SB 103 We Have a Bill

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

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

February 2, 2017July 23, 2017

As Session Sets to Open Major Parties Still Losing Voter Share

The 2017 session of the Nevada Legislature begins in four days and the Voter registration numbers for January, 2017 show no change in the trend. Both major political parties continue to lose voter share while Non-Partisan and total voters not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party grow. According to the secretary of state’s office, some counties performed routine list maintenance. However, the trend still was across all demographics; state-wide, Clark County, Washoe County, rural counties, among those 18 – 34 years of age and those above 55.

State-Wide

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-340	-0.06	39.55	0.00
R	-569	-0.11	33.09	-0.02
NP	76	0.02	20.89	0.01
Other	-41	-0.05	6.46	0.00
Total not D or R			27.35	0.01

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP -0.03%; Lib +0.11%; other 5 parties -0.26%

Clark County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	77	0.02	43.23	0.00
R	-124	-0.04	28.86	-0.02
NP	220	0.10	21.81	0.02
Other	33	0.05	6.10	0.01
Total not D or R			27.91	0.03

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +0.09%; Lib +0.25%; other 5 parties -0.22%

Washoe County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-314	-0.33	35.82	-0.01
R	-291	-0.29	37.09	0.00
NP	-126	-0.24	19.86	0.02
Other	-56	-0.19	7.24	0.00
Total not D or R			27.10	0.02

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP -0.34%; Lib -0.09%; other 5 parties -0.28%

Rural Counties

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-103	-0.23	24.30	-0.01
R	-154	-0.16	51.04	0.00
NP	-18	-0.06	17.25	0.02
Other	-26	-0.19	7.41	0.00
Total not D or R			24.66	0.02

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP -0.14%; Lib -0.21%; other 5 parties -0.64%

18 – 34 Year Old

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-533	-0.32	39.63	0.00
R	-386	-0.41	22.73	-0.01
NP	-338	-0.28	29.60	0.02
Other	-95	-0.28	8.05	0.01
Total not D or R			37.65	0.03

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP -0.18%; Lib -0.24%; other 5 parties -0.57%

55+

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	220	0.09	40.07	0.00
R	136	0.06	40.46	-0.02
NP	230	0.26	14.31	0.02
Other	39	0.12	5.17	0.01
Total not D or R			19.48	0.03

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +0.12%; Lib +0.23%; other 5 parties +0.05%

Major party loses also continue in congressional and legislative districts.

Congressional Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	1	1	2
Republican	3	1	0
Non-Partisan	0	4	0
Other	0	1	3

Both CD 1 and CD 4continue to show the number of voters not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties.

State Senate Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	8	6	7
Republican	17	2	2
Non-Partisan	0	17	4
Other	7	7	7

In 13 districts (61.9%) the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan or the total number not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties. This is unchanged from last month.

State Assembly Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	23	18	1
Republican	30	7	5
Non-Partisan	6	28	8
Other	14	20	8

In 31 districts (73.81%) the number of voters registered as Non-Partisan or the total number not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties. This is unchanged from last month.

Bill language is pending on a bill draft request submitted by Senator James Settelymeyer (R-Minden) that will open up the primary election process to this continually growing segment of disenfranchised Nevada voters. The Nevada legislature can lead the nation by becoming the first legislative body to enact this important election reform. Voters in other states have lead election reform efforts. Isn’t it better if elected officials implement these changes?

January 23, 2017July 23, 2017

Nevada Democratic Caucus Blueprint, Voting Rights, and NEMRA

UPDATE (February 18, 2017)

For the 2017 session, the Democratic Caucus changed the Blueprint. The following is in the introduction signed by both Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford and Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson; “We also need to protect our heritage. That means preserving Nevada’s natural environment, protecting our constitutional rights, and making it easier for our citizens to participate in the democratic process.”

“Though Democrats won’t release their full slate of legislative priorities until February, one issue both Ford and Frierson have already highlighted as critical in the upcoming session is expanding voting rights, especially amid fears that the Trump Administration won’t fight against initiatives that could disenfranchise minority groups.”

The above paragraph (bold highlight added) is from an article by Megan Messerly and Michelle Rindels, “Ford and Frierson: Will the Legislature’s new leaders be complements or competitors?”published by The Nevada Independent on January 21, 2017.

During the 2015 session of the Nevada legislature, the Democratic caucus published the “Nevada Blueprint”. This document outlines the principles and legislative goals of the caucus.

From that document (bold highlight added)

PROTECTING YOUR RIGHTS

Our Nevada Blueprint Will:

Fight to ensure that voting is free, fair, and accessible for all eligible voters in Nevada.
Protect every Nevadan’s right to his or her day in court.
Encourage voter participation by providing for same-day voter registration, implementing Election Day vote centers, and automating the DMV’s voter registration system.

“..expanding voting rights” and “..accessible for all eligible voters..”. At the end of 2016, over 27 percent of registered voters in Nevada are not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party. Nearly 21 percent are registered as Non-Partisan. Month after month, both major political parties lose voter share while Non-Partisan and minor parties gain. This trend is across all demographics; Clark and Washoe Counties, the rural counties, those between the ages of 18 to 34 (percentage in this group are 10 percent higher than the state total), those over 55, and throughout all state senate and assembly districts.

For partisan elected offices, Nevada uses the closed primary system. Voters must be registered as either Democratic or Republican to help select the party’s candidates for the general election. Political parties are private organizations protected by the first amendment’s right of association. It is their right to conduct their internal operations and select their candidates as they see fit. This right has been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, in Nevada, all taxpayers pay for primary elections. Democratic Party members are paying for the Republican Party primary and vice versa along with their own. Non-Partisans and members of minor political parties are paying for both parties’ primary elections. Taxpayers are paying for something they are blocked from participating in. Taxpayers funding internal operations of a political party may be unconstitutional.

As voter registration statistics show, an increasing number of voters are showing their frustration by voluntarily giving up their right to participate in part of their voting franchise. Yes, this is a choice, but the choice is being driven by the system and current level of political divisiveness.

“..expanding voting rights” and “..accessible for all eligible voters..”. Under the current system, voters’ rights are being curtailed and all elections are not accessible for all eligible voters. The Democratic caucus’ Blueprint places an emphasis on correcting these systemic flaws.

The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) provides the means for the Democratic caucus to satisfy this goal of their agenda. State Senator James Settelmeyer (R-Minden) has filed a bill draft request (BDR).

Ensuring all voters are guaranteed the opportunity to participate in all elections is part of the Democratic caucus Nevada Blueprint. The caucus should work to pass Senator Settelmeyer’s bill.

January 20, 2017November 18, 2017

Another Year and the Partisan Divide Keeps Growing

As we start a new year and a new presidency, Pew Research once again takes a look at the partisan division in this country. The January, 2017 poll does not bode well. I last posted about this last January.

With the inauguration of President Trump just completed and what may have been the most negative campaign cycle in recent memory behind us, optimism leads to the thought that perhaps the partisan divide could narrow. If the Pew report is any indication, the reverse is more likely.

Going into 2017, 86 percent of those polled say the country is more politically divided. Pew Research has been tracking the partisan divide since 2004 and this is the highest result ever recorded. Even more ominous is the fact that 71 percent think this division will either remain the same or get worse (40 percent remain the same, 31 percent get worse).

What about the chances lawmakers will come together and reach agreement? Republicans are more optimistic with 50 percent believing they will not work with the other party. Conversely, among Democratic Party members, 72 percent say that animosity and refusal to come together will continue.

For government at all levels to function, this environment cannot exist. Respectful disagreement and discussion of the issues is paramount if collaboration and cooperation are to flourish. Only then will issues be positively addressed.

The Nevada legislature has the opportunity to become the first state legislature to implement a process that could lead to lessening the partisan divide. Normally changes that are required are the result of voter initiatives. A bill draft request (BDR) has been submitted by Senator James Settelmeyer (R-Minden) that would put in place a system that has shown to focus campaigns and the act of legislating on the issues rather than on the next election. (Talk of who will run in 2018 and 2020 are already filling the media) The system contained in this BDR forces candidates and elected officials to focus on all voters rather than just their political party’s so-called base. It addresses head on the voter registration dynamics that show the major political parties losing voter share while registrations as Non-Partisan and to minor political parties increase.

The Nevada legislature convenes in two weeks, February 6, 2017. Let Nevada take the lead in taking the first step to narrow the partisan divide so that future polls show a different result.

January 11, 2017July 23, 2017

December Not Good for Major Parties As Both Lose Voter Share While Non-Partisan and Minor Parties Gain

December, 2016 Voter registration numbers are in and the trend continues. Even though the state recorded only a small gain in active registered voters (943), the anomaly that was November gave way to a continuation of the trend where both the Democratic and Republican Party lost voter share while Non-Partisan and minor parties continue to gain. As what has become normal, the trend is across all demographics, state-wide, Clark County, Washoe County, rural counties, among 18 to 34 year olds and those 55 and over.

State-Wide

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-147	-0.02	39.55	-0.04
R	32	0.01	33.11	-0.02
NP	548	0.17	20.88	0.03
Other	510	0.53	6.46	0.03
Total not D or R			27.34	0.06

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +0.64%; Lib +0.80%; other 5 parties -0.12%

Clark County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-197	-0.04	43.23	-0.02
R	-311	-0.1	28.88	-0.03
NP	30	0.01	21.79	0.00
Other	365	0.57	6.09	0.03
Total not D or R			27.88	0.03

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +0.73%; Lib +0.77%; other 5 parties -0.09%

Washoe County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	30	0.03	35.83	-0.05
R	121	0.12	37.09	-0.01
NP	228	0.43	19.84	0.05
Other	64	0.33	7.24	0.01
Total not D or R			27.08	0.06

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +0.43%; Lib +0.85%; other 5 parties -0.41%

Rural Counties

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	20	0.04	24.31	-0.07
R	222	0.23	51.04	-0.05
NP	290	0.90	17.23	0.10
Other	81	0.58	7.41	0.01
Total not D or R			24.64	0.11

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +0.53%; Lib +0.90%; other 5 parties +0.55%

18 – 34 Year Old

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	-567	-0.34	39.63	-0.03
R	-388	-0.41	22.74	-0.04
NP	-222	-0.18	29.58	0.02
Other	78	0.23	8.04	0.04
Total not D or R			37.62	0.06

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +0.43%; Lib +0.56%; other 5 parties -0.48%

55+

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	484	0.20	40.07	-0.05
R	768	0.31	40.48	0.00
NP	639	0.74	14.29	0.03
Other	233	0.75	5.16	0.02
Total not D or R			19.45	0.05

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +0.80%; Lib +0.69%; other 5 parties +0.44%

Major party loses also continue in congressional and legislative districts.

Congressional Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	3	0	1
Republican	4	0	0
Non-Partisan	0	4	0
Other	0	4	0

Both CD 1 and CD 4continue to show the number of voters not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties.

State Senate Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	16	5	0
Republican	17	4	0
Non-Partisan	5	14	2
Other	1	19	1

State Assembly Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	30	10	2
Republican	32	8	2
Non-Partisan	11	29	2
Other	5	34	3

We are less than a month from the start of the 2017 Nevada legislative session. A bill draft request (BDR) has been filed to acknowledge this continuing trend. If passed, Nevada will be the first state legislature to positively address election reform; election reform normally takes a voter initiative petition.

December 11, 2016July 23, 2017

Media Continues to Feed Partisan Divide and Campaign Negativity

The electors of the Electoral College will meet in their respective states in one week and cast the votes that will elect Donald Trump the 45^th President of the United States. Throughout the campaign season, many questioned the role of the media, both mainstream and online, in making what was envisioned as nearly impossible a reality.

The campaigns of 2016 were mostly negative, not only at the national level but at the state and local level as well. It is no secret our political environment is deeply divided. Do media play a role in maintaining, or even increasing this divide? Do journalists strive for negativity over substance?

I first wrote about this subject in March, 2015 in an article “Does The Media Purposely Fan The Flames Of Political Divisiveness?” Now the Harvard Kennedy School, Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy has released a four-part study analyzing media’s coverage of the 2016 presidential election. While both positive and negative coverage is reviewed, the amount of and reason behind negative stories is revealing. Also revealing is how media culture and its control over our decisions have changed over the years.

The studyis worth the time it takes to read; the cover page gives a good summary. It takes an in-depth look at the pre-primary period; how media impacted the rise of Donald Trump, the interest in Bernie Sanders, and the negative view of Hillary Clinton. This is followed by analyses of the race to the nomination, the convention month, and finally the November election.

In each segment, the author provides data on not only how and why negative stories overwhelmingly outnumbered positive but also why media focuses on negative reporting (bottom line, it sells). The study traces the history of this attention to negativity, explaining its roots in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. Not surprising, the study finds this emphasis on the negative by media is not restricted to politics but cuts across all areas of our lives.

Given the reason(s) behind the trend of negative reporting, the power it gives journalists, reporters, and commentators over our decisions, and the decades it has been allowed to thrive, it is unlikely change will happen fast. The first step in getting media to return to its original purpose of informing the public and providing unbiased facts is for voters to stop “buying” the negativity and start demanding substantive information on which they can base their decisions.

Using Ranked Choice / Instant Run-off voting (RCV / IRV) as outlined in the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) has shown to reduce negative campaigning and return civilityto our electoral and governing processes. In just eight weeks, on February 6, 2017, the Nevada legislature can begin the process to end negative politics in Nevada by enacting NEMRA – 2017.

December 1, 2016July 23, 2017

GOP Continues to Lose Voter Share as Dem’s, Non-Partisan, and “Other” Gain

Voter registration numbers for November, 2016 have been released and it’s not good news for the GOP. Across all demographics, the Republican Party lost voter share while the Democratic Party, Non-Partisan, and minor parties gained. The only exception was in the 18-34 year old age group where Non-Partisan and minor parties also lost share. There is a caveat. The Independent American Party (IAP) grew by over four percent among this demographic leading to the assumption that some of those voters meant to register as Non-Partisan (an accepted fact). The IAP also experienced high growth across all other demographics, recording the highest growth rate state-wide of 3.63 percent. Based on historical trends, the assumption is some of this growth should have been in the Non-Partisan category.

State-Wide

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	18,137	3.14	39.59	0.15
R	9.689	1.98	33.13	-0.24
NP	9,289	3.05	20.85	0.06
Other	3,071	3.28	6.43	0.03
Total not D or R			27.28	0.09

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +3.63%; Lib +3.30%; other 5 parties +1.94%

Clark County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	15,425	3.52	43.25	0.16
R	7,081	2.39	28.91	-0.21
NP	7,274	3.28	21.79	0.03
Other	2,269	3.70	6.06	0.03
Total not D or R			27.85	0.06

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +3.70%; Lib +3.75%; other 5 parties +2.13%

Washoe County

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	1,390	1.47	35.88	0.02
R	1,008	1.03	37.10	-0.15
NP	971	1.87	19.79	0.09
Other	369	1.95	7.23	0.04
Total not D or R			27.02	0.13

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +2.25%; Lib +2.12%; other 5 parties +0.86%

Rural Counties

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	1,322	2.98	24.38	0.15
R	1,600	1.70	51.09	-0.36
NP	1,053	3.39	17.13	0.16
Other	433	3.22	7.40	0.06
Total not D or R			24.53	0.22

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +3.19%; Lib +3.21%; other 5 parties +3.61%

18 – 34 Year Old

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	6,122	3.85	39.66	0.21
R	2,666	2.89	22.78	-0.09
NP	3,429	2.87	29.56	-0.12
Other	1,048	3.25	8.00	-0.01
Total not D or R			37.56	-0.13

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +4.12%; Lib +3.31%; other 5 parties +1.22%

55+

Party	Change in # Voters	% Change	% Voter Share	Difference in Voter Share %
D	4,847	2.03	40.12	0.07
R	3,460	1.43	40.48	-0.16
NP	1,950	2.30	14.26	0.06
Other	763	2.50	5.14	0.03
Total not D or R			19.40	0.09

Other includes IAP, Lib, and 5 parties without ballot access.

Change is # voters: IAP +2.50%; Lib +2.29%; other 5 parties +2.66%

Major party loses also continue in congressional and legislative districts.

Congressional Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	4	0	0
Republican	4	0	0
Non-Partisan	1	3	0
Other	0	4	0

In CD 1 and CD 4the number of voters not affiliated with either major party is greater than or within 5% of the number of voters registered to one of the major parties. This is the first time more than one CD has fallen into this category

State Senate Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	1	19	1
Republican	21	0	0
Non-Partisan	6	15	0
Other	1	20	0

State Assembly Districts

Party	# Districts Lose Voter Share	# Districts Gain Voter Share	# Districts No Change
Democratic	6	33	3
Republican	42	0	0
Non-Partisan	12	29	1
Other	6	32	4

In 30 districts (71.43%) 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.

November was a good month for the Democratic Party and a disaster for the Republican. November also appears to be one of the exceptions where one of the major parties outperformed Non-Partisans.

We are nine weeks away from the start of the 2017 Nevada legislative session. It will be interesting to see how the legislature in action impacts voter registration trends.

November 29, 2016July 23, 2017

State Legislatures Know The Process Is Broken And Are Taking Action

What do these states have in common? At first glance, the answer of “nothing” would be understandable. However, the correct answer is something very significant.

In 2016, the state legislatures in these 13 states along with the District of Columbia, considered legislation dealing with the use of Ranked Choice / Instant Run-off voting (RCV / IRV). This does not include the approval of ballot initiatives in Maine and Benton County, Oregon.

RCV / IRV is not the only election reform legislation considered by state legislatures in 2016. Automatic voter registration (AVR) was approved by the state legislatures in California, Connecticut, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia. Voters in Alaska also approved a ballot initiative implementing AVR. Legislatures in 26 other states also did or are considering legislation to implement AVR.

In 16 states, legislatures are also debating the merits of a top-two non-partisan open primary either through direct legislation or by establishing studies or exploratory committees.

Voters believe our election systems are broken. More importantly, state legislators share this belief and are taking action to reverse the partisan divisiveness gripping our country, our states, our counties, and our cities. This divisiveness not only hinders effective governance but our economic well-being as well. Nevada is not currently on any of these lists though the legislature in 2015 briefly considered a bill to change the primary election process.

That can change in ten weeks when the Nevada legislature convenes on February 6, 2017. By filing a bill draft request (BDR) and passing the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017), Nevada can not only join the list of state legislatures addressing the issue but can be one of the first to pass and implement election reform legislation. (Other states have implemented reforms as the result of ballot initiative)

States Considering RCV / IRV

AZ ME

CA MN

GA NJ

HI NY

IN RI

MA VT

MD DC

States Considering AVR

AL LA OH

AR MD PA

AZ MI SC

FL MN TN

GA MO TX

HI NJ VA

IL NM WA

IN NY WI

IA NC

States Considering Top-Two

AZ MN

AK MS

FL NM

ID NY

IL OK

MA OR

MD SD

ME VA

November 17, 2016July 23, 2017

Role of Non-Partisan Voters as Nevada Legislature Returns to Blue

Just under 70 percent of Nevada voters cast ballots for state senator or assemblyperson either through in-person early voting, absentee or mail-in ballots or on election day. Since overall turnout was approximately76 percent, this means six percent did not vote for their representatives in the state legislature.

Data currently available from the secretary of state’s office does not yet include Election Day votes broken down by party. What is known from the data available is Democratic voters made up 42 percent of that total votes cast, Republicans 36 percent, and Non-Partisan and minor party 22 percent. Turnout in Clark County was below the average at 75 percent while Washoe County and the rural counties were above at 79 and 78 respectively.

The data also shows that 56 percent of Democratic voters, 57 percent of Republican voters, and 48 percent of Non-Partisan and minor party voters cast ballots prior to election day. Breaking out that data by county shows Democratic voters turned out an average of 8 percent less than registration, Republicans 16 percent lower, and Non-Partisan and minor party 11 percent less.

At the close of registrationfor the general election, Non-Partisans accounted for 21 percent of active registered voters with members of minor parties accounting for another 6.5 percent. In Clark County Non-Partisan and minor parties accounted for 22 percent and six percent, in Washoe County 20 percent and seven percent, and rural counties 17 and seven percent.

The tables linked here show just how important these voters were to the outcome. Even in races where the majority party easily won the seat, Non-partisan and minor party voters were instrumental. In several races, they were the deciding factor.

In the state senate, 11 seats were up for election. In the state assembly, all 42 seats were up. All major party candidates received a percentage of the vote higher than the party’s registration in their respective district. The higher the difference, the more Non-Partisan, minor party, and cross-over votes were received. In most races, these votes either increased or decreased the margin of victory. However, in Senate Districts 5 and 6, they determined the winner; the difference between the majority party maintaining or losing the seat. A similar impact can be seen in Assembly Districts 5 and 29. In Assembly Districts 4, 31, and 37 Non-Partisan and minor party voters were responsible for the majority party in the district losing the seat.

On the national level, independent voters made Donald Trump president. National turnout is said to have hit a 20-year low at 55 percent. Independent voters accounted for 31 percent. Of that percentage, exit polls show 48 percent voted for Donald Trump, 42 percent backed Hillary Clinton and 10 percent another or no candidate.

As the number of Non-Partisan voters continues to grow, candidates will have to reach out to those voters. This is the political reality. Enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) would provide a mechanism to embrace this changing political environment.

November 3, 2016July 23, 2017

One of the Leading Methods for Positive Structural Election Reform; NEMRA 2017

A single election in November using Ranked Choice / Instant Run-off Voting (RCV / IRV) is among the top methods to create lasting structural election reform. That is the finding of a study conducted by 14 leading political science and election law scholars. The study, released in January, 2016 was done in coordination with FairVote.org. The full study can be read here.

The focus of the study was what structural changes to current election methods would provide the most positive long-term benefits. It looked at both changes to primary and general elections.

The top structural reforms all involved the use of RCV / IRV in the general election. Changes to the primary election, such as a Top-Two open non-partisan primary currently in use in California, Washington, Nebraska, and Louisiana, were judged not to be as effective because they have not shown impact / change to the choices offered in the general election. Changes to primary election structure were also not considered as effective when compared to structural changes in general election processes due to lower turnout and domination of partisan voters in primary elections. When evaluating each structural change, the panel looked at:

· Legislative Functionality: Evidence-based, long-term policymaking; majoritarian policymaking; independence of legislators from party leadership

· Electoral Accountability: Voter ability to flip partisan control of chamber; incumbent turnover; responsiveness of outcomes to electoral shifts

· Voter Engagement: Increase in voters experiencing competitive elections; general election turnout; primary election turnout; year-round citizen engagement with officials; to what degree elections inform voters

· Openness of Process: Influence of unaffiliated voters; influence of independent and minor-party candidates; breadth of opinion represented in elected office; representation of women; representation of racial minorities

Structural change to an institutional process such as elections is rarely easy. It becomes easy when the need for change is known. When the details of the change are provided to those responsible for making and implementing the change, it becomes a matter of will.

Voter registration trends, negative campaigns, highly partisan legislative sessions, and outrage to the single party primary change made during the last Nevada legislative session attest to the need for structural election reform. The Nevada Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee took the first steps towards implementing change in 2015 by filing Bill Draft Request (BDR) 1149 and giving a hearing to SB 499. The Nevada legislature can finish the job started in 2015 by introducing and passing the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) during the session that begins in three months.