Jungle primaries are a dangerous experiment that Idaho cannot afford. By forcing all candidates, regardless of party, into a single primary election, jungle primaries create confusion for voters, diminish clear choices, and often lead to costly runoffs that waste taxpayer dollars. This system dilutes conservative voices and risks advancing candidates who do not reflect the values of Idahoans. We must protect our state’s political integrity and ensure that our elections remain straightforward and representative of our community’s core beliefs.

A jungle primary works by placing all candidates, regardless of political affiliation, on a single ballot during the primary election. Voters can choose any candidate, and the top vote-getters, even if they belong to the same party, advance to the general election. This process can result in candidates from the same party, often the one with more resources or name recognition, making it to the final ballot, leaving many voters without a real choice in the general election.

The concept of jungle primaries is being imported by liberal California, where it was introduced as a way to combat partisan gridlock. However, instead of solving problems, it has led to more divisive and less representative elections, often favoring well-funded, establishment candidates over grassroots voices. Idaho should not import California’s failed political experiments; our state’s unique values and needs deserve better than a system that has proven ineffective and damaging elsewhere.

Jungle Primaries Gone Wrong:

California:

• Confusion Among Voters: California introduced the jungle primary system (known as the “Top-Two Primary”) in 2010. One of the most significant issues has been voter confusion. Many voters are used to selecting a candidate from their party in a primary, but the jungle primary forces them to choose among all candidates, regardless of party. This has led to frustration and a sense of disenfranchisement, particularly among those who feel their preferred party is not well-represented in the general election.
• Costly Runoffs: The jungle primary system often results in costly runoffs, as the top two candidates advance to the general election regardless of whether one has already secured a majority. This adds additional expense to the election process, straining public resources.
• Undermining Party Representation: In several instances, California’s jungle primaries have resulted in two candidates from the same party advancing to the general election. This has particularly hurt smaller parties and voters who feel their views are not represented in the final choice. For example, in the 2016 U.S. Senate race, two Democrats advanced to the general election, leaving Republican voters without a candidate to support.

Louisiana:

• Lack of Clear Choices: Louisiana has used a jungle primary system since the 1970s, but it has been criticized for leading to a lack of clear choices for voters. In some cases, voters are left with two candidates who do not significantly differ on policy, particularly when both are from the same party, which can demotivate voters and reduce turnout.
• Impact on Political Dynamics: The jungle primary system has also been blamed for exacerbating political polarization in Louisiana. Because candidates must appeal to a broad audience in the primary but can face a very different electorate in the general election, they often change their messaging and policy positions, leading to inconsistent representation and a lack of trust among voters.

Key Takeaways:

• Increased Confusion: Voters in states with jungle primaries often experience confusion and frustration due to the complex and unfamiliar process.
• Higher Costs: These systems tend to result in more frequent and costly runoff elections, placing additional financial burdens on the state.
• Weaker Party Representation: Jungle primaries can undermine party representation, leading to general elections where voters feel their preferred candidates are not represented.