Blog

Posted on

Voter List Maintenance Cannot Stop the Trend as Major Parties Continue to Lose Voter Share

While routine list maintenance caused a drop in registered voters in June, 2017 both major political parties continue to bleed voter share. At the same time, as has been the trend, voter share of Non-Partisan and minor political parties continue to climb.
The list maintenance appears to have a general negative impact in Washoe County. In spite of this, the loss in voter share of both Non-Partisan and the minor parties is less than either the Democratic or Republican Party. Across the board, the sharpest growth in voter share is in the group “other” that includes the Green Party. In contrast, the Democratic Party lost voter share in all demographics and in all state senate districts and all but one state assembly district.
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-2,306
-0.40
39.30
-0.05
R
-1,280
-0.26
33.13
0.00
NP
-475
-0.15
21.00
0.02
Other
225
0.23
6.57
0.03
Total not D or R
27.57
0.05
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -0.41%; Lib +0.09%; other 5 parties +2.75%
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
1,802
0.41
42.96
-0.09
R
1,670
0.56
28.85
-0.01
NP
1,742
0.77
21.92
0.03
Other
1,107
1.73
6.27
0.07
Total not D or R
28.19
0.10
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.79%; Lib +1.39%; other 5 parties +5.14%
Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-4,085
-4.43
35.45
-0.12
R
-3,138
-3.25
37.60
0.33
NP
-2,412
-4.67
19.80
-0.12
Other
-986
-5.26
7.14
-0.09
Total not D or R
27.15
0.00
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -5.79%; Lib -3.83%; other 5 parties -4.76%
Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-23
-0.05
24.07
-0.07
R
188
0.20
50.98
-0.03
NP
195
0.60
17.46
0.06
Other
104
0.75
7.49
0.04
Total not D or R
24.95
0.10
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.80%; Lib +0.62%; other 5 parties +0.46%
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-1,260
-0.80
39.45
-0.04
R
-772
-0.86
22.51
-0.04
NP
-722
-0.61
29.81
0.03
Other
-7
-0.02
8.23
0.06
Total not D or R
38.04
0.09
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -0.88%; Lib -0.37%; other 5 parties +2.26%
55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-277
-0.11
39.77
-0.06
R
158
0.06
40.53
0.01
NP
237
0.27
14.45
0.03
Other
174
0.55
5.25
0.03
Total not D or R
19.70
0.06
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.14%; Lib 0.72%; other 5 parties +3.18%
 Major party loses also continue in congressional and legislative districts.
Congressional Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
4
0
0
Republican
2
1
1
Non-Partisan
1
3
0
Other
1
3
0
Both CD 1, CD 2, and CD 4 continue to show 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
11
10
0
Non-Partisan
6
14
1
Other
5
16
0
Unchanged. In 14 districts (66.7%) 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. Note the Democratic Party lost voter share in all districts. This raises questions about the party’s leadership claim of success during the just ended legislative session.
State Assembly Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
41
1
0
Republican
20
19
3
Non-Partisan
11
27
4
Other
7
34
1
Unchanged. In 31 districts (73.81%) 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 unchanged from last month. However, the fact that the Democratic Party lost voter share in all but one district cannot be overlooked.

Partisanship continues to divide our society. Nevada is not immune. Given Governor Sandoval’s 41 vetoes, future analysis of committee minutes and votes along with floor votes could very well show the role partisanship impacts Nevadans’ every-day lives.  
Posted on

Partisan Violence Will Not Heal The Wounds – Opinion

“Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier” (General Colin Powell).
I am by nature a perpetual optimist. I believe every problem has a solution. Some are just harder to find. But as much as members of the Democratic and Republican Party speak of unity following the shooting of Congressman Steve Scalise (R – LA), I cannot help but wonder; how long will this last? In spite of my optimistic nature, I believe the answer in “not long”.
To say this country is politically divided is an understatement. Partisan differences have always existed.  But the political environment has never been this toxic. Several studies, especially those conducted by Pew Research over the past few years, have shown not only do we disagree but this disagreement extends into all aspects of our lives. We no longer trust those who do not share our political beliefs. Recent polls even use the word “hate”. We make decisions on who we consider friends and how we relate to co-workers based on the level of political agreement. As one study surmises, we have become tribal. Our respect for freedom of speech has diminished to “only if you agree with me”.
The Congressional baseball game and similar events at all levels of government are meant to be one of those times when members of opposing views can put aside their differences and have fun together. Perhaps some have personal relationships totally opposite of what they present during public discussion and in the media. Why?
Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott and Tom Daschle. These leaders of different political persuasion worked together for the good of the nation. I’m certain there have been similar relationships at the state and local level. Those days are gone. Elected officials may begin their political careers to serve their constituents. However, it doesn’t take long for the focus to become the next election. As their constituents become polarized, elected officials must become similarly polarized if they wish to retain their seat. As more and more voters become frustrated with this process, the number of voters in the so-called “base” becomes smaller and more dogmatic. The politicians must follow or lose the next election.
Collaboration and cooperation by lawmakers should be the norm. Finding areas of agreement then respectfully working on solutions for those where there is not agreement is how solutions are reached. A shooting should not be the wake-up call. The alarm should have gone off years ago.
It will take more than an act of violence for sanity to return to our political system. It will take a total mental reset. Elected officials need to start listening to and re-engaging voters who have become disillusioned. The betterment of our cities, counties, states and nation depend on this and must become the focus. A minority of political party members do not present a picture of the whole.  
Members of all political parties are calling for unity. Hopefully I’m wrong. But the hate and divisiveness is too deep and the pattern of forgetting, I believe, will continue.

Posted on

As Partisanship Raises Its Head in the Legislature Major Parties Continue to Lose Voter Share

As I write this, the legislature is locked in partisan debate over education savings accounts, minimum wage, and the overall budget. Given this, it should be no surprise that voter registration numbers for May, 2017 again show the Democratic and Republican Party losing voter share across all but one demographic; the GOP gained voter share in Washoe County, while Non-Partisan and minor parties increase. And while there was an increase in the number of registered voters, Non-Partisan and minor parties also gained voters at a higher rate than either of the major parties.
Of special note:
In Clark County the difference in percentage of voters not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party is less than one percent
           
In the rural counties, the percentage of voters not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party is greater than the percent of the Democratic Party
Among 18 to 34 year olds, the percentage of voters registered as Non-Partisan is almost ten percent higher than those registered as Republican and the total not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party is within one and one-half percent of those registered as Democratic
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-197
-0.03
39.36
-0.04
R
-251
-0.05
33.13
-0.04
NP
835
0.27
20.98
0.05
Other
428
0.45
6.54
0.03
Total not D or R
27.52
0.08
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.20%; Lib +0.23%; other 5 parties +1.54%
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
1,122
0.25
43.05
-0.05
R
756
0.25
28.86
-0.03
NP
1,212
0.54
21.89
0.04
Other
658
1.04
6.20
0.04
Total not D or R
28.09
0.08
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.61%; Lib +0.79%; other 5 parties +2.69%
  
Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-1,393
-1.49
35.58
-0.02
R
-1,328
-1.36
37.27
0.03
NP
-691
-1.32
19.92
0.02
Other
-335
-1.76
7.23
-0.02
Total not D or R
27.15
0.00
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -1.68%; Lib -1.68%; other 5 parties -2.08%
  
Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
74
0.17
24.14
-0.07
R
321
0.34
51.01
-0.05
NP
314
0.98
17.40
0.09
Other
105
0.76
7.45
0.02
Total not D or R
24.85
0.11
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.72%; Lib +0.89%; other 5 parties +1.02%
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-520
-0.33
39.49
-0.06
R
-381
-0.42
22.55
-0.05
NP
37
0.03
29.78
0.07
Other
106
0.33
8.17
0.04
Total not D or R
37.95
0.11
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP 0.00%; Lib +0.06%; other 5 parties +1.32%
 55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
267
0.11
39.83
-0.03
R
378
0.15
40.52
-0.01
NP
351
0.40
14.42
0.03
Other
129
0.41
5.22
0.01
Total not D or R
19.64
0.04
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.34%; Lib -0.30%; other 5 parties +1.41%
Major party loses also continue in congressional and legislative districts.
Congressional Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
4
0
0
Republican
3
1
0
Non-Partisan
0
4
0
Other
1
3
0
Both CD 1 and CD 4continue to show 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. Additionally, with a shift in May in CD2, the number of voters not affiliated with either major party is within 5% difference against the Democratic Party.
State Senate Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
18
3
0
Republican
15
4
2
Non-Partisan
1
19
1
Other
2
18
1
Unchanged. In 14 districts (66.7%) 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
36
5
1
Republican
29
11
2
Non-Partisan
5
32
5
Other
5
33
4
Unchanged. In 31 districts (73.81%) 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 unchanged from last month.
Voters are not seeing any change in the approach of the two major political parties. Their frustration continues to manifest itself in how they register to vote. Given the voter suppression by the Democratic majority this session, I don’t expect any self-initiated change.

Posted on

Nevada Legislature’s Democratic Leadership Keeping Voter Suppression Alive and Well

Voter suppression can be defined as any attempt to curtail participation in the electoral process. It can be obvious; voter ID, reducing poll locations and hours, requiring proof of citizenship, or skillfully concealed; requiring membership in a specific political party to vote in a publicly funded election, stopping a bill that would restore the right of all voters to have a voice in who represents them, revoking the right to vote for a city official, or not expanding the way people can vote, increasing participation.
Voter suppression as public policy is unfathomable.  Yet this is exactly what the Democratic leadership in the Nevada legislature has done.
Senate Bill (SB) 103 introduced by Senator James Settelmeyer (R – Minden) would have changed the state’s closed primary system to a top-two open primary. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections and never got a hearing. When asked by a reporter for the Reno Gazette Journalwhether or not the bill would get a hearing, Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford (D – Las Vegas) replied, “We don’t feel it’s worthy of a hearing. Next question.” SB 103 would have expanded the voting opportunity for more than 400,000 registered voters, 27 percent of active registered voters. It is important to remember that primary elections are paid for by all tax payers. By including membership in a specific political party as a requirement to vote, Nevada is blocking the participation of voters in a publicly funded election.
Assembly bill (AB) 226 was introduced by Assemblyman Ira Hansen (R – Sparks) to reverse a change made during the 2015 legislative session that eliminated more than 60 percent of registered voters in some districts from having a say in who would represent them in the state legislature or on their county commission. Most of those voters were registered to vote as Democratic, Non-Partisan, or in one of the minor political parties. The bill passed out of the Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee on a vote of 9-2 with two of the seven Democratic members voting “no”. In spite of committee passage and three of the Democratic committee members, including the chair signing on as co-sponsors, the Assembly Democratic Majority Leader decided not to bring the bill to a floor vote killing the bill after discussion with the Assembly Democratic caucus.
The Senate Government Affairs Committee introduced SB 434 at the request of Senators  Julia Ratti (D – Sparks) and Tick Segerblom (D – Las Vegas).  The bill changes the cities of Sparks and Reno city charters making their city attorney appointed rather than elected as written in the original charter. Neither Senators Ratti or Segerblom nor the government affairs committee received a request from either city asking for this change. The bill passed the senate along party lines with all Democratic caucus members voting in favor to unilaterally revoke this voter approved choice. In the assembly, five Democratic members joined Republicans in voting “no” but with overwhelming Democratic support, the bill passed revoking a ballot voters have been casting for over 40 years. The governor vetoed the bill.
SB 93 introduced by Senator Joe Hardy (R – Henderson) on behalf of the city of Henderson changes the city charter to allow elections to be conducted by mail, potentially removing obstacles to casting a ballot. The bill received a committee hearing but not a vote and therefore died.
Last session, the Democratic minority blocked changing presidential caucuses to primaries. This session, in the majority, they did not allow a vote, placing Nevada’s role in national party politics above voter participation. They also did not advance a bill having Nevada award its Electoral College votes to the winner of the nation popular vote for president.
Remember, the Democratic Party controls both chambers of the Nevada legislature and determines what bills get hearings and votes and what bills die.
“Publicly funded election”. These are the key words. Political parties are private organizations and as such are protected by the U.S. Constitution’s first amendment rights or association. When performing functions related to the internal operation of the party, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld these rights versus the state’s right to conduct open and fair elections. Selecting a nominee to represent the party in the general election is such an internal operation. This is why political parties pay for nomination caucuses and conventions. A primary election, restricted to members of a particular party is identical to a caucus or convention. Since these elections are funded with tax dollars, blocking participation simply based on party registration is a form of voter suppression.
When voters are prevented from casting a ballot for any candidate who will represent them in a legislative body, the winning candidate cannot truly claim they represent the district. Even when two candidates in a general election are members of the same political party, all voters should have the right to vote for the candidate they prefer regardless of the voters’ political party affiliation. When primaries are closed and only a small percentage of one party goes to the polls to select the candidate that will then be unopposed in the general election, this is voter suppression.
A city charter is similar to a constitution. The charter is approved by the state legislature and any changes to it must likewise be approved by the legislature. The city charters of Sparks, approved in 1975 and Reno, approved in 1971 identify the city attorney as an elected position. In 1991, the voters of Sparks reaffirmed their desire to keep this right. The charter committees of Sparks and Reno did not request this change to their charters. The voters of Sparks and Reno did not request this change. By unilaterally putting forth this change, the Democratic members of the legislature are revoking a vote that citizens have been allowed to cast for over 40 years, suppressing the right of the citizens of Sparks and Reno to elect their city attorney as currently required by their city charter.
In a slightly different scenario, the Democratic senate caucus is suppressing the voting rights of the citizens of Henderson. City leadership requested a change to their charter that would make it easier for citizens to vote as well as achieve a much needed cost savings. The bill was heard but not voted on by the Senate Government Affairs Committee. Preventing a process that would allow more citizens to vote from being implemented is voter suppression.  
When Governor Brian Sandoval vetoed the legislature’s party line passage (Democratic majority) of IP-1, the automatic voter registration initiative, Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson (D – Las Vegas) was quoted in the Nevada Independent; “Nevadans agree that we need to have a voting system that protects the fundamental right of every eligible voter— Democrat, Republican, non-partisan or otherwise. Voting is a right, not a privilege and we should make it easy for Nevadans to hold their own government accountable.”

In their Nevada Blueprint for the current session of the legislature, the Democratic Caucus is clearly focused on voting rights. “We also need to protect our heritage. That means preserving Nevada’s natural environment, protecting our constitutional rights, and making it easier for our citizens to participate in the democratic process.”
These two statements seem contradictory to the action taken on the bills highlighted. Voter suppression can be obvious or skillfully concealed. The end result is the same; voter participation is curtailed by policy, process, or action. Voter suppression is alive and well in Carson City. 

Posted on

April Voter Registration Not Good for Major Parties

Voter registration for April 2017 again was not kind to either the Democratic or Republican Party. Once again, they lost voter share over most demographics while the percentage of voters registered as Non-Partisan and in one of the minor parties increased.
The only bright spots for either of the major political parties were in Washoe County where the GOP gained, in the rural counties where both parties gained, and among 18 – 34 year olds where the Democratic Party gained.
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-227
-0.04
39.39
0.00
R
-1,026
-0.21
33.16
-0.06
NP
272
0.09
20.93
0.03
Other
351
0.37
6.52
0.03
Total not D or R
27.45
0.06
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP 0.00%; Lib +0.45%; other 5 parties +1.71%
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
1,492
0.34
43.10
-0.04
R
978
0.33
28.89
-0.03
NP
1,279
0.57
21.85
0.03
Other
764
1.22
6.16
0.05
Total not D or R
28.01
0.08
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.74%; Lib +1.02%; other 5 parties +3.06%
Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-1,110
-1.17
35.60
-0.08
R
-726
-0.74
37.24
0.08
NP
-505
-0.96
19.90
0.00
Other
-212
-1.10
7.25
-0.01
Total not D or R
27.15
-0.01
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -1.18%; Lib -0.31%; other 5 parties -1.49%
  Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-609
-1.34
24.21
0.01
R
-1,278
-1.34
51.06
0.03
NP
-502
-1.54
17.31
-0.03
Other
-201
-1.44
7.42
-0.01
Total not D or R
24.73
-0.04
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -1.51%; Lib -0.83%; other 5 parties -1.82%
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-434
-0.27
39.55
0.05
R
-913
-1.00
22.60
-0.14
NP
-301
-0.25
29.72
0.05
Other
29
0.09
8.13
0.04
Total not D or R
37.85
0.09
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -0.48%; Lib +0.40%; other 5 parties +1.18%
55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
215
0.09
39.86
-0.03
R
235
0.10
40.53
-0.02
NP
294
0.34
14.39
0.03
Other
167
0.53
5.21
0.02
Total not D or R
19.60
0.05
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.40%; Lib +0.30%; other 5 parties +1.60%
 Major party loses also continue in congressional and legislative districts.
Congressional Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
4
0
0
Republican
3
1
0
Non-Partisan
1
3
0
Other
1
3
0
Unchanged. Both CD 1 and CD 4continue to show 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. In CD2 the number of voters not affiliated with either major party is rapidly approaching the 5% difference against the Democratic Party (5.07%)
State Senate Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
17
2
2
Republican
17
4
0
Non-Partisan
4
17
0
Other
3
18
1
Unchanged. In 14 districts (66.7%) 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
34
4
4
Republican
31
10
1
Non-Partisan
7
32
3
Other
7
32
3
Unchanged. In 31 districts (73.81%) 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 unchanged from last month.
The 2017 legislative session has past the midway point. Voters appear not to be impressed and continue to express that in their voter registrations.

Posted on

As Number of Registered Voters Declines Dems Take The Biggest Hit

March 2017 saw the number of active registered voters in Nevada decline by almost 32,000 and while the Republican Party, Non-Partisan, and minor parties still posted growth in voter share with minor exception, the Democratic Party continued to lose share across all tracked demographics.
Of note, in Clark County the percentage of voters not affiliated with either major party is less than one percent (0.99%) of the Republican Party. In the rural counties the percent not affiliated with the major parties exceeds that registered in the Democratic Party by 0.57% and among voters 18 to 34 years of age the percent registered as Non-Partisan exceeds the percent registered as Republican by 6.93% while the percent not registered as either Democratic or Republican is just 1.74% less than those registered to vote as Democratic.
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-14,463
-2.43
39.39
-0.12
R
-8,447
-1.69
33.22
0.14
NP
-7,183
-2.28
20.90
-0.03
Other
1,879
-1.92
6.49
0.01
Total not D or R
27.39
-0.02
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -1.75%; Lib -1.74%; other 5 parties -2.75%
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-14,362
-3.15
43.14
-0.04
R
-8,611
-2.83
28.92
0.07
NP
-7,418
-3.22
21.82
-0.03
Other
-1,968
-3.05
6.11
0.00
Total not D or R
27.93
-0.03
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -2.83%; Lib -3.13%; other 5 parties -3.77%
 Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-160
-0.17
35.68
-0.04
R
-63
-0.06
37.16
0.00
NP
27
0.05
19.90
0.02
Other
9
0.05
7.26
0.00
Total not D or R
27.16
0.02
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.10%; Lib +0.59%; other 5 parties -0.57%
Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
59
0.13
24.20
-0.04
R
227
0.24
51.03
-0.04
NP
208
0.64
17.34
0.06
Other
80
0.58
7.43
0.02
Total not D or R
24.77
0.08
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.48%; Lib +0.78%; other 5 parties +1.20%
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-5,969
-3.64
39.50
-0.12
R
-2,949
-3.14
22.74
0.05
NP
-3,930
-3.21
29.67
0.04
Other
-967
-3.57
8.09
0.04
Total not D or R
37.76
0.08
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -2.83%; Lib -2.31%; other 5 parties -3.57%
55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-3,205
-1.31
39.89
-0.13
R
-1,910
-0.77
40.55
0.09
NP
-742
-0.85
14.36
0.02
Other
-237
-0.75
5.19
0.01
Total not D or R
19.55
0.03
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -0.76%; Lib -0.30%; other 5 parties -0.98%
Major party loses also continue in congressional and legislative districts.
Congressional Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
4
0
0
Republican
0
4
0
Non-Partisan
3
1
0
Other
1
2
1
Both CD 1 and CD 4continue to show 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. In CD2 the number of voters not affiliated with either major party is rapidly approaching the 5% difference against the Democratic Party (5.07%)
State Senate Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
17
3
1
Republican
5
15
1
Non-Partisan
12
9
0
Other
11
9
1
In 14 districts (66.7%) 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 last month.
State Assembly Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
31
9
2
Republican
12
27
3
Non-Partisan
17
24
1
Other
15
22
5
In 31 districts (73.81%) 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 unchanged from last month.
With the Democratic Party continuing its decline, one has to wonder why state senate leadership felt it unnecessary to reach out to the growing Non-Partisan and minor party voters. Was killing the open primary bill, SB 103 in the best interest of the party? Voter registration trends provide the answer.

Posted on

Does Speaker’s Statement Imply Support for SB 103? – Opinion

Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval has vetoed the legislature’s party line passage of IP-1. This initiative would have replaced the state’s current opt-in system of voter registration at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) with an opt-out automatic voter registration process. The measure will now be decided by the voters in the November, 2018 general election.

In response to the veto, Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson was quoted in the Nevada Independent;
“Nevadans agree that we need to have a voting system that protects the fundamental right of every eligible voter— Democrat, Republican, non-partisan or otherwise. Voting is a right, not a privilege and we should make it easy for Nevadans to hold their own government accountable.  While I’m disappointed by the governor’s decision to veto IP1, I look forward to the people having the final say in 2018.”

Does the Speaker’s statement imply support for SB 103? In a top-two open primary election the right of every voter, regardless of party affiliation, to participate in publicly funded elections is protected. In a top-two open primary election the right of every candidate to face the voters in all phases of the election process is protected. With full participation as provided for in a top-two open primary, the opportunity for Nevadans to hold their elected officials accountable is maximized.

“..a voting system that protects the fundamental right of every eligible voter— Democrat, Republican, non-partisan or otherwise.”

“Voting is a right, not a privilege..”

“..make it easy for Nevadans to hold their own government accountable.”

In their Nevada Blueprint for the current session of the legislature, the Democratic Caucus is clearly focused on voting rights. “We also need to protect our heritage. That means preserving Nevada’s natural environment, protecting our constitutional rights, and making it easier for our citizens to participate in the democratic process.”

“..making it easier for our citizens to participate in the democratic process.” 

Reading these statements I find it difficult understand Democratic opposition to SB 103. The only concerns I have heard is that a top-two open primary will not benefit the party and that if voters want to participate in the primary they can register in the party. 

Benefits to the party? Yes. Voters have left and continue to leave or not affiliate with both major political parties because the parties do not represent them. This trend continues every month and is most pronounced among voter between the ages of 18 to 34. Under a top-two open primary, candidates must reach out to a broader range of voters. As this happens, the parties will return to representing those voters. Because the desire to belong is human nature, voters would most likely return to the parties. Also as the parties and their candidates demonstrate more inclusiveness they would most like draw more support.

Parties rights of association; voters can register if they want to participate in the primary? The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld that a top-two open primary where the top two vote getters, regardless of party affiliation, move forward to the general election does not violate a political party’s right of association. Saying voters can join a party also ignores why voters are knowingly withdrawing from the process and why Non-Partisan is the only category gaining voter share across all demographics month after month while both the Democratic and Republican Party lose voter share. 

Reading Speaker Frierson’s statement on Governor Sandoval’s veto of IP-1 and the Democratic Caucus’ Nevada Blueprint, the assumption would be that the Democratic Caucus in the Nevada legislature would be in full support of SB 103. Instead it appears efforts to block even a hearing are in full swing. 
Posted on

Democratic Party Losses Outpace GOP While Non-Partisan and Minor Parties Continue to Gain

The 2017 session of the Nevada Legislature is finishing its first month and Voter registration numbers for February, 2017 do not bode well for the majority party.
The Democratic Party lost voter share across all tracked demographics. The Republican Party lost share except in Washoe County and stayed even in the rural counties. However, the news remains positive for Non-Partisan and minor parties, continuing the trend of gaining voter share.
Of note is the growth percentage for the Libertarian Party in Clark County, among those 55 and over and state-wide; 1.00%, 0.76%, and 0.74% respectively. The Independent American Party also posted a 0.89% growth in Clark County, however, there is always a question as to how many of those voters thought they were registering as independents (Non-Partisan).
The Democratic Party also lost ground in virtually all state senate and assembly districts while the Republican Party voter share losses and gains were about even.
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
494
0.08
39.51
-0.04
R
682
0.14
33.07
-0.02
NP
1,271
0.40
20.94
0.05
Other
360
0.37
6.48
0.02
Total not D or R
27.42
0.07
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.45%; Lib +0.74%; other 5 parties -0.21%
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
1,417
0.31
43.18
-0.05
R
1,208
0.40
28.85
-0.01
NP
1,499
0.65
21.85
0.04
Other
456
0.71
6.11
0.01
Total not D or R
27.96
0.05
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.89%; Lib +1.00%; other 5 parties -0.11%
 Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-640
-0.67
35.71
-0.11
R
-195
-0.20
37.16
0.07
NP
-149
-0.28
19.88
0.02
Other
-35
-0.18
7.26
0.02
Total not D or R
27.14
0.04
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -0.20%; Lib -0.22%; other 5 parties -0.44%
Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-283
-0.62
24.24
-0.06
R
-331
-0.35
51.07
0.03
NP
-79
-0.24
17.28
0.03
Other
-35
-0.18
7.41
0.00
Total not D or R
24.69
0.03
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP -0.58%; Lib +0.42%; other 5 parties -0.55%
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
-119
-0.07
39.62
-0.01
R
-180
-0.19
22.69
-0.04
NP
82
0.07
29.63
0.03
Other
19
-0.06
8.06
0.01
Total not D or R
37.69
0.04
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.17%; Lib +0.55%; other 5 parties -0.62%
55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
444
0.18
40.01
-0.06
R
825
0.33
40.46
0.00
NP
483
0.55
14.34
0.03
Other
183
0.58
5.18
0.01
Total not D or R
19.52
0.04
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.55%; Lib +0.76%; other 5 parties +0.63%
Major party loses also continue in congressional and legislative districts.
Congressional Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
4
0
0
Republican
2
1
1
Non-Partisan
0
4
0
Other
0
4
0
Both CD 1 and CD 4continue to show 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
20
1
0
Republican
9
11
1
Non-Partisan
2
18
1
Other
2
19
0
In 13 districts (61.9%) 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 unchanged from last month.
State Assembly Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
37
2
3
Republican
21
18
3
Non-Partisan
8
32
2
Other
6
32
4
In 31 districts (73.81%) 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 unchanged from last month.
The percent of voters not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party is on a pace to equal and perhaps surpass the percent registered to vote in one of the major parties. Among those 18 to 34 years of age, the number of Non-Partisan is seven percentage points higher than those registered in the GOP and the total not affiliated with a major party is only two percent lower than the percent registered as Democratic.

Posted on

Some Interesting Facts

Did you know:
Nevada currently uses the top-two primary for non-partisan offices such as city council and judges.
Nevada did not require party affiliation on voter registration until 1909 and in the primary elections from 1910 through 1916 all candidates were listed on the same ballot allowing all voters to cast their vote.

If automatic voter registration is enacted this legislative session, voters who do not specify a party will be automatically registered as Non-Partisan and not be allowed to vote in the primary election for most offices under the current system; an unintended consequence.  

Posted on

SB 103 We Have a Bill

Senator Settelmeyer’s top-two primary bill just had its first reading on the floor of the Nevada Senate. The bill is SB 103. You can read it here.

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/79th2017/BDR/BDR79_24-0521.pdf

Proudly powered by WordPress