Open Primaries Litigation By State
Introduction
Every successful movement — from civil rights to environmental justice — has used litigation to catalyze change. From Women’s Suffrage through the Civil Rights era to the present day, the history of voting rights in the United States is intertwined with litigation. Whether successful, unsuccessful, or resolved short of a final verdict, lawsuits have served as a crucial driver of reform by highlighting discriminatory practices, shaping legal interpretation, and spurring legislative and ballot initiative change.
The impact of litigation isn’t always linear, but it is indispensable. Just about every voting rights reform in America has its origin in a courtroom.
While ballot initiatives and legislation are focused on solutions, litigation is squarely focused on the problem of closed primaries. That makes litigation more crucial than ever to the future success of primary reform.
Open Primaries is now building a litigation platform for the primary reform movement, partnering with attorneys and firms across the country to challenge closed primaries in federal and state courts.
Why is this needed?
- Exclusion of voters at historic levels. In 2024, over 30 million independent voters were locked out of primaries because of their “no party” affiliation. Independents are now the fastest-growing segment of the electorate and are the largest or second-largest group of voters in almost every state.
- Taxpayer-funded elections. Primaries are conducted in public buildings, using publicly owned machines, operated by public employees, and paid for with taxpayer dollars. Yet millions of taxpayers are barred from participating.
Featured Resources
🎥 CNN Coverage
National video coverage of our litigation and the historic push to bring independent voters’ rights before the U.S. Supreme Court.
📖 Law Review Article
Jeremy Gruber, Touro Law Review — A premier scholarly work on the constitutional arguments for opening primaries.
📑 Florida Amicus Brief
Open Primaries’ amicus brief in Polelle v. Florida Secretary of State — introducing new legal theories that continue to shape primary reform litigation.
Current Cases
Maryland
Independent voters v. Maryland (State Constitutional Challenge)
- Status: Complaint filed in 2025. View complaint PDF
- Key Coverage: Washington Post, Baltimore Sun, Maryland Matters, WBAL, Fox45 News
Pennsylvania
Challenge to closed primaries (State Constitutional Challenge)
- Coverage: U.S. News & World Report, Philadelphia Inquirer, Philly Daily, Daily Pennsylvanian, Smerconish, PA Capital Star, Washington Examiner
Past Cases
Florida
Polelle v. Florida Secretary of State (Federal case)
- Status: Open Primaries filed an amicus brief in support of Professor Polelle, offering new legal theories that continue to shape reform litigation. While the case ultimately ended with the Court’s denial of cert, it marked a turning point by forcing closed primaries into serious discussion at the nation’s highest court. OP filed an amicus brief in support.
- Media Coverage:
- Background reading:
New Mexico
The Case that Sparked a Movement
- Court: New Mexico District Court (2018)
- Status: Resolved
Why It Matters
- Litigation rekindled reform when legislative momentum had stalled.
- In 2025, OP played a key role in amending New Mexico’s open primaries bill to ensure it was both passable and legally durable — preventing post-passage court challenges.
- Demonstrated how litigation can both pressure lawmakers and strengthen reforms.
Background:
Support the Litigation Efforts
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity. These lawsuits are breaking new ground and shining a national spotlight on the injustice of closed primaries. But they require resources to sustain.
By supporting our litigation platform, you’re helping ensure that millions of independent voters have the same rights as everyone else: the right to vote in elections their taxes pay for.
