Some Massachusetts Democrats are pushing a plan to scrap party primaries. Their own party is revolting against it.

A group of Massachusetts Democrats is pushing a ballot initiative to eliminate the state’s party primaries, replacing them with a system where the top two vote-getters in a preliminary election advance to the general election, regardless of party. Supporters, including Harvard professor and former gubernatorial candidate Danielle Allen, argue the change is necessary to make elections more competitive, as many incumbents currently win uncontested races. The proposal has sparked opposition within the party. The Democratic State Committee, representing over 400 members, voted to oppose the measure, citing insufficient evidence that it would improve fairness. Two committee members have filed a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality, with arguments heard by the Supreme Judicial Court this month. The ballot question would also require governor and lieutenant governor candidates to run together in a primary, mirroring how they appear on the general election ballot. Critics, including progressive Democrats and political consultant Jordan Berg Powers, warn it could benefit wealthy candidates and reduce voter influence, as the current system allows unaffiliated voters to participate in primaries. Opponents argue the proposal is unnecessary because Massachusetts already permits non-affiliated voters to choose which primary to vote in. Powers, leading a group against the measure, claims billionaires could exploit the system to fund preferred candidates, undermining democratic participation. Supporters like Allen insist the change would give voters more meaningful choices, as most elections are decided in uncontested primaries. The debate highlights deep divisions among Democrats over electoral reform, with progressives and party leaders clashing over the future of the state’s voting system.