We fight for the rights of every individual voter, regardless of party preference.
Our goal is to establish a legal precedent that every voter, regardless of political party, has an equally meaningful right to vote at every stage of the public election process, including primary elections. As it stands, courts have said political parties have the right to exclude voters from primary elections. Nobody has successfully defended voters' right to participate because there's a conflict between public and private rights. The state created that conflict — and the state has the obligation to resolve it.
The courts haven't settled this question. We intend to make them.
Most advocacy organizations write letters and hold rallies. IVP goes to court. When the political system creates a conflict between party rights and voter rights — and refuses to resolve it — litigation is the only tool left.
IVP's courtroom work falls into two categories: cases we brought to challenge exclusionary primary systems, and cases we defended to protect the reforms we've already won. Together, they represent over a decade of legal work asserting that voters have rights the courts are obligated to protect.
We haven't won every case. But each loss has sharpened the legal argument, built the precedent record, and advanced the theory that every voter — regardless of party — has a constitutionally protected right to participate in publicly funded elections.
Cases we brought
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 independent voters locked out of taxpayer-funded primary elections. IVP co-filed an amicus brief in September 2025 alongside Open Primaries, Forward Party, and Florida Forward Party. SCOTUS certiorari is pending. Florida's independent voter population has grown to approximately 4.5 million — at the time the original case was filed in 2024, that figure stood at approximately 3.4 million.
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
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.
Every court case IVP fights protects the right of every voter to participate in every election. Your donation directly funds the legal action that makes reform durable.