Massachusetts Proposal Axing Party Primaries Could ‘Block Out Conservatives’ From General Elections

With the focus on races in states like Texas, Michigan, Maine, and Alaska, it’s easy to overlook consequential ballot measures this upcoming election. But in Massachusetts, voters will face one proposal that could, according to a conservative election-law scholar, block “principled conservatives” from even making it to the general election. Massachusetts voters will be asked to vote on nine ballot questions this November, including questions on marijuana, firearms regulations, and housing development issues. But perhaps the most important ballot question is the third initiative which, according to ML Strategies, “would eliminate separate party primaries for state elections and replace them with a single primary in which candidates from all parties appear on the same ballot. The top two finishers would advance to the general election.” But should the ballot initiative pass, it could hurt “principled conservatives” from having a say, senior fellow at The Claremont Institute Dr. John Eastman told The Federalist. “These measures are often designed to block out principled conservatives from getting nominated, with independent voters (in semi-open primary states like Colorado) and both independents and Democrats (in full open-primary states) often affecting the outcome,” Eastman said. [READ NEXT: The Senate Race In Alaska Is What A Rigged Election Looks Like] “RINO Republicans as well as Democrats support them. Then, come general elections in November, the uniparty prevails no matter what,” Eastman explained. “We actually funded a survey and expert testimony to show that independent voters have different views than Republican primary voters. And several candidates subsequently submitted sworn affidavits that they moderate their messages when appealing to independent voters.” As of August, 13 states have closed primaries, in which voters must be registered with a political party in order to vote in that party’s primary, according to Ballotpedia. There are 10 states with semi-closed primaries, 5 with top-two style primaries, and 11 with party discretion on who gets to run in their primaries, according to Ballotpedia. Alaska is a good example of what could happen when a state scraps party primaries and replaces it with an open-primary system. In 2022 in Alaska, operatives of Sen. Lisa Murkowski, desperate to save her seat while also remaining RINO, “devised a plan to avoid a primary” by pushing ranked-choice voting, Tristan Justice reported in these pages. The party primaries were replaced by an open-party primary where the top four candidates advance to the general. Voters then “rank” their preferred choices and votes are continually tabulated until one candidate hits the 50 percent threshold. Murkowksi was facing a challenge from the more conservative Republican Kelly Tshibaka. Notably, Alaska is a state President Donald Trump has won by double digits. Ultimately Murkowski won the race, but as Justice reported, only because of help from voters who would not have otherwise chosen her in a Republican primary. As Justice reported, operatives for Murkowksi “theorized” that “Democrats … would rank Murkowksi as their number two preference, giving the incumbent senator the upper hand when the Democrat candidate is eliminated as the lowest vote-getting in a three-way race.” While Massachusetts’ ballot question would work differently in that it would only advance two candidates and not used rank choice voting, it does raise the same issue of whether Republican voters would get to choose their party’s nominees alone. Other states have found themselves at the center of similar fights over how much influence voters outside a party should have over the party’s nominees, such as North Carolina, where Republicans attempted to allow unaffiliated voters the right to vote in their party primary. While the proposal wouldn’t have created a top-two system like Massachusetts’ ballot initiative would, the attempt still could have had the similar impact that chills true conservative out of the party. Jim Womack, president of the North Carolina Election Integrity Team, explained to The Federalist’s Shawn Fleetwood how — as described by Fleetwood — “the large number of unaffiliated voters in the state could derail more conservative candidates in Republican primaries to the benefit of establishment Republicans.” In another instance, the Institute for Political Innovation promoted a “final five voting” system that would replace partisan party primaries with a single election for any candidate to run in regardless of party affiliation. Final five voting would then lead to a ranked-choice general election, while the Massachusetts ballot initiative would send two top candidates to the general election. Still, both the “final five voting” system and Massachusetts’ initiative would effectively allow an open primary where outside voters could influence which Republicans make it to the general election (if at all). Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, similarly told The Federalist that that move would hurt conservatives. “Deep-pocketed liberal donors are going to great lengths to recruit conservative and Republican spokespeople for their ideas,” Snead said. “The effort is very clearly designed to create a perception that ranked-choice voting is bipartisan, when in fact, it is an idea that is intended to push politics to the left.” The broader RCV method, Snead added, is “designed to give those very liberal mega-donors even more sway over American politics than they have right now.” Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2 Election LawElectionsMassachusettsopen primaryPrimaryranked choice voting