Due today: Write in to get election reform on the ballot
And: Why are open primaries so complicated? Here's the pros and cons, and my take.
Today is the last day to submit written testimony to the Charter Revision Commission.
There’s one policy that the commission especially wants you to weigh in on.
The commission hasn’t yet decided whether to put Open Primaries on the November ballot.
What are Open Primaries, why are they so complicated, and how should you weigh in?
What’s the Charter Revision Commission and why do we care?
New York City’s voting rates are abysmal. Registered voter turnout has been below 30% in every mayoral election since 2009. And young people and minorities are even less likely to vote. But it hasn’t always been this way– we can do better! NYC turnout levels were consistently above 50% throughout the ‘70s and ‘80s, and even hit 80% in the ‘60s.
The NYC Charter Revision Commission is currently weighing proposals to increase voter engagement. Their proposals will go to the voters in November, but they’re still in the process of getting feedback to shape their recommendations.
What are Open Primaries?
The status quo today:
New York City currently uses a “closed primary” system followed by a general election. In a closed primary, voters must be registered with a specific party to vote in that party’s primary.
The Commission’s proposal:
Open Primaries for City Elections, in which all voters and all candidates participate, regardless of party membership, and the top two candidates advance to the general election.
If the Commission decides to send this proposal to voters and voters say yes, we would have our first Open Primary in 2029.
Pros and Cons of Open Primaries
Pros of Open Primaries
Note: The following “Pros” are not hopeful predictions, they’re well-documented and rooted in research. The commission studied other cities and states that have Open Primaries, so there’s data to back up these assertions. If you want to deep dive on any one of these, the commission’s report cites the studies they consulted from California, Alaska, and more.
Open Primaries would give more power to the over one million New Yorkers who aren’t part of any political party. Right now, more than 1 in 5 voters in the city aren’t registered as Democrats or Republicans. That’s a huge group- even bigger than the number of Republicans in NYC. But because the most important elections here are usually closed primaries, unaffiliated voters don’t currently get to help choose the candidates who end up on the final ballot.
Open Primaries push candidates to speak to a wider range of voters. In closed primaries, candidates mostly focus on their own party’s base, since only registered party members can vote. For example, Democrats today mostly need to appeal to left-of-center voters leading up to the primary. But with Open Primaries, they need to win support from voters across the political spectrum. This can lead to candidates who are more responsive to a broader slice of the public.
Open Primaries would make our elections more representative. Most unaffiliated voters in NYC are people of color- including many Black, Latino, and Asian New Yorkers. Younger voters are also likely to be unaffiliated. Studies show that Open Primaries help close turnout gaps across racial groups and lead to more diverse participation.
Research shows that Open Primaries can increase electoral competition. In NYC, most general elections aren't close - the real contest often happens in the dominant party’s primary. But with an open system, more popular candidates could advance to November, making the general election more competitive. For example, take the 2021 mayoral election. In 2021, Curtis Sliwa won the Republican mayoral primary election with ~41,000 votes. But Sliwa received far fewer first-round votes than four candidates who were eliminated in the Democratic primary election: Scott Stringer (~52,000 votes), Andrew Yang (~115,000 votes), Kathryn Garcia (~184,000 votes), and Maya Wiley (~200,000 votes). Eric Adams beat Curtis Sliwa in a landslide in the 2021 general election- but what if the general race had featured Eric Adams and Kathryn Garcia? Or Eric Adams and Maya Wiley? Competitive general elections help ensure that the winning candidate represents the values of more New Yorkers.
Open Primaries would close a gap in how NYC uses ranked choice voting. Right now, ranked choice only applies to party primaries- not general elections. That means in a crowded general election, a candidate can still win with just a small slice of the vote, even though ranked choice is designed to prevent exactly that. A top-two Open Primary would fix this by making sure the final two candidates have already gone through a ranked choice vote, so whoever wins in November has broad support.
Cons of Open Primaries
The Commission is hesitant to propose Open Primaries, citing calls from advocates for further research. New York City only recently adopted ranked choice voting, which was a major shift in how our elections work. Maybe we should let this play out more to better understand the impact of further changes to our elections. Also, in the last couple months, experts and advocates have proposed other alternatives to the top-two model. For example, we could use a top-four system instead, or just let unaffiliated voters participate in party primaries. It would take time to consider these options, and the commission’s deadline to decide is July 21, so some worry that’s too rushed.
Some members of the Commission worry that having many heated local elections this year makes it a tough time to talk about big election reforms. Because of the intense races, the discussion around changing primaries might get too polarized and focused only on this year’s specific contests. Here’s my take on what this could look like:
Some voters who don’t trust Eric Adams might oppose Open Primaries because the proposal is linked to his administration. Since Adams has low approval ratings and is running as an independent, voters might see this proposal as a way for him to gain an advantage later. So, voters might reject Open Primaries more to express dislike for Adams than because they disagree with the idea itself.
Media outlets might frame the reform debate as a proxy battle between political factions (e.g., progressive vs. establishment), so people interpret the reforms as either “helping” or “hurting” their preferred side rather than focusing on the reforms’ actual impact.
The only groups that I could find that came out fighting against Open Primaries are the labor unions. Their main argument (pg 119 here) is that Open Primaries benefit billionaires and corporate groups that want to weaken labor unions, community organizations, and political parties that speak for working people. My take:
The unions have good reason to be worried. Right now, NYC Democrats are closely aligned with labor, and since the Democratic Party holds power, unions have a lot of influence. And it’s relatively cheap for them because they only need to focus on winning primaries. They don’t have to appeal to as many Republicans or Independents. But if Open Primaries are adopted, higher voter turnout would lessen the outsized power of organized special interests like unions and trade groups. With more voters involved, and especially more moderate and conservative voters, it will become harder and more costly for unions to sway elections compared to the current system. So yes, it makes sense that unions aren’t in favor of Open Primaries, but I actually think that’s a good thing. Labor should have to make the case to voters of all parties, just like any other advocacy group. If labor can’t effectively make the case to moderates and conservatives, they’ll need to evolve to benefit a broader base of New Yorkers.
The unions are claiming that Open Primaries would advantage billionaires in politics– but that doesn’t bear out in the evidence. Evidence from other places doesn’t show a clear link between political spending and Open Primaries. Several studies found no connection, and some research even suggests that open elections might reduce the impact of spending by political action committees (PACs). How would that work? When voters are more engaged, candidates often receive more small-dollar donations, which can be matched by public funds under the City’s campaign finance system. With more small-dollar donations (and public matching funds), the impact of PAC spending may decrease. Increased small-dollar donations are a sign that a system is delivering healthy engagement and electoral competition, instead of sleepy, one-sided elections where one candidate is guaranteed to win. Contrary to unions’ claims, Open Primaries can put more power in the hands of everyday New Yorkers- not just big donors and special interests.
My take
It’s worth putting Open Primaries to the voters this November. The pros vastly outweigh the cons.
To me the biggest risk is that Open Primaries become a casualty of political polarization, and voters reject the idea for the wrong reasons. But if that happens, we can always try again in 20 years. In fact, that’s what we’re currently doing.
Bloomberg’s 2003 Charter Revision Commission proposed Open Primaries to the voters and they said no. Even though a 2003 poll showed most NYC voters supported ending party primaries, voters rejected it in practice. The NY Times chalked it up to low turnout: only 13% of voters showed up in 2003 and they weren’t necessarily representative of the broader electorate. And many of them voted no because they didn’t like Bloomberg’s process, not because they didn’t like the policy itself. So I say let’s put it to the voters again this year, and hopefully it goes through this time.
But first, the commission has to hear from New Yorkers that they want to vote on Open Primaries. Which is where your homework for today comes in…
Submit your written testimony to the Charter Revision Commission
The Charter Revision Commission is accepting written testimony through July 15.
They will make their final decision on July 21 on which proposals will go to the voters.
Submit your written testimony here by EOD July 15.
Here’s my language that you can steal and tailor to your own values and context:
Dear Charter Revision Commission,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed 2025 Charter Revisions.
As a current Brooklyn resident and a former Manhattan Community Board Member, I’m writing to express strong support for Proposals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, to make New York City more affordable and democratically representative.
I support Proposals 1-4 to fast track affordable housing, simplify review, strike a better balance in the land use process, and digitize the City Map. The city’s housing shortage demands bold action.
Proposal 1 would make it easier and faster to produce affordable housing, lowering costs and ensuring that all neighborhoods contribute to solving this crisis. This reform is long overdue and essential to reversing the tide of displacement.
Proposal 2 would streamline the approval process for smaller rezonings that add housing, protect against flooding, and create open space. These are exactly the kinds of projects that should not be delayed by red tape, and this proposal would allow the city to respond more nimbly to urgent infrastructure and climate needs.
The current system of member deference gives individual councilmembers outsized power to block citywide priorities. Proposal 3’s new Appeals Board would ensure that development decisions reflect borough-wide and citywide considerations- not just the narrowest political interests.
A unified City Map is a step in the right direction, since the current system can impose significant costs and time on infrastructure, housing, and other projects. Proposal 4’s Digital City Map would allow processes that today take months or even years to occur nearly instantly.
I also support considering Open New York’s recommendations for a fairer and more affordable NYC, many of which are already very well-aligned with the commission’s proposals. I encourage the commission to dedicate additional time to exploring Open New York’s proposal to bring the housing shortage into landmarks decisions.
Proposal 5 is a no-brainer: moving local elections to even years would save the city money and dramatically increase turnout, especially among younger voters, working-class communities, and voters of color. This reform would help ensure that the voices shaping local government reflect the full diversity of our city.
I strongly encourage the Commission to move forward with Proposal 6. Open primaries would enfranchise the 1 million+ New Yorkers who are currently locked out of primary elections due to party registration rules. These voters deserve a voice in the elections that matter most in our one-party-dominated city. Open primaries would boost turnout in local elections, increase electoral competition, and encourage candidates to appeal to a broader cross-section of voters.
I urge the Commission to put all six measures on the November ballot so that voters can weigh in.
Sincerely,
Sachi Takahashi-RialCrown Heights 11225