Skip to main content
Federal Court Challenge2014Writ Filed to SCOTUS

Balsam v. Guadagno

Challenging New Jersey's Closed Primary System

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.

47%
of NJ voters are independent
2.6M
voters locked out of primaries
11
case documents filed
2014
3rd Circuit ruling
The Background

Nearly half of New Jersey's voters were shut out of the only elections that mattered.

New Jersey runs a closed primary system. To vote in a primary election, you must be registered with a political party. In a state where 47% of voters are registered as unaffiliated, that means millions of taxpaying citizens are excluded from the first — and often most decisive — stage of the election process.

In March 2014, a coalition of seven plaintiffs filed suit against the New Jersey Secretary of State. The plaintiffs included registered independents and nonpartisan organizations who argued that the state's closed primary system violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of unaffiliated voters.

The Challenge

If the state funds it, the state must open it.

The core argument was that New Jersey's primary elections are publicly funded, state-administered elections. Excluding voters based on party affiliation violates equal protection and the fundamental right to vote.

The district court dismissed the case, and the 3rd Circuit upheld the dismissal, ruling that states have broad discretion in structuring their election systems. The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. The legal arguments, however, became part of the broader constitutional framework for challenging closed primaries.

Quick Facts
TypeFederal Court Case
FiledMarch 2014
CourtU.S. 3rd Circuit
IVP RoleSupporting Organization
JurisdictionNew Jersey
OutcomeSCOTUS denied cert
Key Ruling

The 3rd Circuit upheld broad state discretion over primary election structure. The arguments remain active in other jurisdictions.

Related Reforms
Open Primaries for Every Voter
Timeline

Key Milestones

March 2014

Lawsuit Filed

Seven plaintiffs sue the New Jersey Secretary of State, challenging closed primaries as unconstitutional exclusion of 2.6 million independent voters.

2014

District Court Dismisses

The district court dismisses the case, ruling that the state has broad discretion in structuring primary elections.

2014

3rd Circuit Affirms Dismissal

The appellate court upholds the lower court ruling, finding that closed primaries do not violate the constitutional rights of unaffiliated voters.

2015

SCOTUS Declines Review

The Supreme Court declines to hear the case, leaving the 3rd Circuit ruling in place.

What Balsam v. Guadagno Established

While the plaintiffs lost, the case built national awareness that nearly half of New Jersey's electorate is excluded from primary elections — a fact that continues to fuel open primary advocacy in the state.

1

National Attention

The case put a spotlight on closed primaries as a voter exclusion issue, not just a party rules issue.

2

Legal Framework Advanced

The constitutional arguments developed in Balsam became part of the broader legal strategy for challenging closed primaries in other states.

3

2.6 Million Affected

The case documented the scale of voter exclusion in New Jersey — nearly half the electorate locked out of publicly funded elections.

When 47% of your electorate can't vote in a taxpayer-funded election, that's not a party rules issue. It's a voter rights issue.

Independent Voter Project
Support the Legal Fight

Legal reform is expensive. Your support makes it possible.

Every court case IVP fights protects the right of every voter to participate in every election. Donate to help us defend what we've won, and extend it to every state.

Continue Reading

Related Cases

Voter Rights Litigation2019Writ Filed to SCOTUS

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 Case
Impact & Precedent

The 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.

SCOTUS Amicus2025Amicus Filed

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 Case
Impact & Precedent

If 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.