Governor Moore’s recent support for open primaries and Bobby Zirkin’s latest Baltimore Sun commentary have brought renewed attention to an issue already making its way through Maryland’s appellate courts. At the center of Bryson, et al. v. Moore, et al. is a constitutional challenge to Maryland’s closed primary system, filed by our firm in conjunction with the Open Primaries Education Fund.
The plaintiffs are represented by a DARS legal team that includes former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Boyd K. Rutherford, whose experience at the highest levels of Maryland government provides a unique perspective on the legal and policy questions raised by the case.
“This issue is increasingly attracting attention from people across the political spectrum,” Rutherford said. “The question isn’t whether someone is Republican, Democrat, or Independent. The question is whether more than one million Marylanders should be excluded from taxpayer-funded elections that often determine who ultimately governs them.”
Tthe lawsuit does not seek to force political parties to associate with voters they do not wish to include. Rather, it challenges the State’s role in funding and administering elections that exclude a substantial and growing segment of Maryland’s electorate.
Governor Moore’s endorsement of open primaries was noteworthy (read our article here). Zirkin’s subsequent commentary suggests it was not an isolated voice. In his column, Zirkin argued that closed primary systems can contribute to political polarization by rewarding candidates who appeal primarily to a party’s most committed activists rather than the broader electorate.
Zirkin’s analysis also highlights why the open primary debate has gained new urgency. In districts where redistricting has reduced general-election competitiveness, the primary election often becomes the contest that matters most. Yet more than one million Maryland voters remain excluded from those elections because they are registered as unaffiliated. That tension sits at the heart of Bryson v. Moore.
Taken together, Moore’s and Zirkin’s comments point to a reality that is becoming harder to dismiss: Maryland’s closed primary system is facing increased scrutiny from policymakers, voters, and the courts alike. The legal question is straightforward: if the State funds and administers primary elections, can it constitutionally exclude more than one million registered voters from participating simply because they choose not to affiliate with a political party?
Not long ago, open primaries were often viewed as a niche reform proposal. Today, the conversation looks very different. Governor Moore has publicly acknowledged concerns that unaffiliated voters are being left out of a process that increasingly determines election outcomes. Zirkin has raised concerns about the way redistricting and closed primaries can combine to leave large numbers of voters without meaningful influence over elections. Although they arrive at the issue from different directions, both are asking whether the current system still serves Maryland voters as intended.
As Maryland’s unaffiliated voter population continues to grow, that question is becoming harder for Maryland leaders to ignore. As the case proceeds through Maryland’s appellate courts, the broader conversation surrounding open primaries has entered a new phase. Questions once raised primarily by election-reform advocates are now being discussed by governors, former legislators, legal advocates, and voters alike.
The courts will ultimately decide the legal issues raised in Bryson v. Moore. But regardless of the outcome, recent comments from Governor Moore and Bobby Zirkin have helped bring a broader issue into focus. If primary elections increasingly determine electoral outcomes, and more than one million Marylanders cannot participate in those elections because they are unaffiliated, is the current system still serving Maryland voters as intended? That question is no longer being asked only by election reform advocates. It is now part of a much larger public conversation.
Contact Us
To learn more about this case or our work advancing constitutional and election law issues, contact the Davis, Agnor, Rapaport & Skalny attorney with whom you typically work or a member of our Government Relations Practice Group.