Nevada Election History – Open Non-Partisan Blanket Primary Not New To Nevada

The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) aims to bring the open, non-partisan, blanket primary to Nevada. If enacted it would not be the first time this type of primary was used in the state.

Up until 1909, listing party affiliation was not required when registering to vote. In 1909, the legislature passed the Primary Election Act creating primary elections in the state , however, all candidates were listed on one ballot and voters were allowed to vote for any candidate regardless of party registration from 1910 – 1916.

In 1917, the act was amended to require separate ballots for each political party. The 1918 primary, the first primary held after the amended act took effect, ushered in the era of partisan primaries where voters were required to vote the ballot of the party in which they were registered. (Political History of Nevada – 2006 edition; page 130)

In its early days, the Nevada legislature saw the wisdom in open, non-partisan, blanket primaries. Now as the state celebrates the sesquicentennial of statehood, the legislature has the opportunity to return to this wisdom.

June 28, 2014July 23, 2017

Political Divide Highlights Importance of Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act

If our political system is to draw in more people, return interest and trust in those institutions where decisions that impact our daily lives are made and not leave those decisions to a small minority of the population that does not share the diverse attitudes present in our society, the passage and implementation of the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) is of major importance.

On June 26^th, Pew Research released its largest ever survey on the status of the political ideology divide in the United States. This was preceded on June 12^th by their study looking at political polarization and its impact on politics and daily life. That report echoed the findings of the Bipartisan Policy Center (see blog posting of June 25^th“Bipartisan Policy Center Recommendations and Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act Go Hand-In-Hand”).

This divisiveness is the greatest it’s ever been, extending beyond politics into our personal relationships and daily lives. It is now manifested through stark intra-party differences as well as inter-party. Election reform is critical if sanity is to return to American politics. NEMRA provides the path.

Those on the extreme left or right who are ideological pure represent only 27% of the general public (15 and 12 respectively) and 32% of registered voters (17 and 15). Of those only 40% (21 and 19) consider themselves politically active. This means 10.8% of the general public; 12.8% of registered voters dominate the political discussion.

The survey identifies a group, Business Conservatives that represent another 10% of the general public; 12% of registered voters; 17% of those are politically active, who generally vote Republican but differ from the extreme on social issues. The remaining 54% of the general public; 57% of registered voters, are not loyal to either of the two major parties, their views on many issues crossing party lines.

There is a clear need for consensus. A political party cannot succeed if its positions do not represent a majority of those who identify with it to any degree. The left is divided on the cost of social programs, the role of government, and social issues such as gay marriage and abortion. The rights is similarly divided on issues such as immigration, the role and impact of large corporations, the role of government, the environment, foreign policy, gay marriage and legalization of marijuana.

With such divisions on major issues and the lack of willingness to reach consensus, is it any wonder the issues impacting our daily lives, our cities, counties, states, and nation are not being satisfactorily addressed and resolved? No governing institution can be effective in this type of environment.

Pew’s findings are not isolated. In April of this year, Thirdway.org, a group chaired by a bipartisan group of members of Congress, released their State of the Center report. The results are parallel. However, it does not take national polls to know this. The legislators and others I have talked and met with are well aware of these differences and the way our current system perpetuates them. For the most part, they agree something needs to be done to fix the problem.

Other articles on this blog discuss how NEMRA will allow legislators to return to the job of governing to the benefit of all; how political parties can include all elements of their membership reducing the intra-party differences that are clearly present; how incumbents and those hoping to replace them will not jeopardize their chances for election by appealing to a consensus of the electorate rather than the extreme; how more ideas and potential solutions will be presented to the voters; how all voters will be encouraged to participate and how voter turnout will increase.

Our political differences are real. However, they do not need to be as divisive as we have allowed them to become. Most of us are not really that far apart. Modernizing our election process to facilitate discussion and once again provide effective and efficient governance is possible. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act provides the path.

June 25, 2014July 23, 2017

Bipartisan Policy Center Recommendations and Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act Go Hand-In-Hand

On June 24^th, following 18 months of study, the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Commission on Political Reform released its report titled “Governing in a Polarized America: A Bipartisan Blueprint to Strengthen our Democracy”. Why is this important and what does it have to do with the proposed Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA)?

First, a little about the BPC. It is a Washington, DC-based think tank dedicated to promoting bipartisanship in governing throughout the nation. It was founded in 2007 by former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker (R-TN), Tom Daschle (D-SD), Bob Dole (R-KS), and George Mitchell (D-ME). It’s current Co-Chairs are Daschle; Dan Glickman, Former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture and U.S. Representative (D-KS); Dirk Kempthorne, Former Governor of Idaho, U.S.

Secretary of the Interior, and U.S. Senator (R-ID); Trent Lott, Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader (R-MS); and Olympia Snowe, Former U.S. Senator (R-ME). Its 24 Commissioners are either former federal or state elected or appointed officials and leaders of non-profit political or social action groups and think tanks. Nevada can be proud that Elaine Wynn, National Chairman, Communities in Schools and current President, Nevada State Board of Education is among them.

The report examines three major areas of concern; electoral system reform, congressional reform, and increasing citizen involvement, making specific recommendations that both state and the federal government can act upon to improve and strengthen the process of governing.

Why is this important and what does it have to do with the proposed Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act? Within the section on electoral system reform, the commission looks at primary elections and recommends states enact systems that expand participation allowing the maximum number of voters to cast ballots regardless of party affiliation. Systems put in place should be able to achieve primary election turnout of 30% by 2020 and 35% by 2026. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act should accomplish this by 2018 if implemented for the 2016 election.

The partisan divide in the U.S. goes beyond legislative bodies. It now permeates our daily lives. A poll conducted last year by BPC and USA TODAY shows Americans are self-segregating along partisan lines in their communities and jobs. In that poll, 37% of the Republicans and 34% of the Democrats indicated the people they talk to in their communities are mostly from the same political party while only 17% of Republicans and 18% of Democrats said that most of their neighborhood interactions were with individuals of a different party. On the job, 28% of Republicans and 27% of Democrats indicated the people they talk to are mostly from the same political party and only 12% of Republicans and Democrats indicated that their conversations on the job were mostly with individuals of a different party. It has gotten worse!

In a poll released by Pew Research on June 12^th of this year 63% of consistent conservatives and 49% of consistent liberals say most of their close friends share their political views. Of those polled with mixed ideology, only 25% say the same. The Pew poll also showed that 50% of those on the right and 35% of those on the left also are more likely to say it is important to them to live in a place where most people share their political views.

Could political divisiveness impact who we select as a marriage partner similar to religion and race? According to the Pew Poll, “yes”. 30% of consistent conservatives and 23% of consistent liberals say they would be unhappy if an immediate family member married a member of the opposing political party.

Approval ratings for governing bodies are at an all-time low. Yet, as we see from election results, voters do not quite realize they have direct control over who is elected to represent them. The increasing divide and decreasing participation reduces the risk politicians are exposed to by not working towards consensus. By enacting election practices such as specified in NEMRA, states can reverse this trend that infects our government and our society in general. By increasing participation, the risk of not governing effectively and efficiently is increased. In politics as in mostly everything, the more risk accepted the greater the chance of failure. Conversely, the more effective and efficient our government becomes, the benefits extend to our private lives, raising the quality of life and enjoyment of our personal interactions.

The BPC report recommends that both major political parties take strides to broaden their base of support. Other articles on this blog address how NEMRA does just that and how broadening that base benefits the party both in membership and financially. In addressing polarization, BPC further recommends the political parties try to engage a larger piece of the electorate rather than concentrating on being 100% ideologically pure. They see this resulting in a more engaged electorate. A more engaged electorate will turn out to vote. In a primary election this means those voting represent a more accurate picture of the population at large and hence, those advancing to the general election and being elected would reflect those wider views. This broader appeal increases the likelihood of election. These points are all accomplished under NEMRA.

The Bipartisan Policy Center’s Commission on Political Reform substantiates every goal of the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act. It is now up to Nevada’s legislators. Will Nevada lead the way, set the example for the rest of the country? It is up to us to make it happen

June 22, 2014July 23, 2017

Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act Could Benefit Party Finances

Instituting open non-partisan blanket primaries along with ranked choice / instant runoff voting in the general election, reforms that draw candidates and political parties closer to the median voter could actually help the political parties’ financial bottom line.

In an article earlier this year for Politico, Byron Tau analyzed the increasing impact of Super PAC’s on the ability of state political party organizations to raise money and hence control the candidate selection process. The two major political parties in Nevada are experiencing this trend. Review of the state, Clark County, and Washoe County Republican and Democratic Party’s contribution and expense reports available on the Secretary of State’s website bear this out. Could Super PAC’s actually help efforts to reform state and local elections?

As Tau points out, fund raising and reporting rules favoring Super PAC’s are draining state party coffers. This lack of cash diminishes the control state parties have over issues and candidate selection. Outside special interest organizations, focused on maintaining the rhetoric on national issues are dictating many an election agenda. If allowed to continue, the Republican and Democratic parties at the state level could join the dinosaurs as extinct. How much outside influence will voters and state party leaders tolerate before they realize there is a way to fight back?

By supporting efforts to implement open non-partisan blanket primaries and ranked choice / instant runoff voting in the general election as proposed in the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA), local political leaders can reclaim the influence they are losing to these national interests. Party members who have given up their party registration could return, new members could register, bringing their money with them. In a primary election where the top three vote getters advance to the general election as provided for in NEMRA, shouldn’t a candidate focused on local and state issues and backed by local and state interests defeat a candidate selected or endorsed by an outside special interest group? Could this have been one of the reasons Democrats did not field a viable candidate for governor or representative for the 2^ndCongressional District for this year’s election? If no local party candidate showed promise, state party leaders willing to think out of the box could endorse an independent candidate sharing many of their goals and objectives. In a general election that uses ranked choice / instant run-off voting again as provided for in NEMRA, shouldn’t a candidate backed by local and state organizations defeat a national special interest group’s candidate? In my opinion, the answer to these questions is “yes”.

Many times, actions have unintended consequences or results. Perhaps the elimination of state political party organizations was one not anticipated by Super PAC’s. I’d wager that aiding the effort to reform the election process refocusing the discussion back to the majority of voters, reestablishing the importance of state and local political parties, and returning the focus back to state and local issues and solutions was definitely not considered.

June 16, 2014July 23, 2017

Can the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act Really Increase Voter Turnout?

Can increasing the pool of eligible voters for the primary election make a positive difference in voter turnout or are there other factors that really determine how many voters bother to cast their ballot?

With approximately 24% of registered voters in the state ineligible to vote in any primary race but non-partisan ones; judges, school board, sheriff, and city council, the logical assumption would be “yes”. After all, along with those on the fringe of each major party who also tend to be the most vocal, those registered as non-partisan tend to be politically aware and active. Because of their limited choices, however, only about 7 – 8 % go to the polls for a primary.

Overall primary election turnout has dropped substantially since 2008. Going back to 1992, the first year turnout statistics are posted with election results on the Secretary of State’s website, primary turnout hovered close to 30%. Starting in 2008, it dropped to and remains below 20% (except for 2010).

The potential increase can be seen by looking at general election turnout. In non-presidential years, total turnout is close to 60% and over 75% in presidential years. The Secretary of State nor the Registrar of Voters for Clark or Washoe County list turnout by party for the general election so the percentage of registered non-partisans voting cannot be identified, but given the overall turnout difference between the primary and general election, I believe it is a safe assumption to say non-partisans are voting and would turnout in similar numbers for primary elections if given the opportunity.

But we won’t know for certain unless Nevada enacts the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) because there are other factors; competitiveness of key races, contentiousness of the issues, voter frustration with the political climate, amount of voter outreach and systemic education, that enter in to a voter’s decision to vote or not. It is up to the state and political organizations to turn any negative impact of those factors into positives. NEMRA provides the opportunity.

One comment I get when speaking with legislators and others about NEMRA is “let’s see what happens in California.” This is because our neighbor to the west in 2012 became the most recent state to adopt a top-two non-partisan open blanket primary. But any state considering changes as I am proposing should not look to just one example of the process. The state of Washington has used a blanket primary since 1935. Nebraska has had a unicameral, non-partisan legislature since 1937, and Louisiana has used a top-two primary since 1975. What does voter turnout look like in these four states?

Washington – Average primary turnout 2004-2012; 41.19%

Nebraska – Average primary turnout 2004-2012; 25.98%

Louisiana – Average primary turnout 2004-2012 – 55.86%*

* Since 1997 Louisiana holds its primary in November with a run-off in December

California – Average primary turnout 2000-2010 (before top-two); 28.74%

Primary turnout 2012; 31.06%

Projected final turnout 2014; 25%

These percentages show Nevada does not need to accept drastically low primary voter turnout. Routine turnout over 30% is realistically possible using a non-partisan open blanket primary. The above states advance the top two to the general election. FairVote.org, a leading voting reform organization, believes advancing more than two will further increase turnout. I agree. That is why under NEMRA, three would advance.

A majority of states use some form of open primary. The most common form allows unaffiliated voters to choose either the Democrat or Republican Party ballot at the polls. This system does not increase turnout to any degree. Looking at Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Minnesota, Texas, and Virginia, primary election turnout, with minor exception, ranges from below 10% to just under 30%.

A big difference between what other states have enacted and the NEMRA that should also lead to increased voter turnout is the potential for outright election of a candidate in the primary. If one candidate receives at least 50% +1 of the votes cast for a particular office, that candidate is elected to that office. That office would not be contested in the general election. Federal law prohibits this provision from being applied to elections for members of Congress.

Participation in the political process is a cornerstone of our governmental system. Most citizens’ participation is done through voting. The more people who vote, participate in the system, the more our government, our elected officials, will truly represent the citizens of the state and act in their best interest.

As campaigns shift focus to the general election in November, now is the time for candidates, both incumbents and challengers, to openly support increased participation and commit to improving voter turnout and our electoral process. Now is the time for candidates to say “I will sponsor or co-sponsor the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act. Now is the time for voters to let candidates know this is what they want.

June 9, 2014July 23, 2017

Right of Association, The Supreme Court, and the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act

Any time a major reform to the election process is proposed, a question of constitutionality is present. How does the proposed change impact on the individual’s right of association? The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has addressed this on several occasions. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) should pass muster.

In each of the cases, the Court looked at the political party’s right of association compared to the government’s interest in regulating elections.

Three cases; Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U.S. 107 (1981), Tashjian v. Republican Party of Conn., 479 U.S. 208 (1986), and Eu v. San Francisco County Democratic Central Committee, 489 U.S. 214 (1989) compare the government’s attempt to regulate the internal operations of a political party. In each case SCOTUS ruled in favor of the party.

Three other cases show why the Court would look at NEMRA in a favorable light.

Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997), involved a minor party’s attempt to have the Minnesota law banning fusion tickets overturned. While the 8^th Circuit Court found in favor of the party, SCOTUS reversed that decision, establishing a two-tiered balancing test for resolving conflicts between a political party’s right of association and the government’s right to regulate elections. In the opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote,

“(W)e weigh the character and magnitude of the burden the State’s rule imposes on those rights against the interests the State contends justify that burden, and consider the extent to which the State’s concerns make the burden necessary. (Citations omitted). Regulations imposing severe burdens on plaintiff’s rights must be narrowly tailored and advance a compelling state interest. Lesser burdens, however, trigger less exacting review, and a State’s ‘important regulatory interests’ will usually be enough.” Timmons, at p 358.

In other words, the imposition on the party must be severe if not directly related to the internal operations of the party. The Court further emphasized the state interest in protecting the integrity, fairness, and efficiency of ballots and reducing election and campaign-related disorder.

California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000) started the ball rolling on creating a fair and just open primary. In this case the Supreme Court overturned California’s first attempt at a blanket primary finding that by allowing non-members of a political party select the nominees of a particular party, the first amendment right of association of the party was violated.

However, in the decision, Justice Scalia provided the remedy should the state want to resolve the constitutional issue.

“Respondents could protect them all by resorting to a nonpartisan blanket primary. . . This system has all the characteristics of the partisan blanket primary, save the constitutionally crucial one: Primary voters are not choosing a party’s nominee. Under a nonpartisan blanket primary, a State may ensure more choice, greater participation, increased ‘privacy’, and a sense of ‘fairness’ — all without severely burdening a political party’s First Amendment right of association.”

“Respondents’ legitimate state interests and petitioners’ First Amendment rights are not inherently incompatible. To the extent they are in this case, the State of California has made them so by forcing political parties to associate with those who do not share their beliefs.” Jones, at p .

In these words, Justice Scalia gave approval to the idea of the non-partisan blanket open primary. The state is not creating a system whereby voters are selecting the nominees of a party. Rather they are selecting the number of candidates to move forward to the general election regardless of political party.

Washington State Grange v Washington, 06–713 (2008) was the first test of Justice Scalia’s remarks. Plaintiff asserted Washington State’s blanket primary was facially unconstitutional. However the Court found the system does not provide for the nomination of a political party’s candidates or force political parties to associate with or endorse candidates. The Court further found that candidates’ party-preference designations as stated on the ballot will not confuse voters. On its face, the law did not severely burden respondents’ associational rights.

The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act conforms to these previous Supreme Court decisions. The right of association of political parties granted by the first amendment is not infringed. The right of the state to hold fair elections is preserved.

June 2, 2014July 23, 2017

Resolving state issues could hinge on enactment of NEMRA

In addition to drastically improving the voting process in Nevada, the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) could be the key to resolving current and future thorny issues in the state.

As I have pointed out, candidates move towards and remain closer to the median voter under a primary system that is more inclusive. Along with the open blanket primary, the use of Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff voting, where being a voter’s second choice could lead to victory, candidates must not only take this middle road during the election, but must maintain that through a willingness to engage in rational dialogue during the legislative session if they hope to be re-elected.

The willingness to engage in constructive dialog, to collaborate with the opposition, is the key to problem solving. Without this open conversation, the root cause cannot be identified. Without attacking the root cause, no problem is resolved.

It’s true, if you look back on past legislative sessions, there have been periods where committee and floor votes are unanimous or nearly unanimous. Wouldn’t it be something is that became the norm?

We have the chance to to do that. All it takes is getting a bill filed, a hearing and vote in both chambers of the legislature, and the governor’s signature. During this campaign cycle, let candidates know how important this is to you when deciding on who to cast your vote for in November. Let’s have a BDR filed by December 10th.

May 27, 2014July 23, 2017

Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – Phase II Kicks Off

While meetings with legislators and applicable organizations continue, it’s time to go public. Lawmakers have expressed interest but to get a bill filed it will take people letting legislators know modernization and reform of Nevada’s voting system is something they want now.

Randi Thompson, columnist for the Reno Gazette-Journal kicked things off on Sunday, May 25th. Articles have been published on IVN and Voices.us and a press release (below) has been sent to many media outlets.

The task of getting these changes passed and signed into law is not easy by any stretch of the imagination. Most legislators and groups I have met with believe this is an interesting proposal worth studying. A big part of this “studying” is hearing from the voters. Working together; voters, legislators, and interest groups, we can and will be successful for the benefit of the entire state.

PRESS RELEASE

Since September of last year, meetings with state legislators, civil liberty, voting rights, and business groups, legislative caucus leaders, and election officials have taken place to determine if a proposal to modernize and reform Nevada’s election process, making it the most inclusive in the nation, could be introduced in the 2015 state legislative session. Most found it worthy of discussion. Some expressed real interest. Phase II, raising public awareness of this proposal and getting their involvement to make it happen has begun. http://www.rgj.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/05/25/randi-thompson-time-election-reform/9567479/

Changes to both the primary and general elections are necessary. The process is not complicated. The primary would list all candidates for each office, regardless of party affiliation or status as a non-partisan, on the same ballot. All voters, regardless of party affiliation or status as a non-partisan would get to vote. This makes sense since our tax dollars, not the political parties, pay the nearly $4 million dollars it costs for each primary. The top three finishers advance to the general election unless one of the candidates gets at least 50%+1 of the votes in which case that candidate is elected. If three or less candidates run all move to the general election. Both these events could reduce campaign costs. Analysis of voter turnout from 2008 – 2012 shows a potential for significant increase in primary election voter turnout.

The general election would be conducted using Ranked Choice voting, also known as Instant Runoff voting. This process is used in several cities with overwhelming voter acceptance. It guarantees the winner receives a true majority, at least 50%+1 of the votes cast, eliminating plurality winners. This is possible because voters would vote for both their first and second choice. If no candidate gets a majority of first choice votes, second choice votes for the top two are added in.

Studies show open blanket primaries draw candidates closer to the median voter. Having more ideas and solutions debated early in the election cycle benefits all candidates regardless of party and the electorate.

Elected officials like to say they were elected with a mandate simply because they won. Many times though, victory was only with a plurality. Under this proposed system, the result is a true majority, at least 50% + 1 of the votes cast. A claim of a mandate is justified. There is a benefit to voters as well. Many times a voter will face an internal conflict; vote for the preferred candidate or succumb to “I don’t want to waste my vote” syndrome. This conflict is resolved by the use of a second-choice vote.

There are other advantages. Every vote matters so citizens who believe their vote has no impact can return to the polls. Because candidates are drawn closer to the median voter, political parties could regain some of the membership they have lost and continue to lose. And having the most inclusive voting system in the nation could make a difference to companies looking to bring jobs to Nevada.

May 27, 2014July 23, 2017

GOP / Dems Can Regain and Grow Membership

In an era of growing voter frustration with Congress and politics in general, both the Republican and Democratic parties have been bleeding membership. The fastest growing segment in voter registration are those who declare no party affiliation. Recent polls also claim that more than 50% of registered voters consider themselves independent.

The two major parties can reverse this trend. Most people who left the parties have done so because they have, and continue to drift further to the extreme, away from the median voter. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (see Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – The Details) will bring candidates and the parties back closer the the median.

People like being part of a group, the feeling of belonging. Making the decision to leave a group can be difficult, if not traumatic. There’s no reason not to believe that if the Republican and Democratic parties returned to representing the center of their parties, those who left would feel comfortable to return and those who might not have considered registering would do so. There is only one way to find out…enact the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act.

May 22, 2014July 23, 2017

Will Top Three Primary Increase Voter Turnout?

One of the claims often made about an open primary of any type is it will increase voter turnout. Depending on the type of open primary; independents identify as Democrat or Republican at the polls and vote that party’s ballot, independents register as Democrat or Republican by a set date and vote that party’s ballot, or blanket primary where all candidates are listed on the same ballot and all voters cast ballots, the results vary.

One study I link in my post “Nevada Election Modernization and Reform – The Details” states using a blanket format will increase voter turnout especially among unaffiliated voters. But what is the potential in Nevada?

The potential is huge.

Year	Primary Election Turnout / %	General Election Turnout / %	% Increase
2008	188.652 / 18.0	970,019 / 80.3	77.6

2010	320,648 / 30.1	723,515 / 64.6	53.4

2012	199,797 / 18.9	1,016,664 / 80.8	76.6

Considering unaffiliated voters have little incentive to come to the polls under the current system; not much excitement voting for judges and school board, those that do are citizens that are interested in their community. Looking at the general election turnout, imagine the excitement of a 50 – 60% primary turnout. Give unaffiliated voters a reason to show up and they will.