Frequently Asked Questions
How it works
-
The initiative applies to all offices that currently involve partisan primaries, with the exceptions of President and precinct committeeman. The initiative will not apply to elections that are currently nonpartisan (mayor, city council, school board, etc.).
-
It is the choice of the candidate to affiliate as they wish.
-
Yes, including candidates of third parties and unaffiliated candidates.
-
Neither. The Open Primaries Initiative will not give more power to Democrats or Republicans; it will give more power to voters. The effect will be to elect leaders, regardless of party, who are accountable to the voters who they are supposed to serve.
-
Yes. Both primary and general elections will allow write-in candidates.
-
There are 63 localities in the United States that conduct instant runoff elections. Two states (Maine and Alaska) hold statewide instant runoff elections, and 6 states (Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Georgia) use instant runoff voting for military and overseas voters.
-
Yes. Parties can endorse and advocate for the candidates they believe most align with the party’s platform and vision. However, parties will no longer control the election process.
-
Yes. If four or fewer candidates run in the primary, all candidates will advance to the general election.
-
Yes. Whether it's in the first round or in a later round, a candidate is declared the winner as soon as they receive over 50% of the vote.
(Note: Even though a candidate can be declared the winner as early as the first round, the counting of votes will continue in rounds until only two candidates remain. The counting will continue even after a winner is declared so that the final count provides more accurate information about the level of support each candidate received. For example: If all counting were to stop in the first round just because a candidate received 51% of the vote, we would never know if the winning candidate received support from just 51% of the electorate or from a much higher percentage.)
Constitutionality
-
No. Opponents of the Open Primaries Initiative have attempted to sow doubt and confusion by claiming that the initiative is unconstitutional. Each of the legal arguments against the Open Primaries Initiative have been thoroughly litigated in other states, and courts have rejected every argument. Read on for answers to more specific questions regarding constitutionality.
-
No. It is true that federal courts have found that political parties have first-amendment rights to determine the rules of their own partisan primaries. However, the Open Primaries Initiative does not seek to rewrite the rules of partisan primaries. Instead, the initiative would replace partisan primaries with nonpartisan primaries.
In Washington State Grange v. Washington State Republican Party (2008), the United States Supreme Court upheld Washington’s nonpartisan primary system. In a 7-2 opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the court found that nonpartisan primaries are fundamentally different than partisan primaries in that they do not nominate candidates of political parties but instead they merely narrow the field of candidates for the general election. The court found that once primary elections are no longer a partisan nomination process, the first-amendment rights of political parties are no longer in question.
-
No. Attorney General Raúl Labrador has threatened file a lawsuit against the Open Primaries Initiative on the grounds that it violates the single-subject rule. But legal experts including a former Chief Justice of the Idaho Supreme Court say that any lawsuit filed by Labrador is certain to fail.
It is true that the Idaho Constitution requires ballot initiatives to deal with a single subject. However, “single subject” has been construed very broadly by the Idaho Supreme Court. It does not mean that an initiative can’t deal with multiple policy reforms. It simply means that an initiative must have only “one general subject, object, or purpose” and that all provisions are “germane” to a general subject. See Cole v. Fruitland Canning Ass'n, 64 Idaho 505, 134 P.2d 603, 606 (1943).
In the case of the Open Primaries Initiative, the general subject is elections. Clearly, all provisions in the initiative are germane to the general subject of elections.
-
No. Like Idaho’s constitution, the Alaska state constitution also contains a plurality provision which provides that the winner must be the candidate with the highest number of votes. The Alaska Supreme Court has found that Alaska’s Top Four initiative does not violate the plurality provision, because an instant runoff election does in fact guarantee that the candidate with the highest number of votes wins. It’s true that the winner will not always be the candidate with the highest number of votes in the first round, but the Alaska court found that the winner will always be the candidate with the highest number of votes once all counting is complete. It almost certain that the Idaho Supreme Court would reach the same conclusion.
-
No. Dorothy Moon, Raúl Labrador, and others have falsely claimed that the Open Primaries Initiative violates the principle of “one person, one vote” by allowing voters to cast multiple votes in a single election.
It is a common misconception that instant runoff elections give voters multiple votes and thus violate the “one person, one vote” principle. In truth, instant runoff elections give every voter a single vote, and each vote counts equally. Under the proposed initiative, a vote is initially counted for a voter’s first choice. If the voter’s first choice is eliminated in a subsequent round of tabulation, that single vote goes to the voter’s next choice.
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in Dudum v. Arntz that the ranking of multiple preferences does not equate to multiple votes:
“In fact, the option to rank multiple preferences is not the same as providing additional votes, or more heavily-weighted votes, relative to other votes cast. Each ballot is counted as no more than one vote at each tabulation step, … and each vote attributed to a candidate, whether a first-, second- or third-rank choice, is afforded the same mathematical weight in the election.”
In fact, the Idaho Open Primaries Initiative states explicitly that “each ballot counts as a single vote.”
-
Yes. But the Open Primaries Initiative contains a provision that would repeal the ban.
Other Questions
-
We chose the design of this initiative only after carefully considering many options. The combination of a Top Four primary election and an instant runoff general election is far superior to the Top Two primary for two main reasons:
1. Our chief goal is to make our elected leaders accountable to all voters, not just the narrow slice of the population that votes in primary elections. The Top Two system is better than our current closed primary system, but it still leaves far too much power in the hands of primary voters by allowing them to narrow the field to just two candidates. In many cases, the primary election will still be the most significant contest. In contrast, a Top Four system makes the general election—where far more people vote—the most significant election. It gives general-election voters more choice and more power to determine the winner. As a result, elected officials will be incentivized to listen and respond to a much broader set of voters.
2. The Top Two system encourages primary voters to cast their vote for “the lesser of evils” rather than for their true preference. Many voters will fear that if they vote for their true preference, there is risk that the top two candidates will both be unacceptable. Instead, many will vote for the undesirable-but-still-tolerable candidate just to make sure that candidate makes the Top Two. In contrast, a Top Four system largely eliminates this risk by allowing four candidates to advance.
-
Yes, but not much. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) conducted a survey in 2022 of jurisdictions across the country that are currently using instant runoff elections. Of the 15 jurisdictions surveyed, the median cost was 43 cents per voter. In Idaho, this would amount to about $425,000. The cost of implementing statewide instant-runoff voting in Maine was $441,804.
-
“Open primary” is an accurate term to describe this initiative. It’s true that the Idaho Supreme Court took the view that the term “open primary” describes the primary system Idaho used to have, and that the old Idaho system was distinct from what our initiative proposes. Our view, which is common among reformers across the country, is that there are multiple types of “open primary.” One type is the partisan open primary system, which is the system we used to have in Idaho. Another type is the nonpartisan open primary, which is the type of open primary established in Alaska and other states. Both systems are correctly called “open primaries” because they both give all voters—regardless of party affiliation—the right to participate in primary elections.
-
It makes good sense to call it the “Open Primaries Initiative” because the initiative’s chief goal is to end closed primaries and allow all Idaho voters—regardless of party affiliation—the right to participate in primary elections. The initiative also establishes an instant runoff (also called “ranked choice voting”) in general elections. But the instant runoff is a secondary feature of the reform. It’s included mainly to make sure that, once four candidates have advanced from an open primary, the final winner has support from a broad coalition of voters and not just a narrow slice of the electorate.
-
It's always a possibility that the Idaho Legislature will betray the will of the people and repeal a voter-approved initiative. However, we are committed to doing everything in our power to defeat any repeal attempt.
If the Open Primaries Act is approved by voters, we will immediately begin the work mobilizing thousands of Idahoans to contact their legislators with a simple message: Respect the will of the voters and vote NO on any repeal bill. If a repeal bill were to pass in spite of fierce opposition from the public, we would immediately launch a referendum campaign and give Idaho voters a chance to reverse the legislature's repeal.