The Forward Party has joined a coalition of voter advocacy groups urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a challenge to Florida’s closed primary system. That case could determine whether millions of independent voters nationwide can participate in taxpayer-funded primaries.
In an October 9 email, the Forward Party shared that it had joined an amicus brief in response to Polelle v. Cord Byrd, Florida Secretary of State, et al., a case asking the Supreme Court to decide whether states may bar independents from voting in primaries unless they register with a recognized party. The case stems from a 2022 lawsuit filed by Michael J. Polelle, a retired Florida attorney who argued that the state’s closed primary system violated his constitutional rights as an independent voter, forcing him into a “Hobson’s choice” situation.
In March 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard the case on appeal and upheld Florida’s system on the grounds that the state’s interest in protecting the rights of political parties outweighed the burden placed on unaffiliated voters. The court cited Anderson v. Celebrezze and Burdick v. Takushi, two Supreme Court decisions that guide how courts weigh state election rules against voting access, and found that Florida’s restrictions did not violate that standard. Polelle has since asked the Supreme Court to review the decision.
In its email, the Forward Party praised the amicus brief, stating that it “goes to the heart of what Forward stands for: fair representation and a voice for every voter.”
The brief, which was filed last month and also includes the Florida Forward Party, Open Primaries, and the Independent Voter Project, takes the opposite view of the lower court’s reasoning. It argues that Florida’s closed primary system gives political parties too much control at the expense of individual voters, violating the First and Fourteenth Amendments and deepening the effects of gerrymandering. While it also cites Anderson and Burdick, the coalition says those rulings instead support the right of all voters to participate in elections funded by taxpayers.
The party cautioned that the Supreme Court’s decision could potentially “reshape the rules of our democracy” and affect millions of voters nationwide. “For the 40% of Americans who identify as independents, the stakes are huge,” the statement read. “In Florida, where many districts are effectively decided in primaries, this exclusion forces voters to affiliate or be shut out of the process entirely.”
It further stated that closed primaries risk turning “millions of citizens into second-class participants in elections they fund,” effectively silencing any voices outside of the two major parties. It also criticized closed primaries, as well as gerrymandering, as tools of those parties to “protect their turf” and “tighten their grip on power.”
“No matter how it couches the decision, the Supreme Court is deciding whether you get a say in your elected officials,” the party added. “With gerrymandering and closed primaries, it’s party leadership who currently gets to decide on our representatives.”
More recently, on October 10, the Supreme Court met in a private conference to consider whether to hear Polelle v. Florida. The Court is expected to announce its decision in an upcoming orders list.
Richard Winger reported this week that the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.
@Hector Roos…. And yet ironically what the Forward Party is advocating for nationally would still suppress minor parties and independents from the general election ballot. The Forward Party doesn’t support “open primaries”, they support Top X primaries which have shown repeatedly to do nothing but lock out anybody other than Republicans and Democrats from the general election ballot. A case like this would just be a step towards implementing that… first rule the current system unconstitutional then they’ll push their ill-conceived nutcasery in its place.
Michael Polelle is professor emeritus at the University of Illinois-Chicago’s School of Law. He retired to Florida where he noticed the stark difference between the elections in Illinois were actually freer than the elections in Florida.
The appeal is on the grounds that outcome determinant closed primaries are constitutionally prohibited because he does not have an effective vote at the general election (and neither do Libertarian members). He lives in a county that has elected candidates from the same political party for 60 years.
This is an interesting case because the appellate court has already agreed that his constitutional rights are burdened but their hands are tied by conflicting court decisions.
By extension, the rights of smaller political parties, which are another name of organized groups of voters, are suppressed where the electoral system regularly selects candidates at the closed primaries of other parties they are prohibited from participating.
On the other side of the coin the state of Texas has declined to defend their open primary that is being challenged in court.
https://ballot-access.org/2025/10/10/texas-wont-defend-its-open-primary-in-court/