Opinion |All-party primaries would fix unproductive Legislature

These are not abstract concerns. They are daily realities. Yet year after year, the Legislature ranks among the least productive and least transparent in the country, with competitive elections the exception rather than the rule: An internal review by the Coalition for Healthy Democracy shows that 51 percent of all elections in Massachusetts since 2014 have been completely uncompetitive — meaning that only a single candidate ran for office in a district and faced no opposition in either a primary or a general election.

In the last statewide election in 2024, that number was worse — 61 percent of all elections were completely uncompetitive. And, according to Ballotpedia, Massachusetts ranks last in electoral competitiveness among the 44 states that hold legislative elections in even-numbered years.

In most legislative districts in Massachusetts, because few general elections actually matter, the contest that determines the outcome of the election happens in a low-turnout party primary — or not at all. By November, many voters are presented with a fairly predetermined outcome and no real choice. I have often heard voters of color say their votes don’t matter, and voter registration rates in communities of color often fall below national averages, reflecting that point of view.

Unenrolled (or independent) voters, who make up 65 percent of the electorate in the state and lag in turnout in the primaries, are also sidelined in the most consequential stage of the election cycle. While it might seem simple to declare a party long enough to vote and then go back to being unenrolled, being forced to pick a party’s ballot — and subsequently being shut out of races that appear on the other party’s ballot — appears to be a disincentive to participation for unenrolled voters. Turnout rates are, indeed, lower for unenrolled voters in primary elections, and they are more likely to vote when they do not have to choose a partisan ballot.

When voters are taken for granted, accountability slips and urgency disappears. When urgency disappears, problems linger. Housing remains unaffordable. Health care doesn’t meet needs. Costs keep rising. The result is a growing sense from the average person that their democracy isn’t for them. So why care?

In reality, we have given our government the tools and resources to do amazing things. We pay for those tools with our tax dollars. Those tools belong to all of us, and they should work for ordinary citizens and residents.

But the state has an election system built on self-preservation — with ballot access and campaign finance rules that protect incumbents — so it prioritizes power over progress and politics over problem-solving. We can and must do better than this.

The ballot initiative to implement all-party primaries in Massachusetts — the one for which I am convening chair, alongside a large and growing group of community leaders, activists, educators, volunteers, and elected officials from across the political spectrum — would move power back to the people and ensure that our votes aren’t taken for granted. It will appear on the ballot in November because the state constitution was designed with a safeguard: When the Legislature stalls, voters retain the authority to act and make their case directly to one another if they clear all requirements for a ballot question.

The initiative would replace restrictive, party-controlled primaries with a single preliminary election in which all candidates appear on the same ballot and all voters can participate. Candidates appear with party labels on the ballot and can list any party endorsements they’ve received. The top-two finishers — regardless of party — would advance to the general election.

This method elevates new voices, increases voter participation, and dilutes the influence of special interests. It does not abolish political parties but incentivizes parties to work to win all of our votes. An all-party primary ensures that voters, not party insiders, determine which candidates move forward.

Crucially, this system is familiar. It is already used in mayoral elections across Massachusetts, including from Boston, Northampton, Beverly, and Fall River.

The goal is a simple one: Restore the power of each and every vote. Right now, too many legislators face meaningful political pressure only from party insiders or a narrow segment of primary voters, and too many legislators fear competition more than inaction. That dynamic encourages insularity and political jockeying instead of results for the public.

It greatly contributes to a culture in which major bills stall, oversight weakens, and transparency lags.

Competition changes incentives. It naturally allows for lawmakers to listen broadly, build alliances, and work harder to deliver. They cannot assume reelection but must secure it.

If citizens want a Legislature that moves with both care and purpose — that debates thoughtfully, of course, but then also acts — we must end the era of uncontested elections where more than half of incumbents face no opponent at all. Accountability is not a threat to deliberation. It makes deliberation meaningful.

The Commonwealth does not suffer from too much public input. It suffers from too little competition. Until we fix that, we should not be surprised that urgency is in short supply.