Editorial: Ballot measure would transform primary elections
As Massachusetts prepares for its 2026 state ballot, a series of proposed referendum questions are drawing attention, with one particularly striking at the heart of the democratic process— the introduction of an all-party primary system. This initiative, which has garnered significant support, aims to allow voters to select candidates from all parties on a single ballot, regardless of their party affiliation. Currently, voters must choose candidates within their registered party, or select a specific party ballot if they are registered as unenrolled. Advocates for this reform argue that it would foster a fairer and more inclusive electoral process, ensuring that every voter’s choice matters and that no demographic feels taken for granted. Danielle Allen, chair of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, emphasized that “healthy democracies mean choice,” highlighting the need for a system that reflects the diverse opinions of the electorate.
Supporters of the all-party primary initiative recently gathered at the Massachusetts State House to deliver tens of thousands of signatures for certification, a critical step in the qualification process. They point to successful implementations of similar systems in states such as California, Alaska, and Louisiana, where all-party primaries have reportedly led to increased electoral competition and voter turnout. In Massachusetts, municipal elections already utilize a similar system, allowing unaffiliated candidates to run on a single ballot. The Secretary of State is set to certify these signatures, determining which proposals will advance in the legislative process. This movement aligns with a broader national trend advocating for primary election reforms, as many political scientists and reform advocates argue that the current system often leaves a significant portion of the electorate disenfranchised and contributes to the election of more extreme candidates.
The urgency of this reform is underscored by troubling statistics from Unite America, which reveal that only 10% of eligible Americans participated in primary elections that effectively decided the outcomes for a staggering 83% of Congressional seats in 2020. In Massachusetts, where unenrolled voters constitute the majority of the electorate at 65%, the current primary system disproportionately favors the dominant Democratic Party, potentially stifling competition and exacerbating partisan divides. Should the all-party primary question make it to the ballot and subsequently pass, it could significantly alter the political landscape of Massachusetts, promoting a more inclusive and competitive electoral environment that reflects the diverse views of its citizens.
Proposed Massachusetts referendum questions wending their way through the qualifying process for the 2026 state ballot represent some interesting possibilities.
One would lower the state income tax rate from 5% to 4%, another would trigger more frequent refunds from excess tax collections, while another would subject the governor’s office and the state Legislature to the mandates of the Public Records Law.
But one really strikes at the heart of the democratic process — creating an all-party state primary.
Supporters of that ballot question gathered on the State House steps Monday before delivering tens of thousands of signatures to officials for certification.
If the question were to pass next fall, all candidates for a statewide race would appear on a single primary ballot.
Any voter — no matter the party affiliation — could cast a ballot for the candidate of their choice, as opposed to the current system, in which voters must choose within their registered party, or select one specific party ballot if they’re independent and registered as unenrolled.
Proponents contend that it creates a fairer and more open system.
“Healthy democracies mean choice; it means every voter’s vote matters; it means no voter is taken for granted,” said Danielle Allen, chair of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy.
The question’s supporters point to other states — both red and blue — that already implement all-party primaries, including California, Alaska, and Louisiana, each of which has reported an uptick in both election competition and voter participation.
Municipal elections in Massachusetts employ a similar system, where unaffiliated candidates run for office on a single ballot.
The Secretary of State will officially certify newly-submitted ballot signatures this week, determining which move on to the next round of consideration.
According to an NPR report in September 2023, the movement to update the primary election process has been gaining momentum across the nation.
Reform-minded advocates and many political scientists agree that the present system isn’t working. That’s because a relatively small number of voters are selecting their party’s nominee — often in a district or state that leans strongly toward one party.
Which usually means that whoever wins the primary cruises to victory in a general election. That’s a scenario often repeated in Massachusetts elections.
The group Unite America underscored what it terms the “primary problem” with this startling statistic: In 2020, “only 10% of eligible Americans nationwide cast ballots in primary elections that effectively decided the winners in a supermajority (83%) of Congressional seats.”
A microcosm of that dynamic plays out in this state in virtually every municipal election.
Experts and advocates say the primary election process excludes voters and leads to more extreme candidates who mainly appeal to activists, and could be exacerbating partisan polarization.
According to the Massachusetts Secretary of State’s Office, as of February, unenrolled voters represented the vast majority of the electorate — 65%, compared to 26% for Democrats and just 8% Republicans.
The state’s Democrat-dominated political machine won’t like it, but a vote for open primaries — should it appear on the 2026 state ballot — would ensure a more inclusive, competitive political process.
Sentinel and Enterprise
Editorial cartoon by Chip Bok (Creators Syndicate)
