Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Veterans, politics and primaries

Veterans, politics and primaries

Retired four-star general George Casey spoke about the need to be apolitical while leading the military at an event yesterday.

Chip Somodevilla /Getty Images

General George W. Casey spoke at an event on October 19, 2022 to a group of veterans and national security advisors. Casey, a retired four-star general who served as the 36th Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, spoke of his 41 years of military service and the absolute need to be apolitical while leading the military. Following his retirement, he noted his process in unlearning his apolitical stance, and he asked himself how he could best continue to serve the nation.

Ultimately, he decided on nonpartisan activities through political acts of service like encouraging veterans to participate and follow their conscience. He volunteered to be a poll worker. He speaks about politics with few clues to his voting record. That’s not his point. General Casey’s point is to continue serving our nation in ways that are aligned with our personal values of liberty and justice for all; continuing to uphold the Constitution as all military personnel pledge upon joining the armed services.


The event was hosted by Veterans for Political Innovation, a group that advocates for electoral reform, primarily what’s known as Final Four/Five and Ranked Choice Voting. Each state offers a different set of rules for primary voting. One challenge veterans face in voting is being blocked from voting in primaries in closed or partially closed primary states.

  • Closed primaries: Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Washington DC.
  • Partially closed primaries (party can allow independent voters): Connecticut, Idaho, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah
  • Partially open primaries (voter can choose up to election day to change affiliation or join a party): Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Ohio, Tennessee, Wyoming
  • Open to unaffiliated voters (i.e. declared partisans cannot vote on opposing party ballot): Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, West Virginia
  • Open primaries (voters may select a partisan ballot on election day without registering for that party): Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin
  • Top-Two primaries (all partisan candidates are on one ballot, the top two advance regardless of party affiliation): California, Washington
  • Other primary processes:
    • Louisiana runs all candidates on the general election ballot without a primary election. If no candidate received more than 50%, a runoff election is held six weeks after the general election.
    • Nebraska uses a nonpartisan election system common to local offices for all elections. All candidates appear on the same primary ballot without party designation and all voters select from the same ballot.
    • Alaska recently adopted a top-four primary system.

To recap, voters have open primary ballot access in 26 states, but are blocked by partisan legislators in 24 states and Washington DC.

Partisans see the choice differently, asking people to join their party to participate in the party candidate selection process. The taxpayer picks up the tab for all primary elections; not the parties.

Closed primary elections disenfranchise more than 20 million Americans, including the close to 50% of veterans who do not identify with either major political party. Open primaries, on the other hand, offer state-selected solutions for top-two, final four or final five voting choices, regardless of party affiliation. Currently in Nevada, ballot measure 3 would shift all state legislative, state executive and federal elections to final five voting. This will open up voting access in the 2024 election cycle to all voters, not just partisans.

Read More

How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change

Claiming Contested Values

FrameWorks Institute

How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change

Claiming Contested Values: How Fairness, Stability and Freedom Can Help Us Build Demand for Transformative, Structural Change, produced by the FrameWorks Institute, explores how widely shared yet politically contested values can be used to strengthen public support for systemic reform. Values are central to how advocates communicate the importance of their work, and they can motivate collective action toward big, structural changes. This has become especially urgent in a climate where executive orders are targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, and some nonprofits are being labeled as threats based on their stated missions. Many civil society organizations are now grappling with how to communicate their values effectively and safely.

The report focuses on Fairness, Stability, and Freedom because they resonate across the U.S. public and are used by communicators across the political spectrum. Unlike values more closely associated with one ideological camp — such as Tradition on the right or Solidarity on the left — these three values are broadly recognizable but highly contested. Each contains multiple variants, and their impact depends on how clearly advocates define them and how they are paired with specific issues.

Keep ReadingShow less
America’s Human Rights Reports Face A Reckoning Ahead of Feb. 25th
black and white labeled bottle
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

America’s Human Rights Reports Face A Reckoning Ahead of Feb. 25th

The Trump administration has already moved to erase evidence of enslavement and abuse from public records. It has promoted racially charged imagery attacking Michelle and Barack Obama. But the anti-DEI campaign does not stop at symbolic politics or culture-war spectacle. It now threatens one of the United States’ most important accountability tools: the State Department’s annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

Quiet regulatory changes have begun to hollow out this vital instrument, undermining America’s ability to document abuse, support victims, and hold perpetrators to account. The next reports are due February 25, 2026. Whether they appear on time—and what may be scrubbed or withheld—remains an open question.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reducing the Influence of Money in Presidential Politics is Within Our Reach, from where we Least Expect it: the Electoral College

American flag funnel with money

Illustration provided

Reducing the Influence of Money in Presidential Politics is Within Our Reach, from where we Least Expect it: the Electoral College

Reducing the influence of money pouring into presidential politics since the 2010 Citizens United decision may actually be possible by addressing the "winner-take-all" (WTA) structure of the Electoral College. By changing how electoral votes are allocated, the incentive to concentrate money in a few swing states could be reduced.

The winner-take-all (WTA) feature of the Electoral College narrows the focus of massive campaign expenditures in a “Funnel Effect”* to a handful of closely divided battleground states. Because candidates have little to gain from spending in states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind, they concentrate all their financial resources on 15 or 16 states, or in some cycles, as few as seven key swing states. All this could change if the "battleground state" phenomenon were taken away from the wealthy, as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) would accomplish.

Keep ReadingShow less