Beth Ann Rosica: An unlikely case against open primaries

Pennsylvania is one of fourteen states in the country with closed primary elections, meaning a voter must officially register with a political party in advance of the election date in order to participate. And the only political parties that get to vote in the Pennsylvania taxpayer funded primaries are Republicans and Democrats.

An open primary, on the other hand, does not require voters to formally affiliate with a political party in advance of the election. According to Ballotpedia, “in some cases, voters can declare their affiliation with a party at the polls on the day of the primary, even if those voters were previously affiliated with a different party.” Vermont and Virginia are among twenty states where at least one political party conducts open primaries for congressional and state-level offices.

The remainder of states employ a semi-closed or hybrid primary where voters who are not affiliated with a political party are allowed to participate in the partisan primary election of their choice. However, voters who are affiliated with a political party are only allowed to vote in that party’s primary. New Jersey and West Virginia are two states that use this system.

As one of only fourteen states in the country with a closed primary process, the discussion of open primaries regularly surfaces in Pennsylvania.

There are many reasons why people are against open primaries, but my perspective on it is likely different from the typical arguments.

Members of the two dominant political parties — Democrats and Republicans — often fight the idea because they don’t want “outsiders,” those not registered as a part of their party, to influence the outcome of their primary. 

And I think this is a legitimate point. The purpose of a primary is for the registered members of the party to select the best candidate to represent their party in a general election. Why should an independent weigh in on the choice of a Republican or Democratic candidate? If an independent feels strongly about selecting a specific party candidate, then they could and should register as a member of the party and vote in their primary.

Those in favor of open primaries believe independents and other third-party registered voters should have the opportunity to participate in a primary of their choice. After all, every registered voter pays for the primary with their tax dollars. So why shouldn’t they get to vote in the primary they pay for?

Since I am not registered as either a Democrat or Republican, I am excluded because only those registered voters can participate in the primary. Yet, I am forced to pay for this expense.

However, I don’t think the answer is to allow independents and other third-party voters to participate in the primary of their choice. The answer should be every party pays for its own primary.I

Why should the government, aka taxpayers, fund the Democratic and Republican primaries when third parties fund their own selection process?

Imagine the cost savings for the state government if there was only one election day each year?

The Democratic and Republican parties could develop a process for selecting/electing their candidates in the same manner that other third-parties operate.

I posed this question to a Democratic and Republican county chair to evaluate my proposal. Both sides generally rejected the idea of open primaries and parties funding their own primary process.

Lori McFarland serves as the Lehigh County Democratic Chair, and said in response to the concept of open primaries, “I am personally conflicted.”

“Open primaries would allow anyone registered the opportunity to vote. Better for democracy overall. But that being said, in this miscommunication age it makes it difficult to screen and vet good candidates leaving it up to voters who may not have the opportunity or time to research candidates. The party structure helps screen and inform voters about their candidates. It would definitely weaken the party structure and make it difficult to keep unqualified and rogue candidates from running,” she added.

When asked about political parties paying for and determining their own primary system, she said, “the political process is already burdened by those of wealth and power including the influence of dark money. Having the state government control the voting process and enforcing the legality of voting is the only option to secure free and safe elections.”

Raffi Terzian, the Chester County Republican Chair, responded similarly. “I am not in favor of open primaries because of the risk of manipulation by outside groups to influence the outcome of the party’s primary. There is an existing process in place if someone wishes to change parties to vote in a specific primary.”

He was also not in favor of the two major parties funding their primaries and determining their own process. “There are sometimes ballot initiatives that allow participation by all voters — regardless of party registration as well as cross-filed races such as for school board or judicial positions. Elections are managed at the county level and the county voter services offices exist and are funded for the purpose of providing and supporting election services to citizens.”

However, outside of the two major parties, there is more agreement on this issue. Members of the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties proposed a Political Party Equality Act in 2021 to eliminate taxpayer funded primaries and remove ballot access barriers for third-party candidates.

Ken Krawchuk, a Libertarian member of the Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition, said, “ending taxpayer funded primaries would save the taxpayers the immense expense of administering elections at almost ten thousand local polling places year after year after year. We so-called ‘third parties’ have always paid for our own candidate selection process. It’s time to level the playing field by having the two old parties pay their own way too.”

Based on the responses, the diverse political parties seem to agree that primaries should not be open in Pennsylvania; however, the idea of eliminating taxpayer funder primaries is a much more controversial issue. Yet, it still seems worth considering the unfairness of asking some voters to pay for a process that they are not allowed to participate in.

Beth Ann Rosica resides in West Chester, has a Ph.D. in Education, and has dedicated her career to advocating on behalf of at-risk children and families. She covers education issues for Broad + Liberty. Contact her at barosica@broadandliberty.com.

email icon

Subscribe to our mailing list:

One thought on “Beth Ann Rosica: An unlikely case against open primaries”

  1. “The remainder of states employ a semi-closed or hybrid primary ” – So what you are really saying is, there are no states that have open primaries.

    “Since I am not registered as either a Democrat or Republican, I am excluded because only those registered voters can participate in the primary. Yet, I am forced to pay for this expense.” As an independent voter I have registered with a specific party so I can vote for anyone on the ballot. Regardless of the political affiliation of the candidate. So the only reason you can’t vote is because of your personal choice.

Leave a (Respectful) Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *