Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Solution for one big city's blue monopoly? Open primaries, study says.

Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh

In Baltimore, winning the Democratic primary is tantamount to winning the election. Catherine Pugh won the 2016 primary with just 37 percent of the vote.

Paul Marotta/Getty Images

Griffiths is the editor of Independent Voter News.

Baltimore is a one-party town. It hasn't had a Republican mayor since 1967. Registered Democrats vastly outnumber any other party registration, having a tenfold advantage over the GOP. It's as blue as a city can get.

The consequence is that November elections are inconsequential. The winner of the closed Democratic mayoral primary, for instance, might as well be sworn in the next day, and he or she can win with a marginal share of the total registered voting population. Voters outside the Democratic Party have no voice in the process.

A new study says that, to strengthen political competition and improve city elections, Baltimore should implement nonpartisan reform. Specifically, George Washington University political scientist Christopher Warshaw says, a "'top-two primary' is the reform most likely to improve Baltimore's mayoral elections. This reform would increase turnout and electoral competition."


The Abell Foundation published Warshaw's study just in time for Maryland's primary last week — when the Democratic nod for mayor, which is tantamount to election, was won by City Council President Brandon Scott with just 29 percent of the vote against four credible opponents

Warshaw examines three problems he identified with Baltimore elections:

  • Primary elections can be won with a narrow plurality or very low threshold of the total vote. Another example: Catherine Pugh won the Democratic mayoral primary four years ago with just 37 percent.
  • Due to the overwhelming advantage the Democrats have in voter registration, the primary election is the most crucial stage of the elections process and the Democratic primary decides the winner of the election.
  • Only registered party members can participate in the primaries, meaning approximately 50,000 voters registered unaffiliated or outside the two major parties are denied a voice unless they affiliate with the dominant party (In other words, their right to meaningful participation is conditioned on affiliating with the Democratic Party.)

Warshaw ultimately concludes that a nonpartisan, top-two primary in which all voters and candidates, regardless of party, participate on a single primary ballot could have the most transformative effect on city elections.

Because Baltimore is a Democratic stronghold this could lead to same-party races in November. However, he says, the outcome of the race will be decided when the most voters participate and won't be decided by the party faithful.

"The shift to a top-two primary would ... lead to more competitive general elections and incentivize candidates to appeal to a broader electorate," the study concludes. "This, in turn, could improve democracy in Baltimore by leading to the election of officials that are more demographically and ideologically representative of Baltimore's electorate."

Researchers in California have determined that the nonpartisan, top-two primary has had this exact effect on the state's political landscape. California uses the top-two primary" for all state executive and legislative elections, along with non-presidential federal elections.

Warshaw further suggests that the city should analyze the impact ranked-choice voting has in New York and other major cities where it has been adopted and is used. If it works in the nation's biggest city, he writes, then Baltimore should consider adding it to the nonpartisan, top-two primary.

Warshaw recognizes, however, that there is a significant legal hurdle to adopting nonpartisan election reform. His research indicates that the city does not have the authority to change its own elections and would need state legislative approval. In other words, change can only happen if the people who control elections agree to cede that authority to voters.

Historically, this has been a tall hurdle to clear because parties don't like to give up this control.

This doesn't mean support for reforming primary elections doesn't exist in the Legislature. In his study, Warshaw cites a bill, proposed in Annapolis last year by Democratic Rep. Brooke Lierman of Baltimore City, that would have permitted the city to switch to ranked-choice voting or open primaries. Lierman eventually withdrew her own bill.

Visit IVN.us for more coverage from Independent Voter News.


Read More

  Creative Images Creative Images & Video Images Creative Editorial Video Creative Editorial  Search by image or video Close-up of woman holding a smartphone.

Can secure mobile voting expand election access? Explore how smartphone voting could increase turnout, improve accessibility, and modernize U.S. elections.

Sitthiphong/Getty Images

Mail-In Ballots Are Still Under Attack. Mobile Voting Can Protect Access To The Ballot Box.

Late last year, I became CEO of The Mobile Voting Project. Previously, I served as Chief of Staff to two United States senators, Chief of Staff at the US Department of Education, and Chief of Staff for Vice President Kamala Harris's presidential campaign. At every step in my public service career, I have always had one clear goal: making government work better for everyday people.

I believe that we cannot make government work better if we do not start at the very foundation of our government itself: democracy and voting. In my current role with The Mobile Voting Project, we are focused on making voting more seamless, secure, and accessible. We believe that putting democracy — literally — into the palms of every American’s hand is how we can boost turnout, reduce extremism, and strengthen our democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two people at separate voting booths, filling out a ballot.

Voters cast their ballots in Colorado's primary election at the Central Library on June 30, 2026 in Denver, Colorado. Voters are deciding on candidates for Colorado Governor, US Senate and other races.

Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images

Closed Primaries Let 7% of Voters Choose 87% of Congress

Consider this wacky football scenario: What if only fans who declared their team loyalty before the game are allowed to watch the Super Bowl? Yep, unless you pick a team, you can’t get into the stadium. This is similar to how closed primary elections work, in which only registered voters of a specific political party can participate in that party's primary. That’s the brilliant analogy the Unite America Institute uses in a new, short explainer video describing the highly undemocratic system that dominates American primary elections.

“In most elections, the real contest is not the general election but the party primary held months before,” said Beth Hladick, Policy Director at Unite America. The new video is part of a year-long fellowship project: the Democracy and Public Service Initiative, a partnership between the National Academy of Public Administration and the Bridge Alliance.

Keep ReadingShow less
People attend a rally with signs that read, "Abolish ICE," and "Money out of politics."

People hold signs as Democratic Congressional candidate Brad Lander speaks during an election eve rally at Silo on June 22, 2026 in the East Williamsburg neighborhood of the Brooklyn borough in New York City.

Michael M. Santiago / Getty Images

Facts Don’t Win Elections. Stories Do.

As a student, I was taught that politics is a contest of ideas. Experience has shown me otherwise.

In a recent New York Times interview with Ezra Klein, conservative activist Chris Rufo captured this reality succinctly: “While we should have the facts on our side, and while we should use logic, by itself, it’s insufficient. Politics operates on a deeper level, an emotional level. Politics occurs on the field of sentiment and public opinion much more than on the field of abstract argumentation.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A crowd of protestors standing on a sidewalk, many holding protest signs.

Suffragists protest President Woodrow Wilson in Chicago in October 1916, four years before ratification of the 19th Amendment. The history of voting rights has never been a clean march forward; even rights later treated as inevitable were won through pressure, backlash and years of state-by-state organizing.

Universal History Archive

What 250 Years of Voting Rights Battles Tell Us About Today

Happy Fourth of July, on this 250th anniversary of the United States. We’re living through extraordinary times in American democracy, as President Trump presses for greater federal control over elections and redistricting slips loose from its once-a-decade rhythm. As always, Votebeat is focused on an essential part of it: who gets to vote, who makes the rules, and what those votes are worth.

That question has loomed over the nation from the beginning. Voting history is often framed as a steady expansion from white male landowners to everyone else. The truth is messier. States have always experimented with expanding the franchise, retracting it, and expanding it again.

Keep ReadingShow less