{ The lawsuit, filed Aug. 1 in D.C. Superior Court and first reported by DCist, says the city’s Elections Board erred last month when it determined that the proposed initiative was “proper subject matter,” and asks the court to permanently block it from being implemented. While the measure’s organizers still have a long way to go before the “Make All Votes Count Act,” also known as Initiative 83, reaches next year’s ballot, it has already drawn a chorus of opposition, including from the city’s Republican Party.

As proposed, Initiative 83 starting in 2026 would allow more than 80,000 people registered as “unaffiliated” to vote in D.C.’s primary election, which is currently closed to them. It also would implement a ranked-choice balloting system in the city. Under the ranked-choice system, voters would be able to rank candidates for an office in order of preference; if no candidate emerges with at least 50 percent of the vote during ballot tabulation, the lowest-performing candidate is eliminated. Among voters who picked that candidate as their top choice, their votes would go to their No. 2 candidate, and so on, until one candidate eclipses 50 percent of the vote.

Supporters of the measure — who argued Tuesday that the Democratic Party’s lawsuit was filed prematurely and should be dismissed — say these two changes would make elections more accessible in the District: Opening up primaries would give unaffiliated residents in deep-blue D.C. a voice in the city’s crucial primary elections. As for ranked-choice voting, proponents say it would ensure elected candidates receive at least 50 percent of the vote, which isn’t always the case now.

In its lawsuit, however, the Democratic Party says opening the city’s primaries violates the city’s Home Rule charter, which instructs voters to elect the mayor, attorney general and members of the D.C. Council on a “partisan” basis. The Democratic Party also claims in its suit that opening the city’s primaries would violate voters’ rights to freely associate with a political party protected by the First and Fifth amendments.

“Allowing 80,000 non-affiliated voters to participate in partisan elections would undermine the intent of the Charter and dilute the votes of party members who seek to nominate party candidates to stand in subsequent general elections,” the suit reads.

The lawsuit repeats other claims against the ballot initiative that were dismissed by the D.C. Elections Board when it allowed the measure to proceed, including an argument that it would cost money to implement (ballot initiatives, by law, cannot have fiscal impact). The Democratic Party further alleges that the measure runs afoul of the D.C. Human Rights Act by discriminating against residents in low-income areas of the city who might be confused by the new system (the initiative’s backers have said that claim is insulting to Black voters). }