Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How open primaries got the most votes and still got rejected in Florida

Opinion

Florida primary

Fifty-seven percent of the vote wasn't enough to pass an amendment to the Florida Constitution.

Cliff Hawkins/Getty Images
Hough is director of Florida Fair and Open Primaries, which campaigned for the November ballot measure that would have allowed all voters to participate in a single nominating contest for state offices, with the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advancing to the general election. Independent Voter News published an earlier version of this piece.

Votes are still being counted in several states across the country — but, unlike 20 years ago, Florida is not among them and so is not in the spotlight. But the state should nonetheless be highlighted as the place where a proposed state constitutional amendment received 57 percent of the vote last week, and still was not adopted.

Amendment 3 proposed the implementation of nonpartisan top-two open primaries to reform the current closed primary system in Florida. A clear majority of voters want to get rid of our closed primaries. But, for the past 14 years, a supermajority of 60 percent has been required on a ballot measure proposing a constitutional amendment.

It is worth noting a bit of the history behind the movement for open primaries in Florida.

In 1998, Floridians overwhelmingly voted for an amendment that allowed every voter to vote in a primary election when only one party fields candidates and would face no opposition in the general election. It passed with 64 percent support, at a time when a simple majority was still the threshold for approval.

Upon passage, the political parties sought an opinion on whether write-in candidates constituted valid opposition. The state said yes, and the courts upheld that view.

A loophole for undermining the will of almost two in three Floridians thereby became available to partisan political operatives. Since that time, Republican and Democratic leaders alike have enlisted bogus write-in candidates so that they could keep their primaries closed to all the voters who are not registered members of their parties.

The most egregious case involved a candidate who recruited her mother to run against her as a write-in in two consecutive elections.

Twenty years later, the convening of the Florida Constitution Revision Commission produced an outcry for open primaries. During public hearings, open primaries became the second-most popular issue raised — right behind the automatic restoration of voting rights for formerly incarcerated citizens.

Two commissioners sponsored proposals, one for an open primary and the other to close the write-in loophole.

Although both received support in committees, the full commission refused to advance the proposals to the 2018 ballot.

My grassroots organization immediately formed a political committee, submitted petitions to the secretary of state and put volunteers to work collecting signatures. We had collected 8,500 signatures when we heard that a wealthy Miami resident was interested in open primaries.

We put our effort on pause when we then heard he was teaming up with another organization, All Voters Vote. We withdrew our petitions and dedicated ourselves to supporting that group's effort. That culminated in forming a new PAC, Florida Open Primaries, the sole purpose of which was to promote what became Amendment 3.

The All Voters Vote team did the heavy lifting of collecting more than 1 million signatures and fending off the inevitable court challenges. Now, it was time for us to get to work.

With the incredible assistance of Open Primaries, we raised some money, produced a video ad, hired a media firm, printed yard signs, began submitting letters to the editor — and put my organization's co-founder, Jeff Solomon, to work pounding out emails.

With very few resources our video got 400,000 views. Five million emails were sent, resulting in 1.2 million direct contacts. Volunteers stepped up and placed 1,000 yard signs across the state. Others wrote letters to the editor and op-eds or recorded short video testimonials. Some polling was conducted and we were feeling good about our prospects of winning. Then a bomb went off.

It was no secret that both major parties opposed Amendment 3. But inAugust they went nuclear.

Until that time, the Florida League of Women Voters supported our effort. They even helped collect signatures to get it on the ballot. But then its leaders saw an article in the Tampa Bay Times about a report that Amendment 3 would "bleach" a number of Black-majority districts and would lead to less minority representation.

Given the national environment of racial tension, the League was pressured to throw out years of studying the issue and reverse its previous support. The report at issue was produced by a freelance consultant with ties to the state Democratic Party. Ignoring evidence that minority representation has increased in California since its adoption of a similar top-two primary system, the League withdrew its support. (Two board members resigned in protest.)

Soon after, the Black Legislative Caucus held a news conference denouncing Amendment 3. And mailers paid for by the Florida Democratic Party blanketed the state containing photos of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and former Rep. John Lewis claiming that Amendment 3 would reverse the gains Black voters have made over the decades of struggle for voting rights.

The Republican Party of Florida followed suit with mailers claiming the amendment was being promoted by "leftists" antagonistic to President Trump. The campaigns were underhanded to say the least.

Despite the parties' aggressive smear campaigns, our effort still received 57 percent of the vote. That is a clear majority and, in my book, a huge win.

Visit IVN.us for more from Independent Voter News.

Read More

Understanding the Debate on Health Secretary Kennedy’s Vaccine Panelists

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., January 29, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Chen Mengtong/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images)

Understanding the Debate on Health Secretary Kennedy’s Vaccine Panelists

Summary

On June 9, 2025, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), dismissed all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). Secretary Kennedy claimed the move was necessary to eliminate “conflicts of interest” and restore public trust in vaccines, which he argued had been compromised by the influence of pharmaceutical companies. However, this decision strays from precedent and has drawn significant criticism from medical experts and public health officials across the country. Some argue that this shake-up undermines scientific independence and opens the door to politicized decision-making in vaccine policy.

Background: What Is ACIP?

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) is a federal advisory group that helps guide national vaccine policy. Established in 1964, it has over 60 years of credibility as an evidence-based body of medical and scientific experts. ACIP makes official recommendations on vaccine schedules for both children and adults, determining which immunizations are required for school entry, covered by health insurance, and prioritized in public health programs. The committee is composed of specialists in immunology, epidemiology, pediatrics, infectious disease, and public health, all of whom are vetted for scientific rigor and ethical standards. ACIP’s guidance holds national weight, shaping both public perception of vaccines and the policies of institutions like schools, hospitals, and insurers.

Keep ReadingShow less
MQ-9 Predator Drones Hunt Migrants at the Border
Way into future, RPA Airmen participate in Red Flag 16-2 > Creech ...

MQ-9 Predator Drones Hunt Migrants at the Border

FT HUACHUCA, Ariz. - Inside a windowless and dark shipping container turned into a high-tech surveillance command center, two analysts peered at their own set of six screens that showed data coming in from an MQ-9 Predator B drone. Both were looking for two adults and a child who had crossed the U.S.-Mexico border and had fled when a Border Patrol agent approached in a truck.

Inside the drone hangar on the other side of the Fort Huachuca base sat another former shipping container, this one occupied by a drone pilot and a camera operator who pivoted the drone's camera to scan nine square miles of shrubs and saguaros for the migrants. Like the command center, the onetime shipping container was dark, lit only by the glow of the computer screens.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Trump 2020 flag outside of a home.

As Trump’s second presidency unfolds, rural America—the foundation of his 2024 election win—is feeling the sting. From collapsing export markets to cuts in healthcare and infrastructure, those very voters are losing faith.

Getty Images, ablokhin

Trump’s 2.0 Actions Have Harmed Rural America Who Voted for Him

Daryl Royal, the 20-year University of Texas football coach, once said, “You've gotta dance with them that brung ya.” The modern adaptation of that quote is “you gotta dance with the one who brought you to the party.” The expression means you should remain loyal to the people or things that helped you succeed.

Sixty-three percent of America’s 3,144 counties are predominantly rural, and Donald Trump won 93 percent of those counties in 2024. Analyses show that rural counties have become increasingly solid Republican, and Trump’s margin of victory within rural America reached a new high in the 2024 election.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules
white concrete dome museum

Hands Off Our Elections: States and Congress, Not Presidents, Set the Rules

Trust in elections is fragile – and once lost, it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild. While Democrats and Republicans disagree on many election policies, there is broad bipartisan agreement on one point: executive branch interference in elections undermines the constitutional authority of states and Congress to determine how elections are run.

Recent executive branch actions threaten to upend this constitutional balance, and Congress must act before it’s too late. To be clear – this is not just about the current president. Keeping the executive branch out of elections is a crucial safeguard against power grabs by any future president, Democrat or Republican.

Keep ReadingShow less