Even in These Dark Times, Progress on Election Reform Is Possible, and Happening

In recent weeks, despair about our democracy has grown. The gerrymandering race-to-the-bottom has shifted into an even higher gear, with states red and blue stopping at nothing to eke out more seats for their side. The Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Callais slammed the door on protections against racial gerrymandering, in part by giving its blessing to partisan gerrymandering.

Many see hope only in 2029, when repair can begin, maybe, under a new administration and a new Congress ready to pass reform at the federal level.

But that perspective misses the state-level progress that is possible and happening right now, progress that can build toward broader national action.

Choice and neutrality

Progress is possible in two of the most critical areas of need for our democracy: meaningful choice for voters and elections that are both structured and run neutrally.

• In all states with citizen ballot measures, partisan-elected officials oversee the process and the ballot language, often abusing that power to defeat initiatives their party opposes.

• In 33 states, elections are overseen by partisan-elected secretaries of state, and in 25, elections are run by partisan-elected clerks or other local officials—all creating at least the appearance of conflict of interest, one found in no other democracy.

These problems of choice and neutrality reflect a system that prioritizes the needs of parties over the needs of voters, that is party-centric rather than voter-centric. Redistricting controlled by the majority party in the legislature, election governance led by party appointees, and party primaries all put the needs of the parties first.

Importantly, political parties themselves are not the problem; they are essential to democracy—in their lane. The problem is the control over the competition we’ve given them, control that we can and should take back.

Near-term and long-term

In the long term, building a truly voter-centric democracy will require ending partisan gerrymandering through federal legislation, which is almost certainly impossibly before 2029. And we will need bold generational changes to how we vote, like widespread use of ranked choice voting or proportional representation (or both combined, as the federal Fair Representation Act proposes).

But in the near term, state-level opportunities are on the table in three key areas that can build the foundations. They are primary reform, ballot measure protection, and election governance reform.

Primary Reform

Many democracies use a two-round approach to voting, as we do, but our approach is uniquely party-centric. Other countries do not divide the first round by party; instead they allow all voters to vote on all candidates, and if no candidate has a majority, typically the top two go on to the final round.

Instead, our system of party primaries causes all sorts of problems. Party primaries give outsized weight to the more extreme and unrepresentative voters who turn out in primaries, and they limit voters to choosing from only one party’s candidates. Party primaries also hurt the chances for strong independent or third-party candidates, who in the general election have to overcome candidates from both sides—and spoiler-effect concerns—to win.

Five states have adopted a first voting round open to all candidates, with the top two or top four vote-getters going on to the general election. Researchers have found that these systems create much more competition at the general election phase, increase accountability and reduce the incentives for legislators to serve the extreme wings of their party.

Several states are running pivotal referenda about primary reform. This year Massachusetts voters can approve a top-two system called the All Party-Primary. Meanwhile, Alaska voters will vote on a measure in which opponents are trying to repeal its groundbreaking top-four system and revert to traditional party primaries. And Californians will likely see dueling reform options in 2028—one reverting to party primaries and the other shifting to a top-four system.

In all three states, insiders who benefit when elections are decided by a narrow group of voters will oppose open primaries. But most Americans aren’t insiders and should support reforms that enhance competition, increase voter choice, and ensure elected officials are accountable to all constituents.

Ballot Measure Protection

Ballot measures are a crucial way for citizens to pass broadly popular policies in the face of legislative gridlock and single-party dominance. But in all 26 states with some form of citizen initiative, partisan-elected officials still control key parts of the process.

Secretaries of state, in particular, wield enormous power. They often oversee signature verification, write or approve ballot language, and exercise other discretionary roles that influence whether an initiative succeeds or fails (or even appears on the ballot at all). This creates an obvious tension: in many states, these officials use their authority to stymie reforms their party opposes.

In response, reformers in several states have focused on protecting ballot measures from partisan manipulation. A pending measure in Missouri would require fair ballot language and restrict the state legislature’s ability to create new procedural hurdles to passing an initiative, or overturning a measure approved by the voters. A similar measure in Arkansas would likewise restrict the ability of partisan officials and the state legislature to undermine citizens’ exercise of their right to propose ballot initiatives.

The longer-term changes our democracy needs will require unhindered use of citizen ballot initiatives. The measures this year, protecting the process itself, are therefore of critical importance.

Election Governance Reform

At ERN, we’ve focused for many years on increasing neutrality in election governance. We’ve built reform options for secretaries of state, county clerks, and election boards. We’ve done so by first listening to election officials, and documenting that many are tired of partisan feuds and don’t like running in partisan elections to keep their jobs.

With our help, two states—Michigan and Utah—are making “election neutrality history” this year by setting up first-ever structures for conflict-of-interest prevention when the state chief election officer is a candidate (which is the case for 26 secretaries this year).

Progress is also being made on the local level. In Montana, several counties have made use of a state law allowing them to shift election responsibilities from the partisan-elected clerk to a new, appointed election administrator; many did so due to fears that election administration was becoming too politicized. A similar trend has occurred in Minnesota. And in Washington state, several counties have used home rule statutes to institute nonpartisan election of county election officials.

States and counties that implement these reforms are building—step by step—the broader recognition that partisan conflicts of interest should not tolerated in a voter-centric democracy.

Building toward a truly voter-centric democracy

In each of the three reform areas discussed here, there are near-term opportunities to solve the problem where it’s easy, as a first step to solving the problem where it’s hard.

These are not sweeping national reforms: they will not dominate cable news coverage, and most Americans may never hear about them.

But they address real weaknesses in democratic institutions, and they demonstrate something important: progress does not require waiting for a different administration, a different Supreme Court, or a different political era. It can happen right now.

Photo credit: Tanja Tepavac on Unsplash