Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Florida voters will decide whether to end partisan primaries

Miami, Florida, voting location

Florida may be on the verge of scrapping partisan primaries for most elections.

Cliff Hawkings/Getty Images

Floridians will decide this fall whether to transform the state's polarized politics by opening most primaries to all voters, regardless of party.

Because Florida is the nation's biggest battleground state, the result will be enormously important to the future of one of the core causes of the democracy reform world — diminishing the Republican and Democratic duopoly over political power.

The measure's place on the November ballot was assured Thursday by the state Supreme Court, which is called on to review every constitutional amendment proposed through the gathering of petition signatures. The court ruled 4-1 that the proposal met the necessary legal and clarity requirements.


Attorneys for both parties, which agree on almost nothing in Florida these days, united behind the same argument in trying to derail the referendum: Adoption would deprive partisan loyalists of what should be their exclusive right to choose the preferred candidate of their party.

Advocates of opening the system argued that what is paramount should be the rights of almost 3.7 million unaffiliated Floridians to participate in the political process. The current system, they maintained, is effectively disenfranchising almost 30 percent of the state's electorate — which is growing faster in the state than registration in either party — by barring them from casting ballots at a crucial stage in the electoral process.

Outside of court, they argue that the current primary system, because it reliably produces very conservative or very liberal candidates, fails to reflect the more centrist nature of the population and is unable to adequately respond to the state's needs.

"This may be the most important issue on the ballot in any state other than the presidential election because, all across the country, everyone is looking,'' said Gene Stearns, who runs All Voters Vote, which has been pushing the referendum for five years with $6 million in backing from Miami health care mogul Mike Fernandez.

"If Florida allows nonpartisan elections, everyone else will follow," Stearns said. "The whole objective is to reduce the toxicity of our political process."

Sixty percent of the state will need to vote "yes" for the change to take effect, which would happen in 2024. Then, all registered voters would face a single primary ballot for governor, other statewide offices and seats in the Legislature. The top two vote-getters, even if from the same party, would advance to the general election.

The benefits, advocates say, include rewarding the candidates with the broadest (and likely most centrist) appeal and insulating candidates from defeat at the hands of well-financed opposition campaigns that appeal to the ideological extremes.

Florida is among a minority of states where primaries are completely closed to voters not registered red or blue. Most states allow some sort of crossover or independent participation.

Terms for the far-reaching system that Florida is contemplating include "nonpartisan blanket primary" and "jungle primary." Nebraska was the first to embrace this system, back in 1936, but only for election to what's officially a nonpartisan Legislature. Louisiana (since 1975), Washington (since 2004) and California (since 2010) conduct top-two primaries for both state-level races and seats in Congress. Florida's measure would not apply to Senate and House races.


Read More

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules
A close up of a window with a sticker on it
Photo by Zach Wear on Unsplash

Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules

Last week, I wrote a column in the Fulcrum entitled “Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits.” The facts presented in that writing made it clear that the U.S. Constitution does not require voter ID and left almost all election administration—including voter qualifications—to the states. However, over time, constitutional amendments and federal statutes have restricted states’ ability to impose discriminatory voting rules, but they have never mandated voter ID.

The SAVE America Act

The national debate over voter ID has entered a new phase with the introduction of the SAVE America Act, the most sweeping federal voter‑identification and citizenship‑documentation proposal in modern history. For more than two centuries, voter eligibility rules—ID included—have been primarily a matter of state authority, bounded by constitutional protections against discrimination. The SAVE America Act would shift that balance by imposing federal requirements for both photo identification and documentary proof of citizenship in federal elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Posters are displayed next to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as he speaks at a news conference to unveil the Take It Down Act to protect victims against non-consensual intimate image abuse, on Capitol Hill on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

A lawsuit against xAI over AI-generated deepfakes targeting teenage girls exposes a growing crisis in schools. As laws struggle to keep up, this story explores AI accountability, teen safety, and what educators and parents must do now.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Deepfakes: The New Face of Cyberbullying and Why Parents, Schools, and Lawmakers Must Act

As a former teacher who worked in a high school when Snapchat was born, I witnessed the birth of sexting and its impact on teens. I recall asking a parent whether he was checking his daughter’s phone for inappropriate messages. His response was, “sometimes you just don’t want to know.” But the federal lawsuit filed last week against Elon Musk's xAI has put a national spotlight on AI-generated deepfakes and the teenage girls they target. Parents and teachers can’t ignore the crisis inside our schools.

AI Companies Built the Tool. The Grok Lawsuit Says They Own the Damage.

Whether the theory of French prosecutors–that Elon Musk deliberately allowed the sexualized image controversy to grow so that it would drive up activity on the platform and boost the company’s valuation–is true or not, when a company makes the decision to build a tool and knows that it can be weaponized but chooses to release it anyway, they are making a risk-based decision believing that they can act without consequence. The Grok lawsuit could make these types of business decisions much more costly.

Keep ReadingShow less