Keep NYC open primary off this year’s ballot

In November, New Yorkers could be invited to vote on a voting proposal to “open” the local primaries of New York to all voters, whatever its political affiliation. The idea may seem simple, but the commission responsible for assessing these reforms adopted the concept without doing the important work to understand how it would work – or if it really benefits voters.

Opening our primaries is an incredibly complex effort that requires reflected implementation, a large consensus and a in -depth understanding of the voters of the city in order to make a difference. Instead, the Commission plans to put a precipitated and unfinished concept on the ballot which risks significantly the involuntary consequences without any clear advantage for the public.

As leaders in the fight to adopt major electoral reforms here in New York, we firmly think that such a significant change should not be put so casual for voters. We urge the commission to slow down – not because this problem is not worth it to be considered, but because this proposal is simply not ready for a decision.

Last year, Mayor Adams created a charter review commission to examine how the city can approach a shortage of historic housing. We expect them to offer a series of voting questions asking New Yorkers to consider how, when and where the city can build. But along the way, the Commission has expanded its objective to examine our elections. Voters will probably be invited to decide whether our elections should be moved to align with the federal elections during the uniform years.

The opening of our primaries is not necessarily a problem to which we oppose, and modify our electoral system is not intrinsically a bad idea. But it is also an incredibly delicate process that must be done well.

In 2023, Common Cause New York published a report on “uncontent” voters from New York, which represent more than a million voters in New York and are now the second block of voting throughout the city.

Currently, these voters are locked up from primaries. The most likely proposal of the Commission to solve this problem – known as the Jungle primary – would take California and other places that have changed (with confused success, to be clear) by opposing all the candidates against each other in a giant primary.

The Commission said that it thought it could allow non -affiliated voters to have more word to say during significant elections, but it did not seriously regard any other form of open primary or balanced testimony on the impact of the adoption of different formats (spoiler alert: many academics say that it has little or even any impact on factors).

Significant changes trying elsewhere cannot be applied in New York and expect to operate without problem. The voting models of the different communities, the history of our elections and the recent introduction of other reforms are not like elsewhere. Any modification of our elections must be fully evaluated and include rigorous reflection and research on the impact of the unique environment of NYC for the best or for the worst.

The modification of our main system can still be carried out intelligently. But rush to such a substantial change on the voting bulletin creates an unnecessary division. Many community groups, who speak to voters day after day and who have led the efforts to reform previous elections, told the Commission that they did not know that our primaries were being studied. Give them more time to search for potential impacts and understand what is at stake for the voters with whom they work would help significantly.

And even if the supporters of the open primaries urged the commission to ask the question to the New Yorkers as soon as possible, we have almost four years before it makes a difference anyway. The next municipal elections in New York will only occur in 2029, which means that affected communities can consider the different forms of open primary that is best suited to the unique circumstances of NYC and to build a consensus at the city scale that future commissions could be addressed.

This charter review commission seems to understand that despite its best efforts, this proposal is not ready for the public. This is why they have not yet confirmed if he will appear on this year’s voting bulletin alongside other questions.

With less than two weeks up to a final decision, we urge the Commission not to precipitate this critical problem. The action to extend access to the ballot is good, and we congratulate the commissioners for recognizing the importance of including all voters in the democratic process. But when it comes to changing our elections, it is much more important than doing things than things that doing it quickly. We have seen how the election reform can be well done. Let’s continue this work.

Williams is the president of the New York NAACP State conference. Lerner is the executive director of Common Cause New York.