AB 126 to replace the major party caucuses with a presidential preference primary was introduced on Feb 15, 2021. The bill is sponsored by Assemblyman Jason Frierson, Assemblywoman Teresa Benitez-Thompson, and Assemblywoman Brittney Miller.
The primary will be used to “…determine the preferences of the registered voters of a major political party regarding the party’s nominee for President of the United States.” (Sec.1)
Delegates selected by the party to their national convention “…must reasonably reflect the results of the presidential preference primary election if one has been held for the party.” (Sec. 5)
The bill requires the primary to be the first nominating event in the among the 13 western states. (Sec. 43) It will actually be the first in the nation.
Clearly, the intent is for Nevada to have a major impact on the nomination process of both major political party presidential candidates.
Section 1 of the bill clearly states the winner should reflect the preference of the registered voters of each party. I’m sure the desire and priority of the party is for the party’s nominee to have the broadest support, to unite the party behind the candidate, and to avoid intra-party conflict during the nominating process.
Section 5 clearly directs the party to select delegates to their national convention who represent that preference.
However, given the timing of the primary and the potential for numerous candidates at that particular time in the process, Section 46 of the bill creates a high likelihood that the winner of the primary; the winner of the state’s national convention delegates, will actually be a candidate with a small plurality of primary votes not meeting the desired outcome of Section 1; “Such a registered voter may vote for only one qualified candidate on the ballot as the voter’s preference for the nominee for President of the United States for the party.”
The Nevada Democratic Party was highly successful in overcoming this potential outcome during the early voting process of the nominating caucus last February. Party members were allowed to rank their candidate preferences in order, ensuring, should their preferred candidate not be viable, their voice would still be heard. Party members who participated in caucus early voting overwhelmingly liked this system and found it easy. Using a similar process in a crowded primary field would ensure the goal or section 1 would be achieved.
Please contact Speaker Frierson; via email Jason.frierson@asm.state.nv.us or phone 775-684-8537 and urge him, in the name of party unity and cohesion, to allow party members to rank candidates in order of preference so the winner of the primary (and the state’s delegates) truly reflect the desire of a majority of party voters.
By Doug Goodman -Founder & Executive Director Nevadans for Election Reform
For a reason most likely associated with the challenges to the presidential election, voter registration data for December 2020 was delayed, posted on February 1, 2021 along with the January 2021 numbers. While the state saw a decline in the number of active registered voters both months, the voter share trends showed no signs of abating. Voters continued to leave both the Democratic and Republican Party across all tracked demographics, choosing to register as either Non-Partisan or in a minor political party. The tables below, which reflect the changes as of January 31, 2021 will also show the change for 2020.
With the start of the Nevada legislative session, it is also important to note that as of the end of January 2021, all state senate districts and 41 of the 42 state assembly districts now fall into our category of non-major party voter share being within five percent or exceeding the voter share of at least one of the major political parties.
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
% Change for 2020
D
-14,307
-2.14%
36.43%
-0.21%
-1.66%
R
-14,730
-2.49%
32.05%
-0.30%
-0.90%
NP
-3,834
-0.87%
24.26%
0.17%
1.93%
IAP
-348
-0.42%
4.57%
0.05%
0.05%
LIB
-262
-1.47%
0.98%
0.00%
-0.04%
Other
4,530
17.25%
1.71%
0.28%
0.62%
Total not D or R
31.52%
0.50%
2.56%
Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others. The large increase is due to a change in how voters who do not indicate a minor party are counted. Prior to August they were counted as Non-Partisan.
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
% Change for 2020
D
-13,210
-2.58%
39.70%
-0.23%
-2.02%
R
-11,213
-3.07%
28.15%
-0.31%
-0.61%
NP
-4,504
-1.41%
25.05%
0.15%
1.87%
IAP
-420
-0.75%
4.40%
0.06%
0.11%
LIB
-273
-2.44%
0.87%
0.00%
-0.05%
Other
3,808
19.77%
1.83%
0.33%
0.71%
Total not D or R
32.15%
0.54%
2.63%
Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others. The large increase is due to a change in how voters who do not indicate a minor party are counted. Prior to August they were counted as Non-Partisan
Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
% Change for 2020
D
-120
-0.11%
34.39%
-0.13%
-0.65%
R
-952
-0.87%
34.54%
-0.40%
-1.48%
NP
1,242
1.71%
23.47%
0.33%
1.65%
IAP
134
0.94%
4.60%
0.03%
4.57%
LIB
41
1.03%
1.28%
0.01%
1.28%
Other
496
10.15%
1.71%
0.15%
1.56%
Total not D or R
31.07%
0.52%
2.12%
Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others. The large increase is due to a change in how voters who do not indicate a minor party are counted. Prior to August they were counted as Non-Partisan
Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
% Change for 2020
D
-977
-2.04%
20.92%
-0.06%
-1.57%
R
-2,565
-2.22%
50.45%
-0.24%
-1.12%
NP
-572
-1.20%
20.96%
0.11%
2.55%
IAP
-62
-0.50%
5.44%
0.07%
0.07%
LIB
-30
-1.15%
1.14%
0.01%
0.01%
Other
226
10.73%
0.81%
0.12%
0.12%
Total not D or R
28.63%
0.31%
2.69%
Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others. The large increase is due to a change in how voters who do not indicate a minor party are counted. Prior to August they were counted as Non-Partisan
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
% Change for 2020
D
-6,068
-3.16%
37.20%
-0.30%
-1.66%
R
-3,747
-3.41%
21.19%
-0.23%
-0.73%
NP
-3,213
-1.91%
32.95%
0.16%
1.69%
IAP
-537
-2.21%
4.74%
0.01%
0.07%
LIB
-237
-2.85%
1.62%
-0.01%
-0.12%
Other
1,626
16.35%
2.31%
0.37%
0.75%
Total not D or R
41.61%
0.53%
2.40%
Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others. The large increase is due to a change in how voters who do not indicate a minor party are counted. Prior to August they were counted as Non-Partisan
55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
% Change for 2020
D
-3,906
-1.42%
37.12%
-0.12%
-1.13%
R
-6,160
-2.04%
40.39%
-0.39%
-0.54%
NP
443
0.36%
16.68%
0.24%
1.29%
IAP
314
1.01%
4.29%
0.09%
0.01%
LIB
10
0.31%
0.44%
0.01%
-0.03%
Other
1,176
17.51%
1.08%
0.17%
0.40%
Total not D or R
22.49%
0.51%
1.68%
Other includes Green Party, Natural Law Party, and others. The large increase is due to a change in how voters who do not indicate a minor party are counted. Prior to August they were counted as Non-Partisan
By district voter share changes.
Congressional Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
4
0
0
Republican
4
0
0
Non-Partisan
0
4
0
IAP
0
4
0
LIB
1
1
2
Other
0
4
0
In all Congressional districts (100 percent of the districts) the number of voters not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties.
State Senate Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
21
0
0
Republican
21
0
0
Non-Partisan
1
20
0
IAP
3
18
0
LIB
8
9
4
Other
0
21
0
In all 21 districts (100%) the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan or the total number not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties.
State Assembly Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
40
1
1
Republican
40
2
0
Non-Partisan
2
40
0
IAP
8
33
1
LIB
15
16
11
Other
0
42
0
In 41 districts (97.62%) the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan or the total number not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties. This is an increase of one district over December.
With the legislative session set to act on issues that usually show a high degree of partisanship, will Democratic and Republican legislators keep voter affiliation in mind, especially when they tackle Constitutionally mandated redistricting in a special session immediately following adjournment of the regular session in June?
