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.