I was asked what the trend of Nevada voters leaving the Democratic and Republican Parties looked like over an extended period of time. When did the migration start? Here’s the answer going back to December, 2000.

In 2004, the Independent American Party (IAP) almost doubled in registrations jumping from 17,707 in December 2003 to 33,219 at the end of 2004. The IAP continued to increase registration, mostly to the detriment of the GOP. Was this an attraction to the more conservative platform of the IAP or were voters drawn by the words “Independent” and American? The answer really is not important. What is significant is that voters no longer identified with one of the major political parties.

Then in 2012, Non-Partisan increased by almost 33 percent over 2011 to 227,863. Migration away from the Democratic and Republican Parties continued. The GOP fell below 40 percent registration in 2008 and in 2014 the Democratic Party experienced the same fate.

2016 is a presidential election year. As the eventual nominees become known, it will be interesting to see if the trend away from the major political parties continues; note the changes in 2008 and 2012.

48 out of 1294 Bill Draft Requests (BDRs). 40 out of 1075 bills and resolutions. These numbers represent the legislation relating to elections dealt with by the just completed session of the Nevada Legislature. What was the outcome?

Five bills became law. Two of these were measures applying only to Carson City; If a candidate receives a majority of votes in the primary election for a non-partisan office, that candidate is considered elected and Clark County; requiring members of advisory boards in counties having a population of more than 700,000 to be elected. One changed expenditure reporting requirements and related matters. The other two bills could be considered major changes. AB 94 allows for sample ballots to be provided to voters via electronic means. This will save counties significant funds and brings the dissemination of information to a method preferred by today’s voters. AB 94 passed both the Assembly and Senate unanimously. SB499 extends the date by which third-party and independent candidates must file nomination petitions. This bill settles a law suit brought by the Green Party. By extending the date, it affords these candidates greater ballot access. (Note: SB 499 was originally filed as a modified top-two primary but stripped and amended in committee).

Seventeen bills were passed by committees in one or both chambers and died either on the floor or in Ways and Means / Finance committees. These bills dealt with everything from font size of print on election material to voter ID and presidential primaries. In addition to voter ID and presidential primaries other significant bills that died in this group included a constitutional amendment calling for the Governor and Lieutenant Governor to be elected as a slate, candidate residency requirements and increase penalties for violation of these requirements, and a requirement calling for voter registration workers to register with election officials.

The remaining eighteen bills did not receive a hearing in either the originating chamber or second chamber. These bills included issues on voter fraud and ID, ward voting in certain city primary elections, appointment of a reapportionment commission, a voters’ bill of rights, restoration of voting rights to felons, and appointment of school boards.

Looking at the 40 bills that were considered, many that died would have allowed Nevada to make significant improvements in its election process. Whether they died because of fiscal requirements, partisan divisions, or simply got caught up in the political gamesmanship that is a legislative session is hard to pinpoint. It will be interesting to see how many of these bills come back for the 2017 session and what happens to them then. 

The Nevada Secretary of State’s office sent the above email today, May 1, 2015, announcing the voter registration figures for April, 2015.

As a percent of total active voters:

Democratic Party: -0.05%

Republican Party: -0.03%

Non-Partisan: +0.08%

Minor Parties: +0.01%

In total, 25.88% of active registered voters in Nevada choose not to associate with either of the two major political parties.

For younger voters, those between 18 and 34 years of age:

Democratic Party: -0.11%

Republican Party: +0.05%

Non-Partisan: +0.08%

Minor Parties: +0.02%

37.48% of 18-34 year-olds choose not to associate with either the Democratic or Republican Party, a figure 11.6% higher than the overall state total.

A modified version of the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) as SB 499 did not get past its hearing in the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee. The bill number survived as a bill to change the filing deadline for minor party candidates. That said, the trend of voters increasingly choosing to ignore the Democratic or Republican Party continues unabated.

The 2015 session of the Nevada legislature is in its last month, barring special session(s). Once everyone has had a chance to take a breath, I will resume working to bring NEMRA back to the 2017 session. These continuing voter registrations trends along with the highly partisan bickering of the current session answer the question; Why?

Since September, 2013 the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) and I have been traveling an exciting road. From meetings meant to determine if the concept was worth moving forward to meetings with legislators and group judging level of interest and support, there was never a dull moment.

February 16^th, the last day for committee bill draft requests (BDR) the first milestone was achieved when the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee filed a BDR. Then on March 23^rd, the deadline for committee bill introductions, BDR 1149 became SB 499. Yesterday, April 1^st, the bill had a hearing in the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee. Following the hearing I was told the votes were not there to advance the bill to the full senate.

Yes, I am disappointed, yet at the same time accepting and grateful. Discussion of this important issue was stared. Some key legislators and groups expressed real interest. And getting a bill introduced and a hearing on such a major change was a significant accomplishment. This may be the end of the road for this session but it is not the end of the road for NEMRA.

Because of a state constitutional concern, the ranked choice / instant runoff provision had been removed and the bill became a modified top-two. The modification was that no more than one candidate from any political party or independent could advance. This would prevent two members of the same party or two independent candidates facing off in the general election, however, it also could mean a candidate finishing third or lower could advance. I had some concern about this change but accepted it since it meant having a bill that still achieved the two basic goals; opening the primary elections to all voters and ensuring the winner received a true majority of the votes cast, introduced.

So now, the hurry up and wait game of advocating and lobbying is in a time-out until the interim. The constitutional concern can be resolved; it’s an issue of interpretation based on the history and purpose of the plurality clause. I’ll be mapping out the best course of action and hopefully have NEMRA once again addressed by the 2017 Nevada Legislature. 

On Monday, March 23, 2015 a version of the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act was formally introduced as a bill for the 2015 session of the Nevada Legislature.

SB 499, as it is now formally known, was introduced by the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections. The version to be considered, sadly, does not include the ranked choice / instant runoff voting component because of concerns of conflict with Article 15, Sec 14 of the Nevada Constitution which declares a plurality winner. 

However, the bill does improve the chances for minor party or independent candidates to advance to the general election. Under the top-two format in SB 499, two candidates from the same party cannot advance. This eliminates the possibility of two Democratic or two Republicans facing off in the general election. Minor party and independent candidates are relevant and viable candidates in the primary. Debate is not limited to two sides of the same story.

The next step is a committee hearing. I’ll keep you posted. 

The days of Edward R. Murrow, Walter Chronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Frank McGee, Eric Sevareid, and Nancy Dickerson are gone. Reporting the facts has been replaced with commentary, meant to evoke emotion, entertain, and “sell”.  We pay attention only to those whose commentary support our already cemented opinions and rally to the heightened emotion and rush to “buy”.

Does The Media Purposely Fan The Flames Of Political Divisiveness?  Anne Kim, editor and co-founder of Republic 3.0 and The Hill contributor provides the answer in her March 12, 2015 The Hill column “When the political press becomes the polarizer”.

In her article, Kim notes research by University of Pennsylvania political scientist Matthew Levendusky further showing how partisan media may reinforce these divisions. “Through a variety of experiments aimed at measuring partisan media’s impacts, Levendusky found that exposure to polarizing media can make people “a little more extreme, a little less positive toward the other side, more unwilling to compromise, and more willing to ascribe negative traits to the leaders of the other party.” A final consequence of current trends in political journalism is ironic, given the immense resources given over to political coverage: Americans may end up even less informed than ever about the policy choices the nation must make. And so long as serious policy efforts have little chance of winning equally serious coverage from the press, politicians have even less reason to offer solutions that make sense.”

By allowing all voters, regardless of party registration or registration as Non-Partisan to vote for any candidate regardless of party affiliation or status as a Non-Partisan in the primary election, the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) could bring the discussion of issues back towards the majority of voters who want policy makers to collaborate and compromise rather than remain ideologically pure to find and implement solutions. This in turn potentially raises the demand for unbiased information. Enough to change the media demand? Only implementation of NEMRA and time will provide the answer.  

In January, 2015, three states, Mississippi, Arizona, and New York took steps to bring either the Top-Two primary or Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff  Voting (RCV / IRV) to their electoral process.

Following an editorial in the Jackson, Mississippi Clarion-Ledger in August, 2014 (reported on this blog), the state’s Secretary of State compiled a committee to study three election reforms and make recommendations.  The committee looked at primary election systems, early voting, and online voter registration. The committee’s report was released January 16, 2015.

In the area of primary election reform the committee looked at the four systems currently in use; Closed, Semi-Closed, Open, and Top-Two. The recommendation was for Mississippi to adopt a Top-Two primary.

In Arizona, a bill to require the state’s voting system to be upgraded to accommodate RCV has been introduced in the Arizona House of Representatives.

In New York, a bill introduced by Democratic State Senator Liz Krueger that would create a pilot program allowing ten local governments to use IRV in 2019 and 2020 has been referred to the Senate Elections Committee.

Mississippi, Arizona, and New York are adding their voices to the message that our electoral process is broken. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) as proposed, implementing a Top-Three primary and RCV would make Nevada the leader in addressing this problem. 

In fourteen days, the 78^th regular session of the Nevada legislature will convene.  Between then and 5:00 PM on February 9, 2015, each assembly member can submit one Bill Draft Request (BDR). Each senator can submit two. In addition, standing committees in each chamber can submit a total of 50 BDR up until 5:00 PM on February 16,, 2015.  The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) has a chance to be one of them.

As of January 16, 2015, 32 of the 949 BDR submitted deal with some subject relating to elections. Of those, only three have bills issued; SB 5 (BDR 90), AB 23 (BDR 446), and SB 19 (BDR 477).

Meetings continue. In the past two weeks I have met with committee leadership. Meetings with other key individuals are being coordinated.

In his State of the State address, Governor Sandoval laid out his plans, the steps he believes are necessary to continue Nevada’s journey into the future as a national leader in education, our economy, and a quality of life for its residents. One of the final paragraphs of this speech summed it up: “From the vantage point of this new foundation, from the watershed moment of our 150th birthday, we can cast our gaze to the horizon – to the world we want for the graduating class of 2023: an educated and healthy citizenry, a vibrant and sustainable economy, safe and livable communities, and an efficient and responsive state government.” The last seven words, “and an efficient and responsive state government.” show a role for NEMRA. 

The goal of any election, whether for political or organizational office, is for the winner to be the candidate that receives the majority of the votes cast.  Using an election process that ensures a majority, rather than a plurality winner, means the candidate elected most likely represents the views of a majority of their constituents.  

Perhaps that is why 17 political jurisdictions, 101 political parties, organizations and corporations, and 68 colleges and universities use some form of Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting (RCV / IRV). (* These numbers represent those reported. Actual use could be higher) Perhaps that is why The Utah Republican Party and the Arlington County, VA, County Democratic Committee (ACDC) have implemented RCV / IRV.  Perhaps that is why Roberts Rules of Order, the leading parliamentary standard includes the use of RCV / IRV. Perhaps that is why politicians, political organizations and publications endorse RCV / IRV. Perhaps that is why a system first used in the late 1800’s is still in use today.

There is a slightly held misconception that RCV / IRV is difficult to understand, that voters will have difficulty casting their ballots and not accept RCV / IRV. Exit data and polls combined with the level of use outlined above clearly put that misconception to rest.

In one group of polling data looking at San Francisco, CA; Burlington, VT; Takoma Park, MD; Cary, NC; and Hendersonville, NC, an average 89 percent of voters understood RCV / IRV.  78.4 percent preferred its use.

In Portland, ME, 94 percent of voters understood RCV / IRV with 66 percent finding it easy. Voters also found campaigns to be more positive with more information available.

In Minneapolis, MN, 90 percent understood the process and 95 percent found it simple to use. When asked if they favored RCV / IRV, 68 percent either preferred it or said it didn’t matter while 65 percent wanted it used in future elections.

The above examples are for uses of RCV / IRV in the pure sense. Since no primary election is held, some races have had a large number of candidates requiring several rounds of runoff. However, voters still understood and accepted the process.

The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) makes the process even easier to understand and use. Because NEMRA includes a primary election narrowing the general election field down to three requiring only one round of runoff should no candidate receive 50 percent plus one first choice votes, the process of ranking several candidates is reduced to simply selecting a first and second choice.  The difference between the current primary / general election system and NEMRA is negligible while the benefit is substantial. This should result in even greater voter acceptance than experienced in other jurisdictions.

Another election method that ensures a majority winner that is used in Washington and California, and in modified form in Louisiana, and Nebraska is the Top-Two non-partisan open blanket primary. With voters selecting the two candidates moving forward to the general election, one candidate will receive the majority of the votes cast. However, as I detailed in August “You Can’t Compare NEMRA to California’s Top-Two”, NEMRA has the potential to provide greater benefits to candidates, voters, political parties, and governing bodies.

It’s no secret that partisanship now shapes our daily lives more than any other issue.  Getting our political discussion back to a level where legislatures can solve the issues facing their constituents should be a priority. The Arlington County Democratic Party in Virginia and voters in Portland, ME verify what other studies have found, systems that use RCV / IRV can accomplish this.

2015 is the year Nevada can join the nearly 200 reported (*actual use could be higher) governmental, political and private, and educational institutions and groups that have implemented RCV / IRV by enacting NEMRA.  These organizations have found this system, which ensures a more representative governing body, where election winners have the clear support of a majority of the electorate, is widely accepted and easily understood. Nevadans deserve no less.  

According to NRS 218D. 150legislators may submit their final Bill Draft Requests (BDR) between the start of the legislative session; February 2, 2015, and 5:00 P.M. on the eighth day of the session, in this case, February 8, 2015. Assembly members may submit one BDR during this period. State Senators are allowed two.

In addition to this allotment, prior to the first day of the session; February 2, 2015, the Assembly Speaker and Senate Majority Leader may each submit BDR’s equal to the number remaining from the 15 allotted to the previous Speaker and Majority Leader. As of December 5^th, 14 remain for the Speaker while the new Senate Majority Leader has the full 15 remaining. The Minority Leaders of both the Assembly and Senate are allowed to complete the allotment of 10 each. As of December 5^th, the Assembly Minority Leader has submitted two leaving eight for the new Minority Leader. The Senate Minority Leader can submit 10 before the star of the session.

As of December 5^th, very few legislators have used their full allotment of BDR. The opportunity for a legislator to take the lead, to clearly demonstrate to all Nevada voters they matter, and file a BDR for the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) is there until 5:00 P.M. on February 9, 2015.