Judy Woodruff Says Closed Primaries Are Driving America’s Toxic Partisanship

In a recent interview with the Knoxville News Sentinel, veteran journalist Judy Woodruff was asked a question that sits at the heart of our national political crisis: “What’s exacerbated some of the really poisonous partisanship in America?”

Her answer was direct — and it zeroed in on a feature of our elections that too often escapes public scrutiny: closed primaries.

​​What I would point a finger at are the closed primaries. Because primaries that are just about one party or another are inevitably going to bring out the most active party followers, and you're going to bring out the ones with the most extreme views, and they're going to elect the ones who are the most active, who feel like they have the most to lose if their side doesn't win.

They end up picking people who are at the extreme in both parties. As I'm sure you know, there's a movement that is to move toward all-candidate open primaries to address our partisanship, to make it wide open so that one party or another doesn't control the situation.

But how do you persuade our parties today to give up the control that they have? It's a tough argument. Some people talk about the parties losing power. I would say they've gained power. They may have lost power in the sense of a smoke-filled back room, but they have power in the way they've structured the election process and to me, that has helped contribute to our partisanship polarization.

Because you're right, people are elected on the far right or the far left. Who does the voter have to choose in the middle? The middle is forgotten.

There are states that are looking at this. There's a group called Unite America that's pushing more all-candidate open primaries. And there are other academic groups that are pushing this. I've been on a task force that this was one of the things they were looking at. So there were efforts to do something about it, but it's got a long way to go, for sure.

Woodruff rightly clarifies that the problem in politics isn’t simply tone or rhetoric — it’s incentives. When primary elections are closed to millions of independent voters and dominated by the most ideologically intense partisans, the system rewards candidates who appeal to the fringes, not the broad middle. The result is a Congress and state legislatures increasingly disconnected from the majority of Americans who want pragmatic, problem-solving leadership.

Open, all-candidate primaries — paired with reforms that give voters more meaningful choices — are about restoring competition, accountability, and representation. They ensure every voter can participate, every candidate must appeal to a broader electorate, and no single party can gatekeep who advances to the general election.

As Woodruff notes, election reform is about playing the long game. Parties are reluctant to relinquish control over a process that advantages their most loyal activists. But the stakes are clear. If we want leaders who reflect the full spectrum of their communities — not just the loudest factions — we must modernize the way we conduct elections.

The success of the American experiment depends on a system that rewards collaboration over polarization. Reforming our primaries is one of the most practical, evidence-based steps we can take toward that goal.

Woodruff has also reported firsthand on what these reforms look like in practice. In Alaska - one of the first states to adopt a new open, all-candidate primary system - she examines how the changes are reshaping elections in the state.

‍