Angel Martinez
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union..."
Those opening words of the Constitution are more than an introduction. They are the foundation of American representative government. They affirm that political power originates with the people and that government derives its legitimacy from those it serves.
Yet today, millions of registered voters across the United States are prohibited from participating in publicly funded primary elections simply because they choose not to affiliate with a political party. In many jurisdictions, those primary elections—not the general election—effectively determine who will hold public office.
This is not merely an administrative rule. It is a question of democratic representation.
Supporters of closed primaries argue that political parties, as private associations, should have the right to choose their own nominees. That argument deserves consideration. Political parties are an important part of our political system. However, when primary elections are administered by the state, financed with public funds, and used to determine who will appear on the general election ballot, another question deserves equal consideration:
Should citizens who help finance those elections be excluded from participating in them?
The Constitution establishes representative government, but it does not establish political parties or party primaries. Those institutions evolved over time. James Madison warned in Federalist No. 10 that factions could place their own interests above the public good. George Washington echoed that concern in his Farewell Address, cautioning that excessive party spirit could divide the nation and weaken republican government.
The issue, therefore, is not whether political parties should exist. Rather, it is whether the public electoral process should exclude millions of otherwise eligible voters because they choose political independence.
Research suggests that more inclusive primary systems increase participation and broaden representation. According to the Bipartisan Policy Center's report The Effect of Open Primaries on Turnout and Representation (2024), fully open, open-to-unaffiliated, and nonpartisan primary systems tend to produce electorates that better represent unaffiliated voters while increasing participation among independent voters.
That conclusion is reinforced by peer-reviewed research. In the Journal of Political Institutions and Political Economy, Nathan K. Micatka, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Robert G. Boatright found that individuals living in nonpartisan primary states were significantly more likely to vote than those living in closed or semi-closed primary states, with independent voters benefiting the most from those reforms.
Public opinion reflects similar concerns. A national survey commissioned by Unite America found that 59 percent of Americans believe party primaries contribute to political division, 70 percent believe Congress is failing to address the nation's most pressing challenges effectively, and 71 percent support requiring states to hold open primaries—including majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents.
New York illustrates this democratic paradox. More than one million registered New York City voters are unaffiliated with a political party, leaving them unable to vote in Democratic or Republican primary elections—even though those primaries often determine who will ultimately hold office in a city where one party dominates many races. During the recent public discussion over primary reform, Mayor Zohran Mamdani stated that he was "quite content" with the current system. Whether one agrees with that position or not, the broader constitutional question remains: Should political independence come at the cost of meaningful participation in publicly funded elections?
The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed." Consent is meaningful only when citizens have a genuine opportunity to participate in selecting those who govern them. When the decisive election occurs during the primary, excluding a substantial portion of the electorate raises legitimate questions about representation and democratic legitimacy.
America has long been described as the great democratic experiment. Like every enduring experiment, our democracy should be willing to examine whether its institutions continue to reflect its founding principles. Expanding meaningful participation does not weaken democracy; it reinforces the legitimacy of representative government.
This question is not merely academic. It is one of civic principle.
As a United States Army veteran, educator, and independent voter, I have dedicated much of my adult life to public service and civic education. Those same convictions led me to testify before the New York City Charter Revision Commission in support of expanding access to primary elections. My testimony was not offered on behalf of a political party or a candidate. It was offered in defense of a constitutional principle: that every eligible citizen should have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the democratic process.
Ultimately, this debate is larger than any election, any candidate, or any political party. It asks whether our electoral system fully reflects the promise contained in the Constitution's opening words.
"We the People."
Those words do not distinguish between Democrats, Republicans, independents, or voters with no party affiliation. They simply recognize the people.
If representative government truly derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, then our electoral system should strive to include all of the people in the elections that matter most.
My vote is my right. It should not depend on my party affiliation.
Angel Martinez is a veteran, an educator and an independent. He lives in Sunset Park in Brooklyn and is an activist with Open Primaries.
Works Cited
Bipartisan Policy Center. The Effect of Open Primaries on Turnout and Representation. Bipartisan Policy Center, Nov. 2024, https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/the-effect-of-open-primaries-on-turnout-and-representation/. Accessed 9 July 2026.
"The Constitution of the United States." National Archives, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution. Accessed 9 July 2026.
"The Declaration of Independence: A Transcript." National Archives, https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript. Accessed 9 July 2026.
Madison, James. Federalist No. 10. National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0178. Accessed 9 July 2026.
Micatka, Nathan K., Caroline J. Tolbert, and Robert G. Boatright. "All Candidate Primaries, Open Primaries, and Voter Turnout." Journal of Political Institutions and Political Economy, vol. 5, no. 3, 2024, pp. 363–385. doi:10.1561/113.00000105.
United States Vote Foundation. Primary Election Types by State. https://www.usvotefoundation.org. Accessed 9 July 2026.
Unite America. "New Poll: As Midterms Loom, Voters Back Open Primaries to Make Congress Work Better." Unite America, 27 Jan. 2026, https://www.uniteamerica.org/articles/new-poll-as-midterms-loom-voters-back-open-primaries-to-make-congress-work-better. Accessed 9 July 2026.
Washington, George. Farewell Address. 19 Sept. 1796. National Archives, https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-george-washingtons-farewell-address. Accessed 9 July 2026.