No on 3 (Jungle Primaries)

• Jungle primaries empower party elites and big donors over everyday voters. By increasing the cost of running for office and creating a risk of being shut out of the general election entirely, jungle primaries encourage party elites and major donors to consolidate behind candidates, enabling them—and not voters—to choose who advances.

• Jungle primaries advantage corporate-aligned candidates. Research has shown that California’s jungle primary system has made the CA Democrats more conservative, with Chambers of Commerce better able to elect Democrats hostile to labor and key Democratic constituencies. Electing a more conservative Legislature will exacerbate the prevailing inertia on Beacon Hill. It should come as no surprise that more than 60% of the money raised for this question comes from just five private equity executives. 

• Jungle primaries increase barriers for first-time and working-class candidates. By increasing the cost of running for office, jungle primaries create greater hurdles for first-time candidates who do not have the same fundraising networks as long-time incumbents. When the cost of running, in both time and money, gets larger, many people will decide against running at all. 

• Jungle primaries deny voters real choice. When two candidates of the same party advance to a general election, many voters are denied a substantive choice on Election Day. 

• • In 2012, in a majority-POC district that Obama won by double digits, voters only saw two white Republicans on their ballot for Congress.
  • In 2016, even as Hillary Clinton won Washington State by double digits, voters saw only two Republicans on their ballot for State Treasurer.

• Jungle primaries reinforce the problems of our current electoral system. Voters often like multiple candidates in a given race. Rather than allowing voters to simply follow their own preference and conscience, a jungle primary forces them to think about how other voters will act if they want to ensure a candidate of choice advances. 

• Jungle primaries distract from real electoral reform. Across the Commonwealth, activists have been organizing behind ranked choice voting on the local level because they see the flaws of nonpartisan runoffs on the local level already. Expanding that flawed model statewide takes the wind out of such organizing and makes it harder to organize behind electoral reform statewide that truly promotes competitive elections and better reflects the will of the voter. 

• Since California adopted jungle primaries, states around the country keep saying NO. California adopted jungle primaries because of a campaign by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the CA Chamber of Commerce to make the Legislature more conservative. When the same proposal appeared on the ballot in Oregon, voters said NO. They did so again in 2024 in Arizona and Colorado. Let’s join them.

There are also problems UNIQUE to this version: 

• Requiring gubernatorial candidates to pick their LG candidates ahead of filing makes it harder for first-time, grassroots, and outsider gubernatorial candidates 

• Printing political designations, which any group of 50 people can secure, would open up new abilities for dark money groups to influence elections by creating front groups designed to deceive voters — and have the state be required to allow them to advertise on the ballot itself.