Top-two primary

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

A top-two primary is a type of primary election where all candidates are listed on the same ballot, regardless of their party affiliation, and all registered voters participate in the same primary. The top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of their partisan affiliations. 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. Variations of top-two primaries include top-four and top-five primaries where the designated number of candidates that advance to the general election increases.

As of September 2025:

Five states use top-two style primaries for at least some or all congressional and statewide elections.

Top-two primaries and their variants should not be confused with blanket primaries. In both types of primaries, all candidates are listed on the same ballot and voters choose one candidate per office regardless of party affiliation. However, in a blanket primary, the top vote-getter from each party advances to the general election and candidates from the same party can not compete against each other in the general election.

• Top-two primaries in use by state

  Where the state law requires the Democratic and Republican parties to participate in top-two style primaries for some or all congressional and statewide elections
  Read more
• Support and opposition

  Arguments in support and in opposition to top-two style primaries
  Read more
• History

  History of top-two style primaries in the U.S., including its first use and legal challenges
  Read more
• Ballot measures

  Statewide ballot measures related to top-two style primaries
  Read more

Top-two primaries in use by state

As of September 2025, three states used a top-two primary for some elections:

• California adopted a top-two primary system in 2010 after the passage of California Proposition 14.
  

• 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.
  

• In 2004, Washington became the first state to adopt a top-two primary system for congressional and state-level elections after the passage of Washington Initiative 872.

Two additional states used some variation of top-two primaries for their elections:

• In 2020, Alaska voters approved Alaska Ballot Measure 2 establishing a top-four primary, which is a variation of the top-two primary, for state executive, state legislative, and congressional elections. The initiative also established ranked-choice voting for general elections for the aforementioned offices and the presidency.
  

• In Louisiana, rules to participate in primaries vary by the office up for election. For congress, justice of the supreme court, the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, and the Public Service Commission, the state uses a semi-closed primary. In these primaries, only unaffiliated voters and voters registered with a party may vote in that party's primary. For all other statewide offices—including state senator and representative—Louisiana uses the majority-vote system. In this system, if a candidate receives a majority of the votes cast for an office, they win the election outright. If, however, no candidate reaches that threshold, a second round of voting is held between the top two vote-getters. Any registered voter can participate in both the first-round and second-round elections.

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 a top-two style primary is used for some or all congressional or state-level offices

State	Top-two primary or variant	Statute	Notes
Alaska	Top-four	Alaska Stat. § 15.25.010	Alaska uses a top-four primary for state executive, state legislative, and congressional elections where candidates from all parties appear on the same primary ballot. The top four finishers move on to the general election.
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. Louisiana uses 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 uses 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.

Top-two primary Released April 1, 2021

History

On November 2, 2004, voters in Washington approved Initiative 872 (I-872), establishing a top-two primary system for Washington's elective offices. Washington's Democratic, Libertarian, and Republican parties filed suit against the state, contending that the top-two primary system infringed upon the associational rights of political parties by denying them control over candidate endorsements. On July 15, 2005, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington found in favor of the plaintiffs and halted implementation of I-872. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on August 22, 2006. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled 7-2 on March 18, 2008, to reverse the Ninth Circuit's ruling, enabling Washington to implement its top-two primary system. The high court's majority opinion was penned by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito. Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy dissented. Thomas wrote the following in the court's majority opinion:

“	Respondents claim that candidates who progress to the general election under I–872 will become the de facto nominees of the parties they prefer, thereby violating the parties’ right to choose their own standard-bearers. ... The flaw in this argument is that ... the I–872 primary does not, by its terms, choose parties’ nominees. The essence of nomination—the choice of a party representative—does not occur under I–872. The law never refers to the candidates as nominees of any party, nor does it treat them as such. To the contrary, the election regulations specifically provide that the primary 'does not serve to determine the nominees of a political party but serves to winnow the number of candidates to a final list of two for the general election.' The top two candidates from the primary election proceed to the general election regardless of their party preferences. Whether parties nominate their own candidates outside the state-run primary is simply irrelevant. In fact, parties may now nominate candidates by whatever mechanism they choose because I–872 repealed Washington’s prior regulations governing party nominations.	”
—Clarence Thomas

The top-two primary system was first utilized in Washington in the 2008 election cycle. On June 8, 2010, voters in California approved Proposition 14, establishing a top-two primary system for California's elective offices. The top-two primary system was first utilized in California in 2011.

Arguments for and against 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 more moderate lawmakers. Supporters also argue that campaign spending is more effective in top-two primaries than in partisan primaries.

Claim: 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 an 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)

Claim: 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)

Claim: 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.

Claim: 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)

Claim: 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)

Claim: 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)

Ballot measures

See also: Primary election systems ballot measures

The following is a list of statewide ballot measures to enact top-two primaries since 2000:

State	Year	Type	Title	Result	Yes Votes	No Votes
SD	2024	CICA	Constitutional Amendment H		141,570 (34%)	270,048 (66%)
FL	2020	CICA	Amendment 3		5,854,468 (57%)	4,410,768 (43%)
OR	2014	CISS	Measure 90		459,629 (32%)	987,050 (68%)
AZ	2012	CICA	Proposition 121		662,366 (33%)	1,340,286 (67%)
CA	2010	LRCA	Proposition 14	a	2,868,945 (54%)	2,470,658 (46%)
OR	2008	CISS	Measure 65		553,640 (34%)	1,070,580 (66%)
CA	2004	CICA/SS	Proposition 62		5,119,155 (46%)	5,968,770 (54%)
WA	2004	CISS	Initiative 872	a	1,632,225 (60%)	1,095,190 (40%)

Recent legislation related to primaries

The table below includes state legislation related to primaries introduced during (or carried over to) the current year's legislative session. The following information is included for each bill:

• State
• Bill number
• Official bill name or caption
• Most recent action date
• Legislative status
• Sponsor party
• Topics dealt with by the bill

Bills are organized by state and then by most recent action. The table displays up to 100 results. To view more bills, use the arrows in the upper-right corner. Clicking on a bill will open its page on Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker, which includes bill details and a summary.

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-four primary
• Blanket primary
• Jungle primary
• Final-five voting

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 • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond
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 • Joseph Greaney, Managing Editor of Policy • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Victoria Edwards • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Thomas Grobben • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Andrew McNair • Ellie Mikus • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox

‎