Opinions
Open primaries, ranked choice voting support better democracy
Under status quo, D.C. primaries are closed to 86,000 independents
By LISA D.T. RICE
Change is difficult for humans to embrace. I know it. You know it. We like our routines and hold onto them for dear life, often to our detriment, robbing ourselves of the opportunity to evolve and grow, break the mold and truly make a difference.
Change may be hard for Washington, D.C.’s politicos, too – as Peter Rosenstein demonstrates in his recent opinion piece in the Blade. Yet, open primaries and ranked choice voting – the two electoral reforms proposed in the Make All Votes Count Act of 2024, also known as Ballot Initiative 83 – will help our city’s democracy evolve, grow, and improve. They will help us live up to our democratic ideals: more voters’ voices heard, more true choice for voters and politicians who work harder for all of us and are truly accountable to We the People.
We can do better than the status quo that Rosenstein seems to celebrate in his piece. One in every six D.C. voters is a registered independent. That includes me. Yet, under the status quo, our party primaries – which are taxpayer-funded – are closed to these 86,000 voters. Of course, in a nearly one-party city like D.C., the Democratic primary is the most important election.
Our constitutional right to vote should not – and does not – require subscribing to a political party. Yet, registered independents are denied that right in this all-important contest – even though we pay for it with our tax dollars. It doesn’t have to be this way; a majority of states already allow independents to vote in party primaries.
Our closed primaries also discourage change-agent candidates who might appeal to those 86,000 voters. Meanwhile, our single-choice elections discourage first-time and diverse candidates who fear they might “split the vote” or are told to “wait their turn.” Our single-choice elections also mean that candidates can be nearly guaranteed election even if they barely eke out a narrow slice of the Democratic primary vote (sometimes as low as 20 or 25 percent).
With our current election rules closing off real voice and opportunity for many, party bosses end up dictating both the party platform and the policies that come out of the Wilson Building.
There’s one thing our current system is very good at: preserving the status quo. In D.C.’s 2022 elections, only one incumbent lost their attempt for re-election (to another incumbent — a Democrat turned independent — seeking a new seat). All the others won.
Yet, there’s a reason that the electoral reform movement is gaining momentum here and elsewhere: survey after survey shows we are not happy with the status quo. According to a Pew Research Center survey, 62 percent of Americans are not satisfied with how democracy is working in the U.S.
If we want to change the results, we need to change the system. If you want democracy to work better for you, then support for open primaries and ranked choice voting is obvious.
Open primaries in D.C. would empower all registered voters, including independents, to fully participate in our taxpayer-funded primary elections. We must have that right. Voter suppression in D.C. must end.
Meanwhile, ranked choice voting empowers voters, provides more genuine choice in elections, and results in more representative outcomes. Candidates must appeal to a broader audience, winning a minimum of 50 percent of the vote. In our current system, a candidate needs only a plurality in both the primary and general elections to prevail.
Our politicians should work harder for all of our votes. Ranked choice voting is one of the tools to make that happen. (In his piece, Rosenstein questions whether politicians will actually work harder with ranked choice voting. It’s a simple math problem – you have to work harder to win over 51 percent of voters than to win over just 20 or 25 percent.)
Currently 51 cities, counties, and states use ranked choice voting –in primaries, caucuses, and general elections. Since 2005, there have been more than 650 elections using ranked choice voting. Naysayers try to claim that ranked choice voting is too complicated for us. Far from it.
We rank things in our everyday lives – it’s unsurprising that, across those 650-plus elections, voter understanding and satisfaction is high. Cities across the country have elected historically diverse representatives using ranked choice voting, including the first majority-LGBTQ+ city council in Salt Lake City, Utah; a majority-women city council in New York City; and the first majority-people of color council in Minneapolis. In D.C., election reform can help usher more new and diverse voices into office.
One last point: ranked choice voting is sometimes referred to as instant runoff voting. But unlike traditional runoffs, it happens all at once and it doesn’t cost more money or voter time. Runoffs also tend to have a dramatic drop in turnout from regular primaries and general elections. Why should the District of Columbia spend money on inefficient, low-turnout runoffs? Why not spend it on helping our homeless population, investing in public health or improving our schools? That seems a better use of taxpayer funding than helping ensure the status quo in our politics.
Lisa D. T. Rice, a native Washingtonian, is an ANC Commissioner representing single member district 7B07, which includes residents of the Penn Branch, Dupont Park, and Fort Davis neighborhoods. She is a registered Independent and the proposer of the MAKE ALL VOTES COUNT ACT OF 2024.
Botswana
The rule of law, not the rule of religion
Bonolo Selelo and Tsholofelo Kumile are challenging the Botswana Marriage Act
Botswana was in a whole frenzy as religious and traditional fundamentalists kept mixing religion and constitutional law as if it were harmless. It is not. One is a private matter of belief between you and God, while the other is the framework that protects and governs us all. When these two systems get fused, the result is rarely justice. It results in discrimination.
The ongoing case brought by Bonolo Selelo and Tsholofelo Kumile challenging provisions of the Botswana Marriage Act has reignited a familiar debate in Botswana. Some commentators insist that marriage equality violates religious values and therefore should not be recognized by law. It is a predictable argument. It is also fundamentally incompatible with constitutional governance.
Botswana is not a Christian state. It is a constitutional democracy governed by the Constitution of Botswana. That distinction matters. In a constitutional democracy, laws are interpreted in accordance with constitutional principles such as equality, dignity, protection, inclusion and the rule of law, rather than the doctrinal beliefs of any particular religion.
Religion has no place in constitutional law and democracy
The central problem with religious arguments in constitutional disputes is simple in that they divide, they other, they contest equality and they are personal. Constitutional law by contrast, must apply equally to everyone.
Botswana’s Constitution guarantees fundamental rights and freedoms under Sections 3 and 15, including protection from discrimination and the right to equal protection of the law. These provisions are not conditional on religious approval. They exist precisely to protect minorities from the preferences or prejudices of the majority.
Legal experts, such as Anneke Meerkotter, in her policy brief in Defense of Constitutional Morality, point out that constitutional rights function as a safeguard against majoritarian morality. If rights depended on whether the majority approved of a minority’s identity or relationships, they would not be rights at all. They would merely be privileges.
This principle has already been affirmed in Botswana’s jurisprudence. In the landmark decision of Letsweletse Motshidiemang v Attorney General, the High Court held that criminalizing consensual same-sex relations violated constitutional protections of liberty, dignity, privacy, and equality. This judgment noted that constitutional interpretation must evolve with society and must be guided by human dignity and equality. The court emphasized that the Constitution protects all citizens, including those whose identities, expressions or relationships may be unpopular. That ruling was later upheld by the Court of Appeal of Botswana in 2021, reinforcing the principle that constitutional rights cannot be restricted on grounds of moral disapproval alone. These decisions were not theological pronouncements. They were legal determinations grounded in constitutional principles.
The danger of religious majoritarianism
When religion is used to justify legal restrictions, the result is what constitutional scholars call “majoritarian moralism.” It allows the dominant religious interpretation in society to dictate the rights of everyone else. That approach is fundamentally incompatible with constitutional democracy. Botswana is religiously diverse. While Christianity is the majority faith, there are also Muslims, Hindus, traditional spiritual communities, Sikh and people who practice no religion at all. If the law were to follow the doctrines of one religious group, which interpretation would it adopt? Christianity alone contains dozens of denominations with different views on love, equality, marriage, sexuality, and gender. The moment the state begins to legislate on the basis of religious doctrine, it implicitly privileges one belief system over others. That undermines both religious freedom and constitutional equality. Ironically, keeping religion separate from constitutional law is what protects religious freedom in the first place.
Judicial independence is the cornerstone of Botswana’s governance system
The current case involving Bonolo Selelo and Tsholofelo Kumile is before the judiciary, where it belongs. Courts exist to interpret the Constitution and determine whether legislation complies with constitutional rights. Political and religious lobbying, as well as public outrage, must not influence that process.
Judicial independence is the cornerstone of Botswana’s governance system. According to the International Commission of Jurists, judicial independence ensures that courts can make decisions based on law and evidence rather than political or social pressure.
When governments, political, religious, or traditional actors attempt to interfere in constitutional litigation, they weaken the rule of law. Botswana has historically prided itself on having one of the most stable constitutional systems in Africa. The judiciary has played a critical role in safeguarding rights and maintaining legal certainty. The decriminalization case demonstrated this. Despite strong public debate and political sensitivity, the courts assessed the law according to constitutional principles rather than moral panic. The same standard must apply in the current marriage equality case.
This article was first published in the Botswana Gazette, Midweek Sun, and Botswana Guardian newspapers and has been edited for the Washington Blade.
Bradley Fortuin is a consultant at the Southern Africa Litigation Center and a social justice activist.
My strawberry muumuu was about the ugliest thing I could have picked for our muumuu-themed movie night.
Really, it’s just an excuse to cross-dress while the sun’s still up; these themed movie nights are concocted by a teammate of mine on the Washington Scandals, D.C.’s LGBT and mens-plus rugby club.
The team is hosting an informational event on Saturday, March 21st, for those interested in testing the waters on inclusive rugby. We have a lot of fun with a lot of balls, and then we head out for a drink at Kiki.
Events like these Rugby “101s” are a blast because the joys of queer camaraderie are on full display – no experience is necessary. If you’re interested in learning more, check out our socials for more info in our bio. Back to the muumuu night, because someone will make a good point that bears repeating.
After settling in with some pizza and homemade cream puffs, I asked my friend and teammate, Theo, on my left, what it’s been like in a rugby club.
“Flooded with love,” he told me, him wearing a thin-striped but soft cotton muumuu. Theo often prioritizes comfort in clothing, always dressed for the weather. Eyes as soft and fuzzy as a warm bunny, he recounted his journey here to LGBT rugby as the life of the party shifted from food to entertainment.
Theo and I both prefer the quiet to the crowd, which is odd, given our shared passion for rugby — famously loud, infamously tough on the body.
The details are irrelevant, here; it’s Theo’s passion that caught my eye. Passion, I thought; it wasn’t particularly familiar to me, especially in sport. Profession, yes, but social pursuits? Passion seemed so foreign to me there.
That’s because it’s nurtured through culture, not inherited as a personality trait. This is a familiar place for much of D.C.’s LGBT culture and community; ‘chosen’ or ‘found’ family is the common phrase, but this is too simplistic, is it not? It makes it sound like you washed ashore and stumbled effortlessly into family. It’s not like that, not in real life.
It’s work and work requires passion to keep showing up.
Adult friendships are hard, Mary. It’s not light and airy, like when we were kids. It’s hard enough in adulthood, and to carve a space out for men’s-plus LGBT rugby in a city literally built on compromise is an act of defiance in itself.
Taking a chance on LGBT rugby is not for the casual observer – it’s a tough sport (but safer than football) with some big personalities. But as Theo pointed out, when I asked him about the magnetic draw between the LGBT community and rugby, that all body types are welcome in the sport; anyone can imagine themselves wearing a jersey and still fit in.
If you are to take anything from this, dear reader, it’s that when you show up for rugby, you belong.
The team’s hosting an informational Rugby 101 on Saturday, March 21, at Harry Thomas Rec Center, at 2 p.m. Our home match the next Saturday, March 28, is also at Harry Thomas, at 1 p.m.
Opinions
Protecting D.C.’s promise: why Kenyan McDuffie deserves our support
Former Council member is longtime ally
For generations, LGBTQ+ people have come to DC searching for something simple: the freedom to love who they love. I was one of them.
Washington, D.C., is the gayest city in the world. This didn’t happen by accident; It’s the result of generations of organizing, advocacy, and leadership from elected officials who championed the movement for equality, a movement that drew people like me to this city in search of safety and acceptance.
Now, as we approach the June 16 mayoral primary, the LGBTQ+ community will play a decisive role in shaping the city’s future. I believe the candidate our community should rally behind is Kenyan McDuffie, a longtime ally with a proven track record.
Kenyan’s relationship with the LGBTQ+ community began long before it was politically fashionable. In 2012, when he ran for the Ward 5 D.C. Council seat, he sought and earned the support of the Gertrude Stein Democratic Club, the city’s largest LGBTQ+ political organization. At a time before marriage equality was the law of the land, Kenyan stood with us and went on to support the banning of conversion therapy.
But what has always stood out to me about Kenyan’s leadership is his willingness to tackle issues head-on that deeply impact queer families and young people.
As someone who was recently engaged and is currently navigating pathways to parenthood, I was moved by Kenyan’s leadership to modernize D.C.’s outdated surrogacy laws. For more than two decades, the District criminalized surrogacy agreements, threatening families with fines of up to $10,000 and even jail time. Kenyan helped lead the effort to repeal that law, opening a legal pathway for LGBTQ+ couples and others to build families through surrogacy. Thanks to advances in medicine and policy changes like this one, more LGBTQ+ families are now able to pursue parenthood.
Kenyan has also been a champion for some of the most vulnerable members of our community: LGBTQ+ young people experiencing homelessness. In DC, LGBTQ+ youth represent nearly 40 percent of the city’s homeless youth population. Early in his time on the Council, Kenyan worked with fellow members to dedicate housing beds for LGBTQ+ youth and to strengthen the capacity of the Mayor’s Office of LGBTQ+ Affairs to support community programs. Those investments helped ensure that young people facing rejection or instability had a safer place to turn.
Leadership like this matters, especially as our city faces unprecedented challenges. In addition to being a champion for our community, the next mayor will need to navigate threats from the federal government, a massive reduction of the federal workforce of over 20,000 jobs, an unprecedented wave of restaurant closures, and year-after-year billion-dollar budget shortfalls.
Today, our city needs a leader whose values never waver and who has delivered real results for all our neighbors. Kenyan McDuffie has shown that kind of leadership throughout his public service career.
D.C. has always been a safe haven for the queer and trans community seeking opportunity, safety, and belonging. That promise is worth protecting and ensuring the next generation can find the same refuge and opportunity we have.
As voters prepare to make an important choice about the city’s future, I believe Kenyan McDuffie is the leader best prepared to carry that promise forward.
That’s why I’m proud to join him and countless others in launching the Out for Kenyan coalition this Thursday, March 26, at Number Nine.
Cesar Toledo is a first-generation queer Latino and an Out Magazine Out100 honoree who has spent over a decade advancing LGBTQ+ equality, equity, and social justice.
-
The White House5 days agoTrump proclamation targets trans rights as State Dept. shifts visa policy
-
Federal Government5 days agoGay Venezuelan man ‘forcibly disappeared’ to El Salvador files claim against White House
-
Galleries4 days agoBMA celebrates enduring influence of Henri Matisse
-
Real Estate3 days agoEnsuring safer drinking water
