Photo Credit: Getty Images / Unsplash+

Six states plus the District of Columbia will have measures on their November 5 ballots that, if passed, will reform the way public officials are elected in a way that offers more choice to all voters, regardless of political affiliation.

The states are:

Arizona - Proposition 140 ends taxpayer-funded partisan primaries in the state and requires state lawmakers or the secretary of state to adopt a nonpartisan system.

Colorado - Initiative 310 implements a nonpartisan Top 4 primary system with ranked choice voting in the general election. 

Idaho - Proposition 1 implements a nonpartisan Top 4 primary system with ranked choice voting in the general election. 

Montana - CI-126 implements a nonpartisan Top 4 primary system. CI-127 requires elections to be decided by majority vote.

Nevada - Question 3 implements a nonpartisan Top 5 primary system with ranked choice voting in the general election.

South Dakota - Amendment H implements a nonpartisan Top 2 primary system.

Plus, DC

Washington DC - Initiative 83 opens the city's partisan primaries to independent voters. Registered party members would still vote in their respective party's primary. It also implements ranked choice voting for all District elections.

Voters in the 6 states could implement a nonpartisan open primary system similar to the models in place in California and Alaska, which allow all voters and candidates – regardless of party – to participate on a single primary ballot.

But just as California reformers now say it is time to “reform the reform,” most of the primary initiatives in November will look more like Alaska’s Top 4 primary system, while 3 specifically include the use of ranked choice voting (RCV) in the general election.

The Reforms on the Ballot

Idaho and Colorado have measures that explicitly mirror the election model Alaska voters approved in 2020. All voters have an opportunity in the primary to vote for any candidate who has qualified for the ballot and the top 4 vote-getters move on to the general election.

Voters then have an opportunity to rank the remaining candidates in order of preference to determine a majority winner. The measure in Nevada operates the same way, but advances 5 candidates to the general election.

A majority of Nevada voters already approved the initiative, colloquially referred to as Final Five, in November 2022. State law requires it to be approved in a second election in order to amend the state constitution and become law. 

Montana has two initiatives slated for the ballot, one (CI-126) requires the use of a Top 4 primary and the other (CI-127) requires election winners to be decided by majority vote. This would open the door to an alternative voting method like RCV.

However, the Legislature could also decide to go with runoff elections.

South Dakota’s initiative, Amendment H, would implement a Top 2 system similar to what is in place for most elections in California, while Proposition 140 in Arizona ends partisan primaries but leaves it up to state officials to decide what nonpartisan system to use.

Research out of Alaska shows that when voters got to use truly nonpartisan elections for the first time in 2022, the Top 4 system produced cross-partisan winners – meaning winners at the state level needed Republicans, Democrats, and independents to win.

This was the case for both Republican US Sen. Lisa Murkowsi and Democratic US Rep. Mary Peltola. The research noted that the closed primary system used before Top 4 would likely have produced winners that fell further to ideological extremes.

The closed partisan primary system in Alaska told approximately 60% of registered voters to sit on the sidelines while a partisan minority chose the candidates for them in low-turnout partisan primaries. 

This is the situation for millions of independent voters across the US. While most elections at the state and federal levels are decided in partisan primary elections, their right to vote for the candidate of their choice is diminished or outright suppressed.

Party control over the electoral process under partisan primaries has created a system in which only 8% of eligible voters decide 83% of congressional races each election cycle, according to research from the nonpartisan group, Unite America. 

The case reformers have made going into November is that expanding nonpartisan reform to more states will not only mean protecting voters’ rights to an equal vote, but will also mean a greater portion of the electorate will have a meaningful voice in taxpayer-funded elections.

Emphasizing The Nonpartisan Impact and Appeal of Reform

Success for Top 4 in Alaska could not be achieved without cross-partisan appeal. Democrats and independents supported electoral change, as did enough Republicans to get it over the finish line in 2020.

Republicans, in particular, were important in a state like Alaska, as they will be in every state with nonpartisan reform on the ballot. 

USC Professor Christian R Grose, one of the authors of the Alaska research, said in an interview for IVN that it is important for reformers to emphasize the nonpartisan impact of these reforms to build similar cross-partisan coalitions.

Not only do reformers need Republicans, Democrats, and independents to win – they need to speak to how independent voters will be able to influence election results. 

It is a go-to strategy from the party leaders and special interest groups who benefit from closed and semi-closed primary systems to suggest that reform is a ploy by the “other side” to manipulate election results or radically change policy.

In Idaho, for example, former state Attorney General Jim Jones (a Republican) pushed back against claims that primary reform would lead to gun control in the state or would make Idaho look more like California.

Nonpartisan reform – whether in California or Alaska – has not resulted in extreme policy shifts. Research shows that it largely tempers extreme positions among elected officials by ensuring low-turnout partisan primaries don’t decide elections.

In a state like Idaho, it is not a matter of if a Republican will win. Republicans hold a super-majority in the state legislature and all of the state’s seats in Congress. This is highly unlikely to change.

Instead, what will better be decided is which Republican will win and if independent voters and Democrats will have a meaningful voice in election outcomes. After all, the incentive placed on elected officials should be to represent the most voters possible.

Jones wrote the open primary initiative will “break the stranglehold that” extremists “have over who gets elected.”

The coalition behind the Idaho Top 4 initiative is Idahoans for Open Primaries, which includes a large group of former Republican officials in the state, including former Governor Butch Otter, called Republicans for Open Primaries. 

Reformers turned in over 90,000 signatures to get Top 4 on the ballot – roughly 75,000 of which were certified by the state. The initiative would enfranchise 270,000 registered independent voters who are currently denied a say in the taxpayer-funded elections process.

Similarly, Montanans for Election Reform collected more than 200,000 signatures for its two initiatives in a state that is dominated by partisan politics and boasts a coalition of support that not only includes independents and Democrats, but many Republicans as well.

From the Legislature to the Courts: Partisan Interests Try to Erect Barriers

Colorado is one of two battleground states (along with Nevada) that will have reform on the ballot in November. The state is no stranger to primary reform. Voters adopted open partisan primaries in 2016.

Colorado Voters First, a group sponsored by former DaVita CEO and election reformer Kent Thiry, submitted over 213,000 signatures to put Initiative 310 on the ballot, which takes another step toward fairer primary elections. 

The initiative was officially certified by the secretary of state’s office on August 29.

“This initiative is based on two simple principles: Any voter should have the freedom to vote for any candidate in every taxpayer-funded election; and a candidate must receive support from a majority of voters to be elected,” said Colorado Voters First spokesman Curtis Hubbard.

“Our current system limits voter choices and gives too much power to political insiders and special interests. In November we can send the message that elections belong to voters — not political parties.”

However, if approved, there is some confusion on when the reforms will be implemented after the legislature approved proposals that erected seemingly insurmountable barriers, regardless of what voters have to say.

Governor Jared Polis signed SB 24-210 in June. The bill, introduced by Denver Democratic Rep. Emily Sirota, was initially designed to make some administrative updates to elections in the state -- something many county elections officials said were needed.

However, the bill was amended by Sirota right before legislators were scheduled to end session in three critical ways:

One, the bill stipulates that before ranked choice voting can be implemented at a statewide level it must first be adopted and used in a dozen municipalities. Two, the state has to produce a report on RCV’s use.

And three, the state cannot implement nonpartisan primary reform until the RCV stipulations are met.

The amended legislation was approved by the legislature without debate or public input in a process former House Speaker Terrance Carroll called “a gross abuse of power” and former Denver elections director Amber McReynolds said represents “what voters hate about politics.”

Although he signed the bill into law, Polis also criticized the effort to hinder voters’ ability to adopt a new election system. However, he promised that the bill would not be the final say if voters approve Initiative 310.

It is worth noting that nonpartisan primary systems, particularly those that advance 4 or 5 candidates, encourage more competition in primary elections. Rep. Sirota represents a district that is not only safe for her, but she is protected from primary challengers.

Research provided by Unite America shows that only about 4% of eligible Colorado voters decide 82% of state House seats, and incumbents are so well protected that several do not have to worry about primary challengers. 

SB 24-210 was adopted after Colorado Voters First had to defend their initiative in court – something that is all but inevitable when reformers propose systemic reform that upsets partisan and special interests that benefit from the status quo. 

Legal challengers have been seen in Colorado, DC, Idaho, Montana, and Arizona. Most of the time, these challenges come from or are sponsored by the political party in power. In Montana, for example, it was the GOP. In DC, it was the Democratic Party. 

Reformers in Arizona have had to fend off challenges from both parties, challenging Prop 140's constitutionality and its signatures, but thus far all attempts to remove reform from the ballot in all 6 states and DC have failed. 

DC Reform Is Different, But Still a Step Toward Fairer Elections

The 6 states with primary reform on the ballot will consider some form of nonpartisan system, whether it is Top 2, Top 4, or will leave it up to state lawmakers and election officials to decide. DC, however, proposes a different change.

Initiative 83, also known as “The Ranked Choice Voting and Open The Primary Elections to Independent Voters Act of 2024,” calls for a semi-open partisan primary process that opens primaries to the city’s roughly 73,000 independent voters.

It also would require the use of RCV in all District elections. The DC Board of Elections certified the initiative on August 2. 

Under the changes to primary elections, registered party members would be required to vote in their respective party’s primary. Independent voters, however, would have the opportunity to select between a Republican or Democratic primary ballot.

Unlike a nonpartisan system, partisan primaries limit voter choice to candidates of a single party. However, it would give tens of thousands of independent voters a chance to participate in the most critical stage of the taxpayer-funded elections process