Top-two primary
|
|
 |
| Select a state from the menu below to learn more about its election administration. |
A top-two primary is a type of primary election where all candidates are listed on the same ballot. The top two vote-getters advance to the general election, regardless of their partisan affiliations, Consequently, it is possible for two candidates belonging to the same political party to win in a top-two primary and face off in the general election.[1][2]
Top-two primaries should not be confused with blanket primaries. In both types of primaries, all candidates are listed on the same ballot and voters choose one candidate per office regardless of party affiliation. However, in a blanket primary, the top vote-getter from each party advances to the general election. This ensures that candidates from the same party will not compete against each other in the general election.[3][4]
Usage
As of September 2023, three states used a top-two primary for some elections:
- California adopted a top-two primary system in 2010 after the passage of California Proposition 14.
- In Nebraska, a top-two primary system is utilized for state legislative elections. Because Nebraska's state legislature is nonpartisan, partisan affiliation labels are not listed alongside the names of state legislative candidates.
- In 2004, Washington became the first state to adopt a top-two primary system for congressional and state-level elections after the passage of Washington Initiative 872.
Two additional states used some variation of top-two primaries for their elections:
- In 2020, Alaska voters approved Alaska Ballot Measure 2 establishing a top-four primary, which is a variation of the top-two primary, for state executive, state legislative, and congressional elections. The initiative also established ranked-choice voting for general elections for the aforementioned offices and the presidency.
- Louisiana does not conduct typical primary elections. Instead, all candidates running for a local, state, or federal office appear on the same ballot in either October (in odd-numbered years) or November (in even-numbered years), regardless of their partisan affiliations. If a candidate wins a simple majority of all votes cast for the office (i.e., 50 percent, plus one vote), he or she wins the election outright. If no candidate meets that threshold, the top two finishers advance to a second election in either November (in odd-numbered years) or December (in even-numbered years), regardless of their partisan affiliations. In that election, the candidate who receives the greatest number of votes wins. Ballotpedia refers to Louisiana's electoral system as the Louisiana majority-vote system. It is also commonly referred to as a jungle primary. Because it is possible for a candidate to win election in the first round of voting, Louisiana's nominating contest is not a traditional primary.
- Note: HB17, signed into law by Gov. Jeff Landry (R) on 01/22/24, creates closed partisan primaries and primary runoffs for Congress, the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Louisiana Public Service Commission and Louisiana Supreme Court beginning in 2026.
The map below identifies states that utilize top-two primary elections or a variation. Hover over a state for additional details.
| Top-two primary Released April 1, 2021 |
History
On November 2, 2004, voters in Washington approved Initiative 872 (I-872), establishing a top-two primary system for Washington's elective offices. Washington's Democratic, Libertarian, and Republican parties filed suit against the state, contending that the top-two primary system infringed upon the associational rights of political parties by denying them control over candidate endorsements. On July 15, 2005, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington found in favor of the plaintiffs and halted implementation of I-872. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling on August 22, 2006. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled 7-2 on March 18, 2008, to reverse the Ninth Circuit's ruling, enabling Washington to implement its top-two primary system. The high court's majority opinion was penned by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Samuel Alito. Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy dissented. Thomas wrote the following in the court's majority opinion:[5][6]
| “ | Respondents claim that candidates who progress to the general election under I–872 will become the de facto nominees of the parties they prefer, thereby violating the parties’ right to choose their own standard-bearers. ... The flaw in this argument is that ... the I–872 primary does not, by its terms, choose parties’ nominees. The essence of nomination—the choice of a party representative—does not occur under I–872. The law never refers to the candidates as nominees of any party, nor does it treat them as such. To the contrary, the election regulations specifically provide that the primary 'does not serve to determine the nominees of a political party but serves to winnow the number of candidates to a final list of two for the general election.' The top two candidates from the primary election proceed to the general election regardless of their party preferences. Whether parties nominate their own candidates outside the state-run primary is simply irrelevant. In fact, parties may now nominate candidates by whatever mechanism they choose because I–872 repealed Washington’s prior regulations governing party nominations.[7] | ” |
| —Clarence Thomas | ||
The top-two primary system was first utilized in Washington in the 2008 election cycle. On June 8, 2010, voters in California approved Proposition 14, establishing a top-two primary system for California's elective offices. The top-two primary system was first utilized in California in 2011.[8]
Arguments for and against top-two primaries
Supporting arguments
Supporters of top-two primaries argue that they provide voters with an alternative to the two-party system and may lead to less partisan gridlock. Supporters also argue that campaign spending is more effective in top-two primaries than in partisan primaries.
Claim: Top-two primaries provide an alternative to the two-party system
In a 2021 article in The Atlantic called "Party Primaries Must Go," Nick Troiano, the executive director of Unite America, argued that top-two and top-four primaries provide a much needed alternative to the two-party system.
According to its website, Unite America says it is "a philanthropic venture fund that invests in nonpartisan election reform to foster a more representative and functional government."[9]
| “ |
This is the 'primary problem' in the U.S. political system today: A small minority of Americans decide the significant majority of our elections in partisan primaries that disenfranchise voters, distort representation, and fuel extremism––on both the left and, most acutely (at present), the right. The primary problem helps explain the stunning incongruity between Congress’s average 20 percent approval rating and its more than 90 percent reelection rate: There is a disconnect between what it takes to govern and what it takes to get reelected. ...by abolishing party primaries, [the top-two or top-four primary] eliminates elected leaders’ fear of being “primaried” by a small base of voters within their own party. Second, by abolishing plurality-winner elections and the 'spoiler' effect they produce, it levels the playing field for independent and third-party candidates.[7] |
” |
| —Nick Troiano, executive director, Unite America (2021)[10] | ||
Claim: Top-two primaries produce more moderate legislators
In a 2020 research article called Reducing Legislative Polarization: Top-Two and Open Primaries Are Associated with More Moderate Legislators, academic director Christian Grose of the USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy argued that top-two primaries produce more moderate legislators. Grose summarized her research findings as follows:
| “ |
Top-two primaries have structural differences that are distinct from closed primary systems. Legislators elected in the top-two primary system are more moderate than those elected in closed primary systems. In addition, there is evidence that legislators from open primary states or open/semi-closed primary states are more moderate. This research is the first to establish a link between these primary types and congressional ideology during this contemporary period, and it stands in sharp contrast to past research showing mixed or null effects of primary types on legislative representation. ... Top-two and open primary systems allow for all voters to vote in the primary and general election rounds. In the top-two system in particular, there is always a threat of a same-party general election. This possibility removes the cue for voters of party identification in making a general election choice. Because independents and different-party voters can participate in the primary in both top-two and open systems, this creates a moderating incentive for legislators from those systems. For the top-two primary, though, the threat of a same-party general leads legislators to moderate as they may face a same-party general election challenge in the future. [7] |
” |
| —Christian Grose, academic director of the USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy (2020)[11] | ||
Claim: Campaign spending is more effective in top-two primaries than in partisan primaries
In an article in Electoral Studies called "Campaign spending and the top-two primary: How challengers earn more votes per dollar in one-party contests," political science professor Steven Sparks of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill discussed his research comparing the effectiveness of campaign spending in top-two and partisan primaries.
| “ |
In two-party contests, voters receive information from candidate party labels and from campaign outreach, which is facilitated by campaign expenditures. Combined, this information helps voters make decisions on Election Day. In the absence of differentiating party labels in one-party contests, the information provided by candidate spending should matter more. Specifically, I argue that expenditures made by challengers facing same-party opponents should be more effective for increasing vote share than expenditures made by those facing opposite-party opponents.[7] |
” |
| —Steven Sparks, political science professor, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (2018)[12] | ||
Opposition arguments
Opponents of top-two primaries argue that they may decrease turnout in the general election, can have unintended consequences for political parties, and distort the intentions of voters.
Claim: Top-two primaries may decrease turnout in the general election
In a 2018 article in Slate Magazine, New York Times opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie argued that top-two primaries lead to decreased voter turnout.
| “ |
The “top-two” system was pitched as a way to broaden democracy and participation, but in reality it does neither. Because there are no parties choosing nominees, top two is essentially the first stage of the general election—with much lower turnout because of its timing in June. An additional consequence is that third parties are shut out of the process, weeded out from the start in a first-past-the-post ballot access mechanism. The large majority of voters then lose the chance to evaluate messages from outside the mainstream. And in the event that two candidates of the same party are chosen for the general election, there’s a strong chance that turnout will sharply decline as voters from the other party decide it’s not worth the time.[7] |
” |
| —Jamelle Bouie, opinion columnist, The New York Times (2018)[13] | ||
Claim: Top-two primaries can have unintended consequences for political parties
In a 2022 opinion column for CalMatters, Dan Walters argued that top-two primaries can have unintended consequences for political parties and cited an example from California's 2022 state senate elections.
| “ |
The top-two system inadvertently allowed Republicans to shoot themselves in the foot this year when six of them ran in state Senate District 4, which sprawls through 13 mostly rural counties southeast of Sacramento and has a GOP voter registration plurality. With so many running, they fragmented the GOP vote, thus allowing two Democrats, Tim Robertson and Marie Alvarado-Gil, to finish 1-2 and handing the seat to the other party. “This is the nightmare scenario… A lot of people thought that they would have a chance to win. So they jumped in, but they split the votes and that’s unfortunately what can happen,” Joseph Day, Stanislaus County’s Republican chairman, told GV Wire.[7] |
” |
| —Dan Walters, opinion columnist, CalMatters (2022)[14] | ||
Claim: Top-two primaries distort the intentions of voters
In a 2017 article for The Daily Caller, Peter Gemma argued that top-two primaries distort voters' intentions.
| “ |
A top two primary distorts the meaning of a free and fair election. For example, three Democrats and two Republicans ran in the 2014 Washington state open primary for Treasurer. Even though 52 percent of the electorate voted for one of the three Democrats, two Republicans ended up on the general election ballot because they narrowly finished first and second. Democrats were disenfranchised. (And please note: Washington had not elected a Republican as Treasurer since 1952.)[7] |
” |
| —Peter Gemma, contributor, The Daily Caller (2017)[15] | ||
Ballot measures
- See also: Electoral systems on the ballot
The following is a list of statewide ballot measures to enact top-two primaries:
| State | Year | Type | Title | Result | Yes Votes | No Votes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FL | 2020 | Amendment 3 |
|
5,854,468 (57%) |
4,410,768 (43%) |
|
| AZ | 2012 | Proposition 121 |
|
662,366 (33%) |
1,340,286 (67%) |
|
| CA | 2010 | Proposition 14 |
|
2,868,945 (54%) |
2,470,658 (46%) |
|
| OR | 2008 | Measure 65 |
|
553,640 (34%) |
1,070,580 (66%) |
|
| CA | 2004 | Proposition 62 |
|
5,119,155 (46%) |
5,968,770 (54%) |
|
| WA | 2004 | Initiative 872 |
|
1,632,225 (60%) |
1,095,190 (40%) |
The table below includes state legislation related to primaries introduced in or carried over to the current year's legislative session.
Bills are organized alphabetically, first by state and then by bill number. The table displays up to 100 results by default. To view additional results, use the arrows in the upper-right corner of the table. For more information about a particular bill, click the bill number. This will open a separate page with additional information.
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker
State election laws are changing. Keeping track of the latest developments in all 50 states can seem like an impossible job.
Here's the solution: Ballotpedia's Election Administration Legislation Tracker.
Ballotpedia's Election Administration Tracker sets the industry standard for ease of use, flexibility, and raw power. But that's just the beginning of what it can do:
- Ballotpedia's election experts provide daily updates on bills and other relevant political developments
- We translate complex bill text into easy-to-understand summaries written in everyday language
- And because it's from Ballotpedia, our Tracker is guaranteed to be neutral, unbiased, and nonpartisan
The Ballot Bulletin
The Ballot Bulletin is a weekly email that delivers the latest updates on election policy. The Ballot Bulletin tracks developments in election policy around the country, including legislative activity, big-picture trends, and recent news. Each email contains in-depth data from our Election Administration Legislation Tracker. You'll also be able to track relevant legislation, with links to and summaries of the bills themselves.
Recent issues
Click below to view recent issues of The Ballot Bulletin.
- The Ballot Bulletin: July 12, 2024
- The Ballot Bulletin: June 28, 2024
- The Ballot Bulletin: June 21, 2024
- The Ballot Bulletin: June 14, 2024
- The Ballot Bulletin: June 7, 2024
Subscribe
Enter your email address below to subscribe to The Ballot Bulletin.
See also
- Primary election
- Primary election types by state
- State primary election types
- Open primary
- Closed primary
- Semi-closed primary
- Top-four primary
- Blanket primary
- Jungle primary
Footnotes
- ↑ Taegan Goddard's Political Dictionary, "Jungle primary," accessed June 12, 2023
- ↑ National Conference of State Legislatures, "State Primary Election Types," accessed June 12, 2023
- ↑ USLegal.com, "Blanket Primary Law and Legal Definition," accessed June 12, 2023
- ↑ Encyclopedia Brittanica, "Primary Election," accessed June 12, 2023
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party: Opinion," March 18, 2008
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "State of Washington v. Washington State Republican Party: Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari," November 20, 2006
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Legislative Analyst's Office, "Proposition 14," accessed June 12, 2023
- ↑ The Atlantic, "Who We Are," accessed November 3, 2023
- ↑ The Atlantic, "Party Primaries Must Go," March 30, 2021
- ↑ Journal of Political Institutions and Political Economy, "Reducing Legislative Polarization: Top-Two and Open Primaries Are Associated with More Moderate Legislators," June 11, 2020
- ↑ Electoral Studies, "Campaign spending and the top-two primary: How challengers earn more votes per dollar in one-party contests" August 2018
- ↑ Slate, "How 'Top Two' Primaries Undermine Democracy," June 5, 2018
- ↑ CalMatters, "Has California’s top-two primary system worked?" June 13, 2022
- ↑ The Daily Caller, "Voters Lost In An Open Primary," March 31, 2017
| |||||||||||