Should Massachusetts ditch party-specific primaries? Local Democrats and Republicans say “no.”
When voters head to the polls on Tuesday, 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, 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. Jessica Littlewood, a campaign manager with the coalition, says all-party primaries would replace the “restrictive, privately controlled,” party primary system with more candidates, competition and choices for voters to make.
“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,” Littlewood said in a statement.
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 been endorsed by the likes of former governors Deval Patrick and Charlie Baker, and State Auditor Diana DiZoglio. Locally, people like Arlene Kirsch of Indivisible Northampton have also backed the measure.
“I am all for Question 3,” Kirsch said. “I think that Massachusetts desperately needs to have more competition in the primaries in order to have a stronger democracy.”
Indivisible Northampton has not taken an official stance on Question 3 since two of the eight-member steering committee, including Kirsch, are in favor of the measure. The group makes endorsements only when there is unanimous support.
On the other side, Beth Lev, who is also on the steering committee of Indivisible Northampton, staunchly opposes the measure. Similar to Falvey, she says it would benefit candidates with more money compared to those with less resources. Lev said nearly every progressive group is against the measure.
“It tilts the scale for people who are more well known and well funded,” Lev said.
Lev said that a non-partisan primary also puts independent and Green Party candidates at a disadvantage, particularly if there are multiple competitive candidates in the same party. She said voters may worry about splitting votes between those candidates, making them less likely to vote for an independent in a primary.
Question 3 has garnered opposition from members of both 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.
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.
Similarly, both Lev and Kirsch said ranked-choice voting would be a better option than all-party primaries, since voters in one political party would not have to worry about splitting their vote. Easthampton and Cambridge are the only two communities in Massachusetts that have adopted ranked-choice voting for local elections.
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 an all-party 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.
Baker said all-party primaries will give voters more choice and elected officials will be more likely to seek votes from residents of the opposite political party.
“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.”
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.”
Northampton City Clerk Pamela Powers said she does not feel the proposal would add or detract from the workload of town clerks during election season, but feels it would increase voter turnout in the primary. She also said it would be a cost saver since only one ballot would have to be printed.
“I certainly think it would bring candidates out earlier to bring their pitch and it would certainly make primaries busier,” Powers said. “I think it would encourage more voters to act in the primary and I know it would be a definite cost saver statewide.”
