At First Deadline GOP Election Bills Succumb to Partisan Disease

By Doug Goodman -Founder & Executive Director Nevadans for Election Reform

As the Nevada legislature reached the first deadline for legislation to advance (first committee passage), Republican-sponsored election bills died their expected death.

Thirty-seven election related bills were introduced, 25 by Republican legislators, 12 by Democratic.

Of the 25 Republican-sponsored bills, 20 (80 percent) did not receive a hearing. One bill was heard but did not receive a vote. Three (3): expanding registration deadline for military overseas voters, lowering the contribution and expenditure reporting dollar threshold for political action committees, adding campaign text messages to those requiring identification of who is paying, were passed by the committee and sent to the floor. One (1) bill, increasing the oversight of poll observers was declared “exempt” and may still be heard.  

The 12 Democratic-sponsored bills fared much better. All 12 (100 percent) received a hearing, eight (8) were passed and sent for floor votes, one (1) was heard but did not get a vote, and three (3) were declared “exempt” and could advance.

What Republican-sponsored bills succumbed:

  • Six (6) called for all or partial repeal of AB4, the major election bill passed during special session, or voter ID. These were dead on arrival as Democratic leadership announced prior to the session these bills would not advance.
  • SB130 would establish a presidential primary to be held with the state primary in June. This was similar to AB126, the Democratic bill to have the presidential primary in January.
  • SB111 would have created a hybrid (both elected and appointed member) school board for Clark and Washoe county. This was similar to AB255 which was the only Democratic-sponsored bill to not make it out of committee.
  • SB121 would have replaced the state’s closed partisan primaries with top-two nonpartisan open primaries.
  • SB256 would have allowed for the use of electronic signatures on initiative petitions.
  • SJR9 would have created a redistricting commission to draw Congressional and state legislative district boundaries.
  • SB79 would have allowed the city of Laughlin to incorporate.
  • AB218 would have allowed an incumbent county sheriff or constable to campaign in uniform. This bill was heard but did not receive a vote.
  • AB263 would require signature verification equipment and personnel to be audited. This was added to AB321, the Democratic bill making AB4 all mail ballot election permanent.
  • AJR11 would have changed the state constitution regarding “none of the above”.
  • SB270 would have added state constitutional officers (attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, controller) to the fundraising blackout period before, during, and after a legislative session.
  • AB328 would have allowed funeral directors to report deaths directly to the county clerks and registrars of voters.
  • SB5 would have allowed for write-in candidates.
  • AB264 would require county clerks and registrars of voters to certify they performed voter roll maintenance prior to an election.
  • SB301 was similar to AB321 making mail ballots permanent but had other differences.
  • AB297 called for making the Clark and Washoe county registrar of voters an elected rather than appointed position.

Were some of these bills controversial? Were some driven by negative perceptions of the last election? Did some address valid issues? Yes, yes, and yes. Would our political and legislative process have benefited from open public discussion? Most definitely.

Over One-Third of Voters Not Members of Either Major Party; Strong Showing in All Legislative Districts

By Doug Goodman -Founder & Executive Director Nevadans for Election Reform

With the 81st Nevada legislature session in full swing and bills such as making mail voting changes from the general election permanent and providing for straight-ticket voting being heard in committee, there was a very slight (0.04%) drop in the number of registered voters in March. However, both the Democratic and Republican Party continue to lose voter share across all demographics while Non-Partisan and the minor parties continue to gain.

There are 67 legislative districts in the state: four (4) Congressional, 21 State Senate, and 42 State Assembly. In ALL districts, the percentage of voters NOT registered to vote as members of the Democratic or Republican Party now either exceeds or is within five (5) percent of the share of one of the major parties. The number of voters in this group is over one-third of all voters state-wide, in both Clark and Washoe County, and voters 18 to 34 years of age. In the rural counties, the percentage is just below 30 percent (29.15%) State-wide and in Clark County, this number exceeds the voter share of the Republican Party. Among voters between the ages of 18 to 34, this number exceeds that of both major parties with Non-Partisan voter share topping that of the Republican Party by 13 percent.

State-Wide

PartyChange in # Voters% Change% Voter ShareDifference in Voter Share %
D-4,708-0.72%36.01%-0.25%
R-4,855-0.85%31.54%-0.26%
NP5,3781.22%24.81%0.31%
IAP-230-0.28%4.56%-0.01%
LIB-19-0.11%0.98%0.00%
Other3,79211.10%2.10%0.21%
Total not D or R  32.45%0.51%

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 2020 they
were counted as Non-Partisan. 

Clark County

PartyChange in # Voters% Change% Voter ShareDifference in Voter Share %
D-2,599-0.52%39.15%-0.33%
R-1,927-0.54%27.68%-0.24%
NP5,1251.60%25.61%0.32%
IAP1720.31%4.41%0.00%
LIB400.36%0.87%0.00%
Other3,15312.22%2.28%0.24%
Total not D or R  33.16%0.56%

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 2020 they
were counted as Non-Partisan

Washoe County

PartyChange in # Voters% Change% Voter ShareDifference in Voter Share %
D-474-0.44%34.07%-0.23%
R-443-0.41%34.10%-0.22%
NP1,1711.57%23.95%0.31%
IAP360.25%4.62%0.00%
LIB110.27%1.29%0.00%
Other4377.51%1.98%0.13%
Total not D or R  31.83%0.44%

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 2020 they
were counted as Non-Partisan

Rural Counties

PartyChange in # Voters% Change% Voter ShareDifference in Voter Share %
D-1,635-3.53%20.51%-0.24%
R-2,485-2.22%50.34%0.09%
NP-918-1.94%21.35%0.10%
IAP-438-3.59%5.40%-0.07%
LIB-70-2.73%1.15%0.00%
Other2028.00%1.25%0.12%
Total not D or R  29.15%0.15%

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 2020 they
were counted as Non-Partisan

18 – 34 Year Old

PartyChange in # Voters% Change% Voter ShareDifference in Voter Share %
D-846-0.46%36.52%-0.37%
R-845-0.80%20.67%-0.28%
NP3,0301.81%33.70%0.41%
IAP-2-0.01%4.69%-0.03%
LIB-20-0.25%1.60%-0.01%
Other1,49311.66%2.82%0.28%
Total not D or R  42.81%0.65%

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 2020 they
were counted as Non-Partisan

55+

PartyChange in # Voters% Change% Voter ShareDifference in Voter Share %
D-3,246-1.19%36.85%-0.19%
R-2,996-1.02%40.03%-0.13%
NP5690.46%17.05%0.20%
IAP-281-0.89%4.31%-0.01%
LIB-26-0.81%0.44%0.00%
Other90910.32%1.33%0.13%
Total not D or R  23.13%0.32%

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 2020 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
Democratic400
Republican400
NP040
IAP301
LIB103
Other040

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
Democratic2100
Republican2010
NP1200
IAP948
LIB3414
Other0210

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
Democratic4200
Republican4220
NP1410
IAP21156
LIB141216
Other0420

In all 42 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.

The legislative session is a partisan affair, especially when one party has a large majority in both chambers. Bills are often not given committee hearings based solely on whether the bill was introduced by a member of the majority party or not. Voter registration numbers continue to indicate this may not be a preferred method.