Nonpartisan primary

A nonpartisan primary, top-two primary,^[1] or jungle primary^[2] is a primary election in which all candidates for the same elected office run against each other at once, regardless of political party. This distinguishes them from partisan elections, which are segregated by political party. This is a two-round system (with minor differences from others in the dates of the elections and that the second election is always held even if one candidate gets more than 50% in the first round).

Advocates claim the system will elect more moderate candidates, as members of a minority party could vote for a more moderate candidate from the majority party,^[3][4][5] with some political scientists expressing similar views. However, empirical research on the system have found no effect on candidate moderation^[6] or turnout among independent voters.^[4][7]

Such primaries are also susceptible to vote-splitting: the more candidates from the same party run in the primary, the more likely that party is to lose.^[3][8][9]

The top-two system is used for all primaries in Washington and California (except presidential primaries). Alaska has used a highly-similar top-four primary with a ranked-choice runoff since the 2022 House special election.

The nonpartisan blanket primary is different from the blanket primary. They are similar in that voters can vote in the first round for a candidate from any political party. The partisan blanket primary was used in Washington for nearly 65 years^[10] and briefly in California. However, the blanket primary was ruled unconstitutional in 2000 by the Supreme Court of the United States in California Democratic Party v. Jones, as it forced political parties to associate with candidates they did not endorse. The nonpartisan blanket primary disregards party preference in determining the candidates to advance to the general election, and for that reason, it was ruled facially constitutional by the Supreme Court in the 2008 decision Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party.^[11]

Chief Justice John Roberts concurred in the 2008 decision, stating: "If the ballot is designed in such a manner that no reasonable voter would believe that the candidates listed there are nominees or members of, or otherwise associated with, the parties the candidates claimed to 'prefer', the I–872 primary system would likely pass constitutional muster." Each candidate for partisan office can state a political party that they prefer. Ballots must feature disclaimers that a candidate's preference does not imply the candidate is nominated or endorsed by the party or that the party approves of or associates with the candidate.

Subsequent as applied challenges were rejected by lower courts. On October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court refused to hear appeals from Washington Libertarian Party and Washington State Democratic Party. The Washington State Republican Party had earlier dropped out of the appeal process.

Both Washington and California implement a two-winner nonpartisan blanket primary by plurality vote.

The plan is used in Texas and other states in special elections but not primaries. A notable example involved former US Senator Phil Gramm, who in 1983 (while a member of the House of Representatives), after switching from the Democratic to the Republican Party, resigned his seat as a Democrat on January 5, ran as a Republican for his own vacancy in a special election held on February 12, and won rather handily.

There have also been efforts in Oregon to pass a similar law. However, the Oregon Senate rejected it in May 2007, and it failed in a November 2008 referendum as Measure 65. Oregon voters defeated it again in November 2014 as Measure 90, despite a $2.1 million donation from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and a $2.75 million donation from former Enron executive John D. Arnold to support it.^[12]

Maryland has explored a top-two primary, erroneously naming it an open primary, such as in 2019 House Bill 26.^[13] Testimony was provided by several organizations, including FairVote and Common Cause, and independent constituents, and included statements about Condorcet systems, proportional representation and single transferable vote, and concerns that a top-two rather than top-three or more primary would not supply adequate choice for voters.^[14]

In Florida, an amendment to adopt the top-two primary was unsuccessful in 2020. 57% of votes were in favor but this failed to reach the threshold of 60% to pass.^[15]

Though the intention is to allow multiple candidates from the majority party to advance to the second round, critics note that this can also happen to a minority party when that party runs fewer candidates than another and thus faces less vote-splitting. Under the nonpartisan blanket primary, a party with two candidates and only 41% popular support would beat a party with three candidates and 59% popular support if voters split their votes evenly among candidates for their own party. For example, in Washington's 2016 primary for state treasurer, Democrats won a majority of the vote but failed to move on to the general election:^[41]

Political science professor Todd Donovan published an article in 2012 for the California Journal of Politics & Policy called "The Top Two Primary: What Can California Learn from Washington?"^[42][43] Donovan was the only expert witness in favor of the top-two idea,^[44] for the as applied court challenge of Top-Two. His academic paper states, "The partisan structure of Washington's legislature appears unaltered by the new primary system." Donovan concluded, "The aggregate of all this did not add up to a legislature that looked different or functioned differently from the legislature elected under a partisan primary."

In Washington, major parties originally used an alternate process of party endorsement for partisan legislative and county administrative positions.^[45] This would ensure that one official party candidate will be in the primary, theoretically reducing the risk of intra-party vote-splits. However, the law does not allow nominations or endorsements by interest groups, political action committees, political parties, labor unions, editorial boards, or other private organizations to be printed on the ballot.^[46]

The indication of party preference as opposed to party affiliation opens the door for candidates to misrepresent their leanings or otherwise confuse voters. In 2008, a Washington gubernatorial candidate indicated party preference as "G.O.P." instead of Republican. A public poll found that 25% of the public did not know that the two terms mean the same thing.^[47]

Further research on California's 2012 jungle primaries suggests that a jungle primary does not tend to lead to large amounts of crossover votes.^[48] Most voters who crossed over did so for strategic reasons. Furthermore, there is evidence that having the top two candidates from the same party could lead to a drop in voter participation in the second round. With regards to reducing political polarization, this does not seem to hold true. Due to lack of crossover votes, an extreme candidate from the majority party can still win over a moderate from the other party.^{[49][50][51][52]} Though the intention of the system is to get a moderate from the majority party, this will not happen if there is no moderate, if the moderate lacks name recognition, or if voters are unsure of which candidate is more moderate.

• Instant-runoff voting
• Two-round system
• Two-party-preferred vote