Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

It’s not a democracy when the parties control our elections

Person walking past a "Vote Here" sign

The major political parties have blocked the right of many Americans to vote in primaries, accordign to Rice.

Megan Varner/Washington Post/Getty Images

Rice is the proposer of Initiative 83, a combination of election reforms to open the primaries to independents and implement ranked-choice in Washington, D.C. She is a national spokesperson for Open Primaries and a member of the board of directors of Unite America.

Coming out of the 1960s civil rights era, most teens registering to vote joined their parents’ political party. I did exactly that, joining the Democratic Party. I didn’t know I had the choice to be an independent voter.

Times change.

I split from the Democratic Party and declared my independence years ago. Its propensity to put party over people hasn’t created a space for those of us who don’t perfectly align with their agenda. The local party, along with the national brand, has lost the trust of many because of this rigidity. Big tent? I don’t see it.


I had been deeply disturbed by the erosion of the fundamentals of democracy for a while. Through my lens, as a Black woman, the racism and misogyny unleashed during the Trump administration was a personal assault. From the immediate dissolution of the pandemic response team to governmental attacks on historically Black and women’s institutions, to the encouragement of the terrorist attacks in Charlottesville, things quickly became more horrific.

Since 1865, a consistent theme in building our democracy — growing ever more urgent — has been securing the right to vote for every American. As a child, I accompanied my parents to the voting center every Election Day. This tradition was not uncommon among Black working- and middle-class families. Kids like me were thrilled to observe the ritual — watching my parents fulfill their sacred duty to vote was an event!

In places throughout America today, though, the two major political parties have made a concerted effort to block a right every registered voter should have: to participate in primary elections.

In a dozen states and the District of Columbia, registered voters who don’t belong to a political party are denied the right to vote in any primary elections. Most states limit participation in at least some primaries. This is not what civil rights leaders fought and died for in achieving passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Those trailblazers marched, bled and died for my right to vote.

Here, today, in 2024, I want that right. I demand my constitutional right to vote without joining a political party. It’s past time.

In Washington, D.C., one in six voters are registered as independents. I am one of them. We are prohibited from voting in our city’s taxpayer-funded primary elections. Our votes are suppressed. In a super-majority, Democratic town, the inability for independents to vote in the primary shuts us out of the election that determines who holds the majority of elected offices. The general election here, for all but two races, simply seals results determined in the primary — without the participation of independents.

Many local elected leaders express support for statehood, pleading that statehood is a voter suppression issue. In a city that has already granted the right for non-citizens to vote in local elections, barring independents like me from voting in the primaries is a slap in the face. Why don’t these same politicians defend my right to vote in our primaries with just as much vigor?

I’ve been told, “you have a choice, register as a Democrat.” That’s not a choice, that’s a directive. And it’s not very democratic; in fact, it feels downright autocratic.

We are long past the days when the party — any party — should be able to rule who can participate at the polls. In the long run, what political party can be successful that refuses to build bridges with the largest group of voters in America? After all, 43 percent of voters across the country identify as independent. That constitutes a larger proportion of voters than either of the major parties. Let that settle in.

How would Democrats feel if the state told them they must register as Republicans to cast their ballots? My right to vote is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. How can the D.C. Democratic state party override the U.S. Constitution? Primaries are public elections, run by our government and paid for by us, the taxpayers.

The first bold step to move toward a government that chooses people over politics, country over party, is to liberate independent voters and let us vote. Let’s end voter suppression here in D.C. by opening the primaries to independent voters. We deserve the right to exercise the franchise.

It’s 2024. Let us vote.

This article was first published in The Hill on Feb. 24.


Read More

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less