Open Primaries is a movement of diverse Americans who believe in a simple, yet radical idea: no American should be required to join a political party to exercise their right to vote. The mission of Open Primaries is to advocate for open and nonpartisan primary systems, counter efforts to impose closed primaries, educate voters and policymakers, advance litigation, train spokespeople, conduct and support research, and participate in the building of local, state and national open primaries coalitions. We provide information to the public about open and nonpartisan primaries. We engage all sectors—voters, policy makers, good government and civic organizations, business leaders, community activists—to educate, build bridges and develop the primary reform movement.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Xavier Becerra
Credit: becerraforgovernor
Xavier Becerra Steps Back Into California Politics
Oct 22, 2025
Xavier Becerra is once again stepping onto familiar ground. After serving in Congress, leading California’s Department of Justice, and joining President Joe Biden’s Cabinet as Secretary of Health and Human Services, he is now seeking the governorship of his home state. His campaign marks both a return to local politics and a renewed confrontation with Donald Trump, now back in the White House.
Becerra’s message combines pragmatism and resistance. “We’ll continue to be a leader, a fighter, and a vision of what can be in the United States,” he said in his recent interview with Latino News Network. He recalled his years as California’s attorney general, when he “had to take him on” to defend the state’s laws and families. Between 2017 and 2021, Becerra filed or joined more than 120 lawsuits against the Trump administration, covering immigration, environmental protection, civil rights, and healthcare. “We were able to defend California, its values and its people,” he said.
- YouTube youtu.be
Now, his campaign focuses on rebuilding. He often connects policy goals to his personal story as the son of a construction worker and a clerical employee. He was the first in his family to graduate from college and says that background shapes his approach to leadership. “If I can open doors for that next construction worker and clerical worker to dream big, that’s what’s going to count,” he said.
Housing is at the top of his platform. He calls it the foundation of family stability and wealth. “I want housing to be the principal priority,” he said. “When families own a home, they build wealth and confidence.” He also links housing to healthcare and safety, describing these issues as connected parts of a stable life.
Healthcare remains central to his public identity. As Secretary of Health and Human Services, Becerra coordinated the final phase of the national vaccination campaign that delivered more than 700 million doses. He also oversaw the first federal negotiation to reduce prescription drug prices. “I want to be California’s healthcare governor,” he said. “We will not go backwards simply because Washington is taking away a trillion dollars out of our healthcare.”
Becerra has also highlighted the importance of communication with multilingual communities. His campaign recently launched a Spanish-language TikTok account, part of his effort to connect with California’s Latino voters. “If I could, I would do social media in English, en español, and in every language,” he said.
At 67, Becerra’s experience is both his greatest strength and his main challenge. Supporters see him as a steady leader who can deliver results in uncertain times. Critics view him as part of a Democratic establishment facing growing pressure from younger, more progressive voices.
Still, Becerra’s record of persistence may play to his advantage. “I will build,” he said. “It’s in my blood.” Whether that promise can carry him from Washington back to Sacramento will be tested in less than a month.
Alex Segura is a bilingual, multiple-platform journalist based in Southern California.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
During a recent visit to Indianapolis, VP JD Vance pressed Indiana Republicans to consider mid-decade redistricting ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Getty Images, mphillips007
JD Vance Presses Indiana GOP To Redraw Congressional Map
Oct 21, 2025
On October 10, Vice President JD Vance visited Indianapolis to meet with Republican lawmakers, urging them to consider redrawing Indiana’s congressional map ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. The visit marked Vance’s third trip to the state in recent months, underscoring the Trump administration’s aggressive push to expand Republican control in Congress.
Vance’s meetings are part of a broader national strategy led by President Donald Trump to encourage GOP-led states to revise district boundaries mid-decade. States like Missouri and Texas have already passed new maps, while Indiana remains hesitant. Governor Mike Braun has met with Vance and other Republican leaders. Still, he has yet to commit to calling a special legislative session. Braun emphasized that any decision must ensure “fair representation for every Hoosier."
Despite mounting pressure, Indiana Republicans have been more cautious than their counterparts in other states. Senate President Pro Tempore Rodric Bray described the recent discussions as “productive” but confirmed that no final decision has been made. Democratic lawmakers and civic groups have vocally opposed the effort, calling it a politically motivated attempt to undermine voter representation.
Indiana currently has nine congressional districts, seven held by Republicans and two by Democrats. The existing map, drawn in 2021, following the census, already favors the GOP. A proposed revision circulating among Republican lawmakers would split urban centers like Indianapolis and Fort Wayne, diluting Democratic voting power. It would also reconfigure Districts 1 and 7—currently Democratic strongholds—to include more rural, Republican-leaning areas. Critics argue this amounts to gerrymandering designed to reduce minority and urban representation.
Public sentiment appears strongly opposed to the redistricting push. A new poll commissioned by Unite America found mid-decade redistricting widely unpopular among voters—including GOP primary voters.
The survey found that 44% of Hoosiers oppose redrawing Indiana’s congressional map outside the regular process, while just 31% support it. After hearing balanced arguments from both sides of the debate, opposition jumps to 69%—with only 21% in support. The caucus meeting comes just days after Vice President JD Vance visited Indiana to rally support for the proposal, underscoring the Trump administration's deep involvement in the state's redistricting push.
“Voters across Indiana—including a majority of Republicans—are sick of partisan games that put party over country,” said Unite America Executive Director Nick Troiano. “If lawmakers want to build trust, they’d be wise to focus on issues that directly affect Hoosiers’ everyday lives, instead of wasting taxpayer dollars to further gerrymander Indiana's Congressional districts, which are already among the least competitive in the country.”
The poll, conducted by 3D Strategic Research, reinforces concerns voiced by some Indiana Republicans that redrawing the map is unnecessary—and even potentially harmful to their electoral prospects. All Hoosiers, including an oversample of GOP primary voters, prefer the governor and legislature focus on issues that directly impact their quality of life—such as the cost of living and public safety—rather than redrawing the maps.
- Only 10% of voters agree that the governor and legislature should call a special session for redistricting.
- 28% of GOP primary voters said they would be less likely to support a candidate who supports mid-decade redistricting, compared to only 17% who are more likely.
- When given a list of 14 issues, redrawing Congressional maps ranks dead last among Republican primary voters.
The poll also found that most Indiana voters oppose a proposal to close the state’s primaries to registered party members only—also under consideration by Republican lawmakers. If enacted, roughly two million independents million independents would lose the right to vote in the elections that matter most, since all nine congressional districts are effectively decided in the primaries. After hearing arguments from both sides, opposition grew from 52% to 77%—including 66% of Republican primary voters.
“Every voter should have the freedom to cast a ballot in every taxpayer-funded election. I’m not surprised Indiana voters don’t want to give up that right,” finished Troiano.
The survey was conducted Oct. 7-9, 2025, among 500 registered voters and 450 Republican primary voters in Indiana. The full poll can be viewed here. Crosstabs are available upon request.
As redistricting efforts intensify across the country, it’s critical for voters to understand how gerrymandering undermines the core democratic principle of fair representation. By manipulating district boundaries to favor one political party, gerrymandering allows politicians to choose their voters, rather than voters choosing their representatives.
This practice often dilutes the voting power of communities along racial, ethnic, or partisan lines, resulting in “safe seats” where incumbents face little competition. That lack of accountability discourages voter participation and fosters political stagnation. Worse still, it erodes public trust in the democratic process and undermines the legitimacy of elected governments.
Gerrymandering not only infringes on individual voting rights but also corrodes the foundational ideals of equal representation and responsive governance. If democracy is to thrive, voters must demand transparency, fairness, and integrity in how electoral maps are drawn.
Keep ReadingShow less
The Trump administration’s suspension of the USDA’s Household Food Security Report halts decades of hunger data tracking.
Getty Images, Catherine Falls Commercial
Trump Gives Up the Fight Against Hunger
Oct 21, 2025
A Vanishing Measure of Hunger
Consider a hunger policy director at a state Department of Social Services studying food insecurity data across the state. For years, she has relied on the USDA’s annual Household Food Security Report to identify where hunger is rising, how many families are skipping meals, and how many children go to bed hungry. Those numbers help her target resources and advocate for stronger programs.
Now there is no new data. The survey has been “suspended for review,” officially to allow for a “methodological reassessment” and cost analysis. Critics say the timing and language suggest political motives. It is one of many federal data programs quietly dropped under a Trump executive order on so-called “nonessential statistics,” a phrase that almost parodies itself. Labeling hunger data “nonessential” is like turning off a fire alarm because it makes too much noise; it implies that acknowledging food insecurity is optional and reveals more about the administration’s priorities than reality.
Without data, planning becomes guesswork and fighting hunger means doing it in the dark.
For nearly three decades, the Household Food Security Report has been the nation’s most comprehensive measure of hunger, an essential piece of bureaucracy that told the truth about who was eating and who was not. The Trump administration’s decision to halt its collection marks more than a budget cut; it is an attempt to erase a mirror reflecting uncomfortable realities. The order cites efficiency and cost savings, but its real effect is political. Without the numbers, hunger becomes invisible, harder to prove, and easier to deny.
The Myth of Savings
To put the cost in perspective, the Economic Research Service’s annual budget is roughly equivalent to what the federal government spends on military bands. That comparison underscores how minimal the supposed savings are and highlights the contrast between cost and consequence.
The moral cost of hiding hunger is inseparable from the fiscal debate. Every dollar saved by cutting data collection represents a choice to look away, to trade transparency for convenience.
Economic justifications often serve as political cover, disguising efforts to silence uncomfortable truths. The fiscal rationale does not hold up. The Economic Research Service, which produces the Household Food Security Report, has a budget of roughly $310 million. Estimates suggest the report itself costs only a few million dollars to conduct and analyze, which is barely a rounding error in federal terms. Even a generous estimate of $20 million in savings would have no measurable impact on the deficit.
Ending it is not about balancing the books; it is about hiding the evidence. Without data, there is no accountability, no uncomfortable truths, and no evidence to challenge political narratives. The decision to halt the report was not fiscal; it was strategic. If the numbers are not collected, the problem cannot be proven. And if it cannot be proven, it can be ignored.
The Local Fallout
Hunger is not an abstract policy issue; it is a daily reality for millions of Americans. The disappearance of data has tangible human costs long before it becomes a bureaucratic concern. Without reliable information, the families lining up at food pantries, the schools planning lunch programs, and the states seeking aid are left guessing.
The consequences of data suppression do not stay in Washington. They ripple outward, hitting communities where the need is greatest.
Governors, mayors, school districts, and food banks rely on federal hunger data to qualify for funding and design effective programs. Without it, they are flying blind. In cities like Chicago and Los Angeles, school lunch programs use the data to determine eligibility for free and reduced-price meals. In rural areas, where food deserts stretch for miles, the numbers guide mobile food banks and nutrition outreach.
When the metrics vanish, so does the leverage to demand federal support. Suppressing hunger data does not make hunger go away; it just makes it harder to see. And when we cannot see it, we cannot solve it.
The absence of national data also erodes accountability. Congress cannot track the effectiveness of programs like SNAP or WIC without consistent reporting. Researchers lose the ability to compare trends over time, making it easier for policymakers to claim success where there is actually decline. The nation’s hunger crisis does not get solved; instead, it slips beneath the surface of official statistics, where it is easier to ignore.
A Crisis Hidden in Plain Sight
Congress and federal agencies still have the tools to repair this damage. They can restore the Household Food Security Report, require regular publication, and protect data collection from political interference, ensuring hunger never disappears from the national agenda.
Counting the hungry is more than a statistic; it is a test of national conscience. When the government stops gathering facts, it stops acknowledging those who suffer. Restoring this data is not bureaucracy; it is civic responsibility and a reaffirmation that compassion and accountability still matter.
Data collection keeps government honest by revealing where policy fails and where people are left behind. When leaders decide what information the public can see, governance turns into propaganda. Suppressing food security data is not about efficiency; it is about control. Without transparent measures of hunger, citizens lose the power to hold leaders accountable.
Political scientist and public policy theorist John W. Kingdon observed that indicators shape the national agenda. Leaving hunger statistics off that list sends a dangerous message: that hunger no longer matters enough to measure.
In the end, data suppression corrodes trust, weakens institutions, and turns public policy into a political weapon. The fight against hunger must begin again—with the courage to count and the will to act.
Robert Cropf is a professor of political science at Saint Louis University.
Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. President Donald Trump poses with the signed agreement at a world leaders' summit on ending the Gaza war on October 13, 2025 in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt.
(Photo by Suzanne Plunkett - Pool / Getty Images)
Standing Up for Democracy Requires Giving the Other Side Credit When It Is Deserved
Oct 21, 2025
American political leaders have forgotten how to be gracious to their opponents when people on the other side do something for which they deserve credit. Our antagonisms have become so deep and bitter that we are reluctant to give an inch to our political adversaries.
This is not good for democracy.
What we need is a new ethics of opposition. Its prime directive is simple: fight hard and unrelentingly for democracy and the rule of law. But when, for whatever reason, our opponents achieve something valuable, say so.
It pains us to follow this maxim at a time when so much that we care about is under attack.
Yet now is a good moment to follow it, even though, as Newsweek’s Bobby Ghosh puts it, “It isn't easy to praise someone (President Trump) who habitually, preemptively, and lavishly praises himself.” But there is no denying that the Trump Administration has just achieved a major and important foreign policy objective, a ceasefire in Gaza and the return of twenty hostages who were abducted during the horrors of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack on Israel.
As Ghosh argues, “(T)he guns in Gaza have quieted. And it isn't because of the nudgings of real estate developers Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the promptings of Qatar and Egypt, the pleadings of Europe, the finger-wagging of human-rights organizations, or the hand-wringing of the United Nations alone.”
“The ceasefire,” he says, “is the gift of Donald Trump.”
Not sure that gift is the right word, for it is something given willingly with no expectation of payment or reward. Is that the right description for a president who is reportedly desperate to win the Nobel Peace Prize? Or for a president who was caught on a hot mic brokering a meeting between his son Erik and the President of Indonesia? Recall that Eric Trump and Donald Trump, Jr., serve as executive vice presidents of the Trump Organization.
Gift or not, Trump got done what the Biden Administration did not accomplish. He induced, threatened, or cajoled the Israeli government to make at least a temporary peace with Hamas.
He did so after wasting a lot of time before drawing a line in the sand for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As Ghosh observes, if the president had not gotten lost in fantasies about “real-estate opportunities in Gaza, thousands of Palestinian lives might have been saved, and more of the Israeli hostages would be in the bosom of their families.”
Better late than never.
President Biden’s former national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, got it right when, on October 12, he said about the ceasefire and hostage deal, “’I give credit to President Trump, I give credit to [Steve] Witkoff and [Jared] Kushner and [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio. These are hard jobs. The president of the United States is the hardest job in the world, and these other jobs, including the job I occupied, are tremendously difficult…. And to get to something like today takes a village, and it takes determination and really hard work, and so I, without question, offer credit for that.’”
He was joined in that by Arizona’s Democratic Senator Mark Kelly. “’I think,’” Kelly said, “he should get a lot of credit. I mean, this was his deal. He worked this out.’”
Late-night television host and frequent Trump critic embraced the ethics of opposition, which we are championing, when he said, “What a day for Donald Trump…You know what? He finally did something positive today and I want to give him credit for it … “
Kimmel twisted the knife a bit with a bit of sarcasm about the president, saying, “he’s not the type to take credit for himself,” but quickly added, “the fact is the bombing has stopped, the hostages have been released, and Trump deserves some of the praise for that. So I know it sounds crazy to say, but good work on that one, President Trump.”
To hue to this line, we have to be able to focus on what someone does, no matter how much we dislike the person who does it or other things they do.
This is harder than it should be, not just because of the things the administration is doing at home, but because the leader of the free world never misses an opportunity to kick sand in the eyes of people he considers his enemies.
For example, while basking in the glory of his Middle East accomplishments, Trump told a story about a meeting he had with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi a decade ago and attacked 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee Hilary Clinton while doling so. As the president put it, “We knew each other from the beginning…. I was going to meet him, and then Hillary Clinton was following me…. And he liked me so much he never even got to see Hillary. ... [Sisi] didn’t want to waste a lot of time. He knew what was going to happen.”
Later, he asked El-Sisi if he remembered “crooked Hillary Clinton.”
That followed on the heels of the president’s speech to the Israeli Parliament, when he went out of his way to call former President Joe Biden's administration “the worst in U.S. history,” then said former President Barack Obama was "not far behind."
It doesn’t help that Trump is so eager for credit and so angry and resentful when he doesn’t get the amount of credit he craves. What CNN observed during his first term is even truer today: “The funnel cloud of anger, score-settling, political chaos and divisive rhetoric that swirls around Trump at all times also has the effect of drowning out debate about the nature of his policies and any good press that he does get.”
Trump makes it hard for liberals to adhere to our ethics of opposition because he “makes it impossible, in practice, for liberals to be tolerant (egalitarian), rational, and optimistic about human nature—three things that are essential aspects of liberal ideology and liberal psychology.” AS John Jost and Orsolya Hunyady say, the president “oozes authoritarian ugliness.”
As hard as it is, giving the president credit when he deserves it is not only the right thing to do, it also helps blunt the criticism that those who oppose him on most things are driven by blind hatred or Trump derangement syndrome, a belief that Trump encourages at every turn.
If we are to have any chance of repairing and rebuilding our democracy in a post-Trump world, we need to learn the lesson that all great strategists understand. Giving ground does not mean surrendering.
Doing so at the right time is necessary to make victory possible in the struggle to preserve democracy, even if Trump’s recent success turns out to resemble Ebeneezer Scrooge’s fictitious benevolence on Christmas Day.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More