Level the Playing Field v. FEC
Challenging the Commission on Presidential Debates
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.
The presidential debate stage is the most exclusive club in American politics.
The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) requires candidates to reach 15% in national polls to qualify for the debate stage. Critics argue this threshold is designed to exclude independent and third-party candidates, effectively giving the two major parties a monopoly on the most-watched political events in the country.
Level the Playing Field, along with the Green Party and Libertarian Party, sued the FEC, arguing that the CPD's rules violated federal election law by favoring the two major parties. IVP joined the fight through three amicus briefs over four years.
Building the argument over four years.
IVP filed its first amicus brief in April 2016 at the D.C. District Court, arguing that the CPD's exclusionary rules undermined voter choice and the democratic process. A second brief followed in September 2017, supporting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
The third and most significant brief came in September 2019 at the D.C. Circuit appeal, co-signed by Admiral James Stavridis, Senator Bob Kerrey, Senator Joe Lieberman, and Governor Christine Todd Whitman. The brief argued that debate access is not a party privilege but a public good that voters deserve.
Despite these arguments, the plaintiffs lost at both levels. The courts deferred to the FEC's discretion in overseeing debate commission rules. The case nevertheless built a detailed public record of how debate rules function as structural barriers to political competition.
Courts deferred to FEC discretion over debate commission oversight. The public record of structural barriers to debate access remains.
Key Milestones
First Amicus Brief Filed
IVP files its first amicus brief at the D.C. District Court, arguing that the CPD's 15% polling threshold undermines voter choice.
Second Amicus Brief Filed
IVP supports the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment with a second brief, expanding the argument about structural barriers to debate access.
Third Amicus Brief — D.C. Circuit Appeal
The most significant brief, co-signed by Admiral Stavridis, Senators Kerrey and Lieberman, and Governor Whitman. Argues debate access is a public good, not a party privilege.
D.C. Circuit Rules Against Plaintiffs
The appellate court defers to the FEC's discretion, ruling that the commission has broad authority over debate rule oversight.
What Level the Playing Field Documented
The case built a detailed public record of how presidential debate rules function as structural barriers to political competition outside the two major parties.
Public Record Built
Three amicus briefs over four years documented the structural barriers that keep independent candidates off the debate stage.
High-Profile Coalition
The final brief was co-signed by a former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, two U.S. Senators, and a former Governor.
Legal Precedent Explored
While the plaintiffs lost, the legal arguments about debate access as a public good continue to inform reform advocacy.
“When the debate stage is controlled by the two parties it's supposed to hold accountable, that's not a debate. It's a commercial.”
— Independent Voter ProjectLegal 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.
Related Cases
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.
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.