Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Which states will be the next to consider open primaries?

Nevada election

Voters in Nevada may not be the only one considered a move to open primaries during the 2024 elections.

Trevor Bexon/Getty Images

After achieving the first step in establishing open primaries in Nevada last month, advocates have set their sights on further victories in 2024.

The measure approved by Nevada voters requires a second round of approval in two years before switching the method of electing officials. The ballot initiative passed in November would switch the state to an open primary system in which all candidates appear on one ballot with the five receiving the most votes – regardless of party – advancing to a ranked-choice general election.

So the groups working in the Silver State must continue rallying support over the next two years. But similar work will be taking place in other states as open primaries advocates seek to expand beyond the 23 states that currently use some form of the system.


Efforts are underway in Oklahoma, Nebraska, Oregon and South Dakota to pass similar ballot initiatives in 2024, according to Jeremy Gruber, senior vice president of Open Primaries. Such successes would build on momentum that Gruber attributed to the emphasis on education and organization. He hopes that open conversations and building connections are key steps towards adopting open primaries in other states and relieving the hyper-polarization in politics.

Open primaries allow voters to participate in any party’s primary election regardless of their own party affiliation (although there are different levels of permission that vary by state). This also includes allowing voters to change their party affiliation before voting.

In contrast, closed primaries — the election system used by about half the country — require individuals to affiliate with a party in order to vote in a nominating contest and are limited to only that party’s primaries. Supporters of closed primaries argue that the system ensures members of another party do not sabotage the nominating process and grants the rights of parties and affiliated voters the freedom of association.

Conversely, proponents of open primaries insist their system reduces polarization while increasing competitiveness, voter turnout, and the integrity of the electoral process. They also argue that primaries should be accessible for all registered voters because they are publicly funded.

“Competition is healthy; it weeds out corruption, it weeds out complacency, it focuses priorities, and it requires politicians to be responsive to their voters,” Gruber said. “This is what we need more of in order for our democracy to continue to function in a healthy way.”

There has been an increasing number of independent voters, resulting in that demographic capturing the largest affiliation.

Since the 2020 election, there has been an addition of nearly 7,000 independent voters in South Dakota. Under the state’s system of closed primaries, those individuals were barred from participating in the primaries this year. However, South Dakotans have proposed a ballot initiative that would implement open primaries for the congressional, gubernatorial, legislative and county elections. Voters will decide whether to make the change during the 2024 election.

Gruber is optimistic about what is happening there.

“South Dakota is an example of voters, both independent and party voters, who are looking for something different. They're looking for a system that puts pressure on the political class to be accountable and responsible, and they see open primaries as an important step in that direction,” he said.

Advocates argue open primaries could be the key reform in empowering voters to show up to the polls and interact with their elected officials. They also believe candidates will not be as strictly tied to party positions because they would want to appeal across partisan lines.

“Open primaries is the beginning of a path forward for voters to be more empowered to take control of their elections,” Gruber said.


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