Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump wants to control who votes in primaries. Will anyone stand up to this?

Opinion

Donald Trump at CPAC

Former President Donald Trump speaks during the Conservative Political Action Conference in Orlando on Feb. 26.

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Opdycke is president of Open Primaries, a national election reform organization. Gruber is the organization’s senior vice president.

Since the beginning of the year, legislation has been introduced in Missouri, New Hampshire, Idaho and Wyoming to close primaries outright or further restrict the ability of independent voters to participate. All four bills have been introduced by legislators loyal to former President Donald Trump, who formally endorsed the Wyoming legislation on Feb. 17. Other states are considering similar changes.

Trump and his acolytes are keenly aware that control of the mechanisms and rules of elections are a crucial component of influencing outcomes. Because the United States is one of only a handful of Western democracies with partisan election administration, they are working every angle: support secretaries of state and appointing local/state boards of elections and boards of canvassers loyal to their agenda; driving efforts to audit and overturn the 2020 results, as in Wisconsin; supporting and/or initiating voter suppression measures to depress turnout in Democratic Party strongholds. Now they are setting their sights on controlling who can and cannot vote in GOP primaries.


Trump wants closed primaries. That’s how he gets his people elected, and that’s how he regains power. Democratic Party leaders are unable or unwilling to stand up for the principle that publicly funded elections should be open to all voters because they themselves prefer to control who can and cannot vote. In fact one of the few reforms both Nancy Pelosi and Kevin McCarthy oppose are nonpartisan open primaries that allow every voter to participate on equal footing. “This is not a reform. It is terrible,” Pelosi said in 2018. That’s now stopping them from engaging an emerging, and highly destructive, Trump tactic to solidify minority rule by closing primaries and electing even more partisan actors who support his agenda.

This is a dangerous situation.

There is broad recognition that partisan gerrymandering has helped consolidate Republican control in red states — particularly over state government. To be sure, Democrats have been guilty of their own share of gerrymandering, most recently and egregiously in New York. Far less appreciated, and equally consequential, is that many of these Republican-dominated states have a combination of nonpartisan registration and/or open primaries that allow broad participation. With the Republican primary the only election that matters in these states, such rules have helped blunt an even more partisan slide.

That could change very fast. We have a former president with a ruthlessly efficient team of strategists, operatives and allies working to influence or manipulate every kernel of the election code they can get their hands on — nothing is sacred, nothing is out of bounds. And we have an opposition force that stands up for fairness in some traditional arenas, but not others. They fight tooth and nail to prevent restrictions on early or mail-in voting in areas where they compete, but sit silent while the GOP attempts to disenfranchise a third of all voters in Wyoming and Idaho.

Controlling the rules of primary elections is an efficient way to affect voter suppression. But the Democratic Party is compromised by its own partisanship, limited in vision by its own self interest. Over the years, dozens of resolutions to change party rules and open primaries have failed. In 2020 alone they were defeated in Florida and New York without so much as a floor vote.

We are in a pickle. So what do we do?

Two leaders offer inspiration as to a way out of this mess, one a Democrat and one a Republican. Jane Kleeb is the chair of the Democratic Party of Nebraska. She led an effort to open up Democratic state and federal primaries and she made it stick. Kleeb is the rare Democrat who insists that the Democratic Party needs to stand up for the voting rights of all — even people who don’t want to join the party. The other is Arnold Schwarzennegger. While governor of California, Schwarzennegger fought to enact nonpartisan primaries and nonpartisan redistricting. It wasn’t just that he won these reforms. It was how he won them. He insisted, in every speech, at every rally, that the political parties should not be in charge of the process, and that democracy doesn’t work unless it puts all voters first.

Make no mistake, Trump and his allies have their sights on the rules of primary elections. Let’s learn from Kleeb and Schwarzennegger, and fight to give every American full and equal access to them.


Read More

A close up of a person reading a book in a bookstore.

As literacy declines in America, what happens to democracy? This essay explores how falling reading levels, digital media, and the loss of “deep literacy” threaten self-government and the foundations of equality.

Getty Images, LAW Ho Ming

Promoting Civic Literacy for America’s 250th

We Americans have always felt anxious about our democracy. As Benjamin Franklin famously said, ours is only “a republic, if you can keep it,” and we’ve been plagued by a nagging feeling ever since that we can’t. The latest bout of handwringing is brought on by declining literacy and the threat it poses to liberal democracy, and—aware of our penchant for anxiety though we may be—it is hard not to feel concerned.

The fact is that we have large and growing numbers of kids who can’t read well. National Assessment of Education Progress scores reveal that the number of students scoring below NAEP basic has grown steadily since 2019. While the percentage of students considered proficient has held steady, decreased literacy is reported even in elite colleges and universities. Adult reading is way down as well.

Keep ReadingShow less
Bar graph of shopping carts

A deeper look at inflation in today’s economy—beyond money printing. Explore how trade fragmentation, geopolitics, tariffs, and industrial policy are driving structural inflation and rising costs in the U.S.

Andriy Onufriyenko/Getty Images

Inflation Has Changed—And So Has Who Pays for It

A familiar conservative argument is back: inflation is the result of government printing and overspending. Too many dollars, too much demand, not enough goods. It is a tidy explanation, one that has the advantage of clarity and a long intellectual pedigree. It is also incomplete.

That story assumes a stable, globalized economy in which production is efficient, supply chains are reliable, and market signals dominate political ones. In that world, inflation can plausibly be reduced to a question of monetary discipline or fiscal restraint. But today’s economy no longer operates under those conditions. Inflation is now driven less by excess demand and more by rising costs tied to trade fragmentation, industrial policy, and geopolitical conflict. These forces are not temporary disruptions. They are reshaping how goods are produced, where they are produced, and at what cost.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Ballroom Won’t Save Our Children
people walking on street during daytime
Photo by Chip Vincent on Unsplash

A Ballroom Won’t Save Our Children

When an active shooter threat disrupted the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the president and members of his cabinet were evacuated swiftly and efficiently. The threat ended with a shooter apprehended and a Truth Social post. Then President Trump returned to the podium, bypassing the persistence of gun violence in this country to make the case for his long-sought $400 million White House ballroom, one that would supposedly prevent criminals from entering the space. The solution to a potential mass killing was a bulletproof ballroom.

I was an elementary student when Columbine made school shootings a national emergency. The safe haven of school became a potential war zone overnight, and the fear that settled into children that year never fully left. But how could it? The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting happened when I was a new high school teacher. Parkland when I was a doctoral student. Uvalde during my first faculty position. The shooting at Brown University happened during my fifteenth year working in education. Gun violence has followed me the entire length of my educational career, from K-12 student to high school teacher to university professor. Nearly three decades later, I am still waiting for the final straw, the moment that produces gun reform and makes school feel safe again. Instead, I have more thoughts and prayers than ever, and no gun reform in sight.

Keep ReadingShow less
Death with Dignity: A Person's Right to Choose Life or Death

Funeral, cemetery and hands with rose on tombstone for remembrance, ceremony and memorial service. Depression, sadness and person with flower on gravestone for mourning, grief and loss in graveyard

Getty Images

Death with Dignity: A Person's Right to Choose Life or Death

There is much debate around the world regarding both physician-assisted dying legislation—often called "Death with Dignity"—and expanding the circumstances in which it is applicable. Eight countries and 19 states already permit it in some form.

It is controversial for many reasons. Part of the controversy stems from our cultural discomfort with death. Part of it results from the medical profession's focus on keeping people alive and its fear of malpractice suits. Part of it is religious.

Keep ReadingShow less