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.