A ballot initiative that would transform the way Nevada elections are conducted could enhance voter accessibility, supporters of the initiative say.

Opponents of the measure, however, argue it would bring confusion to voters, longer lines at polling sites, discarded ballots and eventually diminish voter confidence.

Passage of the ballot initiative, Question 3, would change the Nevada Constitution to allow voters — regardless of party affiliation — to participate in primaries and also institutes ranked-choice voting in general elections.

The question is a replay from the 2022 general election, when 53% of Nevada voters supported the initiative to again bring it to the ballot. If it receives the majority of votes next month, it will be used beginning with elections in 2026.

Sondra Cosgrove, the executive director of Vote Nevada and a professor at the College of Southern Nevada, is advocating for the passage of Question 3 because she said the current voting system disqualifies nonpartisan voters. The initiative would bridge that disparity, she said.

The goal, after all, is to get as many residents as possible to have their voice heard at the ballot box.

“We adopted automatic voter registration in 2019 and now all of a sudden, our nonpartisan voter registration skyrocketed,” Cosgrove said. “And we all started worrying ‘are we getting these voters enough information to know that they’re going to be disenfranchised in all the closed primary races?’ ”

Nearly 34% of voters are nonpartisan in Nevada’s pool of 1.9 million active registered voters, according to the secretary of state’s office.

Attempting to secure the vote of nonpartisans would encourage candidates appeal to a broader audience on the campaign trail, those in favor of the initiative say.

The changes would apply to most partisan races, including Congress, governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general and the state legislature. After the primary, the top five leading candidates would advance to the general election, which would be decided through ranked-choice voting.

The ranked-choice process calls for voters to select five candidates and rank them in order of preference, first through fifth. Some voters will make just one choice — and that’s just fine.

Some refer to the system as “instant runoff voting,” meaning a candidate who secures at least 50% of the top-choice votes is the winner.

If there is no candidate who immediately receives the majority of first-place votes, then the contender with the lowest amount of votes is eliminated from the count.

The voters who chose that eliminated candidate as their first choice would then have their vote transferred to whoever they placed second. That process continues until one candidate obtains more than 50% of votes.

If the measure is enacted, Nevada could join Alaska and Maine with ranked-choice voting.

When Cosgrove first heard about the system, she said she thought, “Oh that’s math, I don’t like math.” But then she began to think about how it might provide a platform to candidates who otherwise may not have had a strong chance to progress.

“I thought that might be a way to get more younger people to get moved forward to the general election when they run as a candidate,” Cosgrove said. “Maybe they can’t win, but at least their voices would still be heard and they would still be represented.”

Bradley Schrager, an elections lawyer in Nevada, opposes the initiative because the changes would be incredibly difficult to alter if residents are dissatisfied. Changes to the Nevada Constitution require approval from voters.

“In a state where elections are incredibly close, like they are in Nevada, that seems like it would have an outsized impact,” Schrager said. “And right now, it’s unnecessary.”

Schrager also chalked up the increase in nonpartisan voters to automatic voter registration laws.

When someone registers to vote, say at the Department of Motor Vehicles when moving to the state, they are marked as nonpartisan and must change their affiliation.

Many don’t follow through.

“The idea that they’re just a disenfranchised group who need to be championed by this initiative is, once again, simply not true,” Schrager added.

Those against the initiative say the amount of out-of-state funding in campaign advertising for the question’s passage raises concern because it’s a reflection of the initiative not serving the interests of residents.

Much of the $5.7 million funding for the “Vote Yes on 3” political action committee came from two election reform organizations: Article IV based in Virginia and Unite America out of Colorado, according to the group’s finance reports.

For Schrager, the outside donors demonstrate that the effort is more of external donors looking to run an experiment that they could try out in states with larger populations.

“If you have an idea for reform or for social policy that you want to put on the ballot and test out messages and procedures, Nevada’s a pretty good place to get your money’s worth,” Schrager said.

Raising funds for ballot initiatives is expensive in Nevada, especially when facing legal challenges, Cosgrove said. A lawsuit in 2021 unsuccessfully tried to block the initiative from appearing on the 2022 ballot.

Those in favor of the plan couldn’t have come up with that money without external support, Cosgrove said.

“When the opponents to Ballot Question 3 say this is just outsiders trying to push this on Nevadans, that is not true,” Cosgrove said.

[email protected] / 702-990-8923 / @haajrahgilani





Source link

Share:

administrator