Proposed Massachusetts referendum questions wending their way through the qualifying process for the 2026 state ballot represent some interesting possibilities.
One would lower the state income tax rate from 5% to 4%, another would trigger more frequent refunds from excess tax collections, while another would subject the governor’s office and the state Legislature to the mandates of the Public Records Law.
But one really strikes at the heart of the democratic process — creating an all-party state primary.
Supporters of that ballot question gathered on the State House steps recently to deliver tens of thousands of signatures for certification.
If the question were to pass next fall, all candidates for a statewide race would appear on a single primary ballot.
Any voter — no matter the party affiliation — could cast a ballot for the candidate of their choice, as opposed to the current system, in which voters must choose within their registered party, or select one specific party ballot if they’re independent and registered as unenrolled.
Proponents contend that it creates a fairer and more open system.
“Healthy democracies mean choice; it means every voter’s vote matters; it means no voter is taken for granted,” said Danielle Allen, chair of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy.
The question’s supporters point to other states — both red and blue — that already implement all-party primaries, including California, Alaska and Louisiana, each of which has reported an uptick in both election competition and voter participation.
Actually, it’s not that novel a concept.
Municipal elections in Massachusetts employ a similar system, where unaffiliated political candidates run for office on a single ballot.
“Across the state, voters in Massachusetts believe that we can do better,” said Jesse Littlewood, a political strategist and campaign manager of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy.
The Secretary of State’s Office is in the process of certifying newly submitted ballot signatures, determining which move on to the next round of consideration.
According to a National Public Radio report in September 2023, the movement to update the primary election process has been gaining momentum across the nation.
Reform-minded advocates and many political scientists agree that the present system isn’t working.
That’s because a relatively small number of voters are selecting their party’s nominee — often in a district or state that leans strongly toward one party.
Which usually means that whoever wins the primary cruises to victory in a general election.
That’s a scenario often repeated in Massachusetts elections.
The group Unite America underscored what it terms the “primary problem” with this startling statistic: In 2020, “only 10% of eligible Americans nationwide cast ballots in primary elections that effectively decided the winners in a supermajority (83%) of congressional seats.”
A microcosm of that dynamic plays out in this state in virtually every municipal election.
For example, in the city of Lowell’s preliminary election held last September, only 9% of registered voters participated.
The general election wasn’t much better, when just shy of 11% of the electorate voted.
Experts and advocates say the primary election process excludes voters and leads to more extreme candidates who mainly appeal to activists, and could be exacerbating partisan polarization.
That’s why there’s a movement to rethink how states set up their primary elections and how voters choose which candidates advance to a general election.
The modern-day party primaries in the U.S. originated about 100 years ago, according to Kevin Kosar, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank. He says the earlier system “was often riddled with corruption,” and party primaries were created to give voters a say in who got on their ballots.
Jeremy Gruber, senior vice president for the advocacy group Open Primaries, says at first, political parties were not happy with this change.
“Parties decided to make peace with primary elections,” he says. “And rather than fight them, they began to claim (primaries) were theirs, not the voters.’ ”
That’s why at the beginning, most primary elections were “closed,” meaning you had to be registered with a party to participate. Gruber says initially these primaries worked well because almost everybody was either a Democrat or Republican.
But as we’ve witnessed in Massachusetts over the past few decades, more voters identifying as independent have registered as unenrolled.
In fact, according to the Secretary of State’s Office, as of February, unenrolled voters represented the vast majority of the electorate — 65%, compared to 26% for Democrats and just 8% Republicans.
“What’s happened is the electorate has gone through a massive sea change over the last 25 years,” Gruber said. “Now, independents are the largest and fastest-growing group of voters in the country. Over 50% of our young people … millennials and Gen Z voters — are independent.”
That’s partly why many states have moved away from closed primaries.
Only 16 states — including Massachusetts, Florida and New York — still have either completely or partially closed primaries.
As with the long delayed update of its Public Records Law, progressive Massachusetts again finds itself behind the curve of a popular reform.
The state’s political establishment won’t like it, but a vote for open primaries — should that question appear on the 2026 state ballot — would ensure a more inclusive, competitive political process.
Original article
Comments