Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Lessons to be learned from the ‘real’ Operation Chaos in South Carolina

Opinion

Lessons to be learned from the ‘real’ Operation Chaos in South Carolina

"Trump called for South Carolina's Republicans to flood the Democratic primary. They didn't," argues John Opdycke.

Sean Rayford/Stringer/Getty Images

Opdycke is the president of Open Primaries, a national election reform organization that advocates for open and nonpartisan primary systems.

For weeks leading up to the pivotal South Carolina primary, the media warned of a sinister plot hatched by President Trump and Rush Limbaugh called "Operation Chaos."

Pundits warned that tens of thousands of sleeper-cell Republicans were being prepped to flood the polls during the Democratic presidential contest two weekends ago in a cynical (but legal in states with nonpartisan voter registration) effort to push Bernie Sanders to victory — on the theory the Vermont senator would be the weakest Trump opponent in the general election. Hundreds of hours of cable news histrionics reinforced this narrative. Social media was abuzz with dire warnings about the dangers of allowing people to vote in ways not deemed appropriate or legitimate.

Except it was all hype. It didn't happen.

So what's the problem?


The fear-mongering before the primary, which former Vice President Joe Biden won decisively, has empowered the opponents of such open election systems. They now have the political cover they need to say, "Open primaries are insane. We need more partisan control over who can vote!"

According to the exit polling, 5 percent of the people who voted in the South Carolina primary were Republicans. Just 5 percent. That's about the normal amount for South Carolina, which does not have partisan voter registration. In a typical election in the state, between 3 percent and 5 percent of self-identified Republicans vote in the Democratic primary and between 3 and 5 percent of Democrats cross the opposite way. The share of the vote was so small that the pollsters weren't able to draw any useful conclusions from it.

The real story is that 26 percent of those who voted Feb. 28 were independents. That's what advocates of closed primaries advocates really fear. Not "party raiding," the usual term in political circles for what would have been had Operation Chaos come to pass. The power of such efforts has been repeatedly debunked by academic studies. Instead, Republican and Democratic leaders fear the rapid increase in the number of voters who aren't loyal to and won't join either party. That's the motivation for the overreaction to Trump and Limbaugh's provocation.

Trump called for South Carolina's Republicans to flood the Democratic primary. They didn't. But the opponents of open elections — Democrats and Republicans alike — don't care. They whip up fear and use it to advance closed primary legislation, particularly in states with long histories of voter suppression such as Missouri, Tennessee and South Carolina. The media moves on, but the damage is done. One lone article has been written exposing that the Trump-Limbaugh effort was laughably ineffective.

In 2016, insiders from both parties joined together to decry the dangers of open primaries in California and how the system of open elections in the nation's most populous state would derail the entire race. In a rare show of bipartisan agreement, House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy declared that he hated his state's system and his fellow Californian Nancy Pelosi, then leader of the House Democratic minority, pronounced that an open primary "is not a reform. It is terrible."

But the primary came and went without problems, save one (if you even want to call it that): More than 4 million independents cast ballots. Today open primaries in California are supported by a lopsided majority of voters, Democrats and Republicans as well as independents.

Overreaction to the Trump-Limbaugh hoax — combined with the cyclical assault on voting reforms by partisans in both parties during election season — is the real Operation Chaos. Create fear. Convince the American people, including many in the growing election reform movement, that contests open to all voters are an invitation to chaos. Ignore the fact that they don't do any such thing. Then press forward efforts to close down open primaries, lock out independent voters, obstruct reform and further construct and reinforce the partisan silos that are ruining American civic life.

The American people aren't being fooled, even if seasoned journalists are. Open elections are the bedrock of democracy. Continuing the effort to build a more perfect union is a requirement of American citizenship. It's time to take the fight to the insiders of both parties with a very simple demand: Let all voters vote.


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