In an August 13^th blog posting, How to get the Millennial Generation to the Polls and in The Millennial Generation, The Future, and NEMRA posted October 19^th, I cover how the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) will encourage the generation that is our future to increase their participation in the electoral process. These articles highlight the fact that voters in the 18 to 34 year old range vote in lower numbers than the overall average.

The Millennial Generation is also disillusioned to a greater extent than the overall voting population with the two major political parties. This almost ten percent difference is clearly shown in Voters Registered as Non-Partisan Jump Ten Percent Since Last Election.

Now, CIRCLE, The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement, out of Tufts University further shows how the Millennial Generation is an enigma to both the Republican and Democratic Parties. This does not need to be the case. Rather than ignoring the largest generation since the Baby Boomers, both major parties should accept the challenge of bringing them into the process, encouraging them to become involved, and perhaps register as a member rather than as independent.  In Nevada, NEMRA is the catalyst and tool to accomplish this.

In its report, Eight Takeaways About Young Voters and the 2014 Election, CIRCLE lists the top two as “Youth propensity for being independent poses a conundrum for political parties and democracy” and “Missing Mobilization”. Millennials are registering as independents in greater numbers. Since party registration is often stressed over issues in today’s campaigns, political parties are not tapping into this large pool of voters. And since they are not affiliated with a political party, Millennials are overlooked in mobilization and get out the vote efforts.

The next deadline for legislators to file Bill Draft Requests (BDR) for the upcoming legislative session is three weeks away, December 10, 2014. Who will be known as the leader that places Nevada at the fore of election reform?

The Las Vegas Valley League of Women Voters says the 2015 Nevada legislature needs to take up election reform and sites the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) as an example.

Randi Thompson, political commentator for the Reno Gazette Journal and Nevada Newsmakers says the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act is deserving of further study by the Nevada legislature. (See July 18, 2014; Minority Rules)

Chambers of Commerce have expressed interest but will not take a position until there is a bill introduced.

I doubt there is much, if any disagreement that voter turnout must improve, that confidence in our electoral process must be restored. I’m certain most will agree younger voters and all others who feel left out need to know their views are recognized as valid.  I’m sure Republican and Democratic Party leadership would like to reverse the trend of growing Non-Partisan voter registration at their expense.  Is there a candidate that would not like to claim a true majority mandate after winning? I highly doubt it. Doing everything possible, regardless how small, to attract jobs to Nevada is a legislative priority. NEMRA provides a positive solution for all these.

Problems are solved only through open and honest discussion. As the League of Women Voters and Randi Thompson urge, the time for Nevada legislators to have this discussion on election reform is the 2015 session starting February 2, 2015.  Who will be the legislator known as the leader willing to start the dialog on election reform that will give Nevada the most inclusive voting process in the nation? The next BDR filing deadline is three weeks away, December 10^th. 

In an editorialpublished November 12, 2014, the Washington Post endorsed the use of open primaries, where all voters can participate and Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting (RCV / IRV).

The editorial is addressing three bills introduced by Washington, D.C. Council member David Grosso (I-At Large) to reform the voting process in the nation’s capital. However, the importance of this endorsement by a leading and one of the most respected national newspapers on the need for open primaries and the end of plurality winners cannot be over-emphasized.

Mason’s Manual for Legislative Bodies provides the framework for how most state legislatures, including Nevada, conduct business. The above statement from the NCSL provides a key reason why Mason’s and not Roberts Rules of Order, the standard for parliamentary procedure, is used; only the people can change its powers.

Given this, it is easy and reasonable to equate the electorate to any other parliamentary body when it comes to voting. The nomination process and primary election serve as the motion and second. The general election is the vote by the body on the motion. This is why the inclusion of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in Section 45, Voting Procedure of Roberts Rules of Orderas Preferential Voting is highly relevant to the general election process as detailed in the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA).  

In Section 45, the requirement for a majority, not plurality winner is central. The use of Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting (RCV / IRV) in the general election, as provided for in NEMRA guarantees the winner of any election does so after receiving no less than 50 percent plus one of the votes cast. In NEMRA, this tally can be achieved in the primary, upon the count of first-choice votes in the general election, or after second-choice votes are added, if necessary. As I highlighted the day after the election, both Congressman-elect Hardy and Attorney General Laxalt, along with 13 other winners at county and city level did not achieve the majority threshold.

Ensuring the winner of an election does so with a majority of at least 50 percent plus one of the votes cast is not a new concept. It is, in fact, the accepted standard as noted in Roberts. This guarantee is one of the many benefits of NEMRA. When added with:

Broadening the scope and depth of discussion on issues

Increasing voter knowledge and awareness of the issues

Potentially increase voter turnout

Potentially reducing campaign costs

Encouraging voters who believe their vote does not matter to return to the polls

Potentially attracting jobs to Nevada

Providing an atmosphere where political parties can regain lost membership

Providing a benefit to taxpayers, and

Allowing candidates who hold moderate views to express them

 the adoption and implementation of NEMRA holds only positive outcomes for the citizens of Nevada.  

Cresent Hardy, Nevada CD4 Congressman-elect, does not have a mandate. Neither does Nevada’s new Attorney General Adam Laxalt. Both were elected with less than 50 percent of the votes cast. Joining them were 13 local officials in Clark, Douglas, Elko, Lyon, Pershing, Storey, and White Pines Counties.  These 15 people had more votes cast against them than for, yet were elected.

Under the general election provisions of the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA), using Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting (RCV / IRV), each would still most likely have won, yet they would have done so with a clear majority, at least 50 percent plus one. From a perception standpoint, and the ability to respond to criticism, this is a major difference.

Voters in Nevada cast ballots in 322 races, not including the three ballot questions. Thirty-seven of those races had more than two candidates vying for the seat. In 22 of those races, the winner received at least 50 percent plus one of the votes. Under RCV / IRV, these candidates would have been declared the winner on first choice votes. The remaining 15 races would have gone to the second count, eliminating the third place finisher and distributing the second choice votes. While the use of RCV / IRV is fairly new, most candidates who receive the highest number of first choice votes go on to win after second choice votes are added in.  Review of results in the cities that use RCV / IRV show it a rarity if this does not occur. While there may be a few others, the only such occurrence I can find is the 2010 Mayor’s race in Oakland, CA.

The use of RCV / IRV in the general election as proposed by NEMRA has no downside. Both races mentioned at the start of this article were highly contentious and costly. I’m certain both Congressman-elect Hardy and Attorney General Laxalt would have appreciated being able to declare a solid mandate going forward.  

On October 30, 2014, the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) hosted a panel discussion, “By the Numbers: What the Midterms Mean for a Polarized America.” The hour and a half discussion, worth the time to watch, further highlights the partisan divide that exists and the likelihood that nothing will change following the November 4^th election.

The panelists for this discussion were Whit Ayres, Founder and President, North Star Opinion Research; Mark Mellman, Founder and President, The Mellman Group; Amy Walter, National Editor, The Cook Political Report. The panel focused on what party would control Congress following the election and how the results will impact the partisan divide in this country. Discussion included how national politics and PACs are increasingly impacting local campaigns, elections, and law making.

As with the BPC report, “Governing in a Polarized America: A Bipartisan Blueprint to Strengthen our Democracy”, released in June of this year and reported on this blog, this panel discussion further highlights the need for the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) to be part of the upcoming Nevada legislature session.

Some highlights of the panel discussion:

·         Polarization and partisanship will continue unless the president can duplicate the Clinton model; sincerely work with both sides to reach consensus and achieve results

·         Tip O’Neill’s “All politics is local” no longer applies. National issues such as Obamacare, abortion, and immigration reform along with national PACs and Super PACs have found their way into state and local races where those issues have nothing to do with the elected position being sought or issues facing the city, county, or state (Yes, in Nevada too)

·         Substance of the debate is not important, party label is the driving factor. Witt Ayers referenced a poll done in 2013 on education. The question presented began with identifying which party was presenting the plan. The first iteration found Democrats supported the plan identified as the Democratic plan and Republicans supported the plan identified as the GOP plan by over 70 percent. The second iteration did not change to substance of the plans but simply swapped party label; the plan identified as the Democratic plan was now introduced as the GOP plan and the GOP plan as the Democratic. The results were identical.

·         The impact of partisanship over many aspects of our daily lives is hurting the process of governing. Party label overrides policy and lack of policy discussion keeps turnout low

·         Partisanship forces candidates to take extreme positions during the primary that may be difficult to overcome during the general election. The Kansas U.S. Senate race where Republican Pat Roberts has to overcome that obstacle in his race against Independent Greg Orman was cited as an example. The 1974 Senate race between Bob Dole and Bill Roy was also mentioned as the driving force behind Dole achieving the success he did.  

·         State legislatures are mirroring Congress. No one wants to take the necessary risks to solve issues in fear of losing political points

·         While some elected leaders want to collaborate on legislation, mirroring a recent NBC / Wall Street Journal poll on voter preference for compromise, party organizations and vocal base are not willing to take that path. Those elected as a result of this level of partisanship and low turnout move forward under a false belief of having a mandate

The Millennial Generation is the largest generation in American history. Recent estimates state there are between 80 to 90 million persons born between 1980 and 2000, far out-distancing both Baby Boomers and Gen X. 

They are also more politically complex, so different from what has been considered the norm, that the major political parties are perceived to be ignoring them rather than take steps to adjust to what is obviously a new political environment. For whatever the reason, that unwillingness does not bode well for our future.

Two recent studies; Pew Research in March, 2014 and the Reason / Rupe Survey released in July, 2014, present detailed insight to this political phenomenon. Combined, they provide what could be a foundation for the necessary change our political process must undergo if the Millennial Generation is to be successful in assuming their rightful position as the leaders of our cities, counties, states, and nation.

As I noted in a blog post of August 13, 2014, “How to get the Millennial Generation to the Polls”, the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA), provides a logical first step in the process of change.

Millennials do not trust either Republicans or Democrats. Neither major party truly represents them (at least the vocal minorities that are considered by party leadership as their base). Their views on social issues are more liberal yet they hold more centrist fiscal attitudes. Rather than join a party and conform to set political dogma, they stay away from those traditional associations. Nevada voter registration statistics confirm this.

Millennials believe both government and business play an important role but are not sure to what level each should control. They believe that personal choices and hard work are the major factors in determining one’s path in life.

In any discussion or debate of issues, progress cannot be made if both sides are not speaking the same language. If the same words take on different meanings, nothing positive can result. The Reason / Rupe survey gives an excellent example; “Only 16% of millennials can accurately define socialism making it less surprising that up to 42% prefer socialism and 52% favor capitalism.” This inability to communicate exacerbates the fear and worsens the divide.

Our future leaders, those of the Millennial Generation should not be shunned. Our political system, the political parties should be willing to make the necessary changes to make this generation feel welcome so they can begin making positive contributions to our overall well-being.  The Republican and Democratic parties in Nevada, through their elected officials, can take the first step by ensuring NEMRA is part of the 2015 legislative session.

  

According to a study released June, 2014 by Stanford University, Fear and Loathing Across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization by Shanto Iyengar (Chandler Chair of Communication and Professor of Political Science, Stanford University) and Sean J. Westwood (Post-Doctoral Researcher, Princeton University) partisanship is now more divisive in our society than race. This study is the third such report released in June; the others being from the Bipartisan Policy Center and Pew Research, detailing how the current high level of political partisanship impacts many other aspects of our daily lives and social interaction. 

September was National Voter Registration Month so I thought what better time to look at the national trend of voters registered with no party affiliation.

There are 31 states plus the District of Columbia that require voters to select party preference when registering to vote. Using the most recent available data (September 2013 and September 2014 if possible); 2013 numbers were not available in Kentucky and Utah while Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island did not have data for 2014 available on their web sites, the average percent of voters not registered in any political party is 26.7. The highest percentage is in Alaska where 53.8% of voters are unaffiliated while the lowest is Pennsylvania at 8.1%. The median is 23.3%. Nevada is at 19.1%.

How about the rate of change? Using the same data:

                                    Dem                Rep                  Unaffiliated

Average change          -0.3%               +0.3%              -.02%

Median change            -0.5%               -0.1%               +0.5%

Low                             -2.1% (NV)     -0.7% (CA)     -6.9% (ID)*                

High                            +4.7% (MD)    +5.9% (ID)      +2.2% (CA)

Nevada                        -2.1%               +0.4%              +1.5%

* Drop from 59.4% to 52.5%

I’ve highlighted the trend in Nevada over the past three months. We are not alone. This is a national trend that shows no signs of slowing down.

By passing the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA), our state has the opportunity to adjust to this new political reality. Legislators can demonstrate the belief that all voters are equally important, that their opinions and votes matter as they make the decisions that will guide Nevada into the future.

These words were penned by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia when writing the majority (7-2) decision in California Democratic Party, et al v. Jones, Secretary of State of California, et al, certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the ninth circuit (No. 99–401. Argued April 24, 2000—Decided June 26, 2000). The full decision can be found here.

In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 198 creating a partisan blanket primary where all candidates, regardless of party affiliation appeared on the same ballot with the candidate of each party who received the most votes becoming that party’s nominee for the general election.  The parties sued claiming violation of the First Amendment right of association. The Ninth Circuit upheld the law, however in Jones, the Supreme Court overturned.

The paragraph quoted above appears at the end of the decision. What I find interesting is that while ruling a blanket primary that allows voters not affiliated with a particular political party to choose that party’s nominee(s) violates the First Amendment right of association, Justice Scalia is agreeing with the proponents’ argument of an overriding state interest by recommending an alternative process that would pass Constitutional muster.  In 2008, the Court did just that by a vote of 6-3 in Washington State Grange v Washington

Two versions of the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) are presented on this blog. The first version implementing a top-three non-partisan, open, blanket primary with Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting (RCV / IRV in general election clearly conforms with Justice Scalia’s decision in Jones. The modified version of NEMRA proposed last month more closely resembles a semi-closed primary in that members of opposing political parties cannot vote for the nominee of the party of which they are not affiliated while voters not affiliated with any political party may vote for the nominee of either party. I have received mixed legal opinions. Some say allowing voters registered as Non-Partisan to choose a political party’s nominee without declaring at least temporary membership in that party by selecting only that party’s ballot, as done in a traditional semi-closed primary, violates Jones. Others say that as long as opposing party members do not participate in each other’s nominating process the conditions set in Jonesare met.

Ideally the Legislative Council Bureau (LCB) should review both NEMRA proposals and advise legislators of any legal concerns. This advice will assist any legislator(s) considering filing a BDR as well as committee and full legislature consideration.