Polelle v. Florida Secretary of State
Challenging Florida's Closed Primary Before the Supreme Court
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.
Florida's 3.4 million independent voters pay for elections they can't vote in.
Florida runs a closed primary system. More than 3.4 million voters registered with no party affiliation are excluded from primary elections — the stage where most races are effectively decided, especially in gerrymandered districts.
Retired Florida attorney Michael Polelle filed suit challenging this exclusion. In September 2025, IVP co-filed an amicus brief alongside Open Primaries, Forward Party, and Florida Forward Party. Chad Peace serves as counsel of record. The case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Building on a decade of legal precedent.
IVP's amicus brief draws on the constitutional arguments developed through Proposition 14, Boden, Rubin, and Boydston — a decade of legal work establishing that voter participation rights in publicly funded elections must be protected.
The brief argues that the state created the conflict between party rights and voter rights by funding and administering partisan primaries — and the state is obligated to resolve it. This is the same legal theory that drives all of IVP's courtroom work.
Certiorari pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. If granted, this would be the first SCOTUS case directly addressing closed primaries and independent voter rights.
Key Milestones
Polelle Files Challenge
Retired Florida attorney Michael Polelle files suit challenging Florida's closed primaries on behalf of 3.4 million independent voters.
IVP Files Amicus Brief
IVP co-files an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court alongside Open Primaries, Forward Party, and Florida Forward Party. Chad Peace is counsel of record.
SCOTUS Certiorari Decision
The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear the case. If granted, it would be the first SCOTUS case directly addressing whether closed primaries violate independent voters' constitutional rights.
Why This Case Matters
This is IVP's most live case. A SCOTUS decision to hear it could fundamentally reshape how courts think about voter rights in primary elections.
SCOTUS-Level Stakes
If certiorari is granted, this becomes the first Supreme Court case directly addressing closed primaries and independent voter exclusion.
3.4 Million Locked Out
Florida's independent voters pay taxes that fund primary elections they're barred from participating in.
National Implications
A favorable ruling would affect every state with closed primaries — potentially opening elections to tens of millions of independent voters nationwide.
“The state created the conflict between party rights and voter rights. The state is obligated to resolve it.”
— 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
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.