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

Voters lining up to vote.

Voters line up at the Oak Lawn Branch Library voting center on Primary Election Day in Dallas on March 3, 2026. Republicans' decision to hold a split primary from the Democrats and to eliminate countywide voting forced Dallas County voters to cast ballots at assigned neighborhood precincts, leading to confusion. Republicans have now decided to use countywide polling locations for the May 26 runoff election.

Shelby Tauber for The Texas Tribune

Dallas County GOP Will Agree To Use Countywide Voting Sites for May 26 Runoff Election

Dallas County Republicans will agree to allow voters to cast ballots at countywide voting sites for the May 26 runoff election after a switch to precinct-based voting sites caused chaos, the county party chair said Tuesday.

Dallas County Republican Chairman Allen West supported the use of precinct-based sites earlier this month, but said using precincts again for the runoff would expose the county party to “increased risk and voter confusion” because the county is planning to use countywide sites for upcoming municipal elections and early voting.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

An analysis of Trump’s SAVE Act strategy, the voter ID debate, and how Pew data is being misused—exploring election integrity, voter suppression, and the political fight shaping U.S. democracy.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Stop Fighting Voter ID. Start Defining It.

President Trump doesn't need the SAVE America Act to pass. He only needs the debate to continue. Every minute spent arguing about voter suppression repeats the underlying premise — that noncitizen voting is a real and widespread problem — until it feels like an established fact. The question is whether Democrats will contest Republicans’ definition before the frame hardens.

Trump's claim that 88% of Americans support the bill traces to a Pew Research Center survey — a survey that found 83% support a “government-issued photo ID to vote,” not extreme vetting for proof of citizenship. That support included 95% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats, indicating genuine, broad, bipartisan support for a basic civic principle. That's worth taking seriously.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less