THE POTENTIALLY RECORD number of ballot questions in the mix for November has made Massachusetts feel a little bit like initiative-inundated California. Voters will now get a chance to decide if we should run our elections like the Golden State does, too.
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled Monday that a measure seeking to replace partisan primary elections with a single, “all-party” primary is eligible to advance, rejecting a challenge brought by two longtime Democratic party operatives.
The plaintiffs argued that the proposed new system would unfairly hamstring third-party candidates, who would no longer have a guaranteed route to the general election.
But justices determined that the question does not run afoul of the right to vote nor the right to seek office.
“Our task is not to determine whether the proposal at issue is better or worse than the current system, or whether it will serve government interests more or less effectively than the status quo; our responsibility solely is to determine whether the petition before us presents a reasonable regulation of elections that rationally relates to the general welfare,” Justice Dalila Argaez Wendlandt wrote in the unanimous opinion. “We conclude that it does.”
Under the election system envisioned by the ballot question, all Democrats, Republicans, and third-party challengers for a given office would appear on a single primary ballot. The two candidates who receive the most votes would then face off in the general election, even if both are members of the same party.
In Massachusetts, where Democrats wield supermajority margins in the House and Senate, that could have a profound impact. Today, many incumbents in blue districts cruise to reelection without a Republican opponent; if an all-party primary system were in place, they might instead have a fellow Democratic challenger in the higher-turnout general election.
Legislative competition in the Bay State is dismal. This cycle, roughly three in five House and Senate races feature only a single candidate on the ballot.
Proponents, including Harvard University professor and former gubernatorial candidate Danielle Allen, contend that the existing electoral system suppresses challengers. Effectively guaranteeing voters have two choices in the general election, they say, will make races more competitive — in turn forcing incumbents to be more responsive to the will of their constituents.
“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,” Jesse Littlewood, campaign manager for the Coalition for Healthy Democracy pushing the question, said in response to the ruling. “All-Party Primaries replace the restrictive, privately controlled party primary system with one open to every voter and every candidate, regardless of affiliation: more candidates, more competition, more real choices.”
Neither major party cares for the proposal. MassGOP chair Amy Carnevale warned last year that it could deprive voters of the ability to choose “between two alternative political philosophies,” since general elections in many districts could feature only Democrats. The Democratic State Committee voted in April to oppose the measure.
The SJC case hinged on a challenge brought by two longtime Democrats — Martina Jackson, a Newton activist who was the Massachusetts Democratic Party’s platform chair last year, and Ann Roosevelt, a Cambridge resident who sits on the Democratic State Committee — acting in their own capacity, not on behalf of the party. Their lawsuit argued that an all-party primary system denies third-party candidates an easier route to the general election ballot and limits voters’ ability to pick nonpartisan contenders.
Justices signaled their likely disagreement with that premise during oral arguments in May.
“Isn’t that the most equal?” Justice Scott Kafker asked of the proposed system. “So the people who have the most votes and the most interest get put on the ballot no matter what their party.”
Further, he said, everyone would be free to enter the primary and work to gather votes.
In the opinion, Wendlandt pointed out that voters could still pick anyone they want in the primary and, even if their preferred candidate fails to make the general-election ballot, they can write in a name. Candidates would also still be able to make the primary ballot without any changes to the required minimum level of support to qualify.
“To be sure, the proposed law shifts voters’ most diverse candidate selection to an earlier point in the election cycle,” Wendlandt wrote. “However, because the all-party primary would take place in September of the election year, it allows candidates an equal opportunity to reach voters at the height of election attention before the general election in November.”
A handful of other states operate similar systems with candidates from multiple parties appearing in the same primary election. In California and Washington, the top two vote-getters advance; in Alaska, the four most popular options head onward to the general election.
Many municipal elections in Massachusetts also feature a nonpartisan preliminary race to narrow the field, followed by a general election that is essentially a runoff. Wendlandt noted the SJC already ruled that system to be constitutional more than a century ago.
Earlier this month, the court said a ballot question seeking to repeal legalization for recreational marijuana can advance and tossed from consideration a proposed income tax cut because the attorney general’s office produced a “misleading” summary.
Monday’s decision keeps the number of ballot questions in the mix for November at 10, which would surpass the record of nine last reached in 1994. However, the field could still shrink: the SJC is expected to rule soon on one more legal challenge focused on a proposal to revive rent control, and in the meantime, proponents and opponents of that measure continue to negotiate about a legislative alternative that would end the campaign.
Jennifer Smith contributed reporting.
