Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Texas and Ohio Push To Close Primaries: The New Gerrymandering Playbook To Lock Out Voters

Closing primaries after gerrymandering isn’t just strategy—it’s a structural threat to representative democracy.

Opinion

A "vote" sticker or pin going into a ballot box.

From Ohio to Texas, lawmakers are trying to close primaries after gerrymandering maps — locking millions out of meaningful elections. Learn why voters are fighting back and where reform is gaining momentum.

Getty Images, Juan Moyano

Amid this year’s unprecedented redistricting wars, another troubling trend is taking shape. In the past week alone, Ohio legislators introduced a bill to close the state’s primaries, while the Texas Republican Party filed a lawsuit to do the same.

This is no accident. In fact, it’s part of a well-worn playbook that goes something like this: First, politicians redraw maps in their states (also known as redistricting or gerrymandering) to lock in safe seats and make general elections uncompetitive. Then, they move to close primaries so that only a narrow slice of voters—typically the most partisan—can meaningfully participate.


The goal is simple: lock in power by locking out voters. If these states and others are successful, even fewer voters will determine most elections in America, leaving the rest of us without a meaningful voice.

A Year of Failed Attempts (So Far)

Before Ohio and Texas, efforts to close primary elections in 16 states this year quietly failed. That’s no surprise—closing primaries is deeply unpopular with voters. According to polling from the Unite America Institute, huge majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents believe that every eligible voter should have the freedom to vote in every taxpayer-funded election.

Politicians and groups outside the mainstream are often the driving forces behind these bills, because they view closed primaries as a way they can tilt the playing field. By ensuring that only the most partisan and unrepresentative voters can participate in the only election that matters, these groups’ preferred candidates are more likely to win.

Yet the public knows better—and the trendline shows it. Nationwide, 16 states still hold closed primaries for congressional offices, locking out more than 16.6 million independent voters. But in recent years, momentum has gone in the opposite direction, with voters in Colorado (2016), Alaska (2020), Maine (2021), and most recently New Mexico (2024) all choosing to expand participation.

The Wyoming Playbook

Despite momentum for open primaries, fringe groups clearly see an opportunity. Because in a couple of states recently, their strategy is working.

Take Wyoming, for example. After the legislature passed a law in 2023 to effectively close the state’s primaries, ideologically extreme factions within the Republican Party quickly gained ground. With 94% of state house seats facing no November competition—and the majority of districts where the GOP primary was the only election that mattered—they rapidly expanded their influence and ultimately secured a majority in the state house.

Once in power, they pursued an agenda far out of step with local priorities, from slashing K–12 funding growth to proposing corporate tax holidays even business groups opposed.

This is the playbook now being exported to states like Texas and Ohio.

Gerrymandering and Closed Primaries: A Compound Threat

Redistricting and primary rules may seem like separate issues, but they are structurally linked. When politicians both rig the maps and restrict who gets to vote in primaries, the effect is compounded: most voters are locked out of meaningful participation in both the primary and general election.

In states like Texas, Ohio, and South Carolina—where aggressive redistricting is underway and efforts to close primaries are active—the threat to voter power is especially urgent.

The risk isn’t theoretical. When primaries are closed, unrepresentative candidates are more likely to emerge, isolating the mainstream and distorting representation. Ironically, by narrowing the electorate, parties may even undermine their own general election competitiveness by nominating candidates who are out of step with the broader public.

The Bigger Picture

This trend should alarm anyone who cares about a representative democracy. What we are witnessing is a coordinated effort to reshape the rules of American politics—first through gerrymandering, then through closing primaries.

But here’s the hopeful reality: voters are pushing back. From Colorado to Alaska to Maine to New Mexico, momentum is still on the side of opening primaries, not closing them. And we’ll continue to stand on the side of ensuring that every voter has a meaningful say in the leaders who represent them.


Nick Troiano is the executive director of Unite America, a philanthropic venture fund that invests in nonpartisan election reform to foster a more representative and functional government. He’s also the author of “ The Primary Solution.”

Read More

A solemn portrait of a woman looking down, bathed in dramatic light and shadow from window blinds, emphasizing solitude and deep thought in monochrome.

After the Lindsay Clancy mistrial, we must confront postpartum mental illness and ask how to better support mothers before tragedy strikes.

Viktoriya Skorikova/Getty Images

The Questions We Should Be Asking About the Lindsay Clancy Case

Three children are dead.

Nothing that follows should ever diminish that heartbreaking reality.

Keep ReadingShow less
Donald Trump

President Donald Trump speaks before signing the Secure America Act in the Oval Office of the White House on June 10, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Federal Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Loyalty Question’ on Civil Service Job Applications

A court’s decision to block the Trump administration from including a “loyalty question” on federal job applications was a win not only for the nonpartisan civil service, but also for the communities public employees serve, said one labor leader whose union was among the plaintiffs in the case against the Office of Personnel Management.

Patrick Moran, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, said Friday that the loyalty questions the OPM placed on job applications for public servants were a “blatantly illegal attempt to hire partisan cronies who would endanger our communities by putting politics before people, rather than dedicated, qualified public service workers.”

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

U.S. standard certificate of live birth application form next to flag of USA.

Getty Images

Birthright Citizenship Explained: History, SCOTUS Rulings & Executive Orders

Birthright citizenship has been part of American law for more than 150 years. As the American public continues to see challenges against its constitutionality, brought on by the Trump administration, it is important to remember why.

After the Civil War, Congress adopted the 14th Amendment in 1868 to overturn Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had denied citizenship to Black Americans, dampening their federal protections. While the 13th amendment had abolished slavery a few years earlier, Free Black Americans were considered noncitizens by many, and thus had to work around a separate set of laws, meaning they could never be fully integrated as members of American society. In response to this issue, the 14th Amendment declares that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States.

Keep ReadingShow less
Scales of justice
a golden scale with an eagle on top of it

A Real Test for “Lawfare” Must Protect Allies and Enemies Alike

“Lawfare” is becoming a word that ends arguments instead of clarifying them. When Donald Trump or his allies are prosecuted, many on the right call the case political. When the Trump administration investigates critics, many on the left call it retaliation or “score-settling.” Sometimes those accusations are justified. Sometimes they are partisan reflexes. A label that changes with the identity of the defendant is not a rule of law.

The hard cases are not the ones with a public order to punish an enemy. They are cases with mixed facts: a real investigative predicate, a politically active target, disputed timing, later changes in treatment, and no contemporaneous record the public can inspect. Those cases require something better than “trust the prosecutors” or “trust the accused.” They require an auditable standard.

Keep ReadingShow less