Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Florida Amendment 3, Top-Two Open Primaries for State Offices Initiative (2020)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Florida Amendment 3
Flag of Florida.png
Election date
November 3, 2020
Topic
Electoral systems
Status
Defeatedd Defeated
Type
Constitutional amendment		Origin
Citizens

Florida Amendment 3, the Top-Two Open Primaries for State Offices Initiative was on the ballot in Florida as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported establishing a top-two open primary system for primary elections for state legislators, the governor, and cabinet (attorney general, chief financial officer, and commissioner of agriculture) in Florida.

A "no" vote opposed establishing a top-two open primary system for primary elections, thereby leaving in place Florida's existing system where closed primaries are held by each party.


Supermajority requirement: A 60 percent supermajority vote was required for the approval of Amendment 3.

Election results

Florida Amendment 3

Result Votes Percentage
Yes 5,854,468 57.03%

Defeated No

4,410,768 42.97%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Overview

How would Amendment 3 have changed elections in Florida?

See also: Constitutional changes

Amendment 3 was designed to change Florida’s primary elections for state legislators, the governor and lieutenant governor, and elected cabinet members (Attorney General, Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services, and Chief Financial Officer) from a closed election to a top-two open primary.[1][2]

Going into the election, Florida's primaries were closed, meaning a voter must be registered with a political party in order to participate in that party's primary election. Winners of a partisan primary election advance to the general election.

Amendment 3 would have replaced closed primaries with top-two primaries in which all candidates would have been placed on one ballot regardless of political affiliation and the top two candidates with the most votes advance to the general election. Under the measure, a candidate’s party affiliation would have been able to appear on the ballot as provided by law. The primaries would have been open, meaning any registered voter, regardless of their political affiliation, could vote in the primary election.

Under Amendment 3, in cases where only two candidates qualify for the primary election, the primary would have been canceled and the election winner would have been decided in the general election. If approved by 60% of voters at the 2020 general election, the top-two open primary system would have been used beginning in 2024.[2]

How did other states conduct primary elections as of 2020?

See also: Background, Primary systems by state

Washington became the first state to adopt a top-two primary system for congressional and state-level elections in 2004. California followed suit in 2010. In Nebraska, a top-two primary system is utilized for state legislative elections.

Twenty-one (21) states conduct open primaries for congressional and state-level offices. Additionally, in Alaska, the law stipulates that political parties can determine for themselves who may participate in their primary elections.

In 14 states and the District of Columbia, at least one political party conducts closed primaries for congressional and state-level offices. In 15 states, at least one political party conducts semi-closed primaries for congressional and state-level offices.

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding Amendment 3?

See also: Campaign finance, Support, and Opposition

All Voters Vote, Inc. led the campaign in support of Amendment 3. The committee reported $7.73 million in contributions and $8.32 million in expenditures. The Committee to Advance Constitutional Values registered to oppose Amendments 1, 3, and 4 on the 2020 ballot. The committee was funded mainly by the ACLU and the ACLU of Florida. The committee raised $1.92 million and spent $1.54 million. Since the committee registered to oppose three measures, it is not possible to distinguish between funds spent on each individual measure.[3]

Miguel "Mike" B. Fernandez, the founder of the Immigration Partnership and Coalition (IMPAC) Fund, is the largest donor to All Voters Vote, having given $7.7 million in support of Amendment 3. Fernandez said, "Florida is among only a handful of states that do not allow all qualified voters to participate in primaries. How backwards is this? Almost a third of voters are registered as neither Democrats nor Republicans."[4]

Opponents of Amendment 3 include the Democratic and Republican Parties of Florida. The Republican Party of Florida said, "The proposed amendment would actually abolish party primary elections for certain offices and replace them with free-for-all 'jungle primaries.'" The Democratic Party said Amendment 3 "purports to create a constitutional system where 'all voters vote' in certain primary elections, [but] it goes a step too far by also eliminating primary elections with only two candidates. The creation of nonpartisan blanket primaries is not logically related to the elimination of primary elections in other circumstances."

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:[2]

“ All Voters Vote in Primary Elections for State Legislature, Governor, and Cabinet[5] ”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:[6]

“ Allows all registered voters to vote in primaries for state legislature, governor, and cabinet regardless of political party affiliation. All candidates for an office, including party nominated candidates, appear on the same primary ballot. Two highest vote getters advance to general election. If only two candidates qualify, no primary is held and winner is determined in general election. Candidate’s party affiliation may appear on ballot as provided by law. Effective January 1, 2024.[5] ”

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement for the amendment appeared on the ballot as follows:[7]

“ It is probable that the proposed amendment will result in additional local government costs to conduct elections in Florida. The Financial Impact Estimating Conference projects that the combined costs across counties will range from $5.2 million to $5.8 million for each of the first three election cycles occurring in even-numbered years after the amendment’s effective date, with the costs for each of the intervening years dropping to less than $450,000. With respect to state costs for oversight, the additional costs for administering elections are expected to be minimal. Further, there are no revenues linked to voting in Florida. Since there is no impact on state costs or revenues, there will be no impact on the state’s budget. While the proposed amendment will result in an increase in local expenditures, this change is expected to be below the threshold that would produce a statewide economic impact.[5] ”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article VI, Florida Constitution

The measure would have added a section C to Section 5 of Article VI of the Florida Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added:[2]

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

ARTICLE VI, SECTION 5. Primary, general, and special elections.—

(a) A general election shall be held in each county on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each even-numbered year to choose a successor to each elective state and county officer whose term will expire before the next general election and, except as provided herein, to fill each vacancy in elective office for the unexpired portion of the term. A general election may be suspended or delayed due to a state of emergency or impending emergency pursuant to general law. Special elections and referenda shall be held as provided by law.

(b) If all candidates for an office have the same party affiliation and the winner will have no opposition in the general election, all qualified electors, regardless of party affiliation, may vote in the primary elections for that office.

(c) All elections for the Florida legislature, governor and cabinet shall be held as follows:

(1) A single primary election shall be held for each office. All electors registered to vote for the office being filled shall be allowed to vote in the primary election for said office regardless of the voter’s, or any candidate’s, political party affiliation or lack of same.

(2) All candidates qualifying for election to the office shall be placed on the same ballot for the primary election regardless of any candidate’s political party affiliation or lack of same.

(3) The two candidates receiving the highest number of votes cast in the primary election shall advance to the general election. For elections in which only two candidates qualify for the same office, no primary will be held and the winner will be determined in the general election.

(4) Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a political party from nominating a candidate to run for office under this subsection. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit a party from endorsing or otherwise supporting a candidate as provided by law. A candidate’s affiliation with a political party may appear on the ballot as provided by law.

(5) This amendment is self-executing and shall be effective January 1, 2024.[5]

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The initiative proponents wrote the ballot language for this measure.


The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 14, and the FRE is 18. The word count for the ballot title is 12, and the estimated reading time is 3 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 13, and the FRE is 21. The word count for the ballot summary is 71, and the estimated reading time is 18 seconds.


Support

All Voters Vote, Inc. led the campaign in support of Amendment 3.[6][8]

Supporters

Organizations

  • Florida Fair and Open Primaries
  • Open Primaries

Individuals

Arguments

  • All Voters Vote: "The vast majority of races in Florida are decided in the closed party primaries—which excludes most voters. Those closed primaries are decided by the small, extreme wings of each party. Because of this, our elected leaders no longer have to answer to the majority of people, but only to a very small group of hyper-partisan voters. By giving all voters a chance to vote, politicians will become answerable to the majority of voters, not just a select few."[7] All Voters Vote also wrote, "Allowing all qualified registered voters to vote in taxpayer-funded elections will not impact the existence of political parties nor will it hurt voters who enjoy belonging to a political party. Parties will still have all the rights they currently have – as they should. This initiative will allow parties to operate as they always have with one notable exception: in taxpayer-funded public elections, they cannot exclude qualified registered voters from voting."
  • John Opdycke, President of Open Primaries: "For the first time in decades, the voters of Florida will have the chance to decide for themselves whether to let all voters vote. Not surprisingly, the Democrat and Republican Parties don’t want them to have that choice. Leadership of both parties has attacked the campaign and filed court papers to sabotage it, declaring that it 'confuses voters,' and 'takes away voter choice.' Make no mistake, they are united against letting the voters decide."[
  • Miguel "Mike" B. Fernandez, founder of the Immigration Partnership and Coalition (IMPAC) Fund: "Florida is among only a handful of states that do not allow all qualified voters to participate in primaries. How backwards is this? Almost a third of voters are registered as neither Democrats nor Republicans. I believe our nation’s founding principles provide that all who register should be able to vote. While three-quarters of all Americans support immigration reform, this wish is not represented by the majority of those currently in public office. Before us is the opportunity to create a more representative process. That would give voters the ability to choose elected officials who want change on how we treat immigrants."
  • Miguel "Mike" B. Fernandez: "Let me make something clear: I do not want to hurt either the Republican nor the Democratic Party. This is not ‘I want to destroy either party.’ I just want to encourage both parties to talk to people that are more centrist. that are more moderate, that are more representative of who the rest of us are."


Campaign advertisements

All Voters Vote: "It's Magic"

Opposition

Opponents

Officials

Political Parties

Organizations

  • ACLU of Florida
  • Americans for Tax Reform
  • Florida AFL-CIO
  • Florida Chamber of Commerce
  • Florida Conservation Voters
  • Florida Legislative Black Caucus
  • Florida People’s Advocacy Center
  • League of Women Voters of Florida
  • NAACP of Florida
  • Organize Florida
  • People Over Profits

Arguments

  • Florida Democratic Party: The Democratic Party of Florida argued that the measure's ballot language is misleading, confusing, and violates the state's single-subject rule.
  • Florida Republican Party: "Masquerading as an 'open primary' proposal that would allow all registered voters to vote in the current party primary system, the proposed amendment would actually abolish party primary elections for certain offices and replace them with free-for-all 'jungle primaries.' At the same time, the proposed amendment would limit voters’ options at the general election to two—and only two—candidates, and eliminate any guarantee that voters will be provided a true choice at the general election between nominees representing different political parties or ideological perspectives on significant matters of public policy." The party also argued that the ballot language is misleading and violates the state's single-subject rule.
  • Blaise Ingoglia, Republican Party of Florida chairman: "We don’t feel that it’s right that Democrats help choose our nominee in the primary and I don’t think the Democrats would like Republicans helping to choose their nominee in primaries. That’s akin to McDonald’s helping to choose the menu items for Burger King."
  • People Over Profits: "An unforeseen outcome of this proposal is the loss of minority representation in both legislative chambers. ... Under Amendment 3, both electoral access and representation of people of color would be all but erased. ... [t]he inclusion of Republican and independent voters in a Black majority district would allow white Democratic candidates the opportunity to defeat a Black Democrat in the context of a larger general election electorate. ... The amendment would all but eliminate third parties from competing in the November general election."
  • Matthew Isbell of MCI Maps: "Amendment 3 claims it is good for all voters in Florida and often relies on the talking point about non-partisan voters being left out of the primary process. However, as the data shows, the consequence of this plan is not that [nonpartisan] voters will have a say, it is that a flood of white GOP voters in safe Democratic districts will 'bleach' seats and seriously erode the voting power of African-Americans and Hispanics. The results will be a sharp reduction in lawmakers of color, or a return to bizarre and snake-like district lines. Many states balance the issue of ensuring minority districts with different levels of open primaries; like allowing NPA voters to choose a ballot line. The Amendment 3 plan is not a small step but rather a massive overhaul of Florida’s voting system that will have massive casualties when it comes to minority representation."
  • League of Women Voters of Florida: "It is our belief that Top Two Open Primaries would have a strong adverse impact on African-American representation in Florida. Our position is to support an Open Primary system that would allow for the broadest possible voter participation.The League of Women Voters of Florida is very much in support of Open Primaries and would wholeheartedly support this measure if it were not tied to Top Two. We are hopeful and will continue to advocate for a future Open Primary opportunity that will enfranchise Florida’s NPA voters and those who belong to nontraditional parties in our primary process."
  • ACLU of Florida: "Ballot initiative #3, misleadingly titled, “All Voters Vote in Primary Elections for State Legislature, Governor and Cabinet,” would have a negative impact on voters of color and effectively silence their voices. In addition, it would create a "top-two" electoral system that could prevent voters in the general election from voting for members of their own party in state legislative, governor and cabinet races. While supporters of Ballot Initiative #3 claim that this would allow more voters to participate in our democratic process, this amendment would have a negative impact on Black communities by diluting their vote in primary elections. The measure also raises First Amendment concerns by hindering political dissent and a political party's freedom of association, as well as the ability to select its candidates and messaging. "


Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Florida ballot measures

Ballotpedia identified one committee registered to support Amendment 3: All Voters Vote, Inc. The committee reported $7.78 million in contributions and $8.33 million in expenditures. All Voters Vote paid $6.32 million to the petition gathering companies AP Petitioning Partners and BH-AP Petitioning Partners.[9]

The Committee to Advance Constitutional Values registered to oppose Amendments 1, 3, and 4 on the 2020 ballot. The committee was funded mainly by the ACLU and the ACLU of Florida. The committee raised $1.92 million and spent $1.54 million. Since the committee registered to oppose three measures, it is not possible to distinguish between funds spent on each individual measure.

Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Support $7,737,825.00 $40,000.00 $7,777,825.00 $8,293,101.59 $8,333,101.59
Oppose $1,448,315.33 $469,786.71 $1,918,102.04 $1,544,530.42 $2,014,317.13
Total $9,186,140.33 $509,786.71 $9,695,927.04 $9,837,632.01 $10,347,418.72

Support

Committees in support of Amendment 3
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
All Voters Vote $7,737,825.00 $40,000.00 $7,777,825.00 $8,293,101.59 $8,333,101.59
Total $7,737,825.00 $40,000.00 $7,777,825.00 $8,293,101.59 $8,333,101.59

Top donors

Miguel "Mike" B. Fernandez, his revocable trust, and his investment company MBF Investments LTD donated a combined $7.7 million in support of the initiative. Mike Fernandez is the chairman of private investment firm MBF Healthcare Partners, L.P., which invests in healthcare companies. Fernandez is the founder of the Immigration Partnership and Coalition (IMPAC) Fund, where he seeks "to help undocumented immigrants fight unjust deportation procedures and grant them a path to citizenship."[10][11]

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
MBF (Miguel B. Fernandez) Family Investments LTD $4,502,000.00 $0.00 $4,502,000.00
Miguel "Mike" B. Fernandez $2,454,154.00 $0.00 $2,454,154.00
Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler $355,000.00 $40,000.00 $395,000.00
Miguel B. Fernandez Revocable Trust $352,000.00 $0.00 $352,000.00
Marcus Wedner $10,000.00 $0.00 $10,000.00

Opposition

Committees in opposition to Amendment 3
Committee Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions Cash Expenditures Total Expenditures
Committee to Advance Constitutional Values $1,448,315.33 $469,786.71 $1,918,102.04 $1,544,530.42 $2,014,317.13
Total $1,448,315.33 $469,786.71 $1,918,102.04 $1,544,530.42 $2,014,317.13

Top donors

Donor Cash Contributions In-Kind Contributions Total Contributions
ACLU $1,415,415.00 $112,932.54 $1,528,347.54
ACLU of Forida $35,000.00 $356,854.17 $391,854.17
Fairness Maryland, Inc $12,500.00 $0.00 $12,500.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

See also: 2020 ballot measure media endorsements

If you are aware of a media editorial board endorsements not listed below, please send an email with a link to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Support

  • Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board: "...today, close to 30 percent of Florida’s 14 million voters are registered as No Party Affiliation or as members of a minor political party. And they are the fastest-growing bloc of registered voters. It is possible, as Amendment 3 opponents argue, that on the November ballot, both winners of a top-two primary will be from the same party. But in that event, they would have had to appeal to all voters. And to stand any chance of re-election, they would have to retain such appeal.Meanwhile, all those other voters will be given a say that often eludes them now."
  • Miami Herald Editorial Board: "If the top dogs at both the Florida Democratic Party and the Republican Party of Florida are violently opposed to an idea, it’s probably an idea that benefits people who don’t make their living in politics. That’s the case with Amendment 3, which would boost voter participation in primary elections for governor, as well as those for attorney general, agriculture commissioner, chief financial officer and state legislators. ... Vote YES on Amendment 3."
  • Herald-Tribune Editorial Board: "The two established political parties, which currently hold primary elections at taxpayer expense that are effectively closed to all but registered members, oppose this measure. They have made an argument that electing state officials, including legislators, by means of an open primary where the top two candidates compete in the general election would lead to fewer office holders who belong to racial or ethnic minorities. We are not convinced that a majority of voters would necessarily reject a minority candidate; history does not uphold such a claim. We recommend voting yes."

Opposition

  • Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board: "There are better ways to open the electoral process to voters disaffected by the status quo. Allowing voters to choose in which party primary to participate, or holding primary runoff elections, could expand the voter pool and create a more favorable environment for centrist candidates. And these changes should begin in state law, not the constitution. The Tampa Bay Times Editorial Board recommends a No vote on Amendment 3."
  • Palm Beach Post Editorial Board: "If the two people who make it to the general election are from the same party (two Republicans or two Democrats), that would disenfranchise voters from the other party. There's no guarantee that open primaries would increase primary turnout, so, again, a few voters might still make the decision of who runs in the general election while possibly leaving voters from a party without an option in the general. ... We recommend voting 'no' on Amendment 3."
  • Palm Beach Post Editorial Board: "Democrats and Republicans would lose the ability to choose their own party’s nominee without the interference of political adversaries. Black and minority voters, in particular, would be losers. The group, People Over Profits, calculates that Black representation would drop from 17 Black majority state House districts to nine, and four Black majority Senate districts to none."


Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2020 ballot measure polls

Poll results for the measure are detailed below.[12][13][14]

Florida Amendment 3 (2020)
Poll Support OpposeUnsureMargin of errorSample size
Civiqs/Daily Kos poll
10/17/20 - 10/20/20		 36.0%51.0%13.0%+/-3.5863
University of North Florida poll
10/1/20 - 10/4/20		 58.0%35.0%6.0%+/-1.82,994
Monmouth University
9/10/20 - 9/13/20		 63%21%15%+/-4.7428
St. Pete Polls
5/26/20 - 5/27/20		 35.3%44.4%20.3%+/-44,763
St. Pete Polls
10/7/19 - 10/10/19		 38.1%47.6%14.3%+/-1.73,283
St. Pete Polls
5/6/19 - 6/1/19		 59.4%26.4%14.1%+/-1.63,790
AVERAGES 48.3% 37.57% 13.78% +/-2.88 2,686.83
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.


Background

Primary elections

Primary elections allow voters to determine which candidates compete in the general election and can be nonpartisan or partisan. In partisan primaries, voters choose the candidates they prefer for a political party to nominate in the general election.

The laws governing primary elections vary from state to state and can even vary within states by locality and political party. For example, only registered party members are allowed to vote in closed primaries, while registered party members and unaffiliated voters are allowed to vote in semi-closed primaries, and all voters are allowed to vote in open primaries.

Primary elections also vary by the way their outcomes are determined. Majority systems require the winning candidate to receive at least fifty percent of the votes cast, while plurality systems do not. In top-two primaries, top-four primaries, and blanket primaries, all candidates are listed on the same ballot, regardless of partisan affiliation.

Primary election systems

In general, there are two broad criteria by which primary elections can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction:

  1. Rules of participation: In jurisdictions that conduct partisan primaries, who can vote in a party's primary? Is participation limited to registered party members, or can other eligible voters (such as unaffiliated voters or voters belonging to other parties) participate? In general, there are three basic types of primary election participation models: open primaries, closed primaries, and semi-closed primaries.
  2. Methods for determining election outcomes: What share of the total votes cast does a candidate have to receive in order to advance to the general election? Methods for determining primary election outcomes include plurality voting systems, majority voting systems, top-two primaries, top-four primaries, and blanket primaries.

For more complete information on these criteria, click "[Show more]" below.

Show more

Rules of participation

The rules of participation in primary elections vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction (in some cases, different political parties may enforce different participation criteria within a single jurisdiction). In general, there are three basic primary election participation models used in the United States:

  1. Open primaries: An open primary is any primary election in which a voter either does not have to formally affiliate with a political party in order to vote in its primary or can declare his or her affiliation with a party at the polls on the day of the primary even if the voter was previously affiliated with a different party.[15]
  2. Closed primaries: A closed primary is any primary election in which a voter must affiliate formally with a political party in advance in order to participate in that party's primary.[15]
  3. Semi-closed primaries: A semi-closed primary is one in which previously unaffiliated voters can participate in the primary of their choosing. Voters who previously affiliated with a political party who did not change their affiliations in advance cannot vote in another party's primary.[15]

Methods for determining election outcomes

Methods for tallying votes to determine a primary election's outcome include the following:

  1. Plurality voting system: In plurality systems, the candidate who wins the largest share of the vote wins the election. The candidate need not win an outright majority to be elected. These systems are sometimes referred to as first-past-the-post or winner-take-all systems.[16][17]
  2. Majority voting system: In majority systems, a candidate must win more than 50 percent of the vote in order to win the election. In the event that no candidate wins an outright majority, a runoff election is held between the top two vote-getters. For this reason, majority systems are sometimes referred to as two-round systems. Ranked-choice voting is a specific type of majority voting system that may also be used in primary elections.[16][17]
  3. Top-two primaries: A top-two primary is one in which all candidates are listed on the same primary election ballot; the top two vote-getters, regardless of their partisan affiliations, advance to the general election. Consequently, it is possible that two candidates belonging to the same political party could win in a top-two primary and face off in the general election. Top-two primaries should not be confused with blanket primaries or top-four primaries. In a blanket primary, all candidates are listed on the same primary ballot; the top vote-getter from each party participating in the primary advances to the general election. In a top-four primary, all candidates are listed on the same primary ballot; the top-four vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of party.[15][18][19]

Primary elections by state

See also: Background, Primary systems by state

States with top-two primary elections

See also: Top-two primary

A top-two primary is a type of open primary election in which all candidates are listed on the same primary ballot. The top two vote-getters, regardless of their partisan affiliations, advance to the general election. Consequently, it is possible for two candidates belonging to the same political party to win in a top-two primary and face off in the general election.[20][21]

Three states use a top-two primary system. In 2004, Washington became the first state to adopt a top-two primary system for congressional and state-level elections. California followed suit in 2010. In Nebraska, a top-two primary system is utilized for state legislative elections. Because Nebraska's state legislature is nonpartisan, partisan affiliation labels are not listed alongside the names of state legislative candidates. Louisiana has a system similar to a top-two primary. Louisiana does not conduct true primary elections, instead, all candidates for congressional and state-level office, regardless of partisan affiliation, run in the general election. If a candidate receives a majority of the votes cast for an office in the general election, he or she wins outright. If, however, no candidate reaches that threshold, a runoff election is held between the top two vote-getters.

Closed vs. open primaries

See also: Primary election systems by state

Twenty-one (21) states conduct open primaries for congressional and state-level offices. Additionally, in Alaska, the law stipulates that political parties can determine for themselves who may participate in their primary elections.

In 14 states and the District of Columbia, at least one political party conducts closed primaries for congressional and state-level offices. In 15 states, at least one political party conducts semi-closed primaries for congressional and state-level offices.

For more information on primary systems in the different states, click here.

Ballot measures concerning primary systems

Top-two primary election systems were established through ballot measures in Washington and California. In 2004, Washington voters approved Initiative 872 by a vote of 60% to 40%. Following the approval of Initiative 872, the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian Parties of Washington filed a lawsuit against the new law, though the initiative was ultimately upheld. In June 2010, California voters approved Proposition 14 by a vote of 54% to 46%. Six political parties in California opposed the measure: the Democratic Party, Republican Party, Green Party, Peace & Freedom Party, American Independent Party, and the Libertarian Party.

A California measure to create a blanket primary system was defeated in 2004. Measures attempting to create a top-two primary system were defeated in Oregon in 2008 and 2014. and in Arizona in 2012.

Ballot measures related to primary election systems
Year Measure System type Yes votes (%) No votes (%) Outcome
2004 Washington Initiative 872 Top-two primary 59.85% 40.15% Approveda
2004 California Proposition 62 Blanket primary 46.17% 53.83%
Defeatedd
2008 Oregon Measure 65 Top-two primary 34.06% 65.94%
Defeatedd
2010 California Proposition 14 Top-two primary 53.73% 46.27% Approveda
2012 Arizona Proposition 121 Top-two primary 33.07% 66.93%
Defeatedd
2014 Oregon Measure 90 Top-two primary 31.77% 68.23%
Defeatedd
2020 Florida Amendment 3 Top-two primary 57.03%[22] 42.97%
Defeatedd

Noteworthy past top-two primaries

See also: Top-two battleground primaries, 2020

This section highlights past top-two battleground primaries for U.S. House to illustrate how top-two primaries can produce outcomes that are not typical in other primary systems.

  • In the 2012 primary for California's 31st Congressional District, Republicans Gary Miller and Bob Dutton both advanced from the top-two primary, leaving the Democrats with no general election candidate. Miller received 26.7% of the vote and Dutton received 24.8% of the vote. Four Democratic candidates split the remaining 50% of the vote, with the top candidate receiving 22.6%.
  • In the 2014 primary for California's 25th Congressional District, Republicans Tony Strickland and Stephen Knight both advanced from the top-two primary, leaving the Democrats with no general election candidate. Strickland received 29.6% of the vote and Knight received 28.4% of the vote. The two Democratic candidates split 32% of the vote 22-9, which eliminated them both from the general election.
  • In the 2018 primary for California's 8th Congressional District, Republicans Paul Cook and Tim Donnelly both advanced from the top-two primary, leaving the Democrats with no general election candidate. Cook received 40.8% of the vote and Donnelly received 22.8% of the vote. Three Democratic candidates split the remaining 36% of the vote, with the top candidate receiving 21.7%.

Past primary election systems in Florida

See also: Runoff election

Florida had a runoff primary election system before Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R) signed a bill abolishing the system in 2005. A primary runoff is a second primary election conducted to determine which of the top vote-getters in the first primary will be awarded the party nomination for an office. Primary runoffs can occur in states that require candidates to receive a majority (as opposed to a plurality) of the vote to win an election. A primary runoff can also be triggered when no candidate meets a minimum threshold of votes to win a contest. Ending the runoff system in Florida changed the system so that the winner of the primary election is the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes, even if he or she does not win an outright majority of votes cast. The Orlando Sentinel reported that election supervisors in Florida had argued that "they didn't have enough time to conduct a third election sandwiched between the late-summer primary and November general election."[23]

Election policy on the ballot in 2020

In 2020, voters in 14 states voted on 18 ballot measures addressing election-related policies. One of the measures addressed campaign finance, one were related to election dates, five addressed election systems, three addressed redistricting, five addressed suffrage, and three addressed term limits.

Click Show to read details about the election-related measures on statewide ballots in 2020.

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Florida

The state process

In Florida, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8% of the votes cast in the preceding presidential election. Florida also has a signature distribution requirement, which requires that signatures equaling at least 8% of the district-wide vote in the last presidential election be collected from at least half (14) of the state's 28 congressional districts. Signatures remain valid until February 1 of an even-numbered year.[36] Signatures must be verified by February 1 of the general election year the initiative aims to appear on the ballot.

Proposed measures are reviewed by the state attorney general and state supreme court after proponents collect 25% of the required signatures across the state in each of one-half of the state's congressional districts (222,898 signatures for 2024 ballot measures). After these preliminary signatures have been collected, the secretary of state must submit the proposal to the Florida Attorney General and the Financial Impact Estimating Conference (FIEC). The attorney general is required to petition the Florida Supreme Court for an advisory opinion on the measure's compliance with the single-subject rule, the appropriateness of the title and summary, and whether or not the measure "is facially invalid under the United States Constitution."[37]

The requirements to get an initiative certified for the 2020 ballot:

  • Signatures: 766,200 valid signatures
  • Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was February 1, 2020. As election officials have 30 days to check signatures, petitions should be submitted at least one month before the verification deadline.

In Florida, proponents of an initiative file signatures with local elections supervisors, who are responsible for verifying signatures. Supervisors are permitted to use random sampling if the process can estimate the number of valid signatures with 99.5% accuracy. Enough signatures are considered valid if the random sample estimates that at least 115% of the required number of signatures are valid.

Details about the initiative

  • The initiative was approved for circulation on March 14, 2019.[6]
  • Florida Attorney General Ashley B. Moody (R), joined by briefs in opposition to the measure from the Florida Republican and Democratic Parties, challenged Amendment 3 based on the initiative's ballot summary in October 2019. On March 19, 2020, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the measure was constitutional and the ballot summary was sufficient.[38]
  • The measure was certified for the ballot on December 6, 2019. Proponents submitted 776,144 valid signatures.[6]
  • On October 13, 2020, Glenton Gilzean Jr.—supported by Florida House Speaker-elect Chris Sprowls (R) and State Senator Janet Cruz (D)—filed a lawsuit asking the Florida Supreme Court to invalidate Amendment 3 and block the secretary of state from counting or certifying results.[39]

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired AP Petitioning Partners and BH-AP Petitioning Partners to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $6,315,623.86 was spent to collect the 766,200 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $8.24.

Lawsuits

Clenton Gilzean Jr. vs Laurel M. Lee et al.

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Whether Amendment 3 violates the state constitution by reducing minority voting power in certain districts
Court: Florida Supreme Court
Ruling: Dismissed
Plaintiff(s): Glenton Gilzean Jr.Defendant(s): Secretary of State Laura M. Lee and the Florida Election Canvassing Commission

  Source: Florida Supreme Court: Clenton Gilzean Jr. vs Laurel M. Lee et al.

Glenton Gilzean Jr. filed a lawsuit on October 13, 2020, asking the Florida Supreme Court to invalidate the measure and to prohibit the secretary of state from counting or certifying election results for Amendment 3. Florida House Speaker-elect Chris Sprowls (R) and State Senator Janet Cruz (D) joined Gilzean in a news conference on Tuesday announcing the lawsuit.[40]

The Florida Supreme Court issued an advisory ruling in March 2020 on Amendment 3, ruling that it was constitutional and valid. Gilzean's lawsuit argued that two reports released in July 2020 justify reconsideration. The studies concluded that more than half of existing districts in which African American voters make up a majority of voters in the Democratic primary would no longer feature that majority under a top-two open primary. The lawsuit alleged that Amendment 3 violates Article I, section 2, of the state constitution, which states, "No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, national origin, or physical disability.” It also alleged that the measure violates sections 15 and 21 of Article III of the state constitution. Section 21 of Article III states, "[D]istricts shall not be drawn with the intent or result of denying or abridging the equal opportunity of racial or language minorities to participate in the political process or to diminish their ability to elect representatives of their choice."[39]

The lawsuit alleged, "These sections work together to ensure minorities have a voice in elections, while the Proposed Amendment [Amendment 3] would result in cutting by more than half the number of districts in which Black voters currently comprise a majority of the electorate in a primary. [...] The Proposed Amendment would enshrine structural discrimination in our state’s supreme legal document, directly contradicting other sections of the Constitution."[39]

To read the MCI Maps report cited in the lawsuit, click here. To read the Sean Shaw report click here.

The lawsuit was dismissed by the Florida Supreme Court on October 28, 2020.[41]

Advisory opinion to the attorney general

Florida Attorney General Ashley B. Moody (R) filed a request to the Florida Supreme Court on whether the measure's ballot language is misleading and should not appear on the ballot.[42]

The Florida Republican and Democratic Parties filed briefs opposing the initiative. The Supreme Court heard arguments on December 3, 2019. Attorneys for the Florida Republican Party wrote, "Voters considering whether to adopt such a radical change to Florida’s election process are entitled to a ballot summary that clearly and unambiguously describes the choice before them and is not misleading. The proposal here fails to satisfy this basic --- yet critically important --- legal requirement." Attorneys for All Voters Vote wrote, "The ballot title and summary of the All Voters Vote amendment clearly and unambiguously inform voters of its chief, and sole, purpose: allowing all qualified registered voters to vote in primary elections for state elective office without regard to the party affiliation of voters and candidates."[43][38]

The Florida Supreme Court ruled the measure was constitutional on March 19, 2020.[44]

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Florida

Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Florida.


See also

External links

Support

Opposition

Submit links to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Footnotes

  1. ↑ My Florida, "STRUCTURE OF THE FLORIDA CABINET," accessed December 18, 2019
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Florida Department of Elections, "Initiative 19-07 text," accessed March 14, 2019
  3. ↑ Florida Departmenf of State, "Campaign finance database," accessed May 13, 2020
  4. ↑ Miami Herald, "Miami’s pro-immigration political booster says Florida must open its primary elections," accessed February 24, 2020
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 Florida Division of Elections, "Initiatives: All Voters Vote in Primary Elections for State Legislature, Governor, and Cabinet 19-07," accessed March 14, 2019
  7. ↑ Miami Dade, "Official Sample Ballot- General Election," accessed September 30, 2020
  8. ↑ All Voters Vote, "Home," accessed September 1, 2020
  9. ↑ Florida Departmenf of State, "Campaign finance database," accessed March 19, 2021
  10. ↑ MBF Healthcare Partners, "Miguel “Mike” Fernandez," accessed December 11, 2019
  11. ↑ Immigration Partnership and Coalition (IMPAC) Fund, "Team," accessed February 24, 2020
  12. ↑ St. Pete Polls, "Subject: Florida Statewide survey conducted for StPetePolls.org," accessed June 13, 2019
  13. ↑ St. Pete Polls, "Florida Statewide survey conducted by StPetePolls.org conducted October 10, 2019," accessed October 11, 2019
  14. ↑ In the September 2020 Monmouth University poll, an additional 1% of respondents said they would not vote on the measure
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 National Conference of State Legislatures, "State Primary Election Types," May 26, 2023
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 FairVote, "Types of Voting Systems," accessed June 9, 2023
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 Georgetown University, "Electoral Systems," accessed June 9, 2023
  18. ↑ Encyclopedia Brittanica, "Primary Election," accessed June 9, 2023
  19. ↑ Taegan Goddard's Political Dictionary, "Jungle primary," accessed January 13, 2016
  20. ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "State Primary Election Types," accessed September 11, 2017
  21. ↑ A 60% supermajority vote was needed to pass the amendment.
  22. ↑ Orlando Sentinel, "Runoff primary election is history now," accessed December 19, 2019
  23. ↑ Alaska Division of Elections, "Alaska's Better Elections Initiative," accessed January 6, 2020
  24. ↑ Colorado General Assembly, "Senate Bill 42 (2019)," accessed September 5, 2019
  25. ↑ Florida Department of Elections, "Initiative 19-07," accessed March 14, 2019
  26. ↑ Massachusetts Attorney General, "Initiative 19-10: Initiative Petition for a Law to Implement Ranked-Choice Voting in Elections," accessed August 7, 2019
  27. ↑ Mississippi State Legislature, "House Concurrent Resolution 47," accessed June 30, 2020
  28. ↑ Missouri Legislature, "SJR 38 Full Text," accessed February 10, 2020
  29. ↑ New Jersey State Legislature, "Assembly Concurrent Resolution 188," accessed July 31, 2020
  30. ↑ U.S. Census Bureau, "2020 Census Operational Adjustments Due to COVID-19," accessed August 10, 2020
  31. ↑ Virginia General Assembly, "Senate Bill 236," accessed March 5, 2020
  32. ↑ Arkansas Legislature, "SJR 15 full text," accessed March 28, 2019
  33. ↑ Kentucky Legislature, "House Bill 405 Text," accessed March 11, 2020
  34. ↑ Missouri State Senate, "SJR 14," accessed April 17, 2019
  35. ↑ Before the passage of Florida Senate Bill 1794 of 2020, signatures remained valid for a period of two years
  36. ↑ Florida State Senate, "Florida Senate Bill 1794," accessed April 13, 2020
  37. ↑ 38.0 38.1 Florida supreme Court Docket, "Case Number: SC19-1267," accessed December 11, 2019
  38. ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 Florida Supreme Court, "Clenton Gilzean Jr. vs Laurel M. Lee et al." October 13, 2020
  39. ↑ Tallahassee Democrat, "'All Voters Vote' proposal to change Florida voting system draws another legal challenge," October 13, 2020
  40. ↑ Florida Phoenix, "FL Supreme Court rejects late challenge to Amendment 3, which would end party primaries," accessed October 29, 2020
  41. ↑ Miami Herald, "Florida AG steps into fight over amendment on open primaries, says it’s misleading," accessed October 3, 2019
  42. ↑ WUSF Public Media, "Proposed Revamp Of Florida Primary Election Heads to State’s High Court," accessed December 2, 2019
  43. ↑ Florida Politics, "Primary election overhaul set for November ballot," accessed March 20, 2020
  44. ↑ Florida Secretary of State, "FAQ - Voting," accessed July 23, 2024
  45. ↑ 46.0 46.1 Florida Division of Elections, "National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)," accessed July 23, 2024
  46. ↑ 47.0 47.1 Florida Division of Elections, "Register to Vote or Update your Information," accessed July 23, 2024
  47. ↑ Florida Department of State, "Florida Voter Registration Application Instructions and Form," accessed November 1, 2024
  48. ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
  49. ↑ Florida Division of Elections, "Election Day Voting," accessed July 22, 2024
  50. ↑ Florida Division of Elections, "Florida History: Voter ID at the Polls," accessed July 22, 2024
v • e
2020 ballot measures
I&R States
 • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Florida • Idaho • Illinois • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Mexico • North Dakota • Oklahoma • Oregon • South Dakota • Utah • Washington • Wyoming
Non I&R States
 • Alabama • Georgia • Iowa • Kentucky • Louisiana • New Jersey • Rhode Island • Virginia • Wisconsin
Political topics
Other
Flag of Florida
v • e
State of Florida
Tallahassee (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Florida_Amendment_3,_Top-Two_Open_Primaries_for_State_Offices_Initiative_(2020)&oldid=9168501"