We fight for the rights of every individual voter, regardless of party preference.
IVP's litigation record spans offense and defense — from federal district courts to the U.S. Supreme Court. We bring cases that challenge exclusionary systems and defend the reforms we've won.
Advocacy wins elections. Litigation makes reform stick.
Passing a reform is only the beginning. Partisan interests immediately challenge every structural change that threatens their control. IVP anticipated this from the start — every reform we author is built with the legal defense in mind.
Our litigation work runs in two directions: offense (cases we bring to open closed systems) and defense (protecting the reforms we've already won). Both matter.
Cases we brought
IVP has challenged exclusionary primary systems in state and federal courts, building the constitutional case for open elections nationwide.
Balsam v. Guadagno
A coalition of independent voters and organizations challenged New Jersey's closed primaries, arguing that excluding 47% of the electorate — 2.6 million independents — from taxpayer-funded primary elections violated constitutional rights.
Read the Full CaseThe 3rd Circuit ruled against the plaintiffs, and SCOTUS declined to hear the case. But the legal arguments and national attention laid groundwork for future challenges to closed primary systems.
Boydston v. Padilla
IVP challenged the state of California over the exclusion of independent voters from presidential primaries — arguing that taxpayer-funded elections must be open to all taxpayers.
Read the Full CaseThe court deferred to party autonomy for presidential primaries, and SCOTUS denied certiorari in October 2023 (144 S.Ct. 496). The case raised national awareness of the contradiction: voters fund elections they can't vote in.
Polelle v. Florida Secretary of State
Retired Florida attorney Michael Polelle challenged Florida's closed primaries on behalf of 3.4 million independent voters. IVP co-filed an amicus brief in September 2025 alongside Open Primaries, Forward Party, and Florida Forward Party. SCOTUS certiorari is pending.
Read the Full CaseIf SCOTUS grants certiorari, this could become the first Supreme Court case directly addressing whether closed primaries violate independent voters' constitutional rights. IVP's most live case.
Level the Playing Field v. FEC
IVP filed three amicus briefs between 2016 and 2019 supporting the challenge to the Commission on Presidential Debates' exclusionary polling threshold. The third brief was co-signed by Admiral Stavridis, Senators Kerrey and Lieberman, and Governor Whitman.
Read the Full CasePlaintiffs ultimately lost at both the district and circuit court levels. The case documented the structural barriers that keep independent and third-party candidates out of presidential debates.
Cases we defended
When partisan interests challenged the reforms we authored, we went back to court and won. Every defense strengthens the legal durability of nonpartisan election reform.
Boden v. Secretary of State
After Proposition 14 passed, partisan interests immediately challenged it in federal court. IVP led the legal defense to protect the nonpartisan primary from being struck down.
Read the Full CaseThe court upheld the constitutionality of the Top Two system, establishing legal precedent that states can adopt nonpartisan primary reforms without violating party association rights.
Rubin v. Bowen
A second federal challenge targeted the Top Two primary, arguing it unconstitutionally burdened minor parties' access to the general election ballot. The court ruled that voter participation rights outweigh partisan ballot access claims.
Read the Full CaseThe ruling reinforced that the Top Two primary serves a compelling state interest in opening elections and that the rights of voters to participate outweigh partisan ballot access claims.
Legal reform is expensive. Help fund the next case.
Your donation directly funds the legal action that makes reform durable. Every precedent we set protects voters in every state that follows.