Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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

Despite Court Order, NYPD Failed to Properly Monitor Stop-and-Frisks by Aggressive Unit

Members of the New York City Police Department’s Community Response Team conduct a raid on a smoke shop in lower Manhattan in 2024.

Luiz C. Ribeiro/New York Daily News/Tribune News Service via Getty Images

Despite Court Order, NYPD Failed to Properly Monitor Stop-and-Frisks by Aggressive Unit

More than a decade ago, a federal court found that the New York City Police Department had been unconstitutionally stopping and frisking Black and Hispanic residents. The ruling laid out required fixes, including something quite basic: The NYPD would review officers’ stops to make sure they were legal.

But for most of the past three years the nation’s largest police department failed to do that for a key part of an aggressive and politically connected unit as it stopped New Yorkers.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of U.S. Senator Cory Booker speaking.

U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) speaks while Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, not pictured, testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on oversight of the Department, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on March 3, 2026.

Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images/TNS

Cory Booker Should Be Ashamed of Himself

I wish “Meet the Press” host Kristen Welker had asked Sen. Cory Booker if he’s qualified to represent New Jersey given that nearly 9 out of 10 of his constituents are not Black.

I should probably back up.

Keep ReadingShow less
As Detainments Increase, Seattle Dedicates $4M to Legal Defense of Immigrants

The City of Seattle sits across Elliott Bay as activists march down Alki Beach with protest signs in support of immigrants on Feb. 2, 2025.

Photo: Alex Garland

As Detainments Increase, Seattle Dedicates $4M to Legal Defense of Immigrants

A $4 million budget increase for the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Affairs (OIRA) will go toward community grants and legal defense for detained immigrants, Mayor Katie Wilson's office announced.

Proposed in September 2025 amid a growing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) presence, nearly half the budget increase will help fund the City's Legal Defense Network (LDN), a program that provides legal representation to those who live, work, or go to school in Seattle during immigration proceedings.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

How the erosion of the rule of law threatens American democracy, constitutional rights, judicial independence, and public trust in government institutions.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

When the Rule of Law Unravels, Democracy Begins to Collapse

There is one thread that holds democracy's cloth together. That is the Rule of Law. For the most part, we take the rule of law for granted; we don’t give it a second thought, even though we rely on it constantly. Yet, pull that thread, and the cloth of democracy frays and ultimately unravels.

The rule of law is defined as the principle under which all persons, institutions, and entities are accountable to laws that are: (1) clear and publicly promulgated; (2) equally enforced; (3) independently adjudicated; and (4) are consistent with international human rights principles.

Keep ReadingShow less