We should move on with open primaries

Our Secretary of State, Maggie Toulouse-Oliver’s, embrace of open primaries (6/3 Guest Column) is both courageous and important. We are one of only nine states with fully closed primaries. This outmoded format is the main reason there is so little competition in our state elections. We have one of the highest rates of unopposed races in the nation.

However, the solution she proposes, allowing minor party and unaligned voters to select a partisan ballot, is far from ideal. Doing so would enfranchise those registrants — to an extent. It would not allow them to select both R & D candidates for different seats, nor would Toulouse-Oliver’s proposal allow Ds & Rs to vote for a candidate who is not a member of their party. Most importantly, it does nothing to permit viable independent/minor party candidates to have access to the primary ballot — the best route to introduce more choice in our elections.

Primaries were adopted to make candidate selection a more democratic process by moving those decisions from the back rooms at party conventions to the members of each major party. The role of the primary should continue to evolve now to become a method through which all voters may select the best candidates from the fullest possible field.

Democracy is and always should be a work in progress. We’ll be experimenting with innovation around open primaries for a while just as we will with nonpartisan independent redistricting regimens. Let’s get on with it!

JARRATT APPLEWHITE,

Independent candidate,

House District 50

Lamy