After the official release of the 2020 census data, Max Carver for RepresentUs explains why it's critical that we understand how partisan gerrymandering disempowers voters — and more importantly, how we can end it before it's too late.
A photo of multiple checked boxes.
This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.
Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.
The purpose of primary elections is to let citizens winnow down the number of candidates to a more manageable number for the general election, when more voters are paying attention (typically two or three times as many). To decide who appears on the general election ballot, Maine uses traditional closed party primaries, where one candidate from each party advances and voters must declare affiliation with that party to participate in that choice. In Alaska’s open nonpartisan primary, candidates from all parties, as well as independent candidates, appear together on the same ballot for each office, and only the top four advance to the general election.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
With 57% of Alaskan voters having no party affiliation, many independent voters could only have a meaningful say in who was elected by joining the dominant Republican Party so that they could vote in their primaries. It was no surprise, then, that they instead favored a nonpartisan primary, which also allowed them to “split their tickets” and vote for candidates from different parties for different offices. In contrast, these other state initiatives undoubtedly suffered from a less independent electorate, from 26% in Idaho and 35% in Nevada to 48% in Colorado. Combining that with opposition in these states from the Republican and Democratic parties, but also from smaller parties and other organizations, these initiatives were destined for failure.
How can this dual-election system be improved so that there is more support and less party opposition? As the first implementation, let’s consider Alaska’s experience. Oddly, while ranked choice voting is being used in the state’s general elections, it is not being used in its primaries! Each voter is only allowed to pick one candidate, even though the voting machinery exists to allow them to rank at least some of the candidates. As a result, the primaries have the same detrimental consequences as any such election:
These factors combine, in effect, to reduce choice in the general election, where it matters the most, and potentially prevent the election of a candidate with actual majority support. Let’s consider them in turn.
Vote Splitting
Alaska’s first use of its new system is a good example, a high-profile special election to replace their lone and long-serving representative in the U.S. Congress, Don Young, who passed away in the spring of 2022. A special primary election was scheduled for June to fill the last few months of his term, and 48 candidates threw their hats in the ring. Two of the Republicans advanced to the general election, Sarah Palin (27%) and Nick Begich (19%), along with one of the Democrats, Mary Peltola (10%), and a “Nonpartisan”, Al Gross (13%, a former Democrat). But were they actually the most popular choices? One-third of the votes went to other candidates! With so many in this primary, including multiple candidates from the four largest affiliations, there was undeniably a great deal of vote splitting occurring. The two Libertarians are a clear example, they might have picked up additional support if there had been only one of them and fewer of the other competitors.
Strategic Voting
Alaskan voters clearly engaged in strategic voting in the special primary. Polling is intended to estimate voter support for the various candidates, but when it’s published before the election it also influences them. Which candidates have the best chances to advance? Voting for your favorite may split the vote with a similar but more popular candidate and prevent either from moving on to the general election, so you may abandon the former and strategically vote for the latter. We can see this effect when we compare the early polling to the primary results, where the more popular candidates expanded their leads, enough to advance to the general election. The early polls clearly influenced voters from expressing their true preferences at the poll that really matters, the primary. In addition, this effect is subject to the tentativeness of early polling and manipulation via “fake” polls.
Under-Representation
In Alaska’s special primary election, the smaller parties were completely shut out. For example, the Libertarian Party didn’t gain any support from independent voters, and the Alaska Independence Party’s candidate saw little support even from its membership, who presumably felt that would be a wasted vote. The general pattern of advancement in the subsequent two regular primaries in 2022 and 2024 is four Republicans and Democrats in some combination. Previously, smaller parties would have been allowed to run a candidate in the general election and present their case to its larger audience. As a result, this multiplex primary system has become an even greater barrier to their participation than the strategic voting with which they previously coped. This is hardly the “diverse competition” claimed by its proponents!
Negative Campaigning
Another feature of ranked choice voting is that it encourages more positive campaigns because most candidates need to rely on second- and third-choice votes to win a majority of the vote. Pick-one primaries do not provide this incentive, because a candidate can vigorously attack others and, if victorious, have time before the general election to mollify those candidates’ supporters. This was amply demonstrated in the special primary, where the Republican candidates Palin and Begich continuously feuded. When both candidates made it into the general elections, a large number of Begich’s supporters snubbed Palin and ranked the Democrat second, providing the support Peltola needed to win in the final round of voting.
Solutions
There are a number of changes that could be made to Alaska’s primaries to fix these issues and make them more acceptable to those who oppose it:
These changes to Alaska’s nonpartisan primaries would provide voters with more choice and more voice in who they elect, and let the community respond to changing politics more easily than with the two-party system. Hopefully, now that a few years have passed, legislators will be more comfortable with ranked choice voting and be willing to fix the primaries themselves. If not, I encourage good government groups in Alaska to bring another ballot initiative, as it will result in a much more delicious experience for voters.
It’s also clear that for a state to adopt this paired election system of nonpartisan primary and ranked choice general elections, there should be, at the very least, a substantial number of independent voters. If not, then it should start by adopting ranked choice voting for both its general elections and partisan primaries, and first get comfortable with this more palatable half of the system.
Andy Anderson is the Senior Academic Technology Specialist for Data Science and Spatial Analysis at Amherst College, and a ranked choice voting activist.
The United States Supreme Court.
Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).
Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.
The plaintiffs argue that California’s top-two system is a violation of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as “the rights of voters who wish to vote for and associate with minor political parties, their candidates and the issues for which they stand.” It’s a party-centric argument, adopted by some reformers, that the only legitimate expression of “voter choice” is a November election in which all candidates who wish to run appear on the ballot. The longer the menu, the more choices you get. Take something off the menu, you're denying choice.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
So why do California voters find the top-two system so appealing if there are “only” two choices? In fact, the choices these plaintiffs are suing to offer voters already exist—in the primary. In that way, the primary is much more like a general election, and, like any general election, all voters get to participate. The general election, then, becomes a runoff of the top vote-getters. It could be any combination of candidates. What matters is that the people themselves—not the parties—get to make the choice of who they like best to compete head-to-head. That’s the appeal of the California system—it’s voter-centric.
Since the adoption of the top-two system, electoral competitiveness has gone way up in California. Uncontested elections have virtually disappeared. Five million independent voters have access to the ballot box. And, all voters have access to the only electoral system that pits the two most favored candidates against each other head-to-head and guarantees a majority winner.
Meanwhile, the plaintiffs collectively represent 2% of the CA electorate (less than half a million voters out of 24 million registered). Twenty years ago, long before the top-two system, they represented—you guessed it—2% of the electorate. As millions of voters have left the major parties in CA, and tens of millions nationwide, the number of independent voters has more than doubled, going from 14% of the electorate twenty years ago to almost a quarter of the CA electorate today. California voters are clearly not very interested in the “choice” these plaintiffs are offering.
The case is unlikely to be successful. There is no absolute right for any party or candidate to be on any ballot. The U.S. Supreme Court has limited its guidance to directing states to “provide a feasible opportunity for political organizations and their candidates to appear on the ballot.” The top-two system treats every party equally. Indeed, the parties in their brief acknowledge that, despite a very modest amount of public support, some third-party candidates have had success in CA under the top-two system. Not to mention that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the top-two primary is constitutional.
Perhaps the case will start some new conversations. How should the rights of third parties be balanced with the rights of voters—especially the explosion of independent voters? How do you articulate the value of a reform that has shown real merit but that is hard to capture in a state as large and as complicated as CA? Whose opinions on the value of a reform matter more—reformers or the public they profess to be serving?
If the case prompts thoughtful answers to any of these questions, these plaintiffs may still yet succeed in unwittingly advancing a very different goal—a more voter-centric reform movement.
On Dec. 13, The Fulcrum identified the worst examples of congressional gerrymandering currently in use.
In that news report, David Meyers wrote:
“With two post-census election cycles in the books, congressional district maps are mostly set for the remainder of the decade – which means we will know the outcomes of the vast majority of House elections before voters even cast ballots in November 2026, 2028 and 2030.
That’s because most states allow politicians to draw district maps, enabling them to use voter data to create maps that favor the party that controls the legislature. Both parties use practices like “cracking” and “packing” to divide minority-party communities across multiple districts or combine them into as few districts as possible, all to guarantee control in future elections.
This practice is known as gerrymandering, and when practiced for partisan purposes it is legal, according to the Supreme Court."
Working with gerrymandering experts, Meyers identified a dozen egregious examples of gerrymandering; however, given how common the practice is, not all districts were included.
Among those not included was a district in Louisiana that is worthy of coverage.
In 2022, the National Redistricting Foundation initiated Galmon v. Ardoin, consolidated with Robinson v. Ardoin, a lawsuit that challenged Louisiana's gerrymandered congressional map in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. NRF ultimately was successful in requiring the state to enact a new map that includes two Black opportunity districts in compliance with Section 2.
Immediately after enactment of the new map, a new lawsuit was filed and a lower court wrongly struck down Louisiana’s VRA-compliant map. Following that decision, the NRF-supported plaintiffs, alongside the Robinson plaintiffs, filed an emergency stay request to the U.S. Supreme Court asking the court to block the lower court’s decision and keep the VRA-compliant map in place for the 2024 election while the case was appealed — and the court did so. Now the Supreme Court will consider Louisiana v. Callais in its current 2024-2025 term. This case will not only determine the future of Louisiana’s VRA-compliant congressional map, but also could impact the future of critical VRA protections. Learn more about the NRF’s work here.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The Fulcrum will continue to keep our readers apprised of updates on this critically important issue related to the health of our democracy
Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
This was a big year for the open primaries movement. Seven state-level campaigns and one municipal. Millions of voters declaring their support for open primaries. New leaders emerging across the country. Primary elections for the first time at the center of the national reform debate.
But with six out of eight campaigns failing at the ballot box, it’s also an important moment of reflection.
Some folks have likened this year’s losses to the normal flow of any successful change movement. But I spent almost 20 years as an attorney in the civil rights movement before joining the political reform movement. This year’s campaigns were anything but normal. There’s a core set of principles that have guided the successful development of every change movement since women’s suffrage in this country, and too often campaigns (save the tremendous work of Lisa Rice in Washington, D.C.) ignored them.
If we are going to grow into a winning movement, we have to start embracing the principles of change.
Asking voters to change how they vote is hard work. Unlike reformers, voters don’t have the luxury of thinking about democracy reform every day. Many are ready for change, often more than reformers themselves, but they have little understanding of the issues. That requires significant investment in education and conversation.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
That can’t happen in the course of a campaign asking for their vote. Sometimes winning is the easy part, holding on to a reform requires voters to take ownership of it. A runway must be built and that can take years. Oklahoma just launched a campaign for open primaries last month, after first spending 10 years building a conversation in the Sooner State.
Change campaigns are built on a foundation of trust. Trust is everything. Voters are unwilling to vote for reform, even reform they support, unless they are absolutely sure that the intent of those advocating for that reform is genuine and not for the purpose of gaining advantage.
Several years ago, we conducted exit polling after a failed campaign in Oregon that had high polling numbers. Voters were clear-they supported the policy, but not the campaign. That means investing in the hard work of a campaign led by and supported by real people. Voters easily sniff out campaigns led by paid consultants. One campaign I spoke with this year rated their grassroots development an “F.” We must do better.
In most cases, the combination of ranked choice voting and open primaries was a mistake. They are separate reforms with different politics, constituencies and histories, and most campaigns couldn’t answer the fundamental question of why they were being combined. Voters found them complicated, and they were too easily attacked by opponents as a result.
And too often, the combination was determined by a small group of funders or activists, and did not come out of any process of conversations with voters themselves. Ironic, considering that the purpose of reform is to expand, not limit political input.
Having the trust of voters requires you to be honest with them. No more so than when you’re asking them to change the rules of the game.
The combination of open primaries and ranked choice voting presented clear challenges to campaigns where the former polled significantly better than the latter. For much of the past year, the refrain from PR consultants, funders and activists alike was to focus on open primaries and limit discussion of RCV. It was framed as effective messaging, but in reality it was simply dishonest.
It demeaned our work and destroyed trust.
Every successful change campaign in America has been a grand bargain between funders and local and national activist leaders. The activists lead and the funders support them with the resources and expertise they need to be successful. Both are necessary. As we move forward trying to enact reform in an era of profound suspicion, where voters are rejecting the concentrations of wealth and power in our society at every level, that order of leadership is critical to build trust.
Too often this past year, though, campaigns were developed by funders, and decisions were made without the participation of local and national leaders. Voters saw funder/consultant-dominated campaigns this year and wholesale rejected them.
As some have likened the political reform movement trajectory to that of the marriage equality movement, it's helpful to understand how that movement was funded. From 2004 to 2013, funders spent a billion dollars over 10 years. One of the key funding partnerships was the Civil Marriage Collaborative, which included several large foundations and donors. They focused on working with key groups in the space to build a grassroots constituency and public education apparatus. They diversified their strategy to include litigation, grassroots organizing, lobbying and electing pro-LGBT politicians.
As then-CMC Director Paul Di Donato said, “the only way to achieve and defend a marriage equality victory nationwide was … changing the hearts and minds of Americans about the rightful place of LGBT people in our society and … why marriage matters for us.” That’s how movements are built.
Much of the post-mortem debate so far on 2024 has focused on public support for the particular policies put before voters — but that’s only a small part of the lessons we must learn if we’re going to move forward successfully and build this movement. The opportunity is all in front of us — if we embrace the “how” and follow key tenets of change that have driven every reform movement before us.
Gruber is senior vice president of Open Primaries.
