CHANGE Illinois is a nonpartisan, nonprofit leading systemic government and election reforms. CHANGE (the Coalition for Honest and New Government Ethics) champions ethical and efficient government and democracy and includes a diverse group of civic, philanthropic, business, labor, professional, and nonprofit organizations representing millions of Illinoisans. CHANGE Illinois works in collaboration with like-minded reform organizations, playing a leadership role in convening and facilitating efforts around shared policy agendas. The coalition works to improve challenges that undermine our democracy, including gerrymandering, restricted ballot access, voter suppression, uncompetitive elections, corruption, lack of government transparency and unethical lobbying, all of which have led to disillusionment and a decrease in civic participation.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
When the Cameras Went Dark: What a Press Ban Reveals About American Journalism
Oct 28, 2026
When I came to the United States from India in 1982, I did not trust newspapers. Back home, everyone knew which party a paper favored before reading a line. American television felt different. My family watched Peter Jennings every evening, and later I found Larry King on CNN, who let his guests talk instead of telling viewers what to think. That habit of holding everyone to one standard has mostly faded.
On Sept. 18, President Trump announced he was banning CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, saying their reporting was fake news. The next morning the Secret Service took reporters’ badges at the gate. The outlets sued on Monday, and Fox, ABC, NBC and CBS declined to take CNN’s turn in the television pool. On Sept. 24, Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump appointed, blocked the ban for 14 days. He found the outlets likely to win on due process, because reporters got no notice and no chance to respond, and he doubted the government’s national security explanation. Trump’s answer was to call the judge “totally disloyal.”
Some of the first objections came from Trump’s own side. Jonathan Turley, a law professor and Fox News contributor, called the ban an assault on a free press. Jacqui Heinrich, the Fox anchor who now leads the White House Correspondents’ Association, said constitutional protections do not depend on whether a president likes the coverage.
The administration does have an argument, and it deserves a fair hearing. Attorney General Todd Blanche says White House access is a privilege, not a right, and that a president may decide who flies on his plane. But a privilege cannot be pulled to punish what a reporter wrote, and so far the government has not shown the court a security reason. On Saturday CNN was left off Air Force One, and on Monday the outlets asked Kelly for a longer injunction. His current order runs out Oct. 8.
Neither party owns this habit. In May 2023 the Biden White House turned away a New York Post reporter from a presidential event, three months after Biden told the paper to bring “more polite people.” That was one event, not a standing ban, and I do not call the two equal. Still, almost nobody outside conservative media treated it as a press freedom issue.
Money stories get the same uneven attention. Trump’s annual disclosure, released June 30, showed more than $1 billion in crypto income for 2025; the White House says he has no conflicts. Congress has its own problem. A former Georgia congresswoman bought stocks just before Trump’s tariff pause last year and said her portfolio manager made the trades. A Democratic senator’s blind trust holds shares in companies his committees oversee, and his office says he does not direct it. In July the House passed a stock trading bill 232 to 198, but it carries a voter ID rider, so it stalls in the Senate, where it needs 60 votes. The fine under current law for filing late is $200.
Gallup reported Tuesday that trust in the media rose to 33 percent from last year’s record low of 28. The gain came almost entirely from Republicans, up to 22 percent from 8. Democrats are at 50. Gallup’s poll ended Sept. 17, the day before the ban, so the next reading is the real test.
Three fixes would help. The White House should publish one written credential rule, with notice, a stated reason and an appeal, which is the process Kelly found missing. The correspondents’ association, not the press office, should run the pool, as it did for decades. And Congress should vote on the stock bill without the voter ID rider. Newsrooms, meanwhile, can ask one plain question before running or skipping a story: would we treat this the same way if the other party held the office?
I trusted Peter Jennings because he seemed to use one yardstick. Trust comes back the same way. This month a judge and several Fox commentators used one yardstick, and some called them disloyal for it. That is the standard I would like everyone else to meet.
Meda Parameswara Reddy, Ph.D., is the Director of the Reddy Center for Critical and Integrated Thinking.Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Nebraska Independent US Senate candidate Dan Osborn.
Image obtained from YouTube
7 Independent Campaigns to Watch in the Final Days of the Midterms
Oct 27, 2026
Election Day on November 3, here are the seven independent campaigns we’ve followed closely, four for the Senate and three for the House, ranked by how competitive they are.
Fundraising figures are full-cycle totals from FEC reports, through the date noted for each race. Prediction-market odds come from Kalshi and were pulled on 10/23. Polls are pulled from the aggregated New York Times pages, with several low-quality polls highlighted by campaigns left out.
1. Dan Osborn (I) vs. Sen. Pete Ricketts (R) — Nebraska Senate
The race in one line: The polls show a toss-up, the markets show a clear Ricketts lead, and Osborn now has more cash.
Fundraising (both through 10/14)
Candidate | Raised | Cash on hand (Sept. 30) |
Dan Osborn (I) | $9.8 million | $2.2 million |
Pete Ricketts (R) | $14.5 million | $1.2 million |
Polling
Pollster | Dates | Sample | Ricketts | Osborn |
NPA Polling (R) | Oct. 2–5 | 800 LV, ±4 | 46% | 43% |
YouGov | Sept. 24–Oct. 3 | 1,808 LV, ±3.3 | 47% | 48% |
co/efficient (R) | Sept. 28–30 | 1,113 LV, ±2.9 | 44% | 40% |
Kalshi: Ricketts 76%, Osborn 24%.
The history. Osborn, a former Kellogg’s mechanic and union president, came within about seven points of Sen. Deb Fischer in 2024 in a state Trump carried by more than 20. This year, he faces Ricketts, the former governor who was appointed to the Senate in 2023. The Democratic nominee, Cindy Burbank, withdrew in July, and the Legal Marijuana NOW nominee also dropped out and endorsed Osborn. That left a head-to-head race, which is the matchup Osborn wanted.
The race has since become a fight over identity. Ricketts calls his opponent “Democrat Dan”. Earlier in October, Osborn told reporters he has no interest in caucusing with either party.
What to watch between now and Election Day
- Nonpartisan polls. Most polls have had a partisan or candidate sponsor. Look for neutral polls over the next two weeks.
- The final round of outside money. See what independent spending looks like.
2. Bill Hill (I) vs. Rep. Nick Begich (R) — Alaska At-Large House
The race in one line: Hill has nearly closed a double-digit gap, but Begich has 12 times his cash and ranked-choice math may decide the race.
Fundraising (Begich through 10/14; Hill through 9/30)
Candidate | Raised | Cash on hand (Sept. 30) |
Bill Hill (I) | ~$2.3 million | $190,431 |
Nick Begich (R) | ~$6.4 million | $1.8 million |
Hill has been spending heavily to increase his name recognition, which has paid dividends in the polls. Begich, however, ended September with $2.4 million, more than 12 times Hill’s $190,431 heading into the final sprint.
Polling
Pollster | Dates | Sample | Begich | Hill | Final RCV round |
Data for Progress (D) | Oct. 8–16 | 668 LV, ±4 | 50% | 43% | Begich 51–49 |
NYT/Siena | Sept. 24–Oct. 1 | 487 LV | 49% | 37% | Begich 53-47 |
AARP (Fabrizio Ward/Impact Research) | Sept. 8–11 | 800 LV | 51% | 35% | Begich 57–43 |
Kalshi: Begich 80%, Hill 20%.
The history. Hill is a Dena’ina Athabascan from the Bristol Bay village of Kokhanok. He spent decades as an educator, finishing as superintendent of the Bristol Bay School District, and he is a lifelong commercial fisherman. He entered the race in January without ever having registered with either party. Democrat Matt Schultz suspended his campaign and endorsed Hill before the August 18 Top Four primary, where Hill finished second to Begich.
Hill has since become one of the most-watched House challengers in the country, and one of the most argued over. He has the DCCC’s backing. At the October 14 Debate for the State, Begich repeatedly called him an independent in name only, and Hill declined to say which party, if any, he would caucus with.
What to watch between now and Election Day
- Hafner’s 5%. Data for Progress found that if exhausted ballots from voters for Eric Hafner, a Democrat campaigning from federal prison, went to Hill instead, the House race would be tied.
- Cash. With $190,000 on hand against Begich’s $1.8 million, Hill’s closing message depends largely on outside groups. The slow filing of his mid-October campaign finance report as of the time of this writing could suggest a slowdown.
- A long count. Alaska runs its ranked-choice tabulation after absentee ballots arrive, so this race likely won’t be called on election night.
3. Brian Bengs (I) vs. Sen. Mike Rounds (R) — South Dakota Senate
The race in one line: Bengs got the one-on-one race he wanted, but the October polls released by media outlets show Rounds ahead by 8 to 22 points.
Fundraising (Rounds through 10/14; Bengs through 9/30)
Candidate | Raised | Cash on hand |
Brian Bengs (I) | $1.7 million | $145,703 |
Mike Rounds (R) | $5.1 million | $1.3 million |
Polling
Pollster | Dates | Sample | Rounds | Bengs |
Emerson College/KELOLAND | Oct. 19–21 | 803 LV, ±3.5 | 54% | 46% |
Quantus Insights | Oct. 17–19 | 657 LV, ±4.1 | 59% | 37% |
Public Opinion Strategies (Rounds campaign) | Oct. 12–16 | 500 LV, ±4.4 | 54% | 37% |
Concord Public Opinion Partners (D) | Oct. 6–8 | 400 LV, ±4.9 | 42% | 43% |
Bengs still has low name recognition in many of these polls, but he’s running out of time to close the gap.
Kalshi: Rounds 95%, Bengs 5%.
The history. Bengs, a former military lawyer and university professor, ran for the Senate in 2022 as a Democrat and won 26.1% against John Thune. This time, he is running as an independent against Rounds, a former two-term governor who was first elected to the Senate in 2014 and is seeking a third term. Democratic nominee Julian Beaudion withdrew on August 4, citing a house fire and family hardship. The state party declined to replace him and has not endorsed Bengs.
Rounds and national Republicans call Bengs a fake independent, pointing to his 2022 campaign. Bengs has campaigned alongside Osborn and Bodnar and says he would help form an independent caucus that aligns with neither party.
What to watch between now and Election Day
- Undecided voters. With leaners pushed, Emerson still had Rounds ahead 54% to 46%. Bengs needs nearly all of the undecided vote and some soft Rounds supporters. Many haven’t heard of him, but the lane is narrow and election day is less than two weeks away.
4. Seth Bodnar (I) vs. Kurt Alme (R) vs. Alani Bankhead (D) — Montana Senate
The race in one line: Bodnar leads the field in fundraising and wins independents, but as long as Bankhead holds a fifth of the vote, Alme leads.
Fundraising (all through 10/14)
Candidate | Raised | Cash on hand |
Seth Bodnar (I) | $4.9 million | $581,920 |
Kurt Alme (R) | $3.0 million | $602,737 |
Alani Bankhead (D) | $190,539 | $22,819 |
Kyle Austin (L) | $261,825 | $2,684 |
Polling
Pollster | Dates | Sample | Alme | Bodnar | Bankhead |
Quantus Insights | Oct. 15–18 | 667 LV, ±4 | 46% | 29% | 21% |
Concord Public Opinion Partners (released by Bodnar campaign) | Oct. 6–8 | 405 LV | 35% | 37% | 13% |
Aspect Strategic | Sept. 7–15 | 715 LV | 44% | 32% | 14% |
MTFP–Rutgers Eagleton | Aug. 27–Sept. 7 | 845 RV, ±4.2 | 38% | 30% | 16% |
Among independents, the largest bloc in the MTFP–Eagleton poll, Bodnar led Alme 38% to 25%. The Concord memo, which Bodnar’s campaign promoted, found Bodnar leading Bankhead by 45 points among modeled Democrats.
Kalshi: Alme 91%, Bodnar 8%.
The history. The race opened on March 4. Sen. Steve Daines withdrew minutes before the filing deadline, and his chosen successor, former US Attorney Kurt Alme, filed in his place. Seth Bodnar, a former Green Beret who had resigned as University of Montana president in January, entered as an independent the same day. Bankhead, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel, won the Democratic primary in June. She has refused calls to leave the race, and the August 10 withdrawal deadline passed with her still on the ballot.
The Democratic split has since reached the party’s leadership. Shannon O’Brien resigned as state Democratic chair to endorse Bodnar, while the party still formally backs its nominee. Read our full race roundup.
What to watch between now and Election Day
- Bankhead’s floor. Recent polls put her anywhere from 13% to 21%. Every point she loses to Bodnar narrows the gap with Alme.
- Whether an independent pollster backs up Concord. Concord is the only poll showing Bodnar ahead.
- Ballots already cast. Absentee ballots went out October 9, so much of the vote is being locked in now.
5. Todd Achilles (I) vs. Sen. Jim Risch (R) — Idaho Senate
The race in one line: A late surge in fundraising is fueling the independent in Idaho.
Fundraising (both through 9/30)
Candidate | Raised | Cash on hand |
Todd Achilles (I) | $1.7 million | $395,407 |
Jim Risch (R) | $4.9 million | $2.8 million |
Achilles raised more than $1 million in the third quarter, more than he had raised in the entire cycle before July. Risch still ended September with about seven times as much cash.
Polling
Pollster | Dates | Sample | Risch | Achilles |
VoteNExus (Achilles sponsored) | Oct. 21–22 | 700 LV | 49% | 43% |
Peak Insights (Risch campaign) | Sept. 28–30 | 500 LV | 49% | 24% |
Bullfinch Group (Achilles campaign) | Aug. 4–7 | 608 LV | 34% | 30% |
Kalshi: Risch 96%, Achilles 5%.
The history. Achilles, an Army veteran and former technology executive, served in the Idaho House as a Democrat before resigning his seat to run for the Senate as an independent. He faces Risch, a former governor who has held this Senate seat since 2009 and is seeking a fourth term. Democratic nominee David Roth withdrew in July, saying he would focus on helping Democrats elsewhere on the ballot. That left Achilles as Risch’s main opponent in a state Trump carried by about 36 points.
Republicans have run against his record. In a fundraising letter for Risch, Vice President JD Vance warned that Democrats were prepared to pour millions into Idaho to flip the seat, and Idaho GOP Chair Dorothy Moon has called Achilles one of the most left-wing Democrats in the statehouse. Achilles has the backing of several unions, including the Idaho AFL-CIO and the National Education Association, and has pledged not to caucus with either party.
What to watch between now and Election Day
- A neutral poll. The recent surveys come from the campaigns or from a firm with a short record. A media or university poll would show which of them is closer to right.
- Outside money. Vance’s letter suggests national Republicans expect Democratic-aligned groups to spend here. Independent expenditure filings will show whether either side follows through.
6. Rep. Kevin Kiley (I) vs. Richard Pan (D) — California’s 6th District
The race in one line: The House’s only sitting independent is defending a district redrawn to defeat him, and he still caucuses with Republicans.
Fundraising (through 10/14)
Candidate | Total raised | Cash on hand |
Kevin Kiley (I) | $3.7 million | $34,648 |
Richard Pan (D) | $2.5 million | $207,936 |
Polling
Pollster | Dates | Sample | Pan | Kiley | Undecided |
Bullfinch Group / Independent Leadership Council (pro-Kiley) | Sept. 1–6 | 927 LV | 37% | 37% | 26.7% |
Bullfinch Group / Independent Center Voice | July 13–16 | 741 LV | 39% | 35% | 27% |
Kalshi: Pan 92.3%, Kiley 7.5%.
The history. Proposition 50, California’s response to the redistricting wars, redrew the state’s congressional map and gave Kiley, a Republican incumbent at the time, a Democratic-leaning seat around Sacramento. He dropped his Republican registration in March, citing frustration with partisanship and the redistricting war, and is running with no party preference. In the June Top Two primary, he narrowly finished first, ahead of Pan, who is a pediatrician and former Democratic state senator.
Kiley’s independence is the central question of the race. Pan calls him a “MAGA champion,” and Kiley challenged Pan to five debates. Their first general-election debate in August centered on Kiley’s voting record.
What to watch between now and Election Day
- Kiley’s caucus answer. Kiley still caucuses with Republicans, making this race the inverse of many others this cycle where an independent faces accusations of being a secret Democrat.
- A nonpartisan poll. Both public surveys come from pro-independent groups. Forecast models rate the seat Safe Democratic.
- A slow count. California counts late mail ballots for days, so a close race won’t be settled on election night.
7. Mike Thurow (I) vs. Rep. Glenn Grothman (R) vs. Brad Smith (D) — Wisconsin’s 6th District
The race in one line: This is the series’ longest shot, a fire captain running a ground game against a six-term incumbent with no public polling since May.
Fundraising (Smit and Grothman through 10/14; Thurow through 9/20)
Candidate | Total raised | Cash on hand |
Glenn Grothman (R) | $1.2 million | $600,072 |
Brad Smith (D) | $322,260 | $91,303 |
Mike Thurow (I) | $194,576 | $17,936 |
Polling
Pollster | Dates | Sample | Grothman | Thurow |
Tavern Research (head-to-head) | May 18–28 | 437 LV, ±6 | 55% | 45% |
No public poll has tested the three-way race, and the most recent public poll is fro May.
Kalshi: Grothman 90%, Smith 10% (no other candidates included)
The history. Thurow is a union fire captain from Mequon. He launched his campaign early this year with backing from Dan Osborn’s Working Class Heroes Fund. He takes no corporate PAC money. His bet is that a district Grothman won with 61.2% in 2024 might respond to the same working-class independent pitch that has made Nebraska competitive.
The field didn’t clear the way Nebraska’s did. Democrat Bradley Smith narrowly won the August 11 primary over Amanda Bell, 50.3% to 49.7%, and he remains on the ballot with another independent, Elizabeth Fitzgibbon. Read our full profile.
What to watch between now and Election Day
- Thurow’s ground game. With $18,000 in the bank, his county-captain organization is the campaign. Union and firefighter turnout operations will show whether it reaches past Mequon.
- Smith’s share. In a three-way race, Thurow needs Democratic voters to treat him as the main challenger.
- Grothman’s late start. Grothman released his first ad of the cycle on Oct. 16, with AdImpact tracking about $21,000 in digital buys. Any big increase in his spending would suggest his campaign sees a threat.
Why These Seven Matter
Each campaign tests something different.
Nebraska, Idaho, and South Dakota test whether an independent can win when a party gets out of the way: in all three, the Democratic nominee withdrew, leaving the independent alone against a Republican incumbent.
Montana tests whether one can win when a party doesn’t.
Alaska tests whether ranked-choice voting gives independents room to build a majority, with a measure to repeal that system on the same ballot.
California tests whether “independent” means anything for a candidate who still caucuses with a party.
Wisconsin tests whether the Osborn model can work for a House seat in a purple state.
If even one of them wins, the next cycle’s candidates will have proof that the two-party wall can be broken. If none of them wins, the margins will still inform which kind of race gives an independent the best chance at winning a seat.
7 Independent Campaigns to Watch in the Final Days of the Midterms is republished as part of The Fulcrum’s partnership with IVN and the Latino News Network to expand voter‑first journalism and strengthen public‑centered coverage of democracy.
Keep ReadingShow less
Patriotic paper ballot featuring red and blue stripes with the word vote inserted into a grey cardboard ballot box slot.
Getty Images
The First Amendment Does Not Belong to Political Parties
Oct 27, 2026
In a recent essay in Life & Liberty, Robert G. Natelson argues that open primaries may violate the First Amendment rights of political parties by allowing people who are not party members to participate in choosing their nominees. His argument starts with the rights of the party. The more fundamental question is whether it starts in the right place at all: When a state conducts a primary election, whose rights are we even talking about?
Natelson’s answer is primarily the rights of political parties. He argues that because parties have a First Amendment right to decide with whom they associate, the government cannot require them to allow people who are not party members to participate in choosing their nominees. He relies on a number of Supreme Court decisions involving political parties and places particular weight on National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC. But in doing so, he moves too quickly past the most important fact in the debate: a state primary is an election conducted by the government, not a private meeting of a political organization.
A primary election is created by state law, administered by public election officials, financed by taxpayers and conducted with the machinery of government. The candidates who emerge from it are candidates for public office. The fact that they appear on the ballot with a party designation does not change the nature of the election or turn the government officials conducting it into agents of a private organization. If the state has made the primary part of the process through which public officials are selected, the constitutional rights of the voters participating in that process cannot simply disappear because a political party is involved.
The Supreme Court recognized this principle long ago. In United States v. Classic, the Court held that a primary could be an integral part of the process by which public officials were selected and therefore subject to constitutional protections. In Terry v. Adams, the Court refused to permit a private political organization to control the selection of public officials while escaping constitutional scrutiny. And in Smith v. Allwright, the Court rejected the argument that a state-regulated primary could be treated as a private party affair in order to exclude Black voters from a primary that was part of the state’s machinery for choosing public officials.
That case is especially worth consideration here. Thurgood Marshall, who argued the case, later called it the most important case of his career before Brown. The circumstances today are different, but the use of primaries to shut out voters of color is not. Substantial numbers of Latino, Asian and African-American voters are registered independent. In NYC alone, 54% of the 1.2 million independents in the city are voters of color.
Those decisions did not diminish the importance of political parties. They recognized something more basic: once the government makes an election part of the machinery for choosing public officials, the people who participate in that election have constitutional rights too.
Natelson’s analysis largely reverses that starting point. He begins with the party and asks what the party has a right to control, then treats that answer as though it necessarily determines who may participate in the public election. But political parties have always been entitled to conduct their own affairs. They can decide who joins, choose their officers, establish their platforms, hold conventions and private meetings, endorse candidates and decide what their organizations stand for. No one seriously disputes that. The government has no right to dictate the membership of a private organization or tell it whom it must recognize as a member. The question in an open primary is different because the government is not regulating a party meeting. It is determining the rules for an election that the government itself has established.
That distinction matters most for the voters Natelson’s analysis largely leaves out: the millions of Americans who choose not to affiliate with a political party. These voters are not outsiders to the electoral system. They are citizens who are otherwise qualified to vote, who pay the taxes that support the election and who will live under the government produced by its results. Yet in a closed primary, their decision not to join a political party can be enough to prevent them from participating in an election that the state itself conducts.
Natelson sees the party’s associational rights in that circumstance. He should also have to address the voter’s.
The First Amendment protects freedom of association, but the constitutional protection for association has never meant that government may simply compel affiliation as the price of exercising other rights. The Supreme Court has recognized the freedom not to associate in cases such as Roberts v. United States Jaycees and Janus v. AFSCME. Those cases arise in very different settings, and they do not answer the primary-election question by themselves. They do, however, make clear why the argument that an independent voter can simply join a party misses the constitutional problem. The choice not to join a political organization is itself a choice the individual is entitled to make.
A closed primary effectively tells that voter that there are two choices: remain independent and surrender a voice in the primary, or affiliate with a political party and regain it. That is not merely a rule about the internal affairs of a party. It is a government rule that makes political affiliation a condition of participating in an election.
Natelson’s reliance on National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC does not solve this problem. That case concerned federal restrictions on coordinated expenditures by political parties and candidates. The Court was considering government regulation of political spending and expression, and held that the restrictions at issue violated the First Amendment. Natelson takes that protection for a party’s political activity and extends it to a very different question: whether the party has a constitutional right to determine the electorate in a state-administered primary.
That conclusion does not follow from the case. Protecting a political party from government restrictions on its political expenditures is not the same thing as giving the party constitutional control over who may vote in an election created and conducted by the government. One concerns the government regulating political expression. The other concerns the rules governing participation in an election. The fact that both questions involve the First Amendment does not eliminate the difference between them.
The same problem appears in Natelson’s discussion of Democratic Party of Wisconsin v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette. That case involved the ability of a state to bind delegates to a national political convention based on the results of a state preference primary. The Supreme Court held that Wisconsin could not force the Democratic Party to accept delegates selected in a manner inconsistent with the party’s own rules for its national convention. The state was attempting to dictate how the party conducted its own national nominating process. That is a very different proposition from a state deciding who may participate in an election that the state itself conducts to determine which candidates will appear on the general-election ballot.
California Democratic Party v. Jones presents the same distinction. The Court struck down California’s blanket primary because the particular system required political parties to accept nominees selected through a process that allowed voters to participate without regard to party affiliation. The Court found that this imposed a serious burden on the parties’ ability to define their own nominees. But the decision did not establish that political parties own state primaries or that every system permitting unaffiliated voters to participate is unconstitutional. It addressed the constitutional burden created by a particular election structure; it did not transfer control of the state’s electoral machinery to the political parties.
That distinction is important because there is a tendency in this debate to treat any primary involving a political party as though it were necessarily the party’s own election. It is not. The state decides whether to have a primary, when to hold it, how to administer it, how candidates qualify for the ballot, how votes are counted and what legal consequences attach to the result. Political parties operate within that public framework, but their presence within the system does not transform the system into a private organization.
There is a historical reason to be cautious about that way of thinking as well. Direct primaries developed during the Progressive Era, in substantial part, because Americans were seeking to reduce the control of party bosses and political machines over the selection of candidates and give ordinary voters a greater role in the process. Whatever view one takes of the various primary systems that states have adopted since then, the basic history cuts against the idea that candidate selection is simply an internal matter for political parties. Primaries were brought into the electoral process precisely because candidate selection had become too important to leave entirely in the hands of party organizations.
None of this means that parties cease to have associational rights when they participate in a primary. They do not. It means those rights have to be considered alongside the rights of the voters and the character of the election itself. A party remains free to control its membership, its leadership, its platform and its private activities. What it cannot establish simply by invoking the First Amendment is that the state has surrendered control over the electorate in a public election.
For independent voters, this is not an abstract dispute about organizational autonomy. It is a very practical question. A voter who has chosen to remain independent is not asking to write a party platform, select its officers or dictate whom the party should recognize as a member. The voter is asking to participate in an election through which the government selects the candidates who will compete for public office.
That voter has made a political choice not to join a party. Why should exercising that choice mean giving up a voice in the election?
Natelson’s essay does not adequately answer that question because it spends so much time asking what political parties are entitled to do that it never fully confronts what the government is doing to the voter. The Constitution protects political parties as important participants in our political system, but it also protects individuals in their decisions about political association. Those protections do not have to conflict. A state can recognize the role of political parties while structuring its own elections in a way that allows citizens to participate without first declaring themselves members of one.
For millions of independent Americans, that is what this debate is really about. They are not asking for control of anyone else’s political organization. They are asking to remain who they are and still have a voice in choosing the people who will govern them. Making party membership the condition for that participation turns a private political affiliation into a government requirement.
The First Amendment protects the freedom to associate and to not associate. Natelson (and opponents of open primaries more generally) would have it transformed into a license to compel association.
We cannot allow that. The First Amendment should not be twisted into a justification for compelled political association. And it certainly should not be used to tell an American citizen that, before they can vote in their own government’s election, they must first join someone else’s political party.
Jeremy Gruber is Senior Vice President of Open Primaries, a national organization advocating for open and inclusive primary systems and the rights of independent voters. He is the author of “Let All Voters Vote: Independents and the Expansion of Voting Rights in the United States.”
Keep ReadingShow less
An opinion piece argues that America must revisit Reconstruction after the Trump era, starting with the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.
Pressmaster/Getty Images
Radical Reconstruction: Looking to the Past To Move Forward
Oct 27, 2026
The last 11 years of electoral politics have plunged our nation into new lows: withdrawal and reentry into Middle Eastern conflicts, a politicized public health response during a pandemic, an attempted coup of the American government, and continual police brutality against people of color. Donald Trump’s existence on the political stage, in office or out, has held our nation hostage through repeated crises, leading us to the most divided time in our nation since the Civil War. The path forward for our young country doesn’t just require new ideas: we need to finally follow through on Reconstruction.
A blip in American history, Abraham Lincoln’s post-Civil War vision, called Reconstruction, was the proposed path forward for Southern reentry into American life. In exchange for loyalty to the Union and some guarantees of black civil protection, Lincoln prepared to readmit secessionist states into the Union, albeit with political restraints on numerous Confederate leaders.
Reconstruction was a bold stance by Lincoln, whose assassination prevented him from witnessing the civil rights gains made during the stage in American history he worked tirelessly to usher in. Under successive presidents Andrew Johnson and Ulysses S. Grant, the Reconstruction Era actualized much of Lincoln’s vision. In twelve years, “Radical Reconstruction” led to the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, saw former enslaved men and Union heroes such as Robert Smalls elected to state and federal office across the South, and culminated in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
But its staying power was marred by racial tension, loosened restrictions on political participation for former Confederate leaders, and political strife inside both parties over Reconstruction’s impact on White Southerners. The election of Rutherford B. Hayes in the 1876 presidential election ended Reconstruction and paved the way for Jim Crow across the American South, undoing the initial steps needed for a young country to learn from its past.
It took almost 90 more years for America to progress closer to Reconstruction’s intent with the Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation of the 1960’s, and it’s still evident today that our baby steps toward addressing equal rights weren’t enough.
From the President’s petition to the Supreme Court to dismiss mail-in ballots to the gutting of the Voting Rights Act via the Louisiana v. Callais decision, 2026 alone has proven the need to aggressively expand voting rights for African Americans. America’s post-Trump era is merely 28 months away, and our nation can’t expect to brush off generations of wounds and move forward: we need to reflect on what we failed to accomplish post-Civil War and get back to the “Radical Reconstruction” our country still desperately needs.
It seems impossible to speculate on how to close the chapter on a period that officially ended 149 years ago, but the starting point is obvious: The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. A piece of legislation that would revitalize the Voting Rights Act of 1965, this bill would protect communities of color against racial gerrymandering and revamp protections for polling places and workers against any form of threat or violence.
The United States is at more than a crossroads; its soul is under attack. If we truly want to recover the soul of America, irrespective of party lines, then turning the clock on Reconstruction and delivering new voting rights legislation is the honest way forward.
Like President Rutherford B. Hayes, Donald Trump is just the current impediment to our path forward as a country. After President Trump leaves the White House in January 2029, Reconstruction could finally get us back on track and ensure that everyone, regardless of race, religion, or political affiliation, has an America whose laws treat them equally – fulfilling the original intent of Abraham Lincoln’s “Radical Reconstruction."
Seamus Love is a speechwriter and Democratic strategist.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More