Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less