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

Poll: 82% of Americans Want Redistricting Done by Independent Commission, Not Politicians

Capitol building, Washington, DC

Unsplash/Getty Images

Poll: 82% of Americans Want Redistricting Done by Independent Commission, Not Politicians

There may be no greater indication that voters are not being listened to in the escalating redistricting war between the Republican and Democratic Parties than a new poll from NBC News that shows 8-in-10 Americans want the parties to stop.

It’s what they call an "80-20 issue," and yet neither party is standing up for the 80% as they prioritize control of Congress.

Keep ReadingShow less
Nationalization by Stealth: Trump’s New Industrial Playbook

The White House and money

AI generated image

Nationalization by Stealth: Trump’s New Industrial Playbook

In the United States, where the free market has long been exalted as the supreme engine of prosperity, a peculiar irony is taking shape. On August 22, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced that the federal government had acquired a stake of just under 10% in Intel, instantly making itself the company’s largest shareholder. The stake - roughly 433 million shares, valued at about $8.9 billion, purchased at $20.47 each - was carved out of the Biden-era CHIPS Act subsidies and repackaged as equity. Formally, it is a passive, non-voting stake, with no board seat or governance rights. Yet symbolism matters: Washington now sits, however discreetly, in Intel’s shareholder register. Soon afterward, reports emerged that Samsung, South Korea’s industrial giant, had also been considered for similar treatment. What once would have been denounced as creeping socialism in Washington is now unfolding under Donald Trump, a president who boasts of his devotion to private enterprise but increasingly embraces tactics that blur the line between capitalism and state control.

The word “nationalization,” for decades associated with postwar Britain, Latin American populists, or Arab strongmen, is suddenly back in circulation - but this time applied to the citadel of capitalism itself. Trump justifies the intervention as a matter of national security and economic patriotism. Subsidies, he argues, are wasteful. Tariffs, in his view, are a stronger tool for forcing corporations to relocate factories to U.S. soil. Yet the CHIPS Act, that bipartisan legacy of the Biden years, remains in force and politically untouchable, funneling billions of dollars into domestic semiconductor projects. Rather than scrap it, Trump has chosen to alter the terms: companies that benefit from taxpayer largesse must now cede equity to the state. Intel, heavily reliant on those funds, has become the test case for this new model of American industrial policy.

Keep ReadingShow less