An “open primary” is a primary election—i.e., an election held to choose a political party’s nominees—in which unaffiliated voters can choose to participate in whichever party’s primary they wish to (though they may participate in only one party’s primary). Some open primaries may be “semi-open,” in that an unaffiliated voter may have to register with a party at the polling station or otherwise declare their allegiance to the party. In many states that use open primaries, such as Texas and Virginia, there is no such thing as party registration; however, open primaries are still primary elections in that they aim to choose a political party’s nominee for the general election. 

In recent usage, “open primaries” has come to refer to a two-round election system in which party primaries are abolished and replaced with a preliminary or “winnowing” election. This first round election is often called a “primary election” even though it does not nominate political party candidates. DODO refers to these as “non-partisan two-round election systems” (NTES) because they are not primaries. NTES can take many forms, including the “top-two” primary that is used in California and Washington state, and the “top-four” primary used in Alaska. The “Cajun” or “jungle” primary in Louisiana, in which the top two candidates advance to the general election unless one candidate receives a majority in the preliminary election (in which case, the general election is not held), is also a form of NTES. 

Proponents make many claims about the effects of NTES, including that they are fairer (because they allow voters who do not want to register with a political party to vote in the preliminary election), they allow for more choice (because preliminary election voters can choose from the full list of all nominated candidates), and that officials elected using a NTES will be more moderate and responsive to the full electorate. The first claim is a values driven claim, that cannot be proven or disproven, and the latter two claims have only been partially borne out by the experience of California and Washington state after they adopted the top-two primary. It is too early to evaluate the top-four primary, which is in use only in Alaska (with the first use in 2022). Louisiana has long used the Cajun primary, though it is hard to draw lessons for other states from its experience. 

Social scientists Seth Werfel and Devon Magliozzi summarize available evidence on NTES here.  

One consequence of all NTES is that they can set the stage for re-privatizing political parties. One of the defining characteristics of American political parties, as observed by Leon Epstein in the 1980s, is the extent to which they – the Republican and Democratic parties – have become like “public utilities,” creatures and beneficiaries of the state (though privileged ballot access, publicly funded and conducted nominating contests – primaries – and a myriad of other laws recognizing and institutionalizing them). NTES undoes some of this institutionalization and creates scope for political parties to develop their own, private, nomination procedures once more. DODO will address this in more detail in a later post.

Coloradans will vote on Proposition 131, which would adopt a top-four primary for congressional and state executive and legislative offices, using IRV in the general election (if three or more candidates advanced from the primary). 

As with other “open primary” NTES proposals on the ballot this year, support for the proposal is driven by actors associated with Unite America, which describes itself as “a philanthropic venture fund that invests in nonpartisan election reform to foster a more representative and functional government.” In particular, Kent Thiry, a Unite America board co-chair and former president and CEO of DaVita, has donated millions into the campaign for Prop 131.

Opposition to Prop 131 tends to be organized around the RCV component of the proposal, rather than the abolition of partisan primaries. Two key opposition groups both take aim at RCV, Voter Rights Colorado’s homepage calls it “unnecessarily complicated,” and First Choice Counts’s homepage implores users to “Stop Ranked Choice Voting, Vote NO on 131.” 

Nevadans will vote on Ballot Question No. 3, which would adopt a top-five non-partisan two-round election system for state and federal candidates in Nevada. The top-five primary is just like the top-four NTES except that up to 5 candidates advance to the general election (rather than up to four). 

November 2024 will be the second time Nevadans have voted on a top-five primary. The measure passed at the 2022 general election. In Nevada, state constitutional amendments must be passed in two consecutive general elections to become law. If the question passes again this election, it will become law.  

The top-five primary is the signature electoral reform proposal of the Institute for Political Innovation, an organization founded by former Unite America board member, Katherine Gehl. Gehl bankrolled the 2022 effort, and Unite America is providing a large portion of support in 2024. Opposition to Ballot Question No. 3 appears diffuse, with both the Nevada Democratic and Republican parties opposed, and one of Nevada’s largest newspapers, the Las Vegas Sun, urging a “No” vote. Their opposition appears centered on a desire not to further weaken political party organization in the state. 

Both Montana and South Dakota are voting on measures to introduce open primaries, but neither of these involve RCV. 

Montanans are voting on two related initiatives: 

• Citizen Initiative 126, which would establish a top-four primary. 

• Citizen Initiative 127, which would require candidates to receive a majority of the vote to be elected. 

If Citizen Initiative 127 passes, the legislature could choose IRV as its majoritarian method. However, it may also adopt run-off elections (like those used in Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana). It should also be remembered that IRV does not always elect candidates with a majority of support. 

South Dakotans are voting on whether to adopt a top-two primary in Constitutional Amendment H. The top-two primary does not involve RCV, as – by definition – when there are only two candidates competing in an election, one of them will win a majority.