Shawn Griffiths
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Voters in the nation’s capital made their decision in 2024: They approved Initiative 83 which proposed semi-open primaries and ranked choice voting for city elections. It wasn’t even close, as more than 212,000 voters backed the measure—giving it 73% support.
And yet, only one of these reforms was in place for the June 16 primaries.
The DC Council provided the funding for ranked choice voting. But the open primary portion—the part that would let independent voters cast a ballot in taxpayer-funded elections—has yet to be implemented.
Thus, independents were forced to sit out again in the 2026 primaries.
Shawn Griffiths
One of the reasons given is the cost. However, the problem with that argument is the price tag for open primaries is tiny compared to what the city spends on other priorities.
Originally, the fiscal impact statement for Initiative 83 estimated that the semi-open primary portion would cost around $930,000. This included $759,000 in upfront costs, mostly for voter education, voter registration system updates, and ballot-related changes.
To clarify, under semi-open primary rules, registered party members have to vote in their party's primary. Independent voters can pick any party's ballot, but have to stick with the candidates of that ballot.
Initiative 83 proposer Lisa D.T. Rice recently testified before members of the DC Council and said the cost would be “just over $1 million,” adding that most of the money would go toward paper: educational mailers, ballots, and voter registration cards.
In a city budget measured in the tens of billions, either estimate does not even come close to one percent of what the city approves each fiscal year. And it raises a question that independent voters—the second largest voting bloc in the city—are entitled to ask:
If DC can find money for stadiums, marketing campaigns, tax abatements, business attraction funds, special grants, smart trash cans, and sports branding, why can’t it find the money to implement the election reform voters overwhelmingly said they wanted?
The Price Tag Is Not the Real Problem
Initiative 83 has faced several hurdles to implementation, despite widespread support from the DC electorate. Most of these hurdles have been erected by the Democratic Party and its leaders in city government.
The party sued to block the measure. Outgoing Councilmember Anita Bonds said implementation should be debated, even though voters already approved it. And, Mayor Muriel Bowser kept it off her initial FY2026 budget proposal last year.
In July 2025, the DC Council ultimately voted 8-4 to fund ranked choice voting, meaning city residents would use the reform for the first time in the 2026 primaries. Not only do voters get to rank candidates in order of preference, but elections have to be decided by a majority vote.
“I am so excited that ranked choice voting is finally happening in DC. A supermajority of voters asked for this. And they are ready to have a stronger voice,” Rice told IVN.
“I've been pleased with the city’s implementation of ranked choice voting. You can always do more. I’m grateful for everything the Board of Elections and our partners have done to get people the resources they need to rank their choices with confidence.”
However, independent voters were still denied a chance to participate, because the DC Council left open primaries off the budget.
Last year, council members approved an almost $22 billion FY2026 budget. This year, the mayor’s FY2027 budget proposal includes a $12.7 billion general funds operating budget and an $11.2 billion six-year capital plan.
Against those numbers, the cost of open primaries is microscopic—.004% of the budget.
Another point of contention among DC Council members that opposed or wanted to delay Initiative 83 was pending litigation brought by the Democratic Party against the measure, even though they eventually approved $421,000 for ranked choice voting.
The party claimed Initiative 83 was unlawful and should never have been allowed on the ballot, but reformers scored a victory when this argument was recently rejected by the courts.
All that is left is the cost to update systems, print the right ballots, and let tens of thousands of independent voters participate in elections their tax dollars already fund. Rice told IVN that it is time to get this done.
“Independent voters should have a say in critical primary elections that decide their futures. The Council should finish the job and fund semi-open primaries at their final budget vote on June 23,” she said.
“If we believe in democracy, we don’t ignore voters—we implement what they passed. No more excuses. Get it done!”
8 Spending Items Voters May Question While Open Primaries Sit Unfunded
Budget fights are always about priorities. DC faces real fiscal pressure. Federal workforce reductions, rising Medicaid costs, overtime, SNAP administration, pensions, utilities, and slower revenue growth all create challenges.
But that does not explain why open primaries haven't been funded, especially when voters take a closer look at some of the things in the city’s budget.
Here are 8 budget items that may not be inherently wasteful or unpopular. Many have supporters. Many have defensible public purposes. But they are the kinds of expenditures voters may look at and ask:
This is affordable, but voting rights are not?
1. $500 Million for RFK Campus Infrastructure
DC’s budget added $500 million for the RFK Campus Infrastructure Fund, which is spread across four years. The purpose is economic development and infrastructure tied to the Washington Commanders’ return to the city.
But independent voters may reasonably ask why the city can move half a billion dollars for stadium-related infrastructure while arguing that roughly $1 million for primary election access is too much.
2. $385 Million for Nationals Park Preservation and Improvement
The FY2026-FY2031 capital plan includes $385 million for a Ballpark Preservation and Improvement Fund for Nationals Park. In other words, this is money to maintain where the MLB team plays its home games.
That is 385 times the cost of implementing semi-open primaries.
3. Hundreds of Millions for Arena and Sports Infrastructure
The city’s sports spending does not stop with RFK and Nationals Park. DC also committed hundreds of millions toward Capital One Arena renovations and other sports-related projects.
These budget items are investments in jobs, tourism, and revitalization. But many of the residents who attend these games are told the city does not have money to put into the democratic infrastructure that would ensure them equal voting rights.
4. $6 Million for Destination DC Support
The budget included $6 million for Destination DC support. Tourism and convention promotion are important to the city’s economy, but it is hard to tell voters that democracy cannot be funded when millions are available for marketing the city to visitors.
Independent voters are not tourists. They live there. They pay taxes there. They deserve a vote there.
5. $7 Million to Attract Businesses and Diversify the Economy
The FY2027 budget presentation includes $7 million to attract businesses and diversify the economy through the Vitality Fund and Tech Ecosystem Fund.
Economic development matters. But so does honoring the will of voters. A city that wants to attract new residents and businesses should also be able to tell them truthfully that their vote will actually mean something in local elections.
6. $121 Million for a New Home for the DC Archives
The FY2027 budget presentation also lists $121 million to build a new home for the DC Archives.
It is about preserving history. But DC is willing to spend nine figures preserving the record of the past while slow-walking a reform voters approved to modernize the city’s democracy.
7. Grants for Theaters and Cultural Institutions
The FY2026 budget included money for multiple theater and cultural projects, including funds for the Howard Theatre, Lincoln Theatre, National Theatre, Woolly Mammoth Theatre, and GALA Hispanic Theatre.
8. Smart Bins, Dupont Underground, and Other Small-Bore Enhancements
The budget also included smaller line items that voters may view differently depending on their priorities: $100,000 for the purchase of 20 new Smart Bins, $144,000 for their maintenance, $310,000 total for Dupont Underground support, and $500,000 for Capital Riverfront BID parks.
Some residents may like these projects. Others may not. But the point is not that every trash can, park grant, or local project is bad. The point is that DC routinely finds money for discretionary enhancements while claiming that a voter-approved reform is too expensive.
The Council Should Stop Hiding Behind the Price Tag
The cost of open primaries is not the obstacle. Political resistance is.
DC’s Democratic establishment opposed Initiative 83 before voters approved it. But they didn’t need to try to repeal it outright. They knew they could simply refuse to fund it.
That is a quieter way to nullify the will of voters. Except, no one is letting them be quiet about it. The Washington Post, for example, has penned multiple editorials calling on the DC Council to honor the Initiative 83 vote.
But this is also a dangerous precedent. If lawmakers can split a voter-approved reform in half and fund only the portion they find least threatening, then ballot measures become suggestions, not mandates.
DC voters did not vote for ranked choice voting alone. They voted for ranked choice voting and open primaries. They voted to make candidates earn broader support and to let independent voters participate in the elections that often decide who holds power in DC.
The price tag is not too high.
The political will is too low.