Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Typing on a computer
person using laptop

America Needs a Digital Equity Policy, Not Just Tech Innovation

The United States invests billions in artificial intelligence research and development‚ semiconductor fabrication‚ and next-generation connectivity. Yet millions of Americans cannot consistently access the internet or afford the devices needed to submit an online application for social services or a job application․ This is not an oversight․ It is a policy choice that is costing the country dearly․

Connectivity is a floor, not a ceiling:

Keep ReadingShow less
The election voting process, bidding, hands raised up with papers

Confidence in U.S. elections has fallen to 55% ahead of the 2026 midterms. The real risk isn't who wins — it's whether the loser accepts it.

Svetlana Shamshurina/Getty Images

The Real Test of the 2026 Midterms Comes After the Vote

Less than three months before Americans vote in the 2026 midterms, a federal judge on August 11 blocked the U.S. Postal Service from implementing part of President Donald Trump’s executive order tightening mail-in voting rules. The ruling came amid an intensifying fight over how November’s elections will be administered. That fight underscores a deeper problem: the real question in American politics is no longer simply who wins the next election, but whether large numbers of people will still accept the result when their side loses.

Elections in the United States were supposed to settle arguments. One side wins, the other accepts defeat, and the country moves on. That quiet agreement is under growing pressure as the midterms approach. Control of Congress still matters, but beneath that contest lies a more consequential question: if the outcome goes against one of the two major political camps, will that camp still trust the process that declared it the loser?

Keep ReadingShow less
 Unrecognizable doctor prescribing pharmacy to patient.

After a 30-year decline, U.S. abortions are rising again. Texas data suggests bans may shift where abortions happen — not whether they do.

Natalia Gdovskaia/Getty Images

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Bridging the Gap

Introduction

We have spent decades arguing about abortion policy on ideological grounds. I think we now have an opportunity to step back, look at what actually happened, and ask a more fundamental question: What policies actually reduce the number of abortions?

I believe that is a question on which pro-life and pro-choice people should be able to agree. Whatever our differences about abortion itself, surely, we can agree that fewer abortions would be a good outcome.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less