The Boston Globe has four op-eds concerning Question Three, the top-two primary. Two are in favor and two are opposed.
The pieces in favor are: (1) Danielle Allen wrote, “All-party primaries will make Massachusetts races more competitive”; (2) Bob Massie wrote, “This is a democratic reform progressives should like.”
The pieces in opposition are: (1) Jim Sturgis, “As bad as political parties can be, we still need them.”; (2) Richard Winger wrote, “Q-3 will be devastating for small parties.”
The four are grouped together under the heading, “Does the all-party primary make sense?” The Globe has endorsed Question Three and is supporting an attempt to change the nomenclature. “Top-two primary” is a neutral term coined in 2008 by the Washington state press. The Washington state press couldn’t call it an “open primary” because Washington already had an open primary. Proponents of top-two primaries have been trying for years to find another term. For years they called it a “non-partisan primary”, which makes little sense because party labels appear on the ballot. “All-party primary” is now their preferred label.
WHAT ABOUT MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDERS ???
SEE OLDE 1780 MASS CONST [STILL IN FORCE] — WITH ABOUT 40 GERRYMANDER AMDTS !!!!!
—
NOOO PRIMARIES
EQUAL BALLOT ACCESS – ALL CANDIDATES FOR SAME OFFICE
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
https://electionlawblog.org/2026/alaskas-all-candidate-primary-on-the-ballot/
EFFORT TO REPEAL TOP 4 PRIMARY IN AK FROZE LAND
The 2004 referendum that enacted the Unified Primary in Washington read:
“Initiative Measure No. 872 concerns elections for partisan offices.
This measure would allow voters to select among all candidates in a primary. Ballots would indicate candidates’ party preference. The two candidates receiving most votes advance to the general election, regardless of party.
Should this measure be enacted into law?”
Washington had used the blanket primary from 1935-2003. After the the SCOTUS’ unfortunate decision in California Democratic Party v. Jones, the Washington version had initially been upheld by a federal district court because Washington let minor parties nominate by convention. This decision was later overturned by the 9th Circuit. In 2004, the Washington legislature adopted legislation providing for partisan elections using the same system they already used for nonpartisan elections, with the additional inclusion of partisan labels. The same bill also included language providing for a Pick-A-Party primary in case the Top 2 primary had been struck down. Gary Locke line-item vetoed the provisions for a Top 2 primary. The Washington Grange immediately sponsored an initiative providing for the Top 2 primary, which voters approved in November 2004, simultaneous with the first Pick-A-Party primary.
It is disingenuous, if not deceptive, to say that Washington “already had” an Open Primary.
No primaries is one of the very rare times the AZZ bot is right, kind of like a broken clock.