A recent court ruling allowing the Colorado Republican Party to decide how and whether to close its primary elections comes at a pivotal moment for the state’s election system. For nearly a decade, Colorado has had an open primary; one designed to reflect the state’s growing share of independent voters. The decision now raises a fundamental question: should taxpayers continue to fund an election that restricts large numbers of the public?
Colorado’s primary elections are not private affairs. They are administered by the state, financed by taxpayers, and conducted through public infrastructure. Ballots are printed and mailed by government offices. Election workers are trained and compensated with public funds. In every functional sense, primaries are public elections.
If the GOP moves to close its primaries to independent voters, who now make up over 50% of the state’s electorate, it would be excluding a majority of taxpayers from an election they help finance. That is not merely a policy concern, it is a question of democratic legitimacy and the proper use of public funds. Elections financed by the public should, at minimum, remain accessible to the public.
As the court’s decision reaffirms, the GOP has the constitutional right to define its membership and govern its internal affairs. The Supreme Court has repeatedly supported such associational rights in cases such as Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut and California Democratic Party v. Jones. But those decisions establish a narrower principle: the state may not interfere with a party’s internal choices. They do not hold-and no court has held-that political parties have a constitutional entitlement to taxpayer-funded administration of their nomination processes.
That distinction is essential. When a party limits participation in its primary, it is exercising a private associational right. But nothing in constitutional doctrine requires the public to subsidize that choice. Continuing to fund a closed primary would mean taxpayers are financing an electoral process from which many are deliberately excluded.
Colorado voters addressed this issue directly in 2016 with the passage of Proposition 108, establishing the state’s open primary. Its effects have been substantial: increased participation, broader campaign engagement, and candidates incentivized to appeal beyond narrow partisan bases toward the general electorate.
If the GOP chooses to conduct restricted nomination contests, there are well-established paths forward. Political parties have long conducted nominations through conventions, caucuses, and other party-run systems financed privately. In Colorado, the Libertarian Party and the Green Party continue to select candidates through assemblies and conventions without relying on taxpayer-funded primaries. Parties certainly can retain full control over nominations without state-funded election machinery.
The equity implications are difficult to ignore. The Republican Party, like any political party, is a private association. If other parties can conduct their nomination processes without public subsidy, it is reasonable to question why the Republican Party should continue to receive taxpayer funding if it chooses to exclude most taxpayers.
Elected leaders are going to have to address this imbalance, and voters should hold them accountable. The use of public funds to administer a process that excludes a substantial portion of taxpayers raises serious constitutional questions. And if left unaddressed, a legal challenge may be warranted. Although courts have traditionally imposed limits on taxpayer standing, they have recognized it in circumstances where public expenditures implicate constitutional constraints or structural concerns
The principles at stake here are straightforward: public funding should be paired with public access. Colorado has been a national leader in expanding voter participation, and its current system reflects a deliberate choice to modernize democracy in line with the composition of its electorate.
If a party chooses an open primary, it may justly rely on public administration and support. If it chooses to close that process, it has every right to do so-but then it should bear the cost itself, as any private association would.
Jeremy Gruber, JD 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.”
