Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

California Schemin’

California’s open primary system faces renewed attacks as party insiders push to regain control and limit independent voter influence.

Opinion

Republican, Democratic and independent checkboxes, with the third one checked

Analysis of California’s open primary system, political reform, and voter empowerment amid gubernatorial tensions and calls to restore party control.

zimmytws/Getty Images

Both before and after Eric Swalwell’s resignation, the California Gubernatorial race has partisan insiders screaming that California’s innovative, voter-friendly, open primary system should be scrapped. Why? Seven Democrats and two Republicans are running. If all the Democrats stay in the race, and none surges, there is a statistical possibility that the two Republicans advance to the general election.

The attacks are pure opportunism, from people who oppose open primaries, period. Never mind that seven million independent voters have been enfranchised and elections are much more competitive, according to these critics, the fact that the Gubernatorial race might feature two Republicans is absolute proof that the old system needs to be restored.


The critics don’t say it directly, but the motivation for their attacks is that they want to go back to the good old days when voters were powerless and California was the most politically dysfunctional state in America.

Don’t be fooled.

25 years ago, Sacramento was ground zero for zombie politics. Late budgets, partisan gamesmanship on every issue, brownouts, public approval below 25%. But closed primaries and gerrymandered districts insulated Democratic and Republican lawmakers from any consequences.

Until 2003, when voters erupted.

Governor Gray Davis was recalled and replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger in a nonpartisan election. Arnold spent his tenure looking to uproot the rotten core of partisan control, which had crippled California for a generation. In 2010, voters passed top-two open primaries and nonpartisan redistricting. Both had an immediate positive effect on voter inclusion—millions of independent voters finally had full voting rights—competition, and legislative functionality.

The partisan machines, from Nancy Pelosi and Kevin McCarthy on down, fought both efforts, calling them an existential threat. And for the last 15 years, they have been looking for a way to go back to closed primaries, a task made difficult by the fact that 73% of California voters prefer an open system to a closed one.

Today, Californians are once again unhappy with the status quo. Yes, they went along with Governor Newsom’s tit-for-tat temporary dismantling of the people’s redistricting commission, but on taxes, schools, housing, homelessness, and many other issues, Californians are deeply frustrated with how unresponsive the ruling Democrats (out of touch) and opposition Republicans (out of their minds) are to their concerns.

Party stalwarts want to use this discontent to restore a party-controlled system that didn’t work and that voters hated.

Here are two things they won’t say. First, the Schwarzenegger reforms were designed to shift power from parties to voters. That the Democratic Party (or any party) is not guaranteed a spot on the ballot is a feature, not a bug. If the Democrats cannot screen candidates and make behind-the-scenes endorsements to better their chances of advancing, that is on them, not on us.

Second, open primaries enfranchised millions of independents, the fastest-growing segment of the electorate. Under the old system, they were completely sidelined. Partisans would like to return to a system where independents have no voice, no choice, no seat at the table.

The top two primary did not solve all of humanity’s ills. Our mistake was in thinking that structural reforms have magical qualities. Enacting open primaries and nonpartisan redistricting enfranchised independents and created new dynamics, but the partisan apparatus has time, money, and experience. They reasserted their authority while the “give power to the people” rebellion withered. We can’t wait for the opportunists to attack our accomplishments to ask the question, “What more can we do to empower the people of California?”

Here is the most likely scenario. The Democrats get their act together. Several candidates drop out, and several surge to the front. The general election features two Democrats or a Democrat versus a Republican. The opponents of open primaries go silent until the next opportunity arises to trash the system. But what’s the “listen-to-the-people” plan going forward? California had a net loss of 220,000 people last year, driven by the runaway cost of living. There is a dramatic need for sweeping change in how California is governed. The reform movement needs to think big, get creative, and really listen.

I don’t know what the next voter empowerment wave looks like. But it doesn’t start by reverting to the old party-run system that disenfranchises voters and concentrates power in the hands of tiny groups of self-interested parties.


John Opdycke is the president of Open Primaries, a national election reform organization.


Read More

A group of people wait in line to get their ballots to vote in the election.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact could reshape presidential elections as Midwest states debate Electoral College reform, political polarization, and the future of winner-take-all voting in America.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

700+ Proposed Amendments Failed, Midwest Voters Can Succeed

The Midwest served as the vanguard and ideological heartland of the Progressive Era, acting as a crucial laboratory for political, social, and economic reforms that later adopted national significance. Midwestern states (the cradle of the movement) pioneered anti-monopoly efforts, democratic, and social improvements.

After 770+ failed proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendments (the most on record for one issue) to remedy the factionalism (21st century polarization) feared by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
“We Can’t Afford It” Is Never an Acceptable Excuse To Deny Independents a Vote

DC voting rights advocate Lisa D.T. Rice criticized the DC City Council for failing to fund Initiative 83’s semi-open primary system, leaving 85,000 independent voters unable to participate in taxpayer-funded primaries despite overwhelming voter approval in 2024.

Photo by Getty Images on Unsplash.

“We Can’t Afford It” Is Never an Acceptable Excuse To Deny Independents a Vote

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Lisa D.T. Rice spoke before the DC City Council during a Budget Oversight Hearing on May 1 to talk about Initiative 83, the semi-open primary and ranked choice voting measure she proposed that was approved by 73% of voters in 2024.

- YouTube youtu.be

Keep ReadingShow less
The Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Decision Could Reshape Local Government Across Texas

A landmark Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act could reshape Latino and Black political representation in Texas. Guillermo Ramos and other leaders warn the decision may weaken protections against discriminatory election systems in school boards and city councils.

The Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Decision Could Reshape Local Government Across Texas

Guillermo Ramos remembers seeing few elected leaders who looked like him while he was growing up in the 1980s in Farmers Branch, a fast-growing affluent suburb northwest of Dallas.

Over the years, Latino representation continued to lag, he said. In 2015, after he had become a lawyer, he decided to do something about it.

Keep ReadingShow less
Official ballots with a chain and lock over them, and the USA flag behind them.

The impact of election fraud claims and voting laws on democracy in the United States. Daniel O. Jamison examines voter suppression concerns, mail-in ballot policies, and the broader political struggle over election integrity.

Getty Images, JJ Gouin

If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It

For nearly ten years, claims that our elections are riddled with fraud have threatened the foundation of our democratic republic.

It is alleged that Democrats have flooded the country with illegal immigrants who then illegally vote for Democrats. Purportedly to protect the country from this, Republicans seek legislation that would, among other provisions, restrict vote-by-mail, require potentially expensive and onerous proof of citizenship to register to vote, and require potentially expensive photo identification to vote.

Keep ReadingShow less