Final-five voting

Primary election
Primary elections by state
Closed primary
Open primary
Semi-closed primary
Top-two primary
Final-five voting
Non-primary nominations
Primary cancellations
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker
Select a state from the menu below to learn more about its election administration.
AlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingSubmit

Final-five voting (FFV) is a type of electoral system that combines top-five primaries with ranked-choice voting (RCV) for general elections. FFV eliminates party primaries, allowing all candidates, regardless of partisan affiliation, to compete in the initial election. The five candidates who receive the most votes then advance to a general election, which is decided according to the rules of ranked-choice voting.

Since the primary is open to all candidates, it would be possible under this system for five candidates belonging to the same political party to win in a top-five primary and face off in the general election.

Variations on top-five primaries include top-two primaries and top-four primaries. These primaries are often paired with RCV in the general election, but may also be used without RCV.

Select a link below to navigate the page:

• Where FFV is used
• Here's where FFV could be used
• Learn about FFV here
• Arguments
• Background

Where FFV is used

See also: Where is ranked-choice voting used?

As of June 2025, no state or locality had implemented a FFV system. However, several states and localities had implemented variations on top-five primaries—such as top-two or top-four primaries—and/or RCV in general elections.

Where FFV could be used

One statewide ballot measure related to FFV was certified for the ballot in Nevada for an election on November 5, 2024.

Nevada Question 3

See also: Nevada Question 3, Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2024)

The Nevada Voters First PAC filed the initiative on November 12, 2021. The PAC reported submitting 266,000 signatures on June 28, 2022. On July 21, the office of Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske announced that 170,941 signatures were verified, exceeding the requirement of 135,561.

In Nevada, initiated constitutional amendments need to be approved at two successive general elections. In 2022, the ballot initiative was approved as Question 3 by 52.94%-47.06%. Therefore, the ballot initiative needed to be approved for a second time on November 5, 2024.

Additional information on electoral system ballot measures
As of September 25, 2025, 11 statewide ballot measures related to electoral system changes, including ranked-choice voting (RCV) and top primary elections, were certified in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and South Dakota.

• You can find a list of 2024's certified measures here and analysis on supporters and opponents of RCV here.

• Information on ranked-choice voting ballot measures since 1965 is available here: History of ranked-choice voting (RCV) ballot measures.

What is FFV?

FFV combines two distinct voting systems for primary and general elections. For primary elections, FFV uses a top-five system in which all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, compete in a primary. The five candidates receiving the most votes advance to the general election. In the general election, voters use RCV, ranking the five candidates by preference on their ballot. A candidate who wins a majority of first-preference votes wins the election. However, in cases where no candidate wins a majority, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated. The ballots for the eliminated candidate are then reallocated to the remaining candidates based on the next highest preference indicated. This process of elimination and redistribution continues until one candidate achieves a majority.

Although no state or municipality had adopted FFV as of June 2025, several had implemented variations on top-five primaries and/or RCV in primary or general elections.

Top-two and top-four primaries

Top-five primaries are similar to top-two primaries and top-four primaries. Under a top-two primary system, the two candidates with the most votes advance to a general election, while under a top-four primary system, it is the four candidates with the most votes that do so.

The map and chart below identify states that utilize top-two primary elections or a variation. Hover over a state on the map for additional details.

States where at least one political party uses top-two style primaries for congressional and state-level elections

State	Top-two primary or variant	Statute	Notes
California	Top-two	California Constitution Article II, Section 5	California uses a top-two primary where candidates from all parties appear on the same primary ballot. The top two finishers move on to the general election.
Louisiana	Varies by office (Semi-closed & top-two variant)	La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 18:401, 18:511, 18:410.3	Primary participation rules in Louisiana vary by office type. Beginning in 2026, Louisiana will use a semi-closed primary for congress, justice of the supreme court, the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, and the Public Service Commission. For all other statewide offices—including state senator and representative—Louisiana will continue to use the Louisiana majority-vote system.
Nebraska	Varies by office (Party discretion, semi-closed, & top-two)	Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 32–912 & 508	Primary type varies by office. State legislative primaries use a non-partisan top-two system. Congressional primaries are partisan, but any voter may vote in the congressional primary of their choice. For all other statewide offices, a state party can determine if it will allow unaffiliated voters to vote their primary ballot. Unaffiliated voters can also choose to vote a "non-partisan partisan ballot" on the day of the election which allows them to vote for any elective office that a party decides to include on that ballot. A voter can change their affiliation up until the second Friday before the election.
Washington	Top-two	Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.52.112	Washington uses a top-two primary where candidates from all parties appear on the same primary ballot. The top two finishers move on to the general election.

Ranked-choice voting

Under an FFV system, the top-five vote-getting candidates advance to a general election, which is decided according to the rules of ranked-choice voting.

Under ranked-choice voting, if a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. Ballots that ranked a failed candidate as their first, or highest choice, depending on the round, are then reevaluated and counted as first-preference ballots for the next highest ranked candidate in that round. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority ballots. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority. Elements of this process, such as the number of candidates eliminated in each round, may vary by jurisdiction.

As of September 2025, ranked-choice voting is used in some states and localities across the United States. See the map, tables, and list below for further details. The numbers below do not include states where RCV is used by a political party for partisan primaries, or where military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots for runoff elections. For more information on these uses of RCV, see the table beneath the map below.

If you know of any additional U.S. localities using RCV that should be included here, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.

• RCV used statewide: Three states use RCV statewide. Alaska and Maine use RCV in some federal and statewide elections, while Hawaii uses it for certain statewide elections.
• RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities: Fourteen states contain localities that either use or are scheduled to begin using RCV in municipal elections.
• RCV prohibited: Seventeen states have adopted law prohibiting the use of RCV in any elections.
• No laws addressing RCV, not in use: Twenty-two states have no laws addressing RCV, and neither the state nor any localities in the state use it.

The map below shows which states use ranked-choice voting statewide or in some localities as of September 2025. It also shows the states where RCV is either prohibited or not addressed in the law. It does not show states where RCV is used by a political party for partisan primaries, or where military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots for runoff elections. See the table beneath the map for details on these uses of RCV.

Arguments for and against variations on top-five primaries and RCV

FFV combines two distinct voting systems—top-five primaries and RCV. Below, you will find arguments for and against variations on top-five primaries and RCV. The arguments below relate specifically to top-two primaries and RCV.

Top-two primaries

Supporting arguments

Supporters of top-two primaries argue that they provide voters with an alternative to the two-party system and may lead to less partisan gridlock. Supporters also argue that campaign spending is more effective in top-two primaries than in partisan primaries.

Top-two primaries provide an alternative to the two-party system

In a 2021 article in The Atlantic called "Party Primaries Must Go," Nick Troiano, the executive director of Unite America, argued that top-two and top-four primaries provide a much needed alternative to the two-party system.

According to its website, Unite America says it is "a philanthropic venture fund that invests in nonpartisan election reform to foster a more representative and functional government."

“	This is the 'primary problem' in the U.S. political system today: A small minority of Americans decide the significant majority of our elections in partisan primaries that disenfranchise voters, distort representation, and fuel extremism––on both the left and, most acutely (at present), the right. The primary problem helps explain the stunning incongruity between Congress’s average 20 percent approval rating and its more than 90 percent reelection rate: There is a disconnect between what it takes to govern and what it takes to get reelected. ...by abolishing party primaries, [the top-two or top-four primary] eliminates elected leaders’ fear of being “primaried” by a small base of voters within their own party. Second, by abolishing plurality-winner elections and the 'spoiler' effect they produce, it levels the playing field for independent and third-party candidates.	”
—Nick Troiano, executive director, Unite America (2021)

Top-two primaries produce more moderate legislators

In a 2020 research article called Reducing Legislative Polarization: Top-Two and Open Primaries Are Associated with More Moderate Legislators, academic director Christian Grose of the USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy argued that top-two primaries produce more moderate legislators. Grose summarized her research findings as follows:

“	Top-two primaries have structural differences that are distinct from closed primary systems. Legislators elected in the top-two primary system are more moderate than those elected in closed primary systems. In addition, there is evidence that legislators from open primary states or open/semi-closed primary states are more moderate. This research is the first to establish a link between these primary types and congressional ideology during this contemporary period, and it stands in sharp contrast to past research showing mixed or null effects of primary types on legislative representation. ... Top-two and open primary systems allow for all voters to vote in the primary and general election rounds. In the top-two system in particular, there is always a threat of a same-party general election. This possibility removes the cue for voters of party identification in making a general election choice. Because independents and different-party voters can participate in the primary in both top-two and open systems, this creates a moderating incentive for legislators from those systems. For the top-two primary, though, the threat of a same-party general leads legislators to moderate as they may face a same-party general election challenge in the future.	”
—Christian Grose, academic director of the USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy (2020)

Campaign spending is more effective in top-two primaries than in partisan primaries

In an article in Electoral Studies called "Campaign spending and the top-two primary: How challengers earn more votes per dollar in one-party contests," political science professor Steven Sparks of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill discussed his research comparing the effectiveness of campaign spending in top-two and partisan primaries.

“	In two-party contests, voters receive information from candidate party labels and from campaign outreach, which is facilitated by campaign expenditures. Combined, this information helps voters make decisions on Election Day. In the absence of differentiating party labels in one-party contests, the information provided by candidate spending should matter more. Specifically, I argue that expenditures made by challengers facing same-party opponents should be more effective for increasing vote share than expenditures made by those facing opposite-party opponents.	”
—Steven Sparks, political science professor, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (2018)

Opposition arguments

Opponents of top-two primaries argue that they may decrease turnout in the general election, can have unintended consequences for political parties, and distort the intentions of voters.

Top-two primaries may decrease turnout in the general election

In a 2018 article in Slate Magazine, New York Times opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie argued that top-two primaries lead to decreased voter turnout.

“	The “top-two” system was pitched as a way to broaden democracy and participation, but in reality it does neither. Because there are no parties choosing nominees, top two is essentially the first stage of the general election—with much lower turnout because of its timing in June. An additional consequence is that third parties are shut out of the process, weeded out from the start in a first-past-the-post ballot access mechanism. The large majority of voters then lose the chance to evaluate messages from outside the mainstream. And in the event that two candidates of the same party are chosen for the general election, there’s a strong chance that turnout will sharply decline as voters from the other party decide it’s not worth the time.	”
—Jamelle Bouie, opinion columnist, The New York Times (2018)

Top-two primaries can have unintended consequences for political parties

In a 2022 opinion column for CalMatters, Dan Walters argued that top-two primaries can have unintended consequences for political parties and cited an example from California's 2022 state senate elections.

“	The top-two system inadvertently allowed Republicans to shoot themselves in the foot this year when six of them ran in state Senate District 4, which sprawls through 13 mostly rural counties southeast of Sacramento and has a GOP voter registration plurality. With so many running, they fragmented the GOP vote, thus allowing two Democrats, Tim Robertson and Marie Alvarado-Gil, to finish 1-2 and handing the seat to the other party. “This is the nightmare scenario… A lot of people thought that they would have a chance to win. So they jumped in, but they split the votes and that’s unfortunately what can happen,” Joseph Day, Stanislaus County’s Republican chairman, told GV Wire.	”
—Dan Walters, opinion columnist, CalMatters (2022)

Top-two primaries distort the intentions of voters

In a 2017 article for The Daily Caller, Peter Gemma argued that top-two primaries distort voters' intentions.

“	A top two primary distorts the meaning of a free and fair election. For example, three Democrats and two Republicans ran in the 2014 Washington state open primary for Treasurer. Even though 52 percent of the electorate voted for one of the three Democrats, two Republicans ended up on the general election ballot because they narrowly finished first and second. Democrats were disenfranchised. (And please note: Washington had not elected a Republican as Treasurer since 1952.)	”
—Peter Gemma, contributor, The Daily Caller (2017)

RCV

Supporting arguments

Supporters of ranked-choice voting argue that it provides voters with an alternative to the two-party system, allows voters to more freely support minor and third-party candidates without acting as a spoiler and benefiting a less-preferred candidate, increases civility in political campaigning, and may lead to more diverse candidates. Supporters also argue that using ranked-choice voting saves the taxpayers money.

RCV provides an alternative to the two-party system and allows voters to more freely support minor and third-party candidates

In an 2021 article on its website, the Better Government Association argued that RCV promotes better governance by providing voters with an alternative to the two-party system:

The Better Government Association's website says it is "a non-partisan, nonprofit news organization and civic advocate working for transparency, equity and accountability in government in Chicago and across Illinois."

“	RCV is also framed as an antidote to the current two-party system because it allows more candidates to compete. In plurality elections, because the goal is simply to get more votes than anyone else, it’s possible for candidates with longer odds of winning to siphon votes from bigger party candidates (see: Ralph Nader for Al Gore, Jill Stein for Hillary Clinton). Without the stigma of supporting a “spoiler,” voters can feel free to vote based on their true intentions instead of on a calculation of who has the best likelihood of winning. In that same vein, fewer candidates would be discouraged from running for fear of splitting voters, allowing more third party, independent, and minority candidates to enter the fray. Supporters also believe that more choices that may speak to more voters could boost voter turnout and engagement.	”
—Better Government Association (2021)

RCV increases civility in political campaigning

In the Journal of Representative Democracy, political scientists Todd Donovan and Caroline Tolbert wrote about their research findings on increased civility in RCV political campaigns:

“	For RCV to meet proponents’ expectations of facilitating mutual accommodation among rivals and civil campaigns, candidates and campaigns would be expected to moderate how they engage with their rivals – at least compared to candidates in similar contests not held under RCV rules – while appealing to their rivals’ supporters for second place and lower place rankings. ... We find that some RCV candidates asked voters to support themselves as well as other candidates seeking the same seat. RCV candidates also reported groups working on their behalf were telling people to support multiple candidates in their contest. Candidates in RCV cities were also more likely to report the tone of campaigns they were in was less negative than what was reported by candidates in other contests – but this result did not apply to the most viable candidates..	”
—Dr. Todd Donovan, Western Washington University, and Dr. Caroline Tolbert, University of Iowa

RCV may lead to more diverse candidates

In a 2021 New America report titled "What We Know About Ranked-Choice Voting," Lee Drutman and Maresa Strano wrote about the theory that ranked-choice voting may lead to more diverse candidates: New America describes itself as a nonprofit think tank conducting research and making policy recommendations in the following areas: education, economic security, global politics, political reform, civic engagement, technology, and democracy.

“	Ranked-choice voting has a few features that should, theoretically, enable a more diverse range of candidates to run for office than our traditional single-mark plurality method. One is that RCV allows newcomers and less traditionally electable candidates to run for second and third place rankings from opponents, including co-partisans, without being dismissed as 'spoilers.' As discussed later in this section, RCV changes campaign incentives in ways that can reduce the negativity and incivility. This kind of nasty campaigning can deter many qualified and talented people, especially women and women of color, from entering politics. The data we have from local elections is thin and analyses are mostly correlational—but evidence that exists indicates that RCV does lower the barriers to running, an may even encourage more, and more diverse, candidate entry, as theory suggests. For instance, in an analysis of RCV’s effects in city elections, David Kimball and Joseph Anthony observed that the number of council candidates almost doubled in Minneapolis from 2005 and 2013 after the implementation of RCV.	”
—Lee Drutman, Senior Fellow, and Maresa Strano, Political Reform Program Deputy Director, New America

A 2023 memo from RepresentWomen discussed the impact of RCV on women and minority candidates at the local level. On its website, RepresentWomen says, "we imagine a healthy 21st century democracy with gender-balanced representation in elected and appointed positions, at every level of government."

“	The impact of RCV on women’s representation is best demonstrated at the local level, which has long been the testing ground for new voting systems. Of the 30 mayors in RCV cities today, 12 (40%) are women, nine are people of color (30%), and four are women of color (13%). In city councils, 147 of 300 RCV seats (49%) are held by women, 96 by people of color (34%), and 55 (20%) by women of color. Comparatively, women held 32% of all local offices as of March 2022.	”
—Courtney Lamendola, Marvelous Maeze, and Steph Scaglia

RCV saves money for states and local governments

FairVote, which describes itself as "a nonpartisan organization seeking better elections for all, said on its website that ranked-choice voting saves money for states and local governments by eliminating additional rounds of voting:

“	Many local offices are elected in two rounds. In some cases, a preliminary election winnows the field to two and is followed by a general election. In other cases, a general election follows a runoff election if no candidate won a majority. In either case, the election that takes place on a day other than the general often draws weak and unrepresentative turnout. First-round elections, meanwhile, raise concerns about vote splitting and the possibility of disenfranchising military and overseas voters. These problems are not present with RCV. Jurisdictions enjoy the benefits of two rounds of voting in a single, more representative, higher-turnout election, also known as “instant runoff voting.” In this context, RCV saves taxpayers a lot of money — the entire cost of a second election — while promoting majority rule and civil campaigning. ... New York City saves an estimated $20 million each cycle where RCV avoids a runoff and San Francisco saves an estimated $3 million.	”
—FairVote

Opposing arguments

Opponents of ranked-choice voting argue that it benefits voters with more time and information, leads to decreased voter confidence in elections, and disconnects voting from important issues and debates. Opponents of ranked-choice voting also argue that RCV winners do not necessarily represent the will of the voters.

RCV benefits voters with more time and information

Stop RCV, which describes itself as a coalition of organizations seeking "transparent elections that can be verified by hand recounts and audits," wrote on its website that ranked-choice voting benefits voters with more time and information and leads to voter disqualification:

“	In an RCV election, voters may get more power if they rank more candidates. But that means, rather than identifying one candidate to support, voters must research multiple candidates and form opinions about their relative preferences for as many as five or more. This benefits those who have more time and access to information—in short, RCV gives more power to elites while making it harder for everyone else. An RCV ballot is also longer and takes more time for voters to complete. This means more delays and longer lines at polling places. It also creates many new opportunities to make a mistake, increasing the chances that a voter’s intent is not correctly recorded or that ballots are disqualified and discarded.	”
—Stop RCV

RCV leads to decreased voter confidence in elections

The Foundation for Government Accountability, which describes itself as a nonprofit organization working with state legislators on welfare, unemployment, workforce, election integrity, and health care policies, argued on its website that ranked-choice voting leads to a decrease in voter confidence in U.S. elections:

“	Ranked-Choice Voting is a Disaster. One person. One vote. That’s how American elections work. Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV) threatens to undo this very principle—discounting votes, diminishing voter confidence, and threatening prompt election results. The end result? A drop in voter confidence that lingers long after Election Day. Experiences with RCV in Maine and New York City should serve as cautionary tales, encouraging voters and policymakers to reject RCV in their communities.	”
—Foundation for Government Accountability

RCV disconnects voting from important issues and debates

In a 2019 report for the Heritage Foundation, Hans von Spakovsky and J. Adams argued that ranked-choice voting disconnects voting from important issues and debates:

“	Ranked choice destroys clarity of political debate and forces voters to cast ballots in hypothetical future runoff elections. When we have Republicans versus Democrats versus Greens and Libertarians, we know who is running against whom and the actual distinctions between the candidates on issues. Second- or third-choice votes should not matter in America; they do not provide the mandate that ensures that the representatives in a republic have the confidence and support of a majority of the public in the legitimacy of their decisions.	”
—The Heritage Foundation

RCV winners do not necessarily represent the will of the voters

The Foundation for Government Accountability's website also described the concept of ballot exhaustion and argued that RCV winners do not necessarily represent the will of the voters:

“	“Exhausted ballots” in RCV elections do not count towards the final tally. While many RCV ballots are thrown out due to voter error in following convoluted instructions, ballots that follow the instructions to the letter can also be thrown away because the voter ranked candidates who are no longer in contention. As candidates are eliminated through multiple rounds of tabulation, voters have their ballots exhausted if they only ranked candidates that have been removed during successive rounds. In other words, for a voter’s voice to fully count in every round of an RCV election, he must vote for all candidates on the ballot, even those he may not support. Because of ballot exhaustion, winners of RCV races do not necessarily represent the choice of all voters who participated. RCV claims to protect majority rule, but in reality, RCV creates an artificial majority by eliminating the votes of the lowest-scoring candidates during successive tabulations. One study of Maine elections found that, of 98 recent RCV elections, 60 percent of RCV victors did not win by a majority of the total votes cast.	”
—Foundation for Government Accountability

History

Katherine M. Gehl, a businesswoman who served as the CEO of Gehl Foods, Inc. and founded the nonpartisan Institute for Political Innovation, and Michael E. Porter, a Harvard Business School professor, first conceived of FFV in their 2020 book, The Politics Industry: How Political Innovation Can Break Partisan Gridlock and Save Our Democracy.

In an interview, Gehl described FFV:

“

We will eliminate Republican primaries and Democrat primaries. You will just have a primary, which is the first round of the election. And in this single open primary, everybody runs regardless of party, and everybody can vote regardless of party — all on the same ballot. You go to the primary election, pick your favorite just like always. And then when the polls close, we count up those votes. And in Final Five, the top five finishers will advance to the general election — not just one Democrat, one Republican. So let’s say it’s a deep-red district: you could easily have three Republicans advancing. Same in a blue district. You can have Greens advancing, independents, libertarians, et cetera...But then when we get to the general election, now that we’ve had these benefits of competition, we need to figure out who should win. And you certainly don’t want to accidentally elect one of the five with 21%, which could happen if the votes split relatively equally five ways. So what we do is implement instant runoffs in the general election. And that’s exactly like physical runoffs, like people now have in places like Georgia or Louisiana when someone doesn’t get over 50%. But instead of having physical runoffs, where you have to keep coming back for another election, voters simply cast all their votes at once using a ranked ballot. And other people talk about this as being ranked choice voting.

”

Campaign finance

In 2022, Gehl, along with the Final-Five Fund Inc., a political action committee (PAC) she founded in 2022, contributed nearly $8.5 million to the Nevada Voters First PAC, the organization that sponsored Nevada Question 3. In 2023, Final-Five Fund contributed $62,500 to New Yorker for Competitive Elections, an organization that advocated for FFV in New York City. In 2020, Gehl contributed $250,050 to the to Ranked Choice Voting 2020 Committee, which was behind Massachusetts Question 2, an RCV initiative.

In 2023, the Institute for Political Innovation made contributions to the American Enterprise Institute, the Alaskans for Better Elections Foundation, the R Street Institute, and Veterans for Political Innovation.

Legislative history

States where lawmakers have introduced bills to adopt FFV are shown below.

Wisconsin Senate Bill 528 (SB 528)

On October 16, 2023, Sens. Jesse James (R), Jeff Smith (D), Robert Cowles (D), and Mark Spreitzer (D) introduced SB 528, a bill that would implement top-five primaries and RCV in congressional elections.

The bill text read:

“

This bill provides that electors may vote in the primary for U.S. senator and representative in Congress for any candidate regardless of party affiliation, and the five persons who receive the greatest numbers of votes for each such office are nominated to appear on the general election ballot. Under the bill, independent candidates for such offices and candidates of minor parties appear on the top-five primary ballot, and electors may vote for these candidates in the same manner as other candidates. The bill requires instant runoff voting at the general election for U.S. senator and representative in Congress. Under instant runoff voting, voters use a ranked-choice ballot and have the option to cast their vote for each office in order of preference."

”

The Committee on Shared Revenue, Elections and Consumer Protection held a public hearing on SB 528 on December 12, 2023.

The bill died in committee on April 15, 2024, because the state legislative session ended.

Explore election legislation with Ballotpedia

• 
  Try Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker

  Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker provides daily updates on legislative activity related to election policy in all 50 states.
  
  Our election policy experts translate complex bill text into easy-to-understand summaries. And because it's from Ballotpedia, our legislation tracker is guaranteed to be neutral, unbiased, and nonpartisan.
  Search bills
• 
  Read Ballotpedia's State of Election Administration Legislation Reports

  Ballotpedia publishes regular analysis of election administration legislation, including three full reports per year, providing ongoing coverage of legislative activity affecting election policy in each state.
  
  These reports deliver insights into partisan priorities, dive deep into notable trends, and highlight activity in key states.
  Read the latest report
• 
  
  Subscribe to The Ballot Bulletin

  The Ballot Bulletin is a weekly email that delivers the latest updates on election policy.
  
  The newsletter tracks developments in election policy around the country, including legislative activity, big-picture trends, and recent news. Each email contains in-depth data from our Election Administration Legislation Tracker.
  Subscribe

See also

• Primary election
• Primary election types by state
• State primary election types
• Open primary
• Closed primary
• Semi-closed primary
• Top-two primary
• Blanket primary
• Jungle primary

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox

‎