by Chris Lisinski, CommonWealth Beacon
March 8, 2026

BACKERS OF A PROPOSED ballot question that would do away with partisan primaries and have the two most popular candidates compete in the general election, regardless of party, say it would invigorate democracy and energize notoriously uncompetitive contests in Massachusetts.

But a pair of Democratic Party stalwarts are asking the state’s highest court to rule the measure out of order and strike it from contention.

Martina Jackson, a longtime Newton activist who was the Massachusetts Democratic Party’s platform chair last year, and Ann Roosevelt, a Cambridge resident who sits on the Democratic State Committee, quietly filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Judicial Court alleging that the proposed ballot question to eliminate the partisan primary system in Massachusetts and replace it with one similar to California’s “substantially burdens the right to vote.”

They want justices to toss the measure, which would weaken the role of political parties and dramatically alter longstanding power structures, before it reaches voters in November.

In deep-blue Massachusetts, the reformed system under the ballot question would likely pit two Democrats against one another in many general elections, where turnout is higher than in primaries and voters of all partisan affiliations get a say.

That prospect is unsettling to party insiders and to incumbent officeholders, whose reelection campaigns would look significantly different — and could be more challenging — if they first needed to be among the two most popular candidates in the entire field, then win a head-to-head runoff, potentially against someone from the same party.

But the legal case seeking to prevent voters from getting a chance to decide the question hinges on an argument that may seem surprising coming from two Democratic loyalists: They contend the change would violate the state constitution by depriving third-party candidates of a chance to secure a spot on the general election ballot and by denying voters the ability to pick third-party options in November.

“By restricting general election ballots to only two candidates, the Petition dilutes the ‘diversity and competition in the marketplace of ideas’ in the phase of the electoral process in which policy choices are most seriously considered,” says the complaint filed by Jackson and Roosevelt.

The suit also contends the measure would infringe upon the rights of office-seekers by forcing them all to compete in the new non-partisan primary structure, thereby eliminating the current option to secure a spot on the general election ballot as a non-party candidate.

“It does so without regard to a candidate’s demonstrable community support and thus excludes even those ‘reasonably diligent’ candidates who previously had a path to the general election,” the suit argues.

Andrew London, an attorney representing Jackson and Roosevelt, declined to comment on the case.

Although Jackson and Roosevelt are both Democratic State Committee members, the Massachusetts Democratic Party itself is not involved in the lawsuit. A MassDems spokesperson said the party does not comment on litigation.

Roosevelt’s husband, Jim, is also a longtime party insider. He co-chairs the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, and is volunteer legal counsel for the state party.

Jesse Littlewood, campaign manager for the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, which is leading the ballot question effort to institute all-party primaries, called the measure “constitutionally sound.”

The question would eliminate the longstanding system of partisan primaries for state elections, in which candidates face off against other members of their party to earn a spot in the general election. Registered Democrats and Republicans can only vote in the primary election for their party, while unaffiliated voters — by far the largest segment of the state’s registered population — can vote in either party’s primary.

Instead, the measure would create an open primary with every candidate, regardless of affiliation, listed on the ballot. Voters could select any candidate, and the top two vote-getters would advance to the general election, even if they are from the same party.

Proponents argue that the change will boost participation and eliminate partisan gatekeeping that dissuades or outright prevents hopefuls from challenging incumbents. It would also dramatically reshape elections in heavily Democratic districts with open seats, where a candidate can top a crowded primary with only 25 or 30 percent of the vote and be virtually assured of winning the general election against a weak Republican nominee or no opposition.

Elections here are widely uncompetitive, with most lawmakers strolling to reelection without challengers. Two years ago, Ballotpedia dubbed Massachusetts as home to the least competitive state legislative elections in the nation.

While it is two well-known Democratic activists who are trying to block the question from the ballot, their counterparts across the aisle have also signaled wariness about the idea of all-party primaries.

If Democrats are worried about intraparty showdowns pitting two Democrats against each other in general elections, Republicans have the opposite concern in a state where fewer than 9 percent of voters are registered under their banner: Some GOP candidates might never make it to the general election ballot, especially in bluer districts where two Democrats may be more likely to advance from an all-candidate primary.

“Our existing party primary system is crucial to ensure that voters have an option of choosing between two alternative political philosophies at the ballot box,” MassGOP chair Amy Carnevale told State House News Service in December. “The voters should be skeptical of this latest attempt to upend our election process in Massachusetts.”

A handful of other states have all-party primary elections, sometimes called “jungle primaries,” including California and Alaska.

The all-primary system is similar to municipal elections in Massachusetts, which are nonpartisan contests in which the top two finishers in a preliminary election advance to the final election.

“The result is more meaningful competition and more choice for voters — not outcomes shaped in advance by party insiders,” Littlewood said.

Despite the opposition from veteran politicos in both parties, theall-party primary measure has drawn support from across the political spectrum. Harvard University professor and onetime Democratic gubernatorial candidate Danielle Allen has been one of its top backers, joined by former Massachusetts Republican Party chair Jennifer Nassour, former Democratic governor Deval Patrick, former Republican lieutenant governor Kerry Healey, and state Auditor Diana DiZoglio, a Democrat who regularly frustrates Beacon Hill with her aggressive style advocating for transparency reforms.

It’s not unusual for controversial ballot questions to draw a legal challenge from opponents, who will use every avenue available to prevent it from becoming law.

Attorney General Andrea Campbell is charged with conducting an initial review of potential ballot questions to determine whether they fulfill basic eligibility requirements, including steering clear of topics that are off-limits to lawmaking by ballot like religion and issues involving the judiciary.

Campbell’s office last year deemed the all-parties primary question eligible to advance, while declining to certify a different version because of the same “freedom of elections” constitutional issue being raised by plaintiffs challenging the current version.

With the suit looking to derail the all-party primary measure, there are now three ballot questions before the Supreme Judicial Court facing legal challenge. Opponents have already filed challenges to a measure to impose rent control statewide and a proposed income tax rate cut. The court cases add another layer of complexity to a campaign season that could reshape the political status quo in Massachusetts, with a record 12 ballot questions on track to go before voters.

The SJC will hear oral arguments later in the spring, likely in May, in order to leave enough time for rulings before the secretary of state’s office must begin printing ballots.

This article first appeared on CommonWealth Beacon and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Embedded JavaScriptEmbedded JavaScript