Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Arguments for and against closed primaries
|
|
 |
| Select a state from the menu below to learn more about its election administration. |
A closed primary is a type of primary election where only voters who are formally affiliated with a political party in advance of the election date are allowed to participate in that party's primary. It is one of four primary election types defined by Ballotpedia. The other types include:
- open primaries, where voters either do not have to formally affiliate with a political party in order to vote in its primary or can declare their party affiliation at the polls on the day of the primary;
- hybrid primaries, where previously unaffiliated voters may participate in the partisan primary of their choice; and
- top-two, top-four, and blanket primaries, where all candidates are listed on the same ballot, regardless of party, and multiple winners advance to the general election.
Whether primary elections should be closed is a subject of debate.
| Supporters of closed primaries argue that parties have a right to allow only members to select nominees, that closed primaries prevent sabotage instead of disenfranchising non-party members, that closed primaries don't produce more ideologically extreme nominees, and that public funding doesn't preclude closed primaries. |
| Opponents of closed primaries argue that primaries should be open to all registered voters because they are publicly funded, that closed primaries could produce more ideologically extreme nominees, that primary elections often decide races in some locations, and that instances of sabotage in non-closed primaries are rare. |
On this page, you will find:
- Arguments at a glance: A brief summary of support and opposition arguments
- Support arguments in detail: Detailed support arguments from a variety of sources
- Opposition arguments in detail: Detailed opposition arguments from a variety of sources
- Primary types in use: An overview of primary types in use in the United States
- Further reading: Links to resources with more information on primary elections
Arguments at a glance
This section includes quotes briefly summarizing some of the most prevalent arguments for and against closed primaries.
| Support | Opposition |
|---|---|
| "Political parties at every level of government choose their nominees through primaries. That's the most important decision a party can make—and an organization's most important decisions should be made by members of that organization. Joining a political party in the United States is a pretty simple procedure. ... Allowing Independents and Republicans to select the Democrats' next nominees, or some other combination, is a good way to destroy a party and its meaning." -Seth Masket, University of Denver and the Pacific Standard (2018)[1] |
"We have had primary elections to select nominees for general elections at the local, state and federal level for more than a century. They began as an alternative to having party bosses at each level simply name the candidates they wanted. As the system has evolved, however, primaries have come to be dominated by ideological partisans who please the more agenda-driven elements in either party who are the most likely to participate in primaries. There is comparatively little incentive to reach out to voters who might fall somewhere between the two parties." -Ron Elving, NPR (2022)[2] |
Support arguments in detail
Four arguments in favor of closed primaries are that political parties have a right to allow only members to select nominees, that closed primaries prevent sabotage instead of disenfranchising non-party members, that closed primaries don't produce more ideologically extreme nominees, and that public funding doesn't preclude closed primaries. This section includes quotes from a variety of sources that exemplify these arguments.
Political parties have a right to only allow members to select their nominees
In a 2023 article for the American Conservative, Frank DeVito wrote that political parties have a right to restrict their nominating processes to members only:
| “ |
Political parties are not meant to be open to outsiders. Every American voter is free to join the Republican party. But the party is a closed association, meant to gather and represent the policy preferences of the people who decide to be part of it. If people do not agree with the policy preferences of the Republican platform or its chosen Republican candidates, those people are free to be part of another political party, or none at all. The primary election is the modern mechanism for the political party to select its own candidate. Open primary advocates want to accomplish the goal of having more moderate candidates that are palatable to more people outside the party. But that is not the point of a primary. The primary is meant to select the candidate preferred by the party. If open primary advocates want more moderate candidates who they believe are more representative of the voters, they should consider nominating an independent candidate.[3] |
” |
| —Frank DeVito, The American Conservative (2023)[4] | ||
Closed primaries prevent sabotage; they don't disenfranchise non-party members
In a 2023 report for the Yankee Institute, Chris Tohir argued that closed primaries do not disenfranchise voters; instead, they prevent non-party members from sabotaging the electoral process.
According to its website, the Yankee Institute says it is a state-based think tank that is "committed to empowering the people of Connecticut to forge a brighter future..."[5]
| “ |
American politics has a strong history and tradition of the power and autonomy of political parties to elect their own candidates with minimal interference. Requiring that someone be a party member to vote in a primary is not disenfranchisement — it is freedom of association. As previously stated, open primaries have little, to no, impact on selecting more moderate candidates, while closed primaries most accurately reflect the will of the party members in whom they want to represent them in a general election. Therefore, the consequence to Connecticut voters is that, if they are affiliated with a party, their voice would be diluted by outsiders looking to sink or raise certain candidates that don’t believe in the party’s values. Put in another way, Democrats can troll Republicans and/or Republicans can troll Democrats by distorting the vote. The primary would be weaponized. The question we should ask is why? Why offer open primaries as a solution to a non-issue in the state’s electoral process? That remains to be seen, but, for now, Connecticut should stay true to the old adage: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.[3] |
” |
| —Chris Tohir, staff writer, The Yankee Institute (2023)[6] | ||
Closed primaries don't produce more ideologically extreme nominees
In a 2017 article in the Pacific Standard, Seth Masket wrote about research he conducted with other political scientists. According to Masket, they found that closed primaries do not result in more ideologically extreme nominees than open primaries:
| “ |
The logic of the open primary is pretty straightforward. Under a closed primary, only people who are registered party members (usually for some time) are permitted to vote. Those party registrants tend to be die-hard partisans, and the candidates they pick will tend to be from the ideological extremes. Independent voters, who might legitimately want a more moderate set of nominees, are forbidden from participating. Allow them in, and you end up not only with more moderate nominees, but nominees who recognize it’s in their interests to keep moderate independent voters happy while they serve in office. Eric McGhee, Boris Shor, Nolan McCarty, Steve Rogers, and I tested this assumption in a large-scale study a few years ago. We looked at two decades of voting behavior by state legislators across all 50 states, and we compared legislators based on the type of primary system that nominated them. ... What we found was somewhat surprising. Legislators elected from closed primary systems are no more or less extreme than those from open primary systems.[3] |
” |
| —Seth Masket, University of Denver and the Pacific Standard (2017)[7] | ||
Public funding doesn't preclude closed primaries
In November 2018, New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver (D) was sued by the group Open Primaries Education Fund, which argued that states should not fund closed primaries because those primaries are exclusionary and benefit political parties. In response, Oliver argued that primary elections, including closed primaries, are essential government functions that merit state funding.
| “ |
Election Code provisions govern virtually every nuance of the primary election process, including a chapter devoted specifically to primaries. ... Our primaries are administered and run solely by the Secretary of State and county clerks...; political parties play no formal role in administering the conduct of primary elections. Polling place locations are determined and administered by county government...and standardized voting systems (i.e. voting machines) are purchased by the State, and maintained, stored and deployed by counties. .... All expenditures made from the public fisc for the purpose of funding primaries are allocated to, and expended by the Secretary or county clerks. No public monies are paid to political parties for the conduct of primary elections. The government runs and controls primary elections, and maintains complete control over taxpayer funds expended for that purpose. That primary elections like New Mexico’s have evolved into a well-established government function has become something of a truism. Indeed, in determining that U.S. constitutional protections apply to protect the primary electorate (generally with respect to racial discrimination), and that political parties are “state actors” for such purposes, the United States Supreme Court has long held that primaries are government functions.[3] |
” |
| —Maggie Toulouse Oliver, New Mexico secretary of state (2018)[8] | ||
Opposition arguments in detail
Four arguments against closed primaries are that primaries should be open to all registered voters because they are publicly funded, that closed primaries could produce more ideologically extreme nominees, that primary elections often decide races in some locations, and that instances of sabotage in non-closed primaries are rare. This section includes quotes from a variety of sources that exemplify these arguments.
Primaries should be open to all registered voters because they are publicly funded
In a 2020 guest column in the Orlando Sentinel, former Illinois state representative Choice Edwards (D) wrote that primary elections should be open to all registered voters because they are publicly funded:
| “ |
All taxpayers fund elections both primary and general elections. By denying every voter an unfettered opportunity to vote in each as they please is tantamount to taxation without representation. Private political parties and other special interests have predetermined desired outcomes that may be quite partisan or single issue. However, unaffiliated voters only want to be enabled to vote for the person of their choosing from among all the candidates on the ballot, not just those of a particular private political party. If private political parties want exclusivity in determining their standard-bearers, let them foot the bill for that and not use government staff and resources for their discriminatory activity.[3] |
” |
| —Choice Edwards, guest columnist, Orlando Sentinel (2020)[9] | ||
Closed primaries produce more ideologically extreme candidates
In a 2021 article in The Atlantic, Nick Troiano wrote about the possibility for closed primaries to produce more ideologically extreme candidates:
| “ |
In a majority of states, laws prohibit either unaffiliated voters or members of the other party from participating in these elections, sometimes both. And among those who can participate, very few do. Despite record turnout in the November 2020 election, just 10 percent of eligible voters nationwide cast ballots in primaries that effectively decided the outcome of more than 80 percent of U.S. House elections, according to a new report by Unite America, an organization I lead. Partisan primaries motivate legislators to keep in lockstep with a narrow and extreme slice of the electorate rather than govern in the public interest—a dynamic that has now come to threaten democracy itself. As then-President Donald Trump told his supporters right before the insurrection, 'You have to get your people to fight … We have to primary the hell out of the ones that don’t fight. You primary them.'[3] |
” |
| —Nick Troiano, The Atlantic (2021)[10] | ||
In some locations, the primary election decides the race
Pennsylvania House of Representatives majority leader Dave Reed (R) introduced House Bill 2448 in 2018. The bill, which died in committee, would have allowed independent and non-affiliated voters to cast ballots in party primaries. Reed argued that many races are decided in primary elections, such as those in which only one major party has candidates running.
| “ | With nearly 750,000 of our state’s voters now registered as independent or non-affiliated, the time has come stop excluding them from a significant portion of our electoral process. Too many races, especially local races, find finality in the spring election, and these voters should not be left out.[3] | ” |
| —Dave Reed, Pennsylvania state representative (2018)[11] | ||
Instances of non-members trying to sabotage the nominating process in non-closed primaries are rare
FairVote, which describes itself as a nonprofit organization researching and advocating voting reforms to make democracy more functional and representative, wrote about the potential for non-party members to sabotage the nominating process:
| “ |
One area of contention in open primaries is “crossover” voting. It most often involves voters affiliated with one political party voting in the primary of another political party to influence that party’s nomination. For example, if a district routinely elects the Democratic nominee, Republican voters may vote in the Democratic party primary to attempt to influence the outcome. This could be a good-faith attempt to select a more conservative Democratic nominee who would be palatable to the Republican voters, or it could be sabotage, an attempt to nominate a weaker candidate who is easier to defeat in the general election. ... People who align with a given party may theoretically still vote in another party’s primary if they are registered as independent. The potential for such tactical party registration is also present in the strictest of closed primaries.[3] |
” |
| —FairVote (2023)[12] | ||
Primary types in use
- See also: Primary election types by state
Laws governing primary elections vary from state to state and can even vary within states by locality and political party. Primary elections vary in two principal ways: by who may vote in the primary, and by the way primary outcomes are determined. To learn more about different primary election types, click here.
As of June 2024, in 19 states, at least one political party conducted open primaries for congressional and state-level offices; in 23 states, at least one political party conducted closed primaries for congressional and state-level offices; and in states, at least one political party conducted semi-closed primaries for congressional and state-level offices. Additionally, three states used a top-two primary for some elections, and two other states states used some variation of top-two primaries for their elections.
Further reading
- Primary election—Ballotpedia's overview page on primary elections, including types of primaries held by state
- Open primary—Ballotpedia's overview page on open primaries
- Semi-closed primary—Ballotpedia's overview page on semi-closed primaries
- Closed primary—Ballotpedia's overview page on closed primaries
- Top-two primary—Ballotpedia's overview page on top-two style primaries
Footnotes
- ↑ Pacific Standard, "A Case for Keeping Primary Voting Confined to Party Members," March 19, 2018
- ↑ NPR, "In a time of national division, polarizing primaries are part of the problem," June 18, 2022
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ The American Conservative, "Open Primaries and Closed Debate," February 22, 2023
- ↑ The Yankee Institute, "About," accessed December 7, 2023
- ↑ The Yankee Institute, "A Good Alternative to Closed Primaries? Myths and Facts about Open Primaries," April 5 , 2023
- ↑ Pacific Standard, "Why Open Primaries Won't Change Our Politics Much," June 14, 2017
- ↑ The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico, "Secretary of State's Verified Response," December 18, 2018
- ↑ Orlando Sentinel, "Closed primaries are state-sponsored voter suppression," September 24, 2020
- ↑ The Atlantic, "Party Primaries Must Go," March 30, 2021
- ↑ Pennsylvania House of Representatives, "House Co-Sponsorship Memoranda," May 2, 2018
- ↑ FairVote, "Open and closed primaries," accessed July 14, 2023
