels, a political organization that has alarmed some Democrats with talk of launching a third-party presidential candidate, has contemplated requiring a donation of at least $100 in order to cast a ballot at the group’s upcoming nominating convention, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

The idea, which breaks from longstanding norms, would raise a significant hurdle to participating in the democratic process — in this case No Labels’ selection of its potential candidates for president and vice president. Neither the Democratic or Republican parties charge to vote at their conventions, where delegates vote for candidates chosen by voters through primaries or caucuses.

It's completely brazen and even hypocritical for a group that wishes to keep its donor list a secret, but at least they get points for honesty.

Still, this scheme brings two question to mind -

1. How long before they propose a scheme to make votes proportional to the amount of money that a would-be voter has gives to them?

2. How long before Cheeto thinks "I wish I had thought of this!  The only thing that would make it better would be if the nominee gets to skim of some of the take!"