Alan Novak & T.J. Rooney: Pennsylvania’s unaffiliated voters deserve a voice |
Featured Commentary

Alan Novak & T.J. Rooney: Pennsylvania’s unaffiliated voters deserve a voice


As the Pennsylvania General Assembly heads back to Harrisburg to take up the commonwealth’s business, a priority for their fall agenda should be passing Senate Bill 300. This proposal would enable Pennsylvania’s unaffiliated voters to have a voice in casting votes in either the Republican or Democrat ballot on primary election day.

“Open primaries” is one issue among numerous other election reform measures, including redistricting reform and modernizing the absentee voting process, which will be debated this legislative session. We urge lawmakers in both parties to dust off Pennsylvania’s archaic Election Code, last updated in 1936, and consider primary reform as critical for the state’s voters and political process.

As the former leaders of the Pennsylvania Republican Party and Democratic Party, we think that allowing independents to vote in the primaries can make the parties better and stronger. According to the Pennsylvania Department of State, the fastest growing segment of voters are unaffiliated with a political party. Their number has more than doubled in the last decade — now at nearly 800,000, Pennsylvania’s unaffiliated voters outnumber the entire voting population of Delaware! Yet Pennsylvania remains one of only nine states with closed primary elections, where only Republicans and Democrats can vote in their respective party primaries.

Wayne Gretzky always talked about not skating to where the puck is but where the puck was going to be. As the upward trend of independent registration continues, shouldn’t the parties and candidates skate to that reality? Wouldn’t parties be better and stronger if they competed for the attention and votes of independents as early as possible — the primaries? Wouldn’t candidates and parties have to understand independents and message them to attract them — the earlier the better? It would give the candidates who figure this out a clear, cutting-edge advantage. With nearly 4 in 10 Americans self-identifying as independents — and half of millennials — it’s imperative that the parties not only respond to this shift, but embrace it.

We have witnessed first-hand the growing partisan and ideological divide in our state and across the country. There is no single solution for this problem, but we do believe that open primaries would help us bridge this chasm in our politics that has made governing increasingly difficult. This has become only more consequential as communities around Pennsylvania become darker “red” or darker “blue.” Purplish districts where voters can expect a competitive general election are fewer and fewer, which means public officials are often elected in primaries. How can we continue to keep them closed?

Still, some may wonder why unaffiliated voters should have a right to have a voice in private party elections. Let’s be clear: Primary elections are anything but private. By one estimate, they cost Pennsylvania taxpayers $20 million every year; they are held in public buildings and are overseen by public officials. We believe all taxpaying citizens deserve equal treatment.

Senate Bill 300, sponsored by Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, received overwhelming bipartisan support (42-8) in passing the state Senate in June. The bill currently sits in the House State Government Committee. While the proposal would allow unaffiliated voters to choose a party primary to vote in on Election Day, it would not allow registered Republicans or Democrats to vote in the opposite party primary. Including these independents in the primary process is the right thing to do, and it will make for better political parties, better candidates and better outcomes.

Alan Novak and T.J. Rooney are the former chairs of the Pennsylvania Republican Party and Democratic Party respectively.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.