A bid led by Harvard professor Danielle Allen to scrap Massachusetts party primaries in favor of an all-party "top-two" preliminary has cracked open a rift among Democrats, complete with public denunciations and a trip to the state’s highest court. The proposal would put every candidate for a given office on a single preliminary ballot, then send only the two top vote-getters to the general election. What started as a push to boost competition has turned into a fight over who controls ballot access and how money shapes the field.
The Democratic State Committee voted last month to formally oppose the measure, and committee members Martina Jackson and Ann Roosevelt have sued to block it, a case the Supreme Judicial Court heard this month, according to The Boston Globe. State filings show the ballot campaign raised nearly $2.2 million last year, according to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance, and The Boston Globe reports it has attracted large contributions from private-equity executives, including $550,000 from David Peeler and $290,000 from Andrew Balson.
State filings put the Coalition for Healthy Democracy near the top of ballot-question fundraising for 2025, with about $2.2 million reported in year-end disclosures, according to the Office of Campaign and Political Finance. The size of that war chest helps explain why opponents worry the initiative could tilt contests toward well-funded entrants.
What supporters say
Allen and the coalition argue the change would broaden choices and push candidates to appeal to the full electorate, not just a narrow primary base. “We have so many elections that are decided in the primary, so then the general is really not competitive,” Allen told The Boston Globe, saying the system would make more races genuinely competitive.
Why opponents object
Progressive activists and party insiders counter that an all-party top-two system could empower self-funded candidates and weaken organized party structures that help down-ballot contenders. Two veteran Democrats argue in court that the measure would restrict ballot access and “dilute the diversity and competition in the marketplace of ideas,” CommonWealth Beacon reports.
What comes next
If the Legislature does not act on the proposal, supporters must collect roughly 12,429 additional certified signatures and file them with local election officials by June 17 to keep the measure alive, according to NBC Boston. Polling from Emerson College Polling shows roughly half of surveyed voters back changing the primary system, suggesting the initiative could be competitive if it survives the courts and makes the ballot.
If the Supreme Judicial Court allows the question to proceed and supporters meet the signature deadline, Massachusetts voters could decide this election-rule overhaul in November, a shift that would reshape how campaigns are waged in the state. The fight has laid bare the stakes of the reform: whether to open the field to broader participation or to preserve party-run gates to November’s ballot.
