Blog

Posted on

Race for Washoe County School Board District C – Another Justification for NEMRA – 2017

The race for Washoe County School District Board of Trustees District C trustee has become a textbook example of why the 2017 session of the Nevada legislature needs to enact the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – 2017 (NEMRA – 2017).
Because the incumbent resigned before completing one-half their term and after the filing deadline for the primary election, the new school board trustee could be elected with the support of less than 15 percent of the registered voters in the district. Perhaps 80 percent of those who did vote will have voted for someone else. Mandate? Not even close.
 As of July 14, 2016, there were 47,552 registered voters in District C. Since this race is non-partisan, party registration does not matter. Average voter turnout for school board trustee elections in presidential election years (1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012) is 67.9 percent. Using current registration, this means 32,288 voters can be expected to cast ballots for District C school board trustee. With a relatively strong turnout why such low support for the winner and such a strong justification for NEMRA – 2017?
Five candidates, no runoff of the top two vote getters as the case with the other four school board races that were contested in the primary, and 32,288 votes split five ways.  With less than 6,500 votes needed for election, the new trustee will not have the support of a significant majority of voters.
Under NERMA – 2017 this would be different. Regardless of the number of candidates, the winner would have the support of a much larger segment of the district. With a large plurality, if not majority of support, the newly elected trustee would take their seat knowing they truly represent the district and voters would be confident their representative on the school board represents their interests.
By utilizing a system where the primary and general election are rolled into one, where voters only have to go to the polls once, voter turnout is maximized and those elected have a much larger base of support.
Allowing government officials to be elected with low levels of support can make governing, the setting of policy, difficult. Can an elected official make the right decision knowing they are speaking for only a small portion of their constituents? Can voters have confidence in the decisions of their representative when a significant number did not support their election? It’s unlikely. And an election system that fosters such an outcome needs to be seriously re-evaluated and eventually replaced.
The race for Washoe County School District Board of Trustees District C will be the 22ndelection contest this year where the winner is decided by a small minority of voters, perhaps less than 15 percent.

Nevada’s lawmakers can make 2016 the last year where outcomes such as this are possible by passing the NEMRA – 2017 during the legislative session beginning in February.  
Posted on

Non-Partisan Voter Share Extends Gaining Streak as Democratic and Republican Parties Continue to Lose

The trend continues. Voter registration numbers for June, 2016 once again show Non-Partisan gaining voter share across all demographics at the expense of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Non-Partisan also leads all other categories, with minor exception, in rate of growth. In this area, the two major parties are also eclipsed by the minor parties; Independent American, Libertarian, and the consolidated group of parties not ballot qualified such as the Green and Whig. The only bright spot for the Democratic Party is among 18 – 34 year olds where their voter share increased by over three percent.  
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
10,465
2.02
39.99
0
R
6,800
1.50
34.71
-0.18
NP
7,183
2.90
19.25
0.16
Other
1,842
2.35
6.05
0.02
Total not D or R
25.30
0.18
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 8 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +1.67%; Lib +3.12%; other 8 parties +5.31%
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
9,617
2.48
43.64
-0.04
R
5,191
1.90
30.48
-0.20
NP
6,512
3.67
20.18
0.21
Other
1,562
3.10
5.70
0.03
Total not D or R
25.88
0.24
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 8 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +2.13%; Lib +3.50%; other 8 parties +7.55%
 Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
478
0.54
36.51
-0.02
R
468
0.50
38.71
-0.03
NP
310
0.71
18.08
0.02
Other
130
0.81
6.69
0.02
Total not D or R
24.77
0.04
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 8 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +0.61%; Lib +2.08%; other 8 parties +0.35%
Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
370
0.54
25.07
-0.08
R
1,141
1.33
52.00
0.05
NP
361
1.38
15.89
0.02
Other
150
1.29
7.03
0
Total not D or R
22.92
0.02
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 8 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +1.10%; Lib +3.18%; other 8 parties +0.25%
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
4,505
3.43
40.35
3.16
R
1,853
2.30
24.47
-0.22
NP
3,596
4.01
27.76
0.21
Other
878
3.15
7.42
0.03
Total not D or R
35.18
0.24
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 8 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +2.66%; Lib +3.67%; other 8 parties +6.95%
55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
3,254
1.45
40.38
0.02
R
3,009
1.31
41.12
-0.04
NP
1,229
1.64
13.53
0.02
Other
386
1.39
4.97
0
Total not D or R
18.50
0.02
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 8 parties without ballot access.
Change is # voters: IAP +1.19%; Lib +2.14%; other 8 parties +2.58%
 Major party loses are also the trend 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
0
4
0
In CD 1 the number of voters not affiliated with either major party exceeds those registered as Republican by 4.77%
State Senate Districts
Party
# Districts Lose Voter Share
# Districts Gain Voter Share
# Districts No Change
Democratic
17
3
1
Republican
17
3
1
Non-Partisan
0
20
1
Other
4
16
1
In 11 districts (52.35%) 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
29
12
1
Republican
33
7
2
Non-Partisan
3
39
0
Other
12
30
0
In 22 districts (52.35%) 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
Partisanship has reached new toxic levels and voters are reacting by rejecting both major parties. This will continue, creating legislative stalemates at all levels of government unless systemic change takes place. The choices:
Legislators can lead and implement change
Voters can force change by initiative
Do nothing  

Legislators in the 2017 Nevada legislative session can select the first choice, lead, by enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017)
Posted on

Partisanship Has Reached A New Level And It’s Not Good

A Pew Research Center study released June 22, 2016, “Partisanship and Political Animosity in 2016” needs to be taken very seriously by all who are concerned with our future. Unless this trend can be reversed, the political landscape will not be pleasant. Will the ability of lawmakers at all levels of government to effectively legislate come to a complete halt?

For the first time in almost 25 years, a majority of party members view the other party very unfavorably. With 70% of Democrats and 62% of Republicans who are politically active saying they fear the other party, how can the necessary dialog and collaboration take place? Answer, it can’t.
A summary of the study can be read here, the full report here. Some highlights:
·         With minor exception results are over 50 percent and in some cases close to two-thirds or three-quarters negative towards the other party and positive towards one’s own party
  •         Those who identify as Democratic are more partisan than Republicans
  •          Party membership is based on fear of the other party’s policies
  •          Those more active are more partisan
  •          Political discussion with the opposite side is stressful
  •          Political views are an indicator of a person’s character
  •          Words such as lazy, immoral, and closed minded describe the other party
  •          Words such as hard working, moral, and open minded describe my party
  •          Political views determine personal relationships
  •          The other party has no good ideas
  •          No compromise if my side doesn’t get more (this is why I prefer the idea of collaboration)

 I have highlighted the extent to which partisanship is impacting our political system in other articles on this blog. This trend is not new. However, as this most recent study finds, the problem is getting worse and shows no signs of getting better.

This is not how it has to be. It will take political will and determination to implement systems that have the potential to reduce the partisanship to a level where the needs and interests of the general constituency can be met. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) is such a system. Will the legislators of the 2017 Nevada state legislative session have the political will and determination to act?

Posted on

Making Low Voter Turnout Primary Elections A Thing Of The Past

Fact: Most voters do not vote in primary elections. In Nevada the average turnout for a primary election is approximately 20 percent. Conversely, turnout for general elections in November averages 60 percent in non-presidential election years and 75 percent in presidential election years.
Fact: Voter turnout rates can be at the general election level for all elections. Voters participate in greater numbers in November for several reasons:
  •         We are conditioned to equate elections with November
  •         General elections are perceived as more competitive
  •         Voters consider their votes more important in November
  •         Candidates and issues are more visible leading up to the November election
  •         Voter interest is higher for the general election
  •          Ballot initiatives and referendum normally appear on the general election ballot

 

 Capitalizing on the elements that produce greater voter participation, exploiting them to the advantage of candidates, political parties, and most importantly to voters, will produce elections that result in elected officials who represent the views of a wider range of their constituents. This in turn will lead to more collaborative legislating at all levels of government.
The path to reach this point is detailed in the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017).  NEMRA – 2017 will achieve general election turnout while:
  •          Increasing voter interest and information
  •          Not affecting the political parties’ right of association
  •          Not affecting a political party’s right to select nominees
  •          Maintaining general election ballot access of minor party and independent candidates
  •          Eliminating strategic voting; voters changing registration for the primary to vote for the weakest candidate to strengthen the electability of their preferred candidate in another political party 
  •          Saving tax payers $3 – 4 million per election cycle. 

 

NEMRA – 2017 benefits candidates and political parties by:
  •          Encouraging them to reach out to more voters sooner in the election cycle
  •          Allowing them to better utilize resources
  •          Creating a climate where voters who have left the party are enticed to return

 

 The process is simple. Instead of two elections, a low turnout primary and a higher turnout general election, a single election is held in November using a system called Ranked Choice or Instant Run-off Voting (RCV / IRV). As with any general election, all candidates are listed on the ballot and all voters cast their vote.
Run-off elections are typically a second election between two candidates held on a different day than the general election if no candidate received a majority of the votes in the general election. RCV / IRV is a run-off election built in to the general election. It is a method used to count the votes of the general election if no candidate receives a majority of the votes. Voters do not return to the polls on a different day.
RCV / IRV is currently used mostly in cities. Bills are pending in 13 states to either study or implement RCV / IRV. Voters in Maine will decide this November whether to implement RCV / IRV for all state elections. Many private organizations to include some political parties use RCV / IRV. The Oscars of awarded using RCV / IRV. In places where it is used, voted acceptance and understanding is rated at over 85 percent.
Political parties, as private organizations, have the right to determine the number of candidates on the ballot under their party label. NEMRA – 2017 does not change this except for prohibiting the use of public funds for such purpose. Under NEMRA – 2017 party options range from allowing an unlimited number of candidates to selecting specific nominees through a caucus or other election.  They may also choose to simply endorse one candidate. Political parties’ right of association is not compromised or violated.
RCV / IRV is simple. Voters mark their ballots for their first choice as they currently do. However, under RCV / IRV, voters also select a second choice, but only if there are more than twice the number of candidates to be elected. Normally this is two. If no candidate receives more 50 percent of first-choice votes, the candidate with the lowest number of first-choice votes is eliminated and the second choice votes of those voters who selected the eliminated candidate as their first choice are awarded to the appropriate remaining candidate. This is the run-off . If there are three candidates this tabulation will happen once as one candidate will end up with a majority. If there are four candidates, there could be a second round of tabulation if no candidate has 50 percent plus one after the first round. Under NEMRA – 2017, if there are more than four candidates, only the top four will advance to the instant run-off tabulation.
Positive results:
  •          Maximum voter interest and participation
  •          Winning candidates with a true mandate
  •          Potentially more in-depth discussion of the issues
  •          Political parties appeal  to a broader base
  •          Tax savings

 

Negative results:
  •          Campaign donors may be more selective (this may or may not be a negative depending on one’s point of view)
  •          May result in a longer ballot if more people decide to run

 

What it takes to implement:
  •          Legislator submits bill draft request (BDR)
  •          Bill is drafted and introduced
  •          Bill is giving committee hearing and passed by both chambers
  •          Governor signs

 

 Nevada can continue to struggle with low turnout primary elections. Candidates can struggle with having to shift their views between the primary and general election. The major political parties can continue to deal with declining membership. Or, Nevada can reverse these trends and move forward adopting a system that serves the best interest of the state, the voters, elected officials, and the political parties.
Posted on

Majority Of Voters Have No Say In Who Represents Them In Carson City

The primary election is finished and we’re headed to what should be a heated general election campaign. Given we are choosing a president, a replacement for U.S. Senator Harry Reid, and deciding to require background checks for firearm purchases and legalize marijuana, turnout for the general election should have no problem reaching the presidential year average 75 percent. The turnout for the just completed primary election was 18.51 percent or four times less. 
The purpose of the general election is for all voters to have a chance to select who will represent them in the Nevada legislature as well as the U.S. Congress, and local government. Depending on the number of candidates running for a particular office, the winner can be elected with less than a majority of the votes cast. The problem faced this year is that due to a change in state law, only the voters of one of the major political parties had a voice in who represents all voters in three state assembly districts, one state senate district, and 17 county commission wards. As many as 61 percent of voters had no say. Based on turnout, an average of 15 percent of the voters made the decision and the winner received an average of just under nine percent support. Even support within the party averaged less than 17 percent. Far from a mandate.  
District
Party
% Party
% Not Eligible
Party % T/O
% T/O Total Reg Voters
% Party Rcvd by Winner
% Total Reg Voters Rcvd by Winner
SD 4
D
60.69
39.31
17.94
10.89
12.60
7.64
AD 13
R
41.06
58.94
19.61
8.05
12.19
5.01
AD 19
R
38.89
61.11
26.35
10.25
16.12
6.27
AD 26
R
45.73
54.27
30.66
14.02
16.97
7.76
Washoe Cty 4
R
42.72
57.28
26.78
11.44
14.72
6.29
Churchill Cty 3
R
59.33
40.67
30.19
18.42
16.66
9.88
Douglas Cty 1
R
53.42
46.58
43.30
24.73
24.29
13.87
Douglas Cty 3
R
53.42
46.58
43.24
24.69
25.26
14.42
Elko Cty 3
R
56.74
43.26
23.62
13.40
9.62
5.46
Esmeralda Cty 2
R
57.59
42.41
8.38
4.83
4.49
2.59
Humbolt Cty A
R
55.04
44.96
33.65
18.52
21.51
11.84
Humbolt Cty B
R
55.04
44.96
33.72
18.56
21.99
12.10
Lander Cty 3
R
59.45
40.55
40.68
24.18
21.46
12.76
Lincoln Cty A
R
56.86
43.14
32.85
18.68
21.62
12.29
Lincoln Cty E
R
56.86
43.14
32.64
18.56
17.22
9.79
Lyon Cty 1
R
49.16
50.84
25.17
12.38
13.69
6.73
Lyon Cty 3
R
49.16
50.84
25.45
12.51
11.98
5.89
Nye Cty 1
R
46.61
53.39
4.77
2.22
2.71
1.26
Nye Cty 3
R
46.61
53.39
6.31
2.94
2.17
1.01
Pershing Cty A
R
50.21
49.79
43.12
21.67
31.33
15.74
Pershing Cty B
R
50.21
49.79
43.32
21.75
28.42
14.27
  
Based on these results, instead of making it easier on the parties and their candidates, it will be extremely difficult for the winners to claim they represent their constituents in the state legislature or county commission.

The solution is simple. At the very least, the change to state law enacted in 2015 should be repealed with races where only one party has candidates reverting back to being voted on by the entire electorate in the general election. An even better solution would be for the 2017 session of the Nevada legislature to enact the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017). Allowing all races to be decided with maximum general election turnout would ensure results such as those above never happen again.  
Posted on

Why Millennials Don’t Vote In Local Elections

In yet another study on voting trends of the Millennial Generation, “WHY MILLENNIALS DON’T VOTE FOR MAYOR – Barriers and Motivators for Local Voting” published in June, 2015, the Knight Foundation further substantiates what other research has shown, our election and political processes need to change if we value the generation that is our immediate future.
As I’ve written on several occasions, the Millennial Generation, now the largest generation in population and equal to Baby Boomers in the percentage of eligible voters, is the key to our future yet an enigma when it comes to voting. (Articles are here, here, and here)
Millennials are 31 percent of Nevada’s population but only 24 percent of registered voters. Of that 24 percent, 27 percent are registered as Non-Partisan. Adding those who are registered to vote in minor parties, 35 percent are not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party (as of May 24, 2016). That is almost 10 percent higher than the overall state figures.
In my previous articles the common theme is how do we get this generation more interested in participating in the electoral process, take an interest in the issues and vote.
In this 2015 study, The Knight Foundation looks at lack of participation of Millennials in local elections. Why do Millennials vote for president but not for mayor and other local officials? With turnout for local elections hovering around 20 percent, this is central to improving political outcomes.
Why do Millennials not trust government at a rate one-half that of the general electorate and less than 30 percent believe participating in the political process produces positive results?
Millennials, like the rest of us, require information to make decisions. However, with the onslaught of super PACs and the replacement of news with commentary, there is less reliable information on local issues available. With less information, Millennials also do not know which source to trust. They see the existing sources partisan and distorted, not providing the unbiased information they seek. This depresses civic participation. When high mobility is added in, the lack of information further reduces the desire to learn about one’s new community.
How does this impact Millennials participation? In focus groups used for the study, 75 percent rated lack of information about candidates as the reason they do not vote. 62 percent sited not enough information about local issues.
To reverse this trend, the Knight study found Millennials want to know what tangible benefit voting provides them and how government impacts their daily lives. They are turned-off by negativity, cynicism, and talking points.

The Nevada Legislature can make significant strides in addressing Millennial participation by enacting reforms proposed in the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017). By making our election process more responsive to the larger voting sector, not just the small party bases, the concerns of Millennials noted in the Knight study, as well as the concerns of a growing segment of the overall electorate are positively addressed. 
Posted on

Registration Closes For The Primary – Major Parties Lose Voter Share; Non-Partisan Gains

Voter registration closed for the primary election on May 24, 2016 and the numbers are not good news for either major party. Nearly across all demographics, both the Democratic and Republican Parties lost voter share while Non-Partisan and minor parties gained. And while all groups increased voters, the rate of growth for Non-Partisan and minor parties also exceeded that of the major political parties.
Another surprising statistic is where the growth in minor party registration occurred. In addition to the Independent American Party (IAP) and the Libertarian Party (Lib), there are eight political parties that have members but do not qualify for ballot access. The IAP is by far the largest of the minor parties with over 57,000 registered voters. However, the growth in the Libertarian Party and the eight small parties out-distanced the IAP with the small parties exceeding 10 percent growth in three of the six demographics followed.
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
6,318
1.23
39.99
-0.09
R
4,857
1.09
34.89
-0.13
NP
5,609
2.32
19.09
0.16
Other
1,814
2.38
6.03
0.05
Total not D or R
25.12
0.21
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 8 parties without ballot access.
IAP +0.9%; Lib +2.52%; other 8 parties +10.52%
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
5,606
1.46
43.68
-0.10
R
2,823
1.05
30.68
-0.20
NP
4,937
2.86
19.97
0.23
Other
1,548
3.17
5.67
0.08
Total not D or R
25.64
0.31
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 8 parties without ballot access.
IAP +0.97%; Lib +2.54%; other 8 parties +16.22%
 Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
556
0.63
36.53
-0.04
R
670
0.72
38.74
-0.01
NP
419
0.97
18.06
0.04
Other
144
0.09
6.67
0.01
Total not D or R
24.73
0.05
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 8 parties without ballot access.
IAP +0.9%; Lib +1.48%; other 8 parties +0.55%
Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
156
0.38
25.15
-0.20
R
1,364
1.62
51.95
0.24
NP
253
0.98
15.87
0.47
Other
122
1.06
7.03
-0.01
Total not D or R
22.90
0.46
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 8 parties without ballot access.
IAP +0.63%; Lib +4.2%; other 8 parties +0.12%
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
2,750
2.14
37.19
-3.27
R
1,314
1.66
24.69
-0.23
NP
3,001
3.46
27.55
0.22
Other
943
4.08
7.39
0.10
Total not D or R
34.94
0.32
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 8 parties without ballot access.
IAP +1.38%; Lib +2.9%; other 8 parties +15.78%
55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
1,374
0.62
40.36
-0.10
R
2,196
0.97
41.16
0.05
NP
893
1.20
13.51
0.05
Other
277
1.01
4.97
0
Total not D or R
18.48
0.05
Other includes IAP, Lib, and 8 parties without ballot access.
IAP +0.58%; Lib +1.31%; other 8 parties +4.78%
 In the legislature, both assembly and senate districts remain unchanged from February with 11 senate districts (52.38%) and 21 assembly districts (50%) having the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan or total not registered as either Democratic or Republican either exceeding or  within five percent of one of the major political parties. However, the trend is the same; unaffiliated voters are increasing voter share while the Democratic and Republican Party lose.
The fact that the trend of voters leaving the Democratic and Republican Party continues is not surprising. The fact it continues in spite of intense efforts to energize voters by both major parties immediately before the primary election should send a clear message that voters want the system to change.
The 2017 Nevada legislative session can address this problem by enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017)

Posted on

Are Legislators, Candidates, and Political Parties Ignoring the Future? (Opinion) – UPDATE May 23, 2016

Not only is the Millennial Generation the most populous, but according to a new study released by Pew Research Center, they now equal Baby Boomers in the number of eligible voters. According to the study, Boomers comprise 69.7 percent of eligible voters while Millennials make up 69.2 percent. 
The similarity stops there and hence the challenge. Millennials are not voting in numbers that gives them political influence. How to change this was the subject of the original article posted March 30, 2016. You can read that below. 
I am a Baby Boomer. Since I turned 30, I have looked forward to every new decade of my life, 70 is rapidly approaching. Every year has gotten better and I relish the idea that this will continue.
Since the 1960’s, Baby Boomers have held the distinction of being the largest generation. That changed in 2015. The honor now belongs to the Millennial Generation, those born between 1981 and 1997. This generation is our future. Boomers and to some extent older Generation Xers need to not only accept this but embrace it.
While leading the pack as the most populous generation, Millennials are trailing when it comes to voting. In Nevada, Millennials are 31 percent of the population but make up only 24 percent of registered voters (41 percent of eligible voters are not registered to vote). Since there is a lack of participation in the process it is not surprising that only 4 percent of Nevada legislators are Millennials.
Millennials do not embrace political parties to the extent of Boomers. Nearly 28 percent of Millennials registered to vote are registered as Non-Partisan. This is nine percent higher than the overall state total. It is important to note that prior to the presidential caucus the percentage was close to 30 percent and a clear 10 percent higher than the state.
Millennials are turned off to the political climate. To be encouraged to participate, they want answers not rhetoric. They want to know how elected officials and candidates will address issues important to them. They do not fit the standard party mold or comprise part of the so-called party base. In a study released by Pew Research in September, 2014, 84 percent hold positions that are not on the ideological fringe.
Given they are our future, it makes no sense to not take the steps necessary to get this generation involved, not only as voters but as candidates and elected officials. Holding on to the politics of the past will not serve our communities, our state, or our nation well.
One way Nevada legislators can demonstrate their commitment to engaging the Millennial Generation would be to enact the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA- 2017) during the 2017 legislative session. NEMRA – 2017 will engage not only the Millennial Generation but all voters who feel rejected by the current hyper-partisan political landscape. NEMRA – 2017 will make our electoral process fully inclusive, welcome all voters’ participation at all elections, encourage meaningful discussion of the issues rather than rhetoric and talking points, and demonstrate every vote, not just those from a small portion of each major political party, truly matters.
  

We can welcome the future and all the promise it holds or stick with the past, leaving our political decisions in the hands of an aging small party base that is not representative of the overall population. The choice is ours and the 2017 Nevada legislature’s to make.
Posted on

Is Election Reform Also a Tax Fairness Issue?

Like it or not, taxes and fees paid by you, me, and businesses are the income that pay for the government services we have come to expect. For these payments, we receive both direct and indirect benefit. And while some may complain about the amount or purpose of a certain tax or fee, most taxpayers accept the fact that they are necessary to keep government working.
But what would be the reaction if taxpayers knew some of their taxes were being used to fund activities of private organizations?

Most may not realize that political parties, even though they play an integral role in our governmental process, are private organizations. Their status as private organizations has been underscored by the U.S. Supreme Court in right of association cases and their tax status is covered in 26 U.S. Code § 527. Yet every two years Nevada taxpayers indirectly provide $3 – 4 million to the Republican and Democratic Parties. This amount is the cost to counties and the state of closed primary elections. These elections are open only to members of each party with the purpose of choosing the individual party’s nominees. As such, they are fulfilling a function of internal party operations. Again, this fact has been highlighted in U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

 

I believe all political parties agree that taxes, when imposed, must be fair and that all taxpayers should receive either direct or indirect benefit from their tax payments. However, using current voter registrationdata, 318,000 Nevada voters / taxpayers (25% of active registered voters) receive neither direct nor indirect benefit from tax payments used to support these two private organizations. I respect but do not agree with the arguments that if the taxpayers who currently are not registered to vote in one of the major political parties wanted to benefit from this public support of private organizations (political parties) they should simply re-register. However, this argument misses the point of why voters have left, and continue to leave both the Democratic and Republican Party.  As State Senator Patricia Farley (R – Las Vegas) recently stated to Las Vegas Review Journal Reporter Sandra Chereb, “If I’m a registered independent and I like a Republican, I shouldn’t have to change my party affiliation.”

 

Contrary to closed primary elections, general elections do provide a direct benefit to all taxpayers and as such should be funded by tax dollars. The winner of each race in the general election goes on to represent all citizens of their district in a legislative body. There are two options available to correct this tax issue.

 

The first, but likely most financially difficult, is to require the political parties to fund their closed primary. How each party raises the necessary dollars would be up to the party. However, removing public funding from such private use would be in keeping with the party’s status.

 

The second, and probably the fairest and easiest to implement, would be for the 2017 Nevada legislature to pass and enact election reform as proposed in the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NERMA – 2017). The proposed systemic changes would ensure all taxpayers receive a direct benefit and justify the use of tax dollars. 

Posted on

Non-Partisan Voter Registration Trend Returns Despite Approaching Primary

Given the change in voter registration trends favoring the major parties leading up to the presidential caucuses, the question was will that trend continue all the way to the June, 2016 primary. The answer is a resounding NO!
The numbers for April, 2016 were released May 2nd by the secretary of state and Non-Partisan has returned as the fastest growing block of voters. The only demographic where this not true in in the rural counties where the GOP continues to outpace the other parties. State-wide, in Clark and Washoe Counties, among 18 – 34 year olds and those 55 years old and over, Non-Partisan leads in the percentage of growth and the percentage increase of voter share.
State-Wide
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
10,293
2.05
40.08
0.01
R
5,252
1.28
35.02
-0.28
NP
7,931
3.39
18.93
0.25
Other
1,801
2.42
5.98
0.03
Total not D or R
24.91
0.28
2nd consecutive month where GOP lost more than ¼ of 1 percent
Clark County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
9,411
2.52
43.78
-0.03
R
3,766
1.41
30.88
-0.36
NP
7,251
4.38
19.74
0.34
Other
1,590
3.36
5.59
0.12
Total not D or R
25.33
0.46
Washoe County
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
746
0.86
36.57
-0.02
R
795
1.41
38.75
-0.02
NP
503
1.18
18.02
0.05
Other
139
0.88
6.66
-0.01
Total not D or R
24.68
0.04
 Rural Counties
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
136
0.33
25.35
-0.08
R
691
0.83
51.71
0.08
NP
177
0.69
15.40
-0.50
Other
72
0.63
7.04
0
Total not D or R
22.44
-0.50
18 – 34 Year Old
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
5,098
4.13
40.46
0.13
R
1,702
2.20
24.92
-0.39
NP
3,969
4.79
27.33
0.26
Other
845
3.79
7.29
0
Total not D or R
34.62
0.26
2nd consecutive month where GOP lost more than 1/3 of 1 percent
55+
Party
Change in # Voters
% Change
% Voter Share
Difference in Voter Share %
D
2,336
1.06
40.46
-0.05
R
2,101
0.93
41.11
-0.10
NP
1,547
2.13
13.46
0.13
Other
404
1.50
4.97
0.02
Total not D or R
18.43
0.15
In the legislature, both assembly and senate districts remain unchanged from February with 11 senate districts (52.38%) and 21 assembly districts (50%) having the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan or total not registered as either Democratic or Republican either exceeding or  within five percent of one of the major political parties. However, the trend is the same, unaffiliated voters are increasing voter share while the Democratic and Republican Party lose.
There is no reason to expect this trend to reverse before the close of registration for the primary election in May. Given that, I believe it is a safe assumption that turnout for the primary will once again be around 25 percent.
The 2017 Nevada legislative session can address this problem by enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017)

Proudly powered by WordPress