A STRATEGIC PLAN TO RESTORE AFFORDABLE AMERICAN BEEF
Strengthening Domestic Cattle Production, Protecting American Ranchers, Expanding Competition, and Preserving Food Safety
October 19, 2026
The Honorable Brooke L. Rollins Secretary of Agriculture United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20250
RE: Policy Recommendations to Strengthen America’s Beef Supply and Improve Consumer Affordability
Dear Secretary Rollins:
I am writing to submit a series of policy recommendations designed to address the rising cost of beef for American families while strengthening domestic cattle production, protecting American farmers and ranchers, encouraging fair competition, and maintaining the highest standards of food safety.
American consumers should not have to choose between affordable beef and supporting the hardworking farmers and ranchers who produce it.
I recognize and appreciate the Department’s ongoing efforts, including its Plan to Fortify the American Beef Industry, the Strengthening Processing for U.S. Ranchers (SPUR) Program, and the Ranchers First Initiative.
My recommendations are intended to complement these efforts, identify opportunities for additional action, and establish measurable objectives for both producer sustainability and consumer affordability.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
America’s beef industry faces a fundamental challenge: historically limited cattle supplies, following years of drought, herd liquidation, rising production expenses, and other economic pressures, have contributed to elevated consumer prices.
According to USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, the United States began 2026 with approximately 86.2 million cattle and calves, including 27.6 million beef cows, a decline of 1% from the previous year.
Rebuilding domestic cattle inventories is essential. However, herd rebuilding requires time and may temporarily restrict slaughter supplies as producers retain breeding animals.
Therefore, a successful national strategy must address three separate objectives:
Short-term affordability: Reduce avoidable production and distribution costs, improve market access, and strengthen consumer purchasing options.
Medium-term competitiveness: Improve processing efficiency, strengthen competition, and support independent producers.
Long-term sustainability: Rebuild America’s cattle herd, strengthen domestic food security, and improve resilience against future droughts and animal disease.
I respectfully submit the following recommendations for consideration.
1. ACCELERATE DOMESTIC CATTLE HERD RECOVERY
Drought conditions, high input costs, and financial uncertainty have contributed to reductions in the national cattle herd.
American ranchers need the financial confidence and operating resources necessary to rebuild.
Recommended actions:
Expand targeted drought-recovery assistance for qualified cattle producers.
Evaluate temporary tax incentives for retaining replacement heifers and rebuilding breeding herds.
Increase access to affordable financing for herd expansion, pasture restoration, and water infrastructure.
Support forage development, grazing improvements, and drought-resistant agricultural practices.
These initiatives should prioritize working American cattle producers, particularly family-owned and independent operations.
Expected result: A stronger domestic breeding herd, increased future beef production, and improved resistance to supply disruptions.
Important consideration: Herd rebuilding is a long-term solution and should not be represented as an immediate reduction in retail beef prices.
2. STRENGTHEN COMPETITION IN MEAT PROCESSING
Concentration in the beef-processing industry remains a legitimate concern for both producers and consumers.
USDA research has documented that the four largest meatpacking firms account for approximately 85% of steer and heifer purchases.
This degree of concentration raises important questions about producer bargaining power, market access, price discovery, and the resilience of the nation’s beef supply chain.
Recommended actions:
Strengthen enforcement of existing competition laws through cooperation among USDA, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Trade Commission, within their respective authorities.
Increase transparency in cattle purchasing practices and price reporting.
Examine contractual arrangements that may improperly restrict competition.
Continue supporting independent and regional processing operations.
Evaluate the effectiveness of the SPUR Program and other processing initiatives.
Prioritize maintaining viable existing processing facilities while supporting additional capacity where economically justified.
Additional processing facilities alone cannot resolve a shortage of market-ready cattle. However, a more competitive processing industry can create additional marketing opportunities for ranchers and improve supply-chain resilience.
Expected result: More competitive cattle markets, increased producer options, improved transparency, and greater potential for efficient beef pricing.
3. REDUCE PRODUCTION, FEED, AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS
The cost of producing beef ultimately influences the economic sustainability of American cattle operations.
Feed, forage, fuel, equipment, labor, veterinary care, and transportation are significant expenses.
Recommended actions:
Expand targeted feed assistance during officially recognized drought emergencies.
Evaluate transportation assistance for producers in regions facing unusually high livestock-shipping costs.
Examine temporary, narrowly targeted tax relief or credits where measurable producer benefits can be demonstrated.
Support improved domestic feed-grain production and distribution efficiency.
Review regulatory requirements that impose unnecessary costs without providing meaningful safety or environmental benefits.
Require evaluation of whether federal cost-relief programs actually improve producer viability and consumer affordability.
Any subsidies or tax incentives should be temporary, transparent, and subject to performance review.
Expected result: Reduced financial pressure on domestic cattle producers and improved capacity to sustain and expand production.
4. EXPAND DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER AND REGIONAL BEEF MARKETS
American families increasingly seek opportunities to purchase beef directly from local farms and ranches.
Direct marketing can create additional income opportunities for producers and give consumers more purchasing choices.
However, small-scale processing, packaging, refrigeration, and transportation can create additional costs. Therefore, direct sales should be encouraged as a competitive alternative rather than presented as a guaranteed source of lower prices.
Recommended actions:
Expand technical assistance for farms developing direct-to-consumer marketing programs.
Support mobile slaughter and processing facilities that meet applicable federal or state inspection requirements.
Improve access to inspected regional processing facilities.
Help smaller producers develop cooperative marketing and distribution arrangements.
Simplify unnecessary administrative barriers while preserving essential inspection and food-safety requirements.
Improve consumer education regarding local beef purchasing, bulk purchases, and freezer-beef programs.
Expected result: More purchasing choices for consumers, additional market opportunities for ranchers, and stronger regional agricultural economies.
5. PROTECT AMERICAN BEEF IDENTITY THROUGH ACCURATE LABELING
American consumers deserve truthful and transparent information about the origin of the beef they purchase.
The USDA’s strengthened voluntary “Product of USA” labeling requirements, effective January 1, 2026, represent an important improvement.
Under the new standard, qualifying beef must originate from animals born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States.
Nevertheless, voluntary labeling does not resolve every question surrounding country-of-origin transparency.
Recommended actions:
Ensure consistent enforcement of the new voluntary American-origin labeling standards.
Measure consumer awareness and industry compliance.
Examine the feasibility of mandatory country-of-origin labeling for beef.
Evaluate the legal and trade implications of any proposed mandatory labeling requirements.
Support truthful identification of American-raised beef without unnecessarily restricting lawful imports.
Domestic cattle production should be encouraged through competitive advantages, reliable infrastructure, fair markets, and consumer confidence.
Import restrictions that reduce available beef supplies could unintentionally increase retail prices and should be evaluated carefully.
Expected result: Improved consumer confidence, fairer recognition of American producers, and stronger incentives for domestic production.
6. IMPROVE CATTLE HEALTH AND PREVENT PRODUCTION LOSSES
Animal disease, preventable mortality, reproductive problems, and inadequate veterinary access can reduce the productivity of American cattle operations.
A healthy national herd is essential to long-term food affordability and agricultural security.
Recommended actions:
Strengthen USDA veterinary disease-surveillance and response capabilities.
Improve access to veterinary services in underserved rural communities.
Support appropriate vaccination, biosecurity, and herd-health programs.
Expand practical livestock traceability systems that support rapid disease identification and containment.
Assist smaller producers with the cost of adopting effective animal-health technology.
Improve coordination among federal agencies, state veterinarians, and cattle producers.
Special attention should be given to emerging disease threats that could disrupt domestic cattle production or interstate livestock movement.
Expected result: Reduced preventable livestock losses, improved productivity, and greater stability in the nation’s beef supply.
7. PRESERVE FOOD SAFETY WHILE REDUCING UNNECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS
Food safety must remain nonnegotiable.
American consumers must have confidence that beef entering the marketplace meets rigorous inspection and sanitation requirements.
At the same time, smaller processors and producers should not face avoidable administrative expenses that provide little additional public-health benefit.
Recommended actions:
Simplify duplicative paperwork and reporting requirements.
Expand secure electronic recordkeeping and inspection-support systems.
Provide technical assistance to small processors seeking compliance with federal inspection requirements.
Support grants or financing for sanitation, refrigeration, traceability, and food-safety technology.
Improve coordination between federal and state inspection programs where legally permissible.
Maintain essential inspection, testing, sanitation, and enforcement standards.
Expected result: More efficient compliance, stronger food-safety systems, and reduced unnecessary operating expenses.
8. ESTABLISH A NATIONAL BEEF AFFORDABILITY AND PRODUCTION SCORECARD
Government initiatives should be evaluated by measurable results rather than announcements or appropriated dollars alone.
I recommend that USDA publish a publicly accessible annual scorecard tracking:
Total U.S. cattle inventory and beef-cow inventory.
Annual calf production and domestic beef output.
Average retail beef prices and inflation-adjusted price trends.
Cattle producer profitability and major input costs.
Regional processing capacity, utilization, and competition.
Producer access to independent and regional processors.
Progress of federally funded herd-rebuilding and processing initiatives.
Beef import and export volumes.
Food-safety outcomes and significant animal-disease threats.
The scorecard should distinguish between changes resulting from government programs and those driven by weather, cattle cycles, consumer demand, trade, and other market conditions.
Expected result: Greater transparency, improved accountability, and a measurable basis for determining whether federal policy is strengthening American agriculture and improving consumer affordability.
RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES
First 12 months — Immediate and near-term actions
Evaluate and strengthen existing meatpacking competition enforcement.
Improve market transparency and cattle-price reporting.
Identify opportunities to reduce unnecessary administrative and transportation costs.
Support viable regional processing operations.
Expand access to direct-marketing assistance.
Establish the national beef affordability scorecard.
Years 1–3 — Medium-term actions
Evaluate and expand successful processing initiatives.
Improve veterinary access and livestock disease prevention.
Support producer cooperatives and regional distribution networks.
Implement targeted drought-recovery and herd-rebuilding assistance.
Evaluate consumer and producer outcomes from labeling policies.
Years 3–5 and beyond — Long-term objectives
Achieve sustainable growth in domestic breeding-herd capacity.
Improve resilience to drought and animal disease.
Strengthen the economic viability of independent American cattle operations.
Expand competitive domestic beef production.
Establish a more resilient and affordable national beef supply.
REQUEST FOR USDA ACTION
I respectfully request that the Department of Agriculture:
Review these recommendations in conjunction with its existing beef-industry initiatives.
Identify which recommendations can be implemented under current USDA authority and which would require congressional legislation or interagency action.
Evaluate opportunities to accelerate measurable results from existing programs.
Consider establishing or expanding public reporting on beef affordability, production, and competition.
Provide feedback regarding additional actions that could strengthen domestic production while improving affordability for American families.
CONCLUSION
America’s cattle ranchers and American consumers should not be placed on opposite sides of the same economic challenge.
Our nation needs a healthy, profitable domestic cattle industry. We also need families to be able to purchase nutritious, high-quality beef at reasonable prices.
These goals are not mutually exclusive.
A national strategy that encourages herd rebuilding, protects fair competition, reduces unnecessary costs, expands marketing opportunities, and maintains strong food-safety standards can serve the interests of both producers and consumers.
No single policy will reverse years of declining cattle inventories or immediately restore lower retail prices.
However, coordinated action, guided by measurable outcomes and responsible use of taxpayer resources, can help establish the conditions necessary for a stronger and more affordable American beef industry.
I appreciate your consideration of these recommendations and your service to American agriculture.
Respectfully,
Mark Caserta Writer and Publisher, Free State Patriot Huntington, West Virginia 304-444-7216
Many Americans—including many Christians—are literally giving their country away.
Get angry with me if you want, but don’t complain about what you permit to happen.
Voter apathy is killing our nation.
According to multiple sources, only about 75 percent of Christians are registered to vote. Remember, your vote is your voice.
Of those Christians who are registered, only an estimated 75 percent actually vote. That means, roughly speaking, only a little over 56 percent of those who identify as Christians cast a ballot. Turnout among the rest of the eligible voting population is even lower, which is equally troubling.
And that’s during a presidential election year. In off-year elections, voter participation drops even further.
Nearly every day, I talk with people who tell me they are sick of politics and have lost faith that their vote makes any difference.
Politicians bear a great deal of responsibility for that.
In a constitutional republic, elected officials work for the people. They are hired by the voters for one purpose: to represent their constituents.
Too many politicians have forgotten that. They say what they need to say to get elected, then spend their time advancing their own ideological agenda or that of their party’s leadership instead of faithfully representing the people who sent them to office.
So, how do we begin to change this?
I believe it starts with three simple steps:
1. Politicians must return to the foundational principle of our republic: represent the people who elected you—even when their views do not align perfectly with your own.
2. Congress should act to strengthen election integrity, including measures such as the SAVE Act, which supporters say would ensure that only American citizens vote in federal elections.
3. Every eligible voter—including every Christian—must study the candidates, make an informed decision, and vote.
Just as important, if your elected representative fails to do the job, fire them at the next election.
These ideas are not complicated. In fact, our Founding Fathers intentionally designed our system to be this straightforward.
Which is the greater threat – Artificial Intelligence or mankind’s ambition?
For months, much of the debate surrounding artificial intelligence has centered on one unsettling question: “What happens if someday we can no longer control the machines we create?”
Recently, the Trump administration pulled some of the brightest minds on the planet together to form a new voluntary AI-safety agreement involving six major technology companies—OpenAI, Anthropic, Nvidia, Meta, Alphabet/Google and SpaceX.
The agreement calls for stronger internal safety controls and outside auditing but does not carry the enforcement mechanisms of federal regulation. Rather, the administration describes the commitments as “morally binding,” according to Reuters.
But after observing six decades of mankind’s advancement, I believe there is another question that deserves just as much attention, one that receives far less attention and one at which it seems we fail consistently—learning from history.
What happens if we can control artificial intelligence—but cannot always control ourselves?
Perhaps the greatest danger surrounding artificial intelligence isn’t simply that machines could someday develop objectives contrary to ours. Perhaps the greater and considerably older danger is human ambition.
The history of mankind isn’t merely a record of what human beings have discovered. It is also a record of what human beings eventually did with those discoveries.
We discovered metallurgy and fashioned both farming implements and weapons. We developed chemistry and created lifesaving medicines—and chemical weapons. We learned to split the atom and unlocked an extraordinary new source of energy—one that, under the pressures of world war, was harnessed to create the most destructive weapon mankind had ever produced.
It isn’t that technology and knowledge were evil. Human ambition and motive became a driving force that altered their use. As we enter the age of artificial intelligence, we must learn from the history of that distinction.
I am not suggesting that the scientists and engineers developing today’s most advanced AI systems have sinister motives. In fact, some of the most serious warnings about artificial intelligence have come from the very people developing and studying it.
But neither should we be naive.
Our safety cannot depend upon every researcher, every corporate executive, every investor, every military leader and every government choosing to employ restraint, especially with such unlimited potential power.
History provides little justification for such confidence, because whenever extraordinary power becomes available, human beings eventually begin asking an extraordinarily consequential question:
How far can we take this?
Human ambition, just like anything else, can be misdirected. And sometimes it may simply be the intellectual ambition of accomplishing something nobody has ever accomplished before.
Imagine two AI laboratories approaching a technological breakthrough. Both understand that moving too quickly could bring risks. This historically morphs into a “Who will get there first?” scenario.
Imagine the same scenario between nations.
Imagine the United States believing China is approaching an AI capability that could provide an enormous military, intelligence or economic advantage—or China believing the same thing about the United States.
The question “Should we do this?” can quickly become “We have to do this before they do.”
History has seen that transformation before.
The development of nuclear weapons is an example. But AI presents a complication that previous transformative technologies often did not. Nuclear weapons require specialized materials, enormous industrial infrastructure and sophisticated manufacturing.
With AI technology, software can be copied, modified and distributed around the world with extraordinary speed by a single individual.
Another uncomfortable history lesson is that good people can often rationalize dangerous decisions.
“If we don’t develop it, someone less responsible will,” or “If we don’t possess it first, our adversary will.”
Those decisions can rapidly move everyone toward a place nobody originally intended to go. Artificial intelligence can potentially magnify human capability on a scale we couldn’t possibly understand or anticipate. A malicious individual equipped with extraordinary AI capabilities could potentially accomplish things that once required an organization.
The greatest danger may not be that artificial intelligence develops human ambition – it may be that human ambition acquires artificial intelligence.
We should learn from history that “trust” is not a safeguard. While most individuals and entities may have trustworthy intentions, our country cannot construct its safety system around the word “most.”
Governments are composed of human beings. They are susceptible to ambition, competition and the pursuit of power just as corporations and individuals are.
So as researchers and our government continue asking whether artificial intelligence can be employed with adequate safeguards, perhaps we should be asking, “How do we guard against human ambition intentionally disregarding those safeguards?”
History teaches us that relying solely upon human restraint is not a safe bet.
Americans are feeling the pressure of gasoline and diesel fuel prices at the pump and are being very vocal about it—with good reason.
No doubt, overall consumer affordability, which is largely impacted by the price of fuel, has become ample political fodder for politicians and the media to wage an influencing campaign on voters for the midterm elections in November.
But, as with most issues, it is very important to dig deeper than political “one-liners” and media hype.
America did not enter the Iran war with a vast amount of unused refining capacity sitting on the sidelines waiting to be called upon. Our refineries were already running hard.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, refinery utilization reached 98 percent in late August and remained at 97.8 percent in early September. On face value, that sounds like tremendous efficiency, and it is. But this efficiency isn’t resulting in lower gas prices, hence the frustration.
How can gasoline prices rise sharply when the United States produces such enormous amounts of crude oil and the price of a barrel of oil doesn’t appear high enough to justify what consumers are seeing at the pump?
The answer may be found not simply in how much crude oil America has, but in how much capacity we have to turn that crude oil into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and the other petroleum products our economy consumes every day.
The United States currently has roughly 18.2 million barrels per day of operable refining capacity spread across approximately 130 refineries.
Compare that with 2020, when the nation had approximately 135 operable refineries and around 19 million barrels per day of capacity.
Losing five operable refineries isn’t ample explanation for current fuel prices for consumers. It isn’t the amount of crude available that’s the problem. The latest U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve report shows it contained about 284.6 million barrels of crude oil!
The problem is refining capacity.
If a system is operating at 98 percent of its capacity, there isn’t much room remaining when something goes wrong. Refineries require maintenance. Equipment breaks. Hurricanes strike the Gulf Coast. Pipelines can experience disruptions.
Granted, many of these disruptions are “expected disruptions” and are usually built into a production model.
But then there is the unexpected disruption.
For years, America was able to operate its refining system extremely efficiently. Refineries could run at very high utilization rates, crude oil could move through global markets, and finished petroleum products could be imported or exported wherever market conditions demanded.
Then the war in Iran happened.
The Persian Gulf is one of the most important energy corridors on Earth. Any disruption—or even the credible threat of disruption—to crude oil production, shipping lanes, foreign refineries or the Strait of Hormuz can quickly affect global petroleum markets.
When refineries elsewhere in the world lose production or nations suddenly need additional fuel supplies, American refined petroleum products become even more valuable on the international market. That creates additional pressure on a U.S. refining system that was already operating close to its practical limits.
When refinery capacity becomes tight, the difference between the price of crude oil and the wholesale price of gasoline or diesel can increase considerably, resulting in increased prices at the pump.
The political debate inevitably attempts to place responsibility on one president, one political party, one oil company or one government policy. I wish there were a way to eliminate the hyperbole around the issue and spend more time on a viable solution.
The United States has demonstrated extraordinary success in producing oil. American crude production has reached levels once thought impossible. But getting the oil out of the ground isn’t the problem. The answer is having more refining capacity.
Believe it or not, the last new U.S. refinery built with significant downstream processing capacity was Marathon’s refinery in Garyville, Louisiana, in 1977!
I graduated from high school that year—I’m retired now.
If we are ever to rid our nation of these spikes in energy and fuel costs, we must build an energy system with enough reserve refining capacity to withstand a serious international disruption. Considering experts have told us that it takes around 5–10 years for a large, full-scale refinery in the U.S. to come online, we have little time to waste!
This isn’t the time to place blame or leap recklessly to another political party or ideology to solve the problem of affordability—far from it!
It’s time for leadership to come together in bipartisan fashion and craft a plan to address the issue.
A republic is a form of government in which political authority ultimately belongs to the people, but the people exercise that authority through elected representatives operating under a constitution and the rule of law.
Let’s talk about the American Republic for a moment.
The word republic doesn’t seem to be used much anymore, and I fear its true meaning has become blurred. But since the founding of our nation, I cannot recall a time when failure to adhere to its principles could be more detrimental to our future.
In John Wayne’s 1960 film The Alamo, his portrayal of Davy Crockett gives one of the movie’s most memorable descriptions of a republic:
“Republic. I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell…”
He goes on to describe people being free to choose how they live and says republic is one of those words that gives him a deep emotional feeling—something that “makes your heart warm.”
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, according to notes by Maryland delegate James McHenry, a Philadelphia woman asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?”
Franklin famously replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
Franklin’s response reminds us that the Constitution could establish a republic, but a document alone could not preserve it. Keeping it would require citizens and public officials alike to exercise judgment, restraint, civic responsibility and vigilance.
I believe we find ourselves at a historical crossroad in that regard, and both citizens and elected officials need to be reminded of their responsibilities.
A republic is a form of government in which political authority ultimately belongs to the people, but the people exercise that authority through elected representatives operating under a constitution and the rule of law.
The central idea is government by consent, but government restrained by law.
That distinguishes a constitutional republic from both a monarchy and pure direct democracy. In a monarchy, governing authority historically rested with a monarch or dynasty. In a direct democracy, citizens themselves vote directly on governmental decisions. Without constitutional protections and limitations, however, simple majority rule can allow the interests of a numerical majority to overwhelm the rights and interests of minorities and individuals.
In a republic, the people are sovereign—but the Constitution is the rulebook governing how their sovereignty may be exercised.
The Declaration of Independence in 1776 supplied much of the philosophical foundation. Its revolutionary proposition was that legitimate governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The Declaration also asserted that people possess rights that government does not create—including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
After independence, the United States initially operated under the Articles of Confederation. That government, however, proved too weak in several respects. Congress lacked authority to raise revenue, regulate interstate commerce, enforce many of its decisions or effectively address disputes and problems involving the states.
By 1787, American leaders concluded that the system needed reform.
The Constitutional Convention assembled in Philadelphia that summer. Although the delegates originally gathered to revise the Articles of Confederation, they ultimately produced an entirely new framework of government: the United States Constitution.
And here is where I believe we need to be reminded of our responsibilities.
The elected representative owes the citizen fidelity to the Constitution, integrity, accountability, sound judgment and service.
But the citizen also has responsibilities: becoming informed, participating in the process, voting thoughtfully, respecting the rights of others, holding government accountable, obeying legitimate laws, serving the community and preserving the institutions that make self-government possible.
A republic cannot survive merely because its Constitution is well written. It survives only when both the governed and those entrusted to govern understand and fulfil their respective responsibilities.
A republic requires something from everyone—from the person holding office, to the citizen casting a single ballot.
It seems that many elected officials have forgotten that their primary responsibility is to represent the people they were elected to serve—not to offer a multitude of promises to gain office, only to abandon those promises afterward in favor of personal ideology or unquestioning allegiance to party.
But responsibility does not rest solely with elected officials.
Many citizens are also neglecting their responsibilities by failing to stay informed, failing to respect the rights of others and, sadly, failing to vote.
Negative comments on social media do absolutely nothing to preserve the republic. Your voice should ultimately be your vote.
If we are to continue as the greatest nation on earth, it will depend upon elected representatives and citizens alike understanding and exercising their responsibilities.
According to 2026 polling from the Pew Research Center, 58% of Americans have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party, while 59% have an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party.
Only about four in ten Americans view either party favorably.
Even more striking, 26% of Americans — more than one out of every four — hold unfavorable views of both political parties. That number has risen from 21% in 2020.
The poll also showed that people who formally identify with a political party generally still like their own party. No real surprise there.
Among Republican identifiers, 89% view the GOP favorably, while 84% of Democratic identifiers view the Democratic Party favorably.
But here is the takeaway.
Among independents who merely lean toward one of the two parties, enthusiasm drops dramatically.
Only 54% of Republican-leaning independents view the GOP favorably, while just 52% of Democratic-leaning independents view the Democratic Party favorably.
Pew’s September 8 analysis reinforces that disconnect.
Among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents combined, 75% view their own party favorably and 24% unfavorably. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 70% view their party favorably and 30% unfavorably.
The underlying survey was conducted April 20–26 among 5,103 U.S. adults.
So, the simplest way to state Pew’s findings is this:
Republican Party: 58% unfavorable.
Democratic Party: 59% unfavorable.
Both parties unfavorable: 26%.
That last number should get the attention of political leaders in both parties.
More than one in four Americans now holds an unfavorable opinion of both major political parties.
Pew’s numbers do not establish why individual voters choose to register outside the two major parties. But they do demonstrate something unmistakable: dissatisfaction with America’s political parties is substantial.
And that brings us to West Virginia.
The political dynamics in our state are changing.
Increasing numbers of voters are choosing to remain outside the Republican and Democratic parties. Whatever their individual reasons, many clearly do not believe a party label is necessary to determine their principles or values.
The numbers don’t lie.
West Virginia voters registered outside the Republican and Democratic parties
2021: 298,906 — 26.59%
2026: 353,440 — 29.35%
Increase:54,534 voters
Percentage increase: approximately 18.2%
Share of the electorate: up 2.76 percentage points
There is an important distinction here.
These figures do not mean that 29.35% of West Virginia voters are technically registered as “No Party.”
In 2021, the 298,906 voters outside the two major parties included 250,961 registered as No Party and another 47,945 registered Mountain, Libertarian or Other.
The same distinction applies today: the 29.35% represents all West Virginia voters registered outside the Republican and Democratic parties.
But that distinction does not diminish the significance of the trend.
Five years ago, 26.59% of West Virginia voters were registered outside the two major parties.
Today, that figure has risen to 29.35% nearly three out of every ten registered voters in West Virginia.
That should matter greatly to the West Virginia Republican Party as it considers the future of its primary.
The 2026 election was the first West Virginia primary in nearly three decades in which unaffiliated voters were prohibited from participating in the Republican primary. The Republican State Executive Committee made the decision to close the primary, while the Democratic Party continued to allow unaffiliated voters to participate in its primary.
If the Republican State Executive Committee maintains a closed primary in 2028, voters who are not registered Republicans will again be unable to participate in choosing Republican nominees unless they first change their registration.
That policy deserves serious reconsideration.
Supporters of closing the Republican primary have raised concerns that voters who are not Republicans could cross over and attempt to influence which Republican candidates are nominated.
That concern deserves to be heard.
But so does the other side of the equation.
West Virginia now has 353,440 registered voters outside the Republican and Democratic parties — 29.35% of the electorate.
The number has increased by more than 54,000 in just five years.
At the same time, national polling shows significant dissatisfaction with both major political parties, particularly among voters who identify as independents but lean toward one party or the other.
These trends should not be ignored.
Political parties can protect their identity and principles without assuming that every voter who refuses to wear the party label is hostile to those principles.
Many West Virginians may agree with Republican candidates on limited government, constitutional rights, fiscal responsibility, energy independence, religious liberty and other traditionally conservative principles while choosing not to register Republican.
Those voters should not simply be written off.
West Virginia’s political landscape is changing before our eyes.
Nearly three out of every ten registered voters now stand outside the two major political parties.
The Republican Party has a choice: require those voters to adopt the party label before allowing them a voice in its primary — or give them an opportunity to participate and make the case that Republican principles deserve their support.
For the future of West Virginia, I believe the better course is clear:
I may not have won the primary this past May, but as an outsider stepping into the political arena, I learned a lot — a whole lot.
More importantly, I learned just how many people are hungry for true representation: leaders who will listen, stand on principle, and remember that government belongs to “We the People.”
I have far too many supporters who believe in that kind of representation for me to simply walk away. There is too much work left to be done, too many voices that deserve to be heard, and too great a need for strong, accountable leadership.
To every person who supported me, encouraged me, prayed for me, voted for me, endorsed me, or simply took the time to listen — I love and appreciate each one of you more than you know.
The 2026 primary may have ended one campaign.
It did not end the mission.
I plan to be on the ballot in the 2028 General Election.
I want to thank each and every one of you for your tremendous support in making West Virginia history by signing the “Reopen WV Primaries” petition.
It’s the Republic in action with the people giving consent to the government and challenging them to represent your wishes!
In 2026, we declined nearly 47,000 Republican votes since the last non-presidential year primary!
Thousands of unaffiliated voters who’d helped Republicans gain the majority in Charleston were told “we don’t need you anymore”, simply because some members of the GOP feared Democrat crossover votes impacting the Republican primary.
Folks, the data does not support this! It’s emotion over common sense!
Read my comprehensive case revealing the facts and the negative impact.
It’s not about winning an argument. It’s about doing what’s right for West Virginia.
I would appreciate you considering signing and sharing this. Im fact, I would appreciate you making it a priority.
If you’re an unaffiliated voter who got locked out of the Republican primary, feel free to share your story! I’m compiling them for use later!
Democratic Socialism vs. Capitalism — In Plain English
We are living in an unprecedented time. Politicians used to hide their socialist tendencies; now they are running and winning campaigns on them!
Voters need to understand the issue and stop this in its tracks!
The difference really comes down to one basic question:
Who should have more control over the economy — individuals and businesses, or government and collective institutions?
Capitalism: You can own your business, property and investments.
Democratic Socialism: The government would own and control your property.
Capitalism: Businesses compete for customers, and consumers help decide what succeeds.
Democratic Socialism: Government decides how resources are used and the level of your success.
Capitalism: People can take risks, build businesses, invest money and profit if they succeed.
Democratic Socialism: The focus is spreading the wealth, regardless of “who built it”
Capitalism: Economic decisions are made by the people.
Democratic Socialism: Decisions are made through government or collective control.
The Democratic Socialists of America openly says its long-term goal is social ownership and democratic control of the economy, not simply making a few changes to capitalism.
That’s why educating our young people matters!
It isn’t just about government programs. It’s about who gets to own, control and make the decisions in America’s economy.
These nations have already failed or are failing under socialism/communism. Yet, the Democrat Socialists of America, with many Democrats allowing it to happen, want it for America.
Yes, everyone is equal – equally poor.
Soviet Union — Communist one-party state with a highly centralized economy; dissolved in 1991.
East Germany — Communist planned economy; ultimately reunified with capitalist West Germany in 1990.
Czechoslovakia — Communist planned economy until the Velvet Revolution; later transitioned toward a market economy.
Romania — Communist dictatorship under Nicolae Ceaușescu; suffered severe shortages and austerity before the regime collapsed in 1989.
Poland — Communist government and centrally planned economy until 1989; later adopted market reforms.
Hungary — Communist state until 1989; subsequently transitioned to a market-based economy.
Albania — One of Europe’s most rigid communist states; emerged from communism extremely poor and isolated.
Yugoslavia — Socialist federation that eventually disintegrated amid economic, political and ethnic crises.
Cuba — Remains a communist one-party state with extensive state control of the economy; its economic system has long faced shortages and weak productivity, though U.S. sanctions are also an important factor and should be acknowledged.
North Korea — Communist authoritarian state with an overwhelmingly state-directed economy and chronic economic hardship.
Venezuela — Under Chávez and Maduro, nationalizations, price controls and expanding state direction accompanied a massive economic and humanitarian crisis. Venezuela’s collapse also involved oil dependence, corruption, political dysfunction and sanctions, so socialism was not the sole cause. The country has experienced hyperinflation and mass emigration.
Maoist China — The Great Leap Forward’s collectivization and central planning contributed to catastrophic famine. China later moved substantially toward markets, private enterprise and foreign investment while retaining Communist Party rule.
Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge — An extreme communist experiment involving abolition of markets and private property, accompanied by mass starvation, forced labor and killing.
Ethiopia under the Derg — Marxist-Leninist regime marked by nationalization, collectivization, famine and economic deterioration.
Tanzania under Ujamaa socialism — Large-scale collectivization and state-directed development produced disappointing economic results and eventually gave way to reforms.
Don’t allow the United States to be added to this list!
If we fail to learn from history – we are doomed to repeat it.
THE CASE FOR REOPENING WEST VIRGINIA’S REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
Facts & Numbers Over Emotion
This is a series of exhibits making the case for reopening West Virginia’s Republican primary. Each exhibit will produce facts with supportive data and is open to respectful rebuttal and factual dissent.
Opening:
Why I’m Raising the Question
Over the next few weeks, I’ll be making the case for reopening West Virginia’s Republican primary.
Before I begin, I want to make one thing very clear.
I am not questioning the motives of those who support a closed primary. I believe many sincere conservatives adopted that position because they wanted to protect the integrity of our elections and the Republican Party.
I respect that.
My purpose is simply to ask whether the facts and the mathematics still support that policy in today’s West Virginia.
I’ll present official voter registration data, explain my reasoning, and cite my sources.
If someone presents evidence that proves my conclusions are wrong, I’ll gladly consider it. My goal isn’t to win an argument. My goal is to arrive at the right answer.
The strength of our Republic depends on our willingness to follow the facts wherever they lead.
I hope you’ll keep an open mind during this series, so we examine this issue together.
Tomorrow: The numbers have changed—and they tell an important story.
THE CASE FOR REOPENING WEST VIRGINIA’S REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
🟢 48,665 voters registered with other political parties
That means 353,440 West Virginians—more than 29% of all registered voters (29.35%, to be exact)—are registered outside the two major parties.
Those numbers matter.
West Virginia has changed dramatically over the past two decades. Republicans are now the state’s largest voting bloc by a wide margin.
Yet 3 out of 10 registered voters have chosen not to affiliate with either major party. Many have simply chosen principle over party.
Those favoring a closed primary are concerned that voters outside the Republican Party may use their primary vote strategically to help nominate a weaker Republican candidate, rather than simply voting for the candidate they genuinely believe would best represent them in government.
Disenfranchising a particular voter bloc because of what “may or may not” happen doesn’t seem logically sound to me—especially when that bloc represents such a significant percentage of West Virginia’s registered voters.
Additionally, we need to examine the mathematics behind that concern.
With 524,202 registered Republicans compared with 326,497 registered Democrats, Republicans hold a registration advantage of 197,705 voters. Registration totals alone cannot tell us how voters will participate in any particular primary, but they do provide important perspective when evaluating the concern that Democrats could substantially influence Republican nominations.
There is another factor to consider.
If unaffiliated voters who share constitutional, conservative values are permitted to participate in the Republican primary and choose to do so, they would further expand the pool of voters from which Republican nominees are selected making it even more mathematically difficult for Democrats to influence the outcome.
That raises what I believe is the more important question:
Should our focus be on fearing how someone might vote—or on giving more conservative-minded West Virginians a reason to vote with us?
If we’re going to discuss whether Republican primaries should remain closed, we should begin with today’s facts—not yesterday’s assumptions.
Our goal should be to attract those 353,440 potential voters—not estrange them. The risk of disenfranchising and alienating nearly 30 percent of the electorate far exceeds the risk posed by an arguably much smaller percentage of Democrats who might use their primary vote strategically to help nominate a weaker Republican candidate.
Tomorrow –Exhibit #2: Who are the 353,440?
THE CASE FOR REOPENING WEST VIRGINIA’S REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
Who Are the 353,440 West Virginia Voters Registered Outside the Two Major Parties?
Linda Killian, journalist, political analyst, and author of The Swing Vote: The Untapped Power of Independents, has written extensively about the influence of independent and swing voters:
“These are the swing voters. Disaffected with the two parties but deciding elections all over the country.”
— Linda Killian, The Swing Vote: The Untapped Power of Independents
The Pew Research Center has similarly observed:
“Independents are the swing voters in every presidential election.”
One of the biggest misconceptions in this debate is that voters outside the two major parties are somehow “the opposition.”
That simply isn’t true.
I’ve followed political campaigns throughout my adult life, and major political campaigns routinely place tremendous emphasis on winning independent and swing voters.
Now, to be clear, independent voters are not automatically swing voters. But independents can include persuadable voters who help determine the outcome of closely contested elections. A political party interested in expanding its coalition therefore has good reason to compete for voters outside its formal membership rather than simply assuming they belong to the opposition.
How often do we hear about presidential candidates fighting to win the “swing states”?
More now than ever, I believe many voters outside the two major parties share constitutional and conservative values but have become disillusioned with the parties themselves. Battles, inefficiencies, and inconsistencies within both major parties have given voters plenty of reasons to question party loyalty.
We’re seeing this now more than ever.
Among those 353,440 West Virginians registered outside the Republican and Democrat parties are undoubtedly people with a wide range of political philosophies. They include voters who identify as conservatives, libertarians and independents, as well as citizens who simply prefer political independence rather than adopting the entire platform offered by either major party.
Choosing not to join the Republican Party does not necessarily mean someone has abandoned conservative principles. A voter can support conservative candidates and policies without choosing to put an “R” beside his or her name.
Some also feel it is unreasonable to require a voter to change political affiliation and become a “card-carrying” Republican simply to vote for the candidate they believe would represent them best. Closing the Republican primary to these voters risks leaving some feeling excluded or alienated—and potentially far less inclined to support Republican candidates in the general election.
Supporters of a closed primary argue that restricting participation to registered Republicans protects the party’s ability to choose its own nominees and reduces the possibility that voters outside the party could strategically influence the outcome.
More specifically, the concern is that some registered Democrats might forgo voting for their own party’s preferred nominee and instead use their primary vote to support a weaker Republican candidate—one they believe would be easier for the Democrat nominee to defeat in the general election.
That concern deserves consideration.
But so does the consequence of addressing that possibility by excluding hundreds of thousands of West Virginians who are registered outside the two major parties. In Exhibit #3, we’ll examine how that exclusion changes the mathematics of the voting equation.
At face value, requiring Republican Party membership to participate in a Republican primary may seem reasonable. But we are talking about locking out a group representing nearly 30 percent of West Virginia’s overall electorate.
At the very least, one has to question the wisdom of that decision.
If our objective is to identify and elect strong constitutional conservatives to help strengthen and preserve our Republic, we should consider whether excluding voters who may already share many of those values actually helps accomplish that goal.
Tomorrow: Exhibit #3 – The Mathematics
THE CASE FOR REOPENING WEST VIRGINIA’S REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
Before making the case for reopening West Virginia’s Republican primary, it’s only fair that we understand why many Republicans support keeping it closed.
Their concern is straightforward.
They worry that Democrats—or other voters who are not committed Republicans—could strategically vote in a Republican primary to influence the outcome by supporting the candidate they believe would be easier to defeat or who better aligns with their agenda.
Protecting the integrity of the Republican Party is a legitimate goal, and I respect those who hold that view.
I believe most supporters of closed primaries are acting in good faith. They sincerely want to preserve conservative principles and prevent outside interference.
Those concerns deserve to be heard—not dismissed.
But good public policy should always be tested against the facts.
The question isn’t whether the concern is sincere.
The question is whether today’s voter registration numbers suggest that this concern is large enough to justify excluding 353,440 West Virginians who are registered outside the two major parties from participating in Republican primaries.
That’s where the conversation becomes less about emotion… and more about mathematics.
Let’s really examine the math of a closed primary. I submit that if more conservative independents are allowed to vote in the Republican primary, it makes it more difficult for a percentage of Democrats who are willing to sacrifice their primary vote to bolster a Republican candidate they are more likely to defeat in the general election or help elect a candidate they feel would support the less conservative, Democrat agenda.
Consider the mathematics. If 5,000 Democrats chose to vote strategically in a Republican primary with 50,000 Republican and conservative voters participating, those 5,000 votes would equal 10 percent of that voting pool. But if opening the primary attracted another 25,000 conservative-minded independent voters, expanding that pool to 75,000, those same 5,000 strategic votes would represent only 6.7 percent.
The number of crossover votes hasn’t changed. Their proportional influence has.
Simply put: the larger the pool of conservative voters, the more difficult it becomes for a fixed number of strategic crossover voters to influence the outcome.
There is also a second mathematical consideration. If excluding independent and unaffiliated voters from the Republican primary alienates even a portion of conservative-leaning voters enough that they stay home or support a Democrat in November, the effect becomes twofold: Republicans lose a potential vote while Democrats may gain one.
And that has a troubling mathematical consequence!
If one voter simply stays home, Republicans are minus one potential vote.
If that same voter switches from the Republican candidate to the Democrat candidate, the margin between the candidates changes by two votes: Republican −1 and Democrat +1.
Cause and effect, mathematically speaking:
Dilution effect: A larger conservative primary electorate reduces the proportional influence of a fixed number of strategic crossover voters.
Coalition effect: Opening participation could bring conservative-leaning unaffiliated voters into the Republican nominating process.
Alienation effect: If closing the primary causes some otherwise Republican-leaning voters to defect in November, each actual R-to-D switch produces a two-vote change in the Republican-versus-Democrat margin.
The numbers don’t lie.
Tomorrow – Exhibit #4: Does Closing the Primary Create More Problems Than It Solves?
THE CASE FOR REOPENING WEST VIRGINIA’S REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
Does Closing the Primary Create More Problems Than It Solves?
In a March 24, 2026 interview with WCHS-TV Eyewitness News reporter Bethany Jarrell, West Virginia Secretary of State Kris Warner discussed the Republican Party’s decision to close its primary to unaffiliated voters after years of allowing them to participate.
“We had 23,627 unaffiliated voters that voted a Republican ballot,” Warner said. “That means there are over 23,000 people, if those numbers remain consistent, who will not be able to vote in the Republican primary unless they switch their party registration.”
Folks, that’s a very, very large number of voters who had previously chosen to cast a Republican primary ballot and were suddenly told that, unless they changed their party registration, they could no longer do so.
Ouch!
I understand the reasoning behind trying to prevent voters from another political party from strategically using their primary votes to influence the opposing party’s nominee for the general election. But that is a significant price to pay to address a concern whose actual scope and impact in West Virginia deserve closer examination.
We must be careful not to allow emotion to cloud our judgment. I encourage Republicans who favor a closed primary to look carefully at all the facts and consequences.
I also find it interesting that the Democrat Party did not close its primary to unaffiliated voters. Should Democrats not have the same theoretical concern—that Republicans or other voters might attempt to influence their primary?
Let’s take a candid look at some of the potential unintended consequences of a closed Republican primary:
• Alienation: Conservative-minded unaffiliated voters may feel Republicans don’t want their participation. I’ve personally spoken with several independent voters who felt alienated—even angry—after showing up at the polls intending to vote in the Republican primary, only to learn they could no longer participate.
• Coalition size: Republicans are voluntarily reducing the pool of voters eligible to participate in choosing Republican nominees.
The response is often, “If they want to vote Republican, let them switch parties.”
That’s a pretty bold position considering how difficult it already can be to get registered voters to participate in primary elections. Additionally, many unaffiliated voters have chosen not to affiliate with a political party for a reason. Some prefer to adhere to their individual principles rather than adopt an entire party platform they may find inconsistent with some of their values and beliefs.
• General-election consequences: If excluded conservative-leaning voters become less inclined to support the eventual Republican nominee, the primary policy could work against Republicans in November.
We examined the mathematics in the previous exhibit. If a voter who otherwise would have voted Republican instead votes Democrat, the margin between the two candidates changes by two votes:
Republican −1. Democrat +1.
That doesn’t mean closing the primary will cause voters to switch sides. But the mathematical consequence is real if they do.
• Candidate incentives: A closed electorate may encourage candidates to concentrate primarily on registered party voters rather than building a broader conservative coalition.
What incentive does a candidate have during the primary to persuade an unaffiliated voter when that voter cannot participate in selecting the nominee?
How do Republicans continue expanding their coalition if candidates have less reason during the nominating process to reach beyond existing party registration?
• Party growth: Requiring affiliation before participation creates an additional barrier between the GOP and voters it might otherwise persuade to become Republicans.
It is important to remember that Republicans did not become West Virginia’s dominant political party simply by relying on people who had always been registered Republicans. The political transformation of West Virginia required persuading voters to support Republican candidates and conservative policies.
Political majorities are built by addition—not subtraction.
• The perceived problem still isn’t eliminated: A closed primary cannot guarantee that every registered Republican is genuinely conservative, nor can it prevent a voter from changing party registration before the applicable deadline specifically to participate in a Republican primary.
A closed primary can control the letter beside a voter’s name.
It cannot control the voter’s philosophy, motivation, or intent.
• Republicans risk being seen as turning their backs on voters who helped build the majority: Republicans have become West Virginia’s dominant political party by attracting voters to the GOP coalition over many years.
Does concern over what some voters might attempt to do justify excluding thousands of unaffiliated voters who have previously demonstrated a willingness to participate in Republican primaries?
Secretary Warner cited 23,627 unaffiliated voters who had chosen a Republican primary ballot in a prior election.
Those voters should not simply disappear from the equation.
When weighing these potential downsides against one of the principal arguments for closing the primary—preventing voters outside the Republican Party from strategically influencing the selection of Republican nominees—I believe all of the consequences deserve careful consideration.
The question isn’t simply whether closing the primary can reduce crossover voting.
The larger question is whether the benefits of closing the primary outweigh the potential consequences of excluding voters who might otherwise become part of the Republican coalition.
After examining the numbers, the mathematics, and these potential unintended consequences, my position remains clear:
Reopen West Virginia’s Republican primary.
Tomorrow – What really happened when Republicans closed the primary after nearly 4 decades?
This is Exhibit 5 in a series making the case for reopening West Virginia’s Republican primary. Each exhibit has produced facts with supportive data and is open to respectful rebuttal and factual dissent after reading the exhibit in its entirety.
THE CASE FOR REOPENING WEST VIRGINIA’S REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
Facts & Numbers Over Emotion — Mark Allen Caserta
Exhibit #5
Let’s Look at the Evidence: “What Happened to Republican Primary Participation After the Primary Closed?”
Throughout this case, I have acknowledged what I believe is the strongest argument offered by supporters of a closed Republican primary and countered it with facts, data and sources.
Now, let’s stop talking about what “might happen” and take a look at the hard evidence of what “did happen” the first time Republicans closed the primary in more than four decades!
According to official data recently acquired from the West Virginia Secretary of State’s Office, here is what happened in Republican House and Senate primary races when comparing 2022 with 2026—and it isn’t pretty. The decline in Republican primary votes was not isolated to a handful of races. The decline was broad!
Here are the findings for the House of Delegates:
Republican primary vote totals in House races declined by 28,812 votes from 2022 to 2026.
Some of the individual losses were substantial. House District 84 dropped from 2,600 votes in 2022 to 1,572 in 2026—a decline of 1,028 votes.
House District 100 dropped from 1,672 to 824—a decline of 848 votes.
House District 19 dropped from 1,841 to 1,059—a decline of 782 votes.
House District 88 dropped from 2,005 to 1,254—a decline of 751 votes.
House District 43 dropped from 1,713 to 966—a decline of 747 votes.
The Senate tells a similar story!
Republican primary vote totals in Senate races declined by 17,983 votes from 2022 to 2026.
Senate District 3 dropped from 12,855 votes in 2022 to 9,554 in 2026—a decline of 3,301 votes.
Senate District 14 dropped from 12,111 to 8,945—a decline of 3,166 votes.
Senate District 16 dropped from 8,203 to 5,556—a decline of 2,647 votes.
Senate District 13 dropped from 5,630 to 3,464—a decline of 2,166 votes.
Senate District 1 dropped from 8,928 to 6,843—a decline of 2,085 votes.
So, what does the official data tell us?
Republican primary vote totals declined substantially in both House and Senate races from 2022 to 2026.
The House of Delegates declined by 28,812 Republican primary votes.
The Senate declined by 17,983 Republican primary votes.
Those are not projections, estimates or opinions. They are the totals reported in the data provided by the West Virginia Secretary of State’s Office.
Let that sink in, supporters of a closed GOP primary!
The evidence shows that following the closing of the Republican primary, Republican primary vote totals declined substantially. The numbers certainly raise an important question: If the purpose of closing the primary was to strengthen the Republican nomination process, why did Republican primary participation move so dramatically in the opposite direction?
Additionally, closing the primary risks alienating unaffiliated voters who represent nearly 30% of West Virginia’s electorate—including nearly 24,000 unaffiliated voters who chose a Republican ballot in the 2024 primary election, as previously documented in this case through the WCHS interview.
This evidence establishes that Republican primary vote totals declined substantially following the closing of the primary, while a significant bloc of unaffiliated voters who had previously chosen to participate in the Republican primary was no longer eligible to do so without changing party registration.
To date, I have not seen a valid rebuttal to this extensive body of evidence, only emotional, hardline statements. The door is still open to respectful, valid rebuttal.
At this point, I submit that the common-sense move is to reopen West Virginia’s Republican primary elections. It helps the party. It helps the true conservative candidates. And it helps constitutional conservatives to be able to choose who they wish to represent them in our Republic.
Tomorrow: Summation and Closing
THE CASE FOR REOPENING WEST VIRGINIA’S REPUBLICAN PRIMARY
Over the course of this series, I have attempted to make a case—not against the Republican Party, nor against those who sincerely believe a closed primary is best—but for taking another look at the decision based on the facts, the numbers, the mathematics, and the potential consequences.
The evidence has now been presented.
Let’s review the case in the order it was made.
THE OPENING
We began with a simple premise:
Good decisions should be based on facts rather than fear of what might happen.
Supporters of a closed Republican primary have a legitimate concern. They fear that voters outside the Republican Party—particularly Democrats—could strategically participate in a Republican primary to help nominate a weaker Republican candidate or one more favorable to their political interests.
That concern deserves consideration.
But the opening question was whether excluding a substantial portion of West Virginia’s electorate is a proportionate response to that possibility.
And from the beginning, the goal was clear:
Facts & Numbers Over Emotion.
EXHIBIT #1
We examined the fundamental purpose of a political party and the importance of building a coalition.
Political parties become stronger by persuading voters, earning support, and expanding their base—not simply by protecting the voters they already have.
West Virginia’s political landscape has changed dramatically over the years, and the Republican Party became dominant by attracting voters who once identified differently.
The central principle was straightforward:
You don’t strengthen a party by shrinking it.
EXHIBIT #2 — THE NUMBERS HAVE CHANGED
Next, we examined the voter-registration numbers.
West Virginia has:
• 524,202 registered Republicans • 326,497 registered Democrats • 304,775 voters with no party affiliation • 48,665 voters registered with other political parties
That means 353,440 West Virginians—29.35 percent of the registered electorate—are registered outside the Republican and Democrat parties.
Nearly 3 out of every 10 registered voters.
Republicans also hold a registration advantage of 197,705 voters over Democrats.
Registration totals alone cannot tell us how people will vote in a particular primary, but they provide important perspective when evaluating the fear that Democrats could substantially influence Republican nominations.
The question raised by the numbers was:
Should Republicans be attempting to attract those 353,440 potential voters—or placing another barrier between those voters and Republican candidates?
EXHIBIT #3 — WHO ARE THE 353,440, AND WHAT DOES THE MATH TELL US?
We then examined the people behind the numbers.
Voters outside the two major parties are not automatically Democrats, liberals, or political opponents.
Among them are West Virginians who share conservative principles but choose political independence rather than formal party affiliation.
Not having an “R” beside a voter’s name does not necessarily mean that voter has rejected constitutional or conservative values.
We also examined the mathematics of strategic crossover voting.
If a fixed number of Democrats attempted to strategically influence a Republican primary, increasing the number of conservative-minded voters participating makes those crossover votes a smaller percentage of the overall voting pool.
The number of crossover votes hasn’t changed. Their proportional influence has.
We also considered the potential general-election mathematics.
If a voter who otherwise would have supported the Republican nominee instead votes for the Democrat nominee, the margin between the two candidates changes by two votes:
Republican −1. Democrat +1.
That does not mean closing the primary will cause voters to switch sides.
But if we are going to consider what Democrats might do in a Republican primary, intellectual consistency requires us to also consider what excluded conservative-minded voters might do in the general election.
EXHIBIT #4 — DOES CLOSING THE PRIMARY CREATE MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES?
Finally, we examined the potential unintended consequences of the policy itself.
Alienation: Conservative-minded unaffiliated voters may feel unwelcome or excluded.
Coalition size: Closing the primary reduces the pool of voters eligible to participate in choosing Republican nominees.
General-election consequences: Alienated voters may become less inclined to support Republican nominees in November.
Candidate incentives: Candidates have less reason during the primary to persuade voters who are prohibited from participating.
Party growth: Requiring affiliation before participation creates another barrier between the Republican Party and voters it hopes to attract.
And perhaps most importantly:
Closing the primary does not guarantee the political philosophy, motivation, or intent of the voters who remain eligible.
A registered Republican is not necessarily conservative.
A determined voter can change party registration before the applicable deadline.
Which led us to one of the central conclusions of the entire case:
A closed primary can control the letter beside a voter’s name. It cannot control the voter’s philosophy, motivation, or intent.
Secretary of State Kris Warner also cited 23,627 unaffiliated voters who had previously chosen a Republican primary ballot.
Those voters existed.
They participated.
And under the closed-primary policy, voters like them must now change their party registration before they can again participate in selecting a Republican nominee.
EXHIBIT #5 — WHAT HAPPENED TO REPUBLICAN PRIMARY PARTICIPATION AFTER THE PRIMARY CLOSED?
Finally, we stopped talking about what might happen and examined what actually happened in the first closed Republican primary in more than four decades.
According to data provided by the West Virginia Secretary of State’s Office, Republican primary vote totals declined substantially from 2022 to 2026.
House of Delegates Republican primary vote totals declined by 28,812 votes.
State Senate Republican primary vote totals declined by 17,983 votes.
And the decline was not confined to one isolated race or one part of the state.
Individual House districts experienced substantial decreases, including District 84, down 1,028 votes; District 100, down 848; District 19, down 782; District 88, down 751; and District 43, down 747.
Senate races showed substantial declines as well, including District 3, down 3,301 votes; District 14, down 3,166; District 16, down 2,647; District 13, down 2,166; and District 1, down 2,085.
We should be precise about what those numbers prove.
They do not prove that closing the primary caused every lost vote. Many factors can influence primary turnout.
But they establish an important fact that cannot simply be dismissed:
After West Virginia closed its Republican primary to unaffiliated voters, Republican primary vote totals declined substantially in both House and Senate races.
At the same time, we already know that 23,627 unaffiliated voters had previously chosen to participate by selecting a Republican primary ballot.
We must ask ourselves whether excluding a demonstrated pool of previously participating voters was wise when the first election under the new policy produced substantially fewer Republican primary votes.
THE SUMMATION
So now the evidence must be weighed together.
Is strategic crossover voting a legitimate concern?
Yes.
Should Republicans care about protecting the integrity of their nominating process?
Absolutely.
But the question before us is larger.
Does the potential benefit of preventing strategic crossover voting outweigh the consequences of excluding nearly 30 percent of West Virginia’s registered electorate from participating in the Republican nominating process?
We have seen that closing the primary may reduce participation.
It may alienate conservative-minded voters.
It may create barriers to coalition growth.
It may reduce incentives for Republican candidates to persuade voters outside existing party registration.
And after all of that, it still cannot guarantee the philosophy, motivation, or intent of those who remain eligible to vote.
Meanwhile, the Democrat Party continues allowing unaffiliated voters to request its primary ballot.
So after the Opening and four exhibits, three principles continue to stand out:
Political majorities are built by addition—not subtraction.
A closed primary can control the letter beside a voter’s name. It cannot control the voter’s philosophy, motivation, or intent.
And finally:
You don’t strengthen a party by shrinking it.
The Republican Party became West Virginia’s dominant political party by persuading voters, attracting people to conservative principles, and building a broader coalition.
I submit that should remain our strategy.
Open the doors.
Make the conservative case.
Earn their votes.
This case has never been about winning an argument.
It has been about examining the evidence and doing what we believe is right as we work together to preserve and protect our Republic.
The Opening has been made.
Exhibits #1 through #4 have been presented.
The evidence is now before you – all 3,860 words of it.
