Should Massachusetts ditch party-specific primaries? Local Democrats and Republicans say “no.”
When voters head to the polls on Nov. 3, they’ll be asked to consider getting rid of the current primary election system, where the two major political parties each get their own ballot. If approved, Question 3 would implement a primary where all candidates are listed on one ballot, and the two candidates with the most votes, regardless of party, would proceed to the general election.
Patrick Falvey, chair of the Greenfield Democratic Town Committee, said the proposal would result in more voters selecting the candidate whose name is recognized, rather than the candidate who represents the party they believe in; consequently, it would result in candidates with more money and resources having even better chances in the election, as they can run larger advertising campaigns.
“It would really weaken the role of political parties and make money more dominant in elections,” Falvey said. “I really wish people would vote ‘no’ on [Question] 3.”
The initiative is championed by the Coalition for Healthy Democracy. The coalition believes a single, all-party primary would result in more competitive elections and force candidates to rely on more than just their party’s backing.
“In November, Massachusetts voters will be the ones who decide whether their elections are run by party insiders or by the people. … Massachusetts has the least competitive elections in America, and when politicians don’t have to compete, they don’t have to fix what’s broken,” Jessica Littlewood, a campaign manager with the coalition, said in a statement. “All-party primaries replace the restrictive, privately controlled, party primary system with one open to every voter and every candidate, regardless of affiliation: more candidates, more competition, more real choices. That’s how we get elected officials to prioritize real solutions instead of the same old politics.”
The non-partisan primary, also referred to as a top-two primary or jungle primary, is currently used in Washington and California, except for presidential elections. The state of Alaska uses a top-four primary where the top four candidates move to the final election.
The proposal has received endorsements from former governors Deval Patrick and Charlie Baker, State Auditor Diana DiZoglio, Arlene Kirsch with Indivisible Northampton — Swing Left Western Massachusetts, and others. However, it has garnered opposition from members of the Massachusetts Democratic and Republican parties.
Chris Ryan, the Republican State Committee member for the Franklin, Hampshire and Worcester district, said the party’s Resolutions Committee unanimously voted to put forth a resolution in opposition to the measure to the full party, and he will be urging voters to vote “no.” The resolution states that a combined primary would diminish voter engagement, reduce ideological diversity, undermine the ability for parties to put forward a nominee and increase the influence of money in politics.
Voter Rights MA, a group campaigning against Question 3, argues that the measure would increase the role of private-equity firms in elections, make it easier for billionaires to buy elections, and shut out small parties and Independents.
Margot Parrot, co-chair of the Athol Democratic Town Committee, said committee members reviewed the various ballot questions and determined they would be recommending people vote “no” on Question 3 because “it it will give wealthy candidates the ability to shut out everyone else.”
Franklin County Continuing the Political Revolution (FCCPR), a local grassroots organization committed to progressive causes, is also recommending a “no” vote.
“While we need reforms like ranked-choice voting, this would empower corporate PACs and self-funders, and disadvantage more progressive grassroots candidates,” the organization shared on its Facebook page.
While the question has garnered opposition from both Democrats and Republicans, it has also received support from both sides of the aisle. In a statement, Baker and Patrick voiced their support for the measure and said a non-partisan primary would create more competitive elections. They argued that in Massachusetts, candidates often win simply because there is no opposition.
“The opportunity to hold public office is a tremendous privilege, but even greater than that honor is the profound responsibility it carries to serve the community that elected you, regardless of party politics,” Baker said. “As governor, I worked hard to listen to different points of view because that’s the only way for leaders to find the best ideas and reach common ground to get important stuff done. Massachusetts is at its best when we put good ideas and good government ahead of politics, because the real work begins after campaigns end. All-party primaries will give voters more choice and our elected officials will have to reach across the aisle to voters from other parties if they want to be successful. That’s why I believe Question 3 will return the focus to what matters most: delivering meaningful results for the people of our commonwealth.”
“Politics nowadays is less about ‘red’ versus ‘blue’ than about insiders versus outsiders,” Patrick said. “Elections ought to be a competition of ideas, experience and character than about who has the better structural advantage. All-party primaries can enable more good people to compete, and encourage more office holders to deliver results once elected.”
The measure has also been endorsed by the Western Massachusetts Building Trades Unions. In a statement, President Colton Andrews said a non-partisan primary would make participating in democracy easier for working-class Massachusetts residents.
“A ‘yes’ on Question 3 is a ‘yes’ for working people,” Andrews said. “Our members work long
hours, raise families and contribute to every major project that keeps western Massachusetts running. They deserve a system that makes it easier — not harder — to participate in our democracy.”
Shelburne Town Clerk Joe Judd said he does not feel the proposal would add or detract from the workload of town clerks during election season, but he has reservations about the ballot question and its potential impact on the competitiveness of elections.
“I just think that would be an oxymoron of competition,” Judd said. “I think it could reduce choice for voters.”
Greenfield City Clerk Kathy Scott agreed that merging the primaries would likely not make much of a difference to town and city clerks and poll workers, as they will still have to do all the same work of sending out absentee and mail-in ballots, conducting early polling hours and running the election.
She said it’s possible that the proposal could drive slightly higher turnout for primaries, particularly among those who don’t feel inclined to vote in either the Republican primary or Democratic primary, but would want to support an Independent.
Under state law, voters must register to vote at least 10 days before Election Day to be eligible to cast a ballot, so to vote on Nov. 3, citizens must register by Saturday, Oct. 24. To register, citizens who have a Massachusetts driver’s license or state ID may visit VoteInMA.com or print a voter registration form and mail it or bring it to their local town clerk’s office. Voter registrations must be postmarked by Oct. 24.
