Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
Closed primary
|
|
 |
| Select a state from the menu below to learn more about its election administration. |
A closed primary is a type of primary election in which a voter must affiliate formally with a political party in advance of the election date in order to participate in that party's primary.[1][2][3]
Usage
Congressional and state-level elections
In 15 states, at least one political party conducts closed primaries for congressional and state-level offices. In 11 of these states, all political parties conduct closed primaries. The map below identifies states in which at least one political party utilizes closed primaries for congressional and state-level elections. Hover over a state for additional details.[2][3]
| States in which at least one political party utilizes closed primaries for congressional and state-level elections | ||
|---|---|---|
| State | Closed primaries | Notes |
| Alabama | Yes (Democrats) | Section 17-13-7 of the Code of Alabama stipulates that political parties "shall have the right, power, and authority to fix and prescribe the political or other qualifications of its own members and shall, in its own way, declare and determine who shall be entitled and qualified to vote in such primary election."[4] |
| Alaska | Yes (Republican Party) | State law stipulates that political parties can determine for themselves who may participate in their primary elections.[5] |
| Connecticut | Yes | Section 9-431 of the General Statutes of Connecticut stipulates that only registered members of a political party are entitled to vote in that party's primary, though a party may choose to permit unaffiliated voters to participate in its primary.[6] |
| Delaware | Yes | |
| Florida | Yes | |
| Kentucky | Yes | |
| Maine | Yes | State law stipulates that political parties can determine for themselves who may participate in their primary elections.[7] |
| Maryland | Yes | State law stipulates that political parties can determine for themselves who may participate in their primary elections.[8] |
| Nevada | Yes | |
| New Mexico | Yes | |
| New York | Yes | |
| Oklahoma | Yes (Republican Party; Libertarian Party effective in 2018) | Section 26-1-104 of the Oklahoma Statutes stipulates that only a registered member of a political party can vote in that party's primary. The law does grant parties the authority to determine for themselves whether unaffiliated voters may vote in their primaries.[9] |
| Oregon | Yes | |
| Pennsylvania | Yes | |
| South Dakota | Yes (Republican, Libertarian, and Constitution parties) | Section 12-6-26 of the South Dakota Codified Laws stipulates that a voter who has registered with a political party can only vote in that party's primary. The statute does grant parties the authority to determine for themselves whether unaffiliated voters may participate in their primaries.[10] |
Presidential primaries and caucuses
In the 2016 presidential election cycle, political parties in 27 states utilized closed primaries and/or caucuses as part of the presidential nominating process. The map below identifies states in which at least one political party utilized closed primaries or caucuses as part of the presidential nominating process in 2016. Hover over a state for additional details.[11]
| States in which at least one political party utilized closed primaries or caucuses for presidential nominating process, 2016 | ||
|---|---|---|
| State | Closed primaries or caucuses | |
| Alaska | Yes | |
| Arizona | Yes | |
| California | Yes (Republicans) | |
| Connecticut | Yes | |
| Delaware | Yes | |
| Florida | Yes | |
| Hawaii | Yes | |
| Idaho | Yes (Republicans) | |
| Iowa | Yes | |
| Kansas | Yes | |
| Kentucky | Yes | |
| Louisiana | Yes | |
| Maine | Yes | |
| Maryland | Yes | |
| Nebraska | Yes | |
| Nevada | Yes | |
| New Hampshire | Yes | |
| New Jersey | Yes | |
| New Mexico | Yes | |
| New York | Yes | |
| Oklahoma | Yes (Republicans) | |
| Oregon | Yes | |
| Pennsylvania | Yes | |
| South Dakota | Yes (Republicans) | |
| Utah | Yes (Republicans) | |
| Washington | Yes | |
| Wyoming | Yes | |
Support and opposition
Support
Andrew Gripp, in a 2016 piece for the Independent Voter Network, argued that prohibiting political parties from conducting closed primaries infringes upon the associational rights of the parties:[12]
| “ | Citizens should not impose on parties their supposed right to help determine the parties’ nominees because it [...] violates these private groups’ freedom of association. A caveat: this is not to say that parties should not be encouraged to open up their internal elections to non-members; indeed, it may be in their interest to do so. But this is an option that should be left to the parties themselves and not to be effected through state force.[13] | ” |
| —Andrew Gripp | ||
Bill Armistead, chairman of the Republican Party of Alabama, suggested in an interview with The Washington Times that closed primaries are preferable to open primaries because the latter enable members of opposing political parties to sabotage the nominating processes of those parties:[14]
| “ | The Mississippi primary shows what can happen when you have an open primary. Most often it is for mischief. The Democrats who vote in our primary either want to support the weaker candidate so they will have a better shot at winning in the general election, or they have been coerced into voting in our party’s primary to elect a candidate more closely aligned with their party’s views and philosophy.[13] | ” |
| —Bill Armistead | ||
Bob Cesca, in a 2016 piece for The Daily Banter, made an argument similar to Armistead's:[15]
| “ | Frankly, there shouldn't be any open primaries in the first place. Basic logic dictates that members of the Democratic Party should be exclusively tasked with choosing the Democratic Party nominee for president, as well as congressional offices and so forth. Second, it's a huge mistake for the Democrats to unilaterally make a change like this since it'd leave the process completely and lopsidedly vulnerable to Republican tampering[.][13] | ” |
| —Bob Cesca | ||
Opposition
In a 2014 article, the editorial board of USA Today argued that open primaries should be used in lieu of closed primaries because they can produce more moderate general election candidates:[16]
| “ | As a general rule, anything that the far right and the far left both decry is a decent idea. And so it is with open primaries. While they can be the subject of dirty tricks, they are more likely to produce candidates who are moderate enough to win in general elections and be more effective in office. The very people who cross over are often the very people a party most needs to attract.[13] | ” |
| —USA Today | ||
John Opdycke, in a 2017 opinion piece for The Hill, suggested that open primaries are an effective counter to the partisan gridlock engendered by the conduct of closed primaries, :[17]
| “ | Open primaries bring people together and enforces accountability. They create new opportunities to work together, form innovative coalitions and debate issues on the merits. That’s why open primaries are so relevant right now and why activists in Florida, Idaho and many more states are working hard to impact on local laws and on the rules for our next presidential primary in 2020. As long as our system of elections incentivizes politicians to play to their partisan base, Washington won’t change. It will continue to get worse.[13] | ” |
| —John Opdycke | ||
In a 2016 opinion piece for The Orlando Sentinel, columnist Beth Kassab argued that closed primaries disenfranchise voters and that open primaries are an effective remedy to this issue:[18]
| “ | [There are] 3.2 million voters in Florida who are barred from having a say in Tuesday's presidential primary because they aren't registered with one of the two major political parties. Think about that. More than a quarter of the state's voters are left out. They will be forced to sit on the sidelines — completely disenfranchised — during one of the most contentious primaries in recent history.[13] | ” |
| —Beth Kassab | ||
Recent legislation
The map below identifies states in which legislation related to the conduct of primary elections has been introduced. Hover over a state to see the precise number of relevant bills introduced in that state. A darker shade of red indicates a greater number of relevant bills. In those states shaded in white, relevant bills have not been introduced. For state-specific details, click a state in the map below or select a state from the drop-down menu beneath the map. A list of state legislation will display, including information about bill status and links to full text. This information is provided by BillTrack50.com. To return to the map, click "Back" in the upper righthand corner of the legislation list.
See below for a complete list of primary systems bills. To learn more about a particular bill, click its title. This information is provided by BillTrack50 and LegiScan.
See also
- Primary election
- Open primary
- Semi-closed primary
- Blanket primary
- Top-two primary
- Ballot access for major and minor party candidates
- Ballot access for presidential candidates
Footnotes
- ↑ Encyclopedia Britannica, "Primary Election," accessed November 6, 2013
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 FairVote, "Who Can Vote in Congressional Primaries," accessed August 17, 2017
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 National Conference of State Legislatures, "State Primary Election Types," July 21, 2016
- ↑ Code of Alabama, "Section 17-13-7," accessed September 14, 2017
- ↑ Alaska Statutes, "Section 15.25.04," accessed September 14, 2017
- ↑ General Statutes of Connecticut, "Section 9-431," accessed September 14, 2017
- ↑ Maine Revised Statutes, "Title 21-A, Section 340," accessed September 14, 2017
- ↑ Maryland Election Law Code, "Section 8-202," accessed September 14, 2017
- ↑ Oklahoma Statutes, 'Section 26-1-104," accessed September 14, 2017
- ↑ South Dakota Codified Laws, "Section 12-6--26," accessed September 14, 2017
- ↑ FairVote, "Who Can Vote in Presidential Primaries?" accessed March 9, 2016
- ↑ Independent Voter Network, "An Independent's Case against Open Primaries," May 4, 2016
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ The Washington Times, "Angry Republican leaders ready to shut door on open primaries," August 6, 2014
- ↑ The Baily Banter, "Open Primaries Are a Terrible Idea, Especially Knowing the GOP is Moving Toward Closed Primaries," May 25, 2016
- ↑ USA Today, "Open primaries produce viable candidates: Our view," July 1, 2014
- ↑ The Hill, "Want to fix American politics? Open up the primaries," June 27, 2017
- ↑ The Orlando Sentinel, "It's time for open primaries in Florida," March 15, 2016
