Category: Uncategorized

Posted on

Antonin Scalia Set Seeds For Non-Partisan Open Blanket Primary

“Respondents could protect them all by resorting to a nonpartisan blanket primary. Generally speaking, under such a system, the State determines what qualifications it requires for a candidate to have a place on the primary ballot—which may include nomination by established parties and voter-petition requirements for independent candidates. Each voter, regardless of party affiliation, may then vote for any candidate, and the top two vote getters (or however many the State prescribes) then move on to the general election. This system has all the characteristics of the partisan blanket primary, save the constitutionally crucial one: Primary voters are not choosing a party’s nominee. Under a nonpartisan blanket primary, a State may ensure more choice, greater participation, increased “privacy,” and a sense of “fairness”—all without severely burdening a political party’s First Amendment right of association.”
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.  
Posted on

Non-Partisan Voter Registration Increases in September – The Trend Continues

Will voters registered to vote as Non-Partisan reach 20 percent before voter registration for the November election closes in two weeks? Based on the voter registration statistics for September released todayby the secretary of state, that is a definite possibility.
Non-Partisans now account for 19.1 percent of active voters and 19.58 percent of total voters. When voters registered in one of the minor parties are added in, 25.45 percent of active and 26.11 percent of all voters chose not to affiliate with either of the two major parties. For 18 – 34 year old voters the numbers are almost 10 percent higher; 28.65 percent of active and 28.09 percent of total voters registered as Non-Partisan; 36.81 percent and 36.31 percent respectively not affiliated with either the Democratic or Republican Party.
During this same period, both the Democratic and Republican parties held constant, with changes up or down mostly less than one-tenth of one percent. This means more new registrants are choosing Non-Partisan.
As I have pointed the major political parties can slow or reverse this trend, but to do that they have to accept this growing number of independent-minded voters. Supporting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA), working for its introduction and passage in the 2015 legislative session will help them show they value the input of this rapidly growing segment of the voting population.  

Posted on

Modified Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – Proposed Draft

On July 24, 2014 I posted my proposed draft of the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA). Last week I wrote about a proposed revision to NEMRA. Here is my proposed draft should the revised version be determined to be the best way to proceed.
   
Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act
To change Title 24, chapter 293 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.  Deletions are shown by strikethrough. Additions are shown as bold italics.
MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES
      NRS 293.128  Procedure for qualification.
      1.  To qualify as a major political party, any organization must, under a common name:
      (a) On January 1 preceding any primary election, have been designated as a political party on the applications to register to vote of at least 10 percent of the total number of registered voters in this State; or
      (b) File a petition with the Secretary of State not later than the last Friday in February before any primary election signed by a number of registered voters equal to or more than 10 percent of the total number of votes cast at the last preceding general election for the offices of Representative in Congress.
      2.  If a petition is filed pursuant to paragraph (b) of subsection 1, the names of the voters need not all be on one document, but each document of the petition must be verified by the circulator thereof to the effect that the signers are registered voters of this State according to the circulator’s best information and belief and that the signatures are genuine and were signed in the circulator’s presence. Each document of the petition must bear the name of a county, and only registered voters of that county may sign the document. The documents which are circulated for signature must then be submitted for verification pursuant to NRS 293.1276 to 293.1279, inclusive, not later than 25 working days before the last Friday in February preceding a primary election.
      3.  In addition to the requirements set forth in subsection 1, each organization which wishes to qualify as a political party must file with the Secretary of State a certificate of existence which includes the:
      (a) Name of the political party;
      (b) Names and addresses of its officers;
      (c) Names of the members of its executive committee; and
      (d) Name of the person who is authorized by the party to act as registered agent in this State.
      4.  A political party shall file with the Secretary of State an amended certificate of existence within 5 days after any change in the information contained in the certificate.
      (Added to NRS by 1971, 433; A 1975, 936; 1979, 262; 1985, 1092; 1987, 1363; 1989, 221, 1727, 2158; 1995, 2258, 2623; 1997, 652; 1999, 3546; 2003, 1701; 2007, 2717; 2009, 1259)
    5. Any political party designated as a major political party will not be given preference for the placement of its candidates on the ballot for any primary or general election for any state elective office, for Representative in the United States House of Representatives, or for United States Senator. 
NRS 293.165  Procedure for filling vacancy in major or minor political party nomination or nonpartisan nomination.
      1.  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 293.166, a vacancy occurring in a major or minor political party nomination for a partisan office may be filled by a candidate designated by the party central committee of the county or State, as the case may be, of the major political party or by the executive committee of the minor political party subject to the provisions of subsections 4 and 5.
      2.  A vacancy occurring in a nonpartisan nomination for either a partisan or non-partisan office after the close of filing and on or before 5 p.m. of the second Tuesday in April must be filled by filing a nominating petition that is signed by registered voters of the State, county, district or municipality who may vote for the office in question. The number of registered voters who sign the petition must not be less than 1 percent of the number of persons who voted for the office in question in the State, county, district or municipality at the last preceding general election. The petition must be filed not earlier than the first Tuesday in March and not later than the fourth Tuesday in April. The petition may consist of more than one document. Each document must bear the name of one county and must be signed only by a person who is a registered voter of that county and who may vote for the office in question. Each document of the petition must be submitted for verification pursuant to NRS 293.1276 to 293.1279, inclusive, to the county clerk of the county named on the document. A candidate nominated pursuant to the provisions of this subsection:
      (a) Must file a declaration of candidacy or acceptance of candidacy and pay the statutory filing fee on or before the date the petition is filed; and
      (b) May be elected only at a general election, and the candidate’s name must not appear on the ballot for a primary election.
      3.  A vacancy occurring in a nonpartisan nomination after 5 p.m. of the second Tuesday in April and on or before 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in June of the year in which the general election is held must be filled by the person who receives the next highest vote for the nomination in the primary.
      4.  No change may be made on the ballot for the general election after 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in June of the year in which the general election is held. If a nominee dies after that time and date, the nominee’s name must remain on the ballot for the general election and, if elected, a vacancy exists.
      5.  All designations provided for in this section must be filed on or before 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in June of the year in which the general election is held. In each case, the statutory filing fee must be paid and an acceptance of the designation must be filed on or before 5 p.m. on the date the designation is filed.
    
      (Added to NRS by 1960, 242; A 1965, 668; 1967, 845; 1971, 437; 1981, 1698; 1989, 2159; 1993, 2174; 1995, 2774; 1999, 2149, 3547; 2001, 274, 2947; 2003, 1703; 2005, 1432; 2009, 1259; 2011, 3275)
      NRS 293.166  Procedure for filling vacancy in party nomination for office of State Legislator from multicounty legislative district.
      1.  A vacancy occurring in a party nomination for the office of State Senator, Assemblyman or Assemblywoman from a legislative district comprising more than one county may be filled as follows, subject to the provisions of subsections 2 and 3. The county commissioners of each county, all or part of which is included within the legislative district, shall meet to appoint a person who is of the same political party as the former nominee and who actually, as opposed to constructively, resides in the district to fill the vacancy, with the chair of the board of county commissioners of the county whose population residing within the district is the greatest presiding. Each board of county commissioners shall first meet separately and determine the single candidate it will nominate to fill the vacancy. Then, the boards shall meet jointly and the chairs on behalf of the boards shall cast a proportionate number of votes according to the percent, rounded to the nearest whole percent, which the population of its county is of the population of the entire district. Populations must be determined by the last decennial census or special census conducted by the Bureau of the Census of the United States Department of Commerce. The person who receives a plurality of these votes is appointed to fill the vacancy. If no person receives a plurality of the votes, the boards of county commissioners of the respective counties shall each as a group select one candidate, and the nominee must be chosen by drawing lots among the persons so selected. If the person creating the vacancy was registered to vote with a preference of non-partisan, the person selected by the county commissioners must also be registered to vote with a preference of non-partisan.
      2.  No change may be made on the ballot after the fourth Friday in June of the year in which the general election is held. If a nominee dies after that date, the nominee’s name must remain on the ballot and, if elected, a vacancy exists.
      3.  The designation of a nominee pursuant to this section must be filed with the Secretary of State on or before 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in June of the year in which the general election is held, and the statutory filing fee must be paid with the designation.
      (Added to NRS by 1967, 1087; A 1971, 437; 1981, 1699; 1989, 2159; 1999, 2150; 2005, 1433; 2011, 3276)
      NRS 293.167  Nomination of party candidates for United States Senator or Representative in Congress.  Party Candidates for United States Senator and Representative in Congress shall be nominated in the same manner as state officers are nominated, except that the provisions of NRS 293.3677(b) do not apply.
      (Added to NRS by 1960, 242)
MINOR POLITICAL PARTIES
      NRS 293.171  Procedure for organization.
      1.  To be organized as a minor political party, an organization must file with the Secretary of State a certificate of existence which includes the:
      (a) Name of the political party;
      (b) Names of its officers;
      (c) Names of the members of its executive committee; and
      (d) Name of the person authorized to file the list of its candidates for partisan office with the Secretary of State.
      2.  A copy of the constitution or bylaws of the party must be affixed to the certificate.
      3.  A minor political party shall file with the Secretary of State an amended certificate of existence within 5 days after any change in the information contained in the certificate.
      4.  The constitution or bylaws of a minor political party must provide a procedure for the nomination of its candidates for the general election in such a manner that only one candidate may be nominated for each office.
      5.  A minor political party whose candidates for partisan office do not appear on the ballot for the general election must file a notice of continued existence with the Secretary of State not later than the second Friday in August preceding the general election.
      6.  A minor political party which fails to file a notice of continued existence as required by subsection 5 ceases to exist as a minor political party in this State.
    7. Any political party designated as a minor political party will not be given preference for placement of its candidates on the ballot for any general election for any state elective office, for Representative in the United States House of Representatives, or for United States Senator. 
    
  (Added to NRS by 1987, 1359; A 1989, 2160; 1999, 3548; 2011, 3276)
      NRS 293.1715  Procedure to place candidates’ names on ballot; limitation on number of candidates to appear on ballot.
      1.  The names of the candidates for partisan office of a minor political party or whose application to register to vote is designated non-partisan must not appear on the ballot for a primary election.
      2.  The names of the candidates for partisan office of a minor political party or whose application to register to vote is designated non-partisan must be placed on the ballot for the general election if the minor political party is qualified or has met the signature requirements of NRS 293.200. To qualify as a minor political party, the minor political party must have filed a certificate of existence and be organized pursuant to NRS 293.171,  must have filed a list of its candidates for partisan office pursuant to the provisions of NRS 293.1725 with the Secretary of State and;
      (a) At the last preceding general election, the minor political party must have polled for any of its candidates for partisan office a number of votes equal to or more than 1 percent of the total number of votes cast for the offices of Representative in CongressGovernor or;
      (b) On January 1 preceding a primary election, the minor political party must have been designated as the political party on the applications to register to vote of at least 1 percent of the total number of registered voters in this State; or
      (c) Not later than the third Friday in May preceding the general election, must file a petition with the Secretary of State which is signed by a number of registered voters equal to at least 1 percent of the total number of votes cast at the last preceding general election for the offices of Representative in Congress. office of Governor.
      3.  The name of only one candidate of each minor political party for each partisan office may appear on the ballot for a general election.
      4.  A minor political party must file a copy of the petition required by paragraph (c) of subsection 2 with the Secretary of State before the petition may be circulated for signatures.
      (Added to NRS by 1987, 1360; A 1989, 2160; 1993, 2174; 1995, 2259; 1999, 1389, 3548; 2003, 1641; 2009, 1260; 2011, 3277)
NRS 293.1725  Candidates: Submission of list to Secretary of State; filing of declaration of candidacy and certificate of nomination.
      1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, a minor political party that wishes to place its candidates for partisan office on the ballot for a general election and:
      (a) Is entitled to do so pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection 2 of NRS 293.1715; or
      (b) Files or will file a petition pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection 2 of NRS 293.1715,
Ê must file with the Secretary of State a list of its candidates for partisan office not earlier than the first Monday in March preceding the election nor later than 5 p.m. on the second Friday after the first Monday in March. The list must be signed by the person so authorized in the certificate of existence of the minor political party before a notary public or other person authorized to take acknowledgments. The list may be amended not later than 5 p.m. on the second Friday after the first Monday in March.
     2.  The Secretary of State shall immediately forward a certified copy of the list of candidates for partisan office of each minor political party to the filing officer with whom each candidate must file his or her declaration of candidacy.
      3.  Each candidate on the list must file his or her declaration of candidacy with the appropriate filing officer and pay the fee required by NRS 293.193 not earlier than the date on which the list of candidates for partisan office of the minor political party is filed with the Secretary of State nor later than 5 p.m. on the second Friday after the first Monday in March.
      4.  A minor political party that wishes to place candidates for the offices of President and Vice President of the United States on the ballot and has qualified to place the names of its candidates for partisan office on the ballot for the general election pursuant to subsection 2 of NRS 293.1715 must file with the Secretary of State a certificate of nomination for these offices not later than the first Tuesday in September.
      (Added to NRS by 1987, 1360; A 1989, 2161; 1993, 2175; 1997, 316; 1999, 1391, 3550; 2003, 1642; 2009, 1261; 2011, 3278)
      NRS 293.174  Challenge of qualification.  If the qualification of a minor political party to place the names of candidates on the ballot pursuant to NRS 293.1715 is challenged, all affidavits and documents in support of the challenge must be filed not later than 5 p.m. on the third Friday in June. Any judicial proceeding resulting from the challenge must be set for hearing not more than 5 days after the third Friday in June. A challenge pursuant to this section must be filed with the First Judicial District Court if the petition was filed with the Secretary of State.
      (Added to NRS by 1987, 1361; A 1999, 1392; 2009, 1262; 2011, 3279)
NOMINATIONS
      NRS 293.175  Date of primary election; nomination of candidates; applicability of provisions governing nominations.
      1.  The primary election must be held on the second Tuesday in June of each even-numbered year.
      2.  Candidates for partisan office of a major political party and candidates for nonpartisan office must be nominated selected by the voters at the primary election.
      3.  Candidates for partisan office of a minor political party must be nominated in the manner prescribed pursuant to NRS 293.171 to 293.174, inclusive.
      4.  Independent candidates for partisan office must be nominated in the manner provided in NRS 293.200.
      5.  The provisions of NRS 293.175 to 293.203, inclusive, do not apply to:
      (a) Special elections to fill vacancies.
      (b) The nomination of the officers of incorporated cities.
      (c) The nomination of district officers whose nomination is otherwise provided for by statute.
      (Added to NRS by 1960, 243; A 1963, 1387; 1983, 1116; 1985, 268; 1987, 1366; 1989, 226; 1999, 1392, 3550; 2001, 672; 2005, 1434; 2009, 1262)
NRS 293.180  Certificates of candidacy: Requirements; filing; acceptance of candidacy.
      1.  Ten or more registered voters may file a certificate of candidacy designating any registered voter as a candidate for:
      (a) Their major political party’s nomination for any partisan elective office, or as a candidate for nomination for any nonpartisan office other than a judicial office, not earlier than the first Monday in February of the year in which the election is to be held nor later than 5 p.m. on the first Friday in March; or
      (b) Nomination for a judicial office, not earlier than the first Monday in December of the year immediately preceding the year in which the election is to be held nor later than 5 p.m. on the first Friday in January of the year in which the election is to be held.
      2.  When the certificate has been filed, the officer in whose office it is filed shall notify the person named in the certificate. If the person named in the certificate files an acceptance of candidacy and pays the required fee, as provided by law, he or she is a candidate in the primary election in like manner as if he or she had filed a declaration of candidacy.
      3.  If a certificate of candidacy relates to a partisan office, all of the signers must be of the same majorpolitical party as the candidate designated.
4. Nothing in this statute prevents a major or minor political party from designating a preferred candidate, either through party caucus, central committee action, or any other method specified in party rules provided the method used does not impact the cost of holding elections to any county in the state of Nevada or the state of Nevada.
      (Added to NRS by 1960, 244; A 1963, 1387; 1971, 439; 1983, 1117; 1987, 1366; 1989, 226, 1729; 2007, 215; 2009, 1265)
NRS 293.200  Independent candidates: Qualification; petition of candidacy; time limit for challenge; declaration of candidacy.
      1.  An independent candidate for partisan office must file with the appropriate filing officer:
      (a) A copy of the petition of candidacy that he or she intends to subsequently circulate for signatures. The copy must be filed not earlier than the January 2 preceding the date of the election and not later than 25 working days before the last day to file the petition pursuant to subsection 4.
      (b) Either of the following:
             (1) A petition of candidacy signed by a number of registered voters equal to at least 1 percent of the total number of ballots cast in:
                   (I) This State for that office at the last preceding general election in which a person was elected to that office, if the office is a statewide office;
                   (II) The county for that office at the last preceding general election in which a person was elected to that office, if the office is a county office; or
                   (III) The district for that office at the last preceding general election in which a person was elected to that office, if the office is a district office.
             (2) A petition of candidacy signed by 250 registered voters if the candidate is a candidate for statewide office, or signed by 100 registered voters if the candidate is a candidate for any office other than a statewide office.
      2.  The petition may consist of more than one document. Each document must bear the name of the county in which it was circulated, and only registered voters of that county may sign the document. If the office is not a statewide office, only the registered voters of the county, district or municipality in question may sign the document. The documents that are circulated for signature in a county must be submitted to that county clerk for verification in the manner prescribed in NRS 293.1276 to293.1279, inclusive, not later than 25 working days before the last day to file the petition pursuant to subsection 4. Each person who signs the petition shall add to his or her signature the address of the place at which the person actually resides, the date that he or she signs the petition and the name of the county where he or she is registered to vote. The person who circulates each document of the petition shall sign an affidavit attesting that the signatures on the document are genuine to the best of his or her knowledge and belief and were signed in his or her presence by persons registered to vote in that county.
      3.  The petition of candidacy may state the principle, if any, which the person qualified represents.
      4.  Petitions of candidacy must be filed not earlier than the first Monday in March preceding the general election and not later than 5 p.m. on the second Friday after the first Monday in March.
      5.  No petition of candidacy may contain the name of more than one candidate for each office to be filled.
      6.  A person may not file as an independent candidate if he or she is proposing to run as the candidate of a political party.
      7.  The names of independent candidates must be placed on the general election ballot and must not appear on the primary election ballot.
      8.  If the candidacy of any person seeking to qualify pursuant to this section is challenged, all affidavits and documents in support of the challenge must be filed not later than 5 p.m. on the fourth Monday in March. _______Any judicial proceeding resulting from the challenge must be set for hearing not more than 5 days after the fourth Monday in March.________
      9.  Any challenge pursuant to subsection 8 must be filed with:
      (a) The First Judicial District Court if the petition of candidacy was filed with the Secretary of State.
      (b) The district court for the county where the petition of candidacy was filed if the petition was filed with a county clerk.
      10.  An independent candidate for partisan office must file a declaration of candidacy with the appropriate filing officer and pay the fee required by NRS 293.193 not earlier than the first Monday in March of the year in which the election is held nor later than 5 p.m. on the second Friday after the first Monday in March.
      (Added to NRS by 1960, 245; A 1961, 286; 1963, 1387; 1971, 440, 1122; 1975, 936; 1979, 403; 1983, 1118; 1987, 1367; 1989, 2164; 1993, 2668; 1997, 316; 1999, 1392, 2154, 3551; 2001, 149, 154; 2003, 1645, 1704; 2009, 1266)
BALLOTS
      (Added to NRS by 1969, 20; A 1995, 2624)
      NRS 293.2565  Use of given names, surnames and nicknames on ballot; use of additional criteria to distinguish between candidates having same given names and surnames.
      1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, in any election regulated by this chapter, the name of a candidate printed on a ballot may be the given name and surname of the candidate or a contraction or familiar form of his or her given name followed by his or her surname. A nickname of not more than 10 letters may be incorporated into the name of a candidate. The nickname must be in quotation marks and appear immediately before the surname of the candidate. A nickname must not indicate any political, economic, social or religious view or affiliation and must not be the name of any person, living or dead, whose reputation is known on a statewide, nationwide or worldwide basis, or in any other manner deceive a voter regarding the person or principles for which he or she is voting.
      2.  In any election regulated by this chapter, if two or more candidates have the same given name and surname and:
      (a) None of the candidates is an incumbent, The middle names or middle initials, if any, of the candidates must be included in the names of the candidates; or
      (b) One of the candidates is an incumbent, the name of the incumbent must be listed first and the word “Incumbent” must appear next to the name of the candidate who is the incumbent.
      (Added to NRS by 2003, 1714; A 2011, 2086)
NRS 293.257  Separate primary ballots; placement of candidates’ names; designation on application to register to vote of affiliation with major political party condition for registered voter to cast ballot for party at primary election.
      1.  There must be a separate primary ballot for each major political party. The names of candidates for partisan offices who have designated a major political party in the declaration of candidacy or acceptance of candidacy must appear on the primary ballot of the major political party designated. If the major political party has endorsed or otherwise selected a preferred candidate for nomination in accordance with NRS 293.180(4), such endorsement or preference will also be listed.
2. The names of candidates for partisan office from each major political party will also appear on the ballot given to voters registered as non-partisan. The names will appear as they appear on the ballot of the major political party with the addition of party affiliation.
.2.  The county clerk may choose to place the names of candidates for nonpartisan offices on the ballots for each major political party or on a separate nonpartisan primary ballot, but the arrangement which the county clerk selects must permit all registered voters to vote on them.
      3.  A registered voter may cast a primary ballot for a major political party at a primary election only if the registered voter designated on his or her application to register to vote an affiliation with that major political party.
3. A voter who has designated a major political party on his or her application to register to vote will be given the ballot of that party along with the ballot for candidates for non-partisan office. Voters who have designated no political party but rather designated non-partisan on their application to register to vote will be given the non-partisan ballot that lists the names of candidates for non-partisan office along with candidates for partisan office from each major political party. Voters who have designated a minor political party on their application to register to vote will be given a ballot listing only those candidates for non-partisan offices.        (Added to NRS by 1960, 250; A 1963, 1388; 1965, 652; 1967, 847; 1971, 442; 1977, 243; 1979, 264; 1989, 227; 2011, 3280)
NRS 293.260  Declaration of nominees: Omission and appearance of names on primary ballot; appearance of names on general ballot.
      1.  Where there is no contest of election for nomination to a particular office, neither the title of the office nor the name of the candidate may appear on the ballot.
      2.  Unless NRS 293.3677(4) applies, if more than one major political party has candidates for a particular office and no minor political party has nominated a candidate for the office and no independent candidate has filed for the office, the persons who receive the highest number of votes at the primary elections must be declared the nominees of those parties for the office.
      3.  If only one major political party has candidates for a particular office and a minor political party has nominated a candidate for the office or an independent candidate has filed for the office, the candidate who receives the highest number of votes in the primary election of the major political party must be declared the nominee of that party and his or her name must be placed on the general election ballot with the name of the nominee of the minor political party for the office and the name of the independent candidate who has filed for the office.
      4.   Unless NRS 293.3677(4) applies, if only one major political party has candidates for a particular office and no minor political party has nominated a candidate for the office and no independent candidate has filed for the office:
      (a) If there are more candidates than twice the number to be elected to the office, the names of the candidates must appear on the ballot for a primary election. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph, the candidates of that party who receive the highest number of votes in the primary election, not to exceed twice the number to be elected to that office at the general election, must be declared the nominees for the office. If only one candidate is to be elected to the office and a candidate receives a majority of the votes in the primary election for that office, that candidate must be declared the nominee for that office and his or her name must be placed on the ballot for the general election.
      (b) If there are no more than twice the number of candidates to be elected to the office, the candidates must, without a primary election, be declared the nominees for the office.
5. If the number of candidates for any partisan or non-partisan office is equal to or less than the number of candidates to be elected to a particular office in the general election, that candidate or candidates will be considered to be elected to the office so long as they receive at least one vote in the primary election. If a candidate is elected subject to this sub-section, the office nor their name(s) will not be placed on the general election ballot.
      5.  Where no more than the number of candidates to be elected have filed for nomination for:
      (a) Any partisan office or the office of justice of the Supreme Court, the names of those candidates must be omitted from all ballots for a primary election and placed on all ballots for a general election;
      (b) Any nonpartisan office, other than the office of justice of the Supreme Court or the office of member of a town advisory board, the names of those candidates must appear on the ballot for a primary election unless the candidates were nominated pursuant to subsection 2 of NRS 293.165. If a candidate receives one or more votes at the primary election, the candidate must be declared elected to the office and his or her name must not be placed on the ballot for the general election. If a candidate does not receive one or more votes at the primary election, his or her name must be placed on the ballot for the general election; and
      (c) The office of member of a town advisory board, the candidate must be declared elected to the office and no election must be held for that office.
      6.  If there are more candidates than twice the number to be elected to a nonpartisan office, the names of the candidates must appear on the ballot for a primary election. Those candidates who receive the highest number of votes at that election, not to exceed twice the number to be elected, must be declared nominees for the office.
      (Added to NRS by 1960, 251; A 1963, 1388; 1979, 264; 1987, 339; 1989, 227; 1997, 94, 757, 770, 3453; 2003, 869; 2007, 2586)
      NRS 293.265  Nonpartisan primary ballot: Form; names of candidates to be grouped alphabetically;  exception.  On nonpartisan primary ballots, the sections for partisan and non-partisan offices must be clearly separated and designated “Partisan Offices” or “Non-Partisan Office”. there must appear at the top of the ballot the designation “Nonpartisan Offices.” Except as otherwise provided in NRS 293.2565, following this designation must appear the names of candidates grouped alphabetically under the title and length of term of the partisan or nonpartisan office for which those candidates filed.
      (Added to NRS by 1960, 251; A 1961, 288; 1963, 1388; 1965, 652; 1967, 847; 1979, 265; 2003, 1717; 2007, 2587)
 NRS 293.2693  Voter education program to be provided in county or city using paper ballots.  
1. If a county or city uses paper ballots, including, without limitation, for absent ballots and ballots voted in a mailing precinct, the county or city clerk shall provide a voter education program specific to the voting system used by the county or city. The voter education program must include, without limitation, information concerning the effect of overvoting, undervoting and the procedures for correcting a vote on a ballot before it is cast and counted and for obtaining a replacement ballot.
2. Upon adoption of the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act, each county in the state will provide an educational program prior to the primary election for the first two primary elections following implementation. The Registrar of Voters or County Clerk of each county will determine the best method for conducting such training within their county.
      (Added to NRS by 2003, 2169; A 2007, 1151, 2587)
 NRS 293.287  Announcement of name and political affiliation of registered voter; challenges; nonpartisan ballot at primary election.
      1.  A registered voter applying to vote at any primary election shall give his or her name and political affiliation, if any, to the election board officer in charge of the election board register, and the officer shall immediately announce the name and political affiliation.
      2.  Any person’s right to vote may be challenged by any registered voter upon:
      (a) Any of the grounds allowed for a challenge in NRS 293.303;
      (b) The ground that the person applying does not belong to the political party designated upon the register; or
      (c) The ground that the register does not show that the person designated the political party to which he or she claims to belong.
      3.  Any such challenge must be disposed of in the manner provided by NRS 293.303.
      4.  A registered voter who has designated on his or her application to register to vote an affiliation with a minor political party may vote a nonpartisan ballot listing only candidates for non-partisan offices at the primary election in accordance with NRS 293.257. A registered voter who has designated non-partisan on his or her application to register to vote will be given the non-partisan ballot listing all candidates for partisan and non-partisan office in accordance with NRS 293.257.
      (Added to NRS by 1960, 253; A 1971, 443; 1977, 243; 1987, 1369; 1989, 228; 1991, 1681; 1995, 2264)
NRS 293.3677  Standards for counting votes; regulations.    
      1.  When counting a vote in an election, if more choices than permitted by the instructions for a ballot are marked for any office or question, the vote for that office or question may not be counted.
      2.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 1, in an election in which a mechanical voting system is used whereby a vote is cast by darkening a designated space on the ballot:
      (a) A vote must be counted if the designated space is darkened or there is a writing in the designated space, including, without limitation, a cross or check; and
      (b) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (a), a writing or other mark on the ballot, including, without limitation, a cross, check, tear or scratch may not be counted as a vote.
      3.  The Secretary of State:
      (a) May adopt regulations establishing additional uniform, statewide standards, not inconsistent with this section, for counting a vote cast by a method of voting described in subsection 2; and
      (b) Shall adopt regulations establishing uniform, statewide standards for counting a vote cast by each method of voting used in this State that is not described in subsection 2, including, without limitation, a vote cast on a mechanical recording device which directly records the votes electronically.
4. Counting votes;
  (a) Upon completion of counting all votes cast in a primary election, except as provided in NRS 293.260 subpart 5, if a candidate for any particular office receives at least 50% +1 of the total votes cast for that office in the primary, that candidate will be declared elected to that office and the office will not be contested in the general election.
      (Added to NRS by 2001, 2024; A 2007, 1162, 2597)
      NRS 293.368  Counting of votes cast for deceased candidate.
      1.  Whenever a candidate whose name appears upon the ballot at a primary election dies after 5 p.m. of the second Tuesday in April, the deceased candidate’s name must remain on the ballot and the votes cast for the deceased candidate must be counted in determining the nomination for the office for which the decedent was a candidate.
      2.  If the deceased candidate on the ballot at the primary election receives the number of votes required to receive the nomination to the office for which he or she was a candidate, except as otherwise provided in subsection 3 of NRS 293.165, the deceased candidate shall be deemed nominated and the vacancy in the nomination must be filled as provided in NRS 293.165 or 293.166. If the deceased person was a candidate for a nonpartisan office, the nomination must be filled pursuant to subsection 2 of NRS 293.165.
      3.  Whenever a candidate whose name appears upon the ballot at a general election dies after 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in June of the year in which the general election is held, the votes cast for the deceased candidate must be counted in determining the results of the election for the office for which the decedent was a candidate.
4.  If the deceased candidate on the ballot at the general election receives the majority of the votes cast for the office, or is elected as described in NRS 293-3677 subpart 4, the deceased candidate shall be deemed elected and the office to which he or she was elected shall be deemed vacant at the beginning of the term for which he or she was elected. The vacancy thus created must be filled in the same manner as if the candidate had died after taking office for that term.
      (Added to NRS by 1963, 1382; A 1971, 445; 1987, 347; 1997, 3462; 2003, 1705; 2005, 1435; 2009, 1269; 2011, 3281)
   
NRS 293.440  List of persons registered to vote in precinct, district or county: Distribution of copies; contents; limitation on printing costs; request for and use by committees of political parties; fees.
      1.  Any person who desires a copy of any list of the persons who are registered to vote in any precinct, district or county may obtain a copy by applying at the office of the county clerk and paying therefor a sum of money equal to 1 cent per name on the list, except that one copy of each original and supplemental list for each precinct, district or county must be provided both to the state central committee of any major political party and to the county central committee of any major political party, and to the executive committee of any minor political party upon request, and to each candidate registered as a non-partisan who is a candidate for partisan office without charge.    
   2.  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 293.5002 and 293.558, the copy of the list provided pursuant to this section must indicate the address, date of birth, telephone number and the serial number on each application to register to vote. If the county maintains this information in a computer database, the date of the most recent addition or revision to an entry, if made on or after July 1, 1989, must be included in the database and on any resulting list of the information. The date must be expressed numerically in the order of month, day and year.
      3.  A county may not pay more than 10 cents per folio or more than $6 per thousand copies for printed lists for a precinct or district.
      4.  A county which has a system of computers capable of recording information on magnetic tape or diskette shall, upon request of the state central committee or county central committee of any major political party or the executive committee of any minor political party , or any candidate registered as a non-partisan who is a candidate for partisan office which has filed a certificate of existence with the Secretary of State, record for both the state central committee and the county central committee of the major political party, if requested, and for the executive committee of the minor political party, or any candidate registered as a non-partisan who is a candidate for partisan office if requested, on magnetic tape or diskette supplied by it:
      (a) The list of persons who are registered to vote and the information required in subsection 2; and
      (b) Not more than four times per year, as requested by the state or county central committee or the executive committee:
             (1) A complete list of the persons who are registered to vote with a notation for the most recent entry of the date on which the entry or the latest change in the information was made; or
             (2) A list that includes additions and revisions made to the list of persons who are registered to vote after a date specified by the state or county central committee or the executive committee.
      5.  If a political party does not provide its own magnetic tape or diskette, or if a political party requests the list in any other form that does not require printing, the county clerk may charge a fee to cover the actual cost of providing the tape, diskette or list.
      6.  Any state or county central committee of a major political party, any executive committee of a minor political party or any member or representative of such a central committee or executive committee , and  each  candidate registered as a non-partisan who is a candidate for partisan office who receives without charge a list of the persons who are registered to vote in any precinct, district or county pursuant to this section shall not:
      (a) Use the list for any purpose that is not related to an election; or
      (b) Sell the list for compensation or other valuable consideration.
      (Added to NRS by 1960, 266; A 1967, 844; 1973, 895; 1975, 942; 1985, 1806; 1989, 228; 1991, 1353; 1993, 2188; 1995, 2268, 2783; 2003, 1707; 2005, 2288; 2007, 2600)
      NRS 293.563  Election board register of precinct or district: Preparation; delivery.
      1.  During the interval between the closing of registration and the election, the county clerk shall:
      (a) In counties where records of registration are not kept by computer, prepare for each precinct or district a binder containing in alphabetical order the original applications to register to vote of the electors in the precinct or district. The binder constitutes the election board register.
      (b) In counties where records of registration are kept by computer, have printed and placed in a binder for each precinct or district a computer listing in alphabetical order of the applications to register to vote of the electors in the precinct or district. The binder constitutes the election board register.
      2.  Each election board register must be delivered or caused to be delivered by the county or city clerk to an election officer of the proper precinct or district before the opening of the polls.
      (Added to NRS by 1960, 277; A 1985, 563; 1987, 356; 1995, 2280; 2003, 1656)
NRS 293.565  Sample ballots: Contents; mailing; printing of text of constitutional amendments; notice of location of polling place; notice if location of polling place changed; cost of mailing responsibility of political subdivision.
      1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, sample ballots must include:
      (a) If applicable, the statement required by NRS 293.267;
      (b) The fiscal note or description of anticipated financial effect, as provided pursuant to NRS 218D.810, 293.250, 293.481, 293.482, 295.015 or 295.095 for each proposed constitutional amendment, statewide measure, measure to be voted upon only by a special district or political subdivision and advisory question;
      (c) An explanation, as provided pursuant to NRS 218D.810, 293.250, 293.481, 293.482 or 295.121, of each proposed constitutional amendment, statewide measure, measure to be voted upon only by a special district or political subdivision and advisory question;
      (d) Arguments for and against each proposed constitutional amendment, statewide measure, measure to be voted upon only by a special district or political subdivision and advisory question, and rebuttals to each argument, as provided pursuant to NRS 218D.810, 293.250, 293.252, 293.481, 293.482 or 295.121; and
      (e) The full text of each proposed constitutional amendment.
      2.  If, pursuant to the provisions of NRS 293.2565, the word “Incumbent” must appear on the ballot next to the name of the candidate who is the incumbent, the word “Incumbent” must appear on the sample ballot next to the name of the candidate who is the incumbent.
      3.  Sample ballots that are mailed to registered voters may be printed without the full text of each proposed constitutional amendment if:
      (a) The cost of printing the sample ballots would be significantly reduced if the full text of each proposed constitutional amendment were not included;
      (b) The county clerk ensures that a sample ballot that includes the full text of each proposed constitutional amendment is provided at no charge to each registered voter who requests such a sample ballot; and
      (c) The sample ballots provided to each polling place include the full text of each proposed constitutional amendment.
      4.  Before the period for early voting for any election begins, the county clerk shall cause to be mailed to each registered voter in the county a sample ballot for his or her precinct, with a notice informing the voter of the location of his or her polling place. If the location of the polling place has changed since the last election:
      (a) The county clerk shall mail a notice of the change to each registered voter in the county not sooner than 10 days before mailing the sample ballots; or
      (b) The sample ballot must also include a notice in bold type immediately above the location which states:
NOTICE: THE LOCATION OF YOUR POLLING PLACE
HAS CHANGED SINCE THE LAST ELECTION
      5.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 6, a sample ballot required to be mailed pursuant to this section must:
      (a) Be printed in at least 12-point type; and
      (b) Include on the front page, in a separate box created by bold lines, a notice printed in at least 20-point bold type that states:
NOTICE: TO RECEIVE A SAMPLE BALLOT IN
LARGE TYPE, CALL (Insert appropriate telephone number)
      6.  A portion of a sample ballot that contains a facsimile of the display area of a voting device may include material in less than 12-point type to the extent necessary to make the facsimile fit on the pages of the sample ballot.
      7.  The sample ballot mailed to a person who requests a sample ballot in large type by exercising the option provided pursuant to NRS 293.508, or in any other manner, must be printed in at least 14-point type, or larger when practicable.
      8.  If a person requests a sample ballot in large type, the county clerk shall ensure that all future sample ballots mailed to that person from the county are in large type.
      9.  The county clerk shall include in each sample ballot a statement indicating that the county clerk will, upon request of a voter who is elderly or disabled, make reasonable accommodations to allow the voter to vote at his or her polling place and provide reasonable assistance to the voter in casting his or her vote, including, without limitation, providing appropriate materials to assist the voter. In addition, if the county clerk has provided pursuant to subsection 4 of NRS 293.2955 for the placement at centralized voting locations of specially equipped voting devices for use by voters who are elderly or disabled, the county clerk shall include in the sample ballot a statement indicating:
      (a) The addresses of such centralized voting locations;
      (b) The types of specially equipped voting devices available at such centralized voting locations; and
      (c) That a voter who is elderly or disabled may cast his or her ballot at such a centralized voting location rather than at his or her regularly designated polling place.
      10.  The cost of mailing sample ballots for any election other than a primary or general election must be borne by the political subdivision holding the election.
    (Added to NRS by 1960, 278; A 1961, 298; 1967, 852; 1971, 449; 1973, 897; 1979, 268; 1987, 356; 1989, 205; 1995, 2631; 1997, 78, 765, 769, 3065, 3469; 1999, 679; 2001, 1435, 2001, 2957; 2003, 200, 208, 210, 1656, 1692, 1708, 1723, 3196; 2007, 1165, 2529;2011, 2098)
If the changes are adopted by the legislature and signed by the governor, changes will be effective January 1, 2016.
* Fiscal Note:
According to the Registrar of Voters of Clark and Washoe County, additional costs for printing of mail / absentee ballots could be incurred if the length of the ballot requires more than one (1) card.

Posted on

Modification To NEMRA Worth Considering

An idea to modify the current draft of the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) was proposed to me last week. The premise behind the idea was to have a bill that would have a better chance of being sponsored and passed while still accomplishing the primary goals of the act. From a pragmatic standpoint, it is worth considering.
Of course, I would prefer that NEMRA as currently drafted be sponsored, debated and / or amended in committee, then passed by the full legislature and signed by the governor. But I am not naive. In meetings with legislators and leaders of interest groups I have been told more than once the changes to Nevada election law being proposed may be too much and that a more scaled-back proposal might be better. I have been asked by a few legislators if I would be willing to modify the bill. My answer has always been “yes” so long as the main goal of NEMRA, to put in place an election process that allows all voters to fully participate in all elections regardless of political affiliation was achieved.  
The revised NEMRA would be a version of a semi-closed primary. Under a standard semi-closed primary, voters registered as Democratic or Republican are given their party’s ballot. Unaffiliated voters who desire to vote in the primary chose either the Democratic or Republican ballot. The proposed revision to NEMRA would:
•      Keep separate Republican and Democratic primary for party members  
•      Expand the Non-Partisan ballot to include both Republican and Democratic candidates for partisan office allowing voters registered as Non-Partisan to participate in primary; central focus of NEMRA
•      Keep current general election qualification procedures for minor party and Non-Partisan candidates
•      Keep possibility of outright election in primary if no minor party or non-partisan candidate had filed for the general election
•      Does not include Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff  voting (RCV / IRV) use in general election
If NEMRA, as revised were to be introduced, passed, and signed into law, nine of the ten benefits:
•      Broaden the scope and depth of discussion on issues
•      Increase voter knowledge and awareness of the issues
•      Potentially increase voter turnout
•      Ensure the elected candidate receives a majority, at least 50% + 1 of the votes
•      Potentially reduce campaign costs
•      Encourage voters who believe their vote does not matter to return to the polls
•      Potentially attract jobs to Nevada
•      Provide an atmosphere where political parties can regain lost membership.
•      Provide a benefit to taxpayers 
•      Allow candidates who hold moderate views to express them
would be realized. Since the use of RCV / IRV in the general election is not included, the possibility for a plurality winner would still exist.
Based on initial discussion with persons knowledgeable in election law, the revised NEMRA version does meet constitutional muster. As a type of semi-closed primary, there does not appear to be any conflict with California Democratic Party v Jones or  Clingman v Beaver.
When discussing any proposed legislation, there is a question of cost. If NEMRA were introduced in this modified form, the only potential cost, based on a brief conversation with both the Registrar of Voters of Clark and Washoe County would be if the length of the Non-Partisan mail (absentee) ballot required more than one card. This potential cost increase would only apply to those ballots and be directly linked to the length of the ballot.
As highlighted in other postings on this blog, the election demographic is changing. Our election process must recognize this fact and adjust. NEMRA as originally proposed AND NEMRA as modified does this. A BDR for either will start the legislative process and discussion.
   
Posted on

Can NEMRA Help Restore Our Trust In Our State Government?

According to the most recent Gallup poll conducted during the last half of last year, Nevada ranks 39thin the amount of trust we have for our state government. 53 percent of Nevadans trust our state government, five percent below the national average of 58 percent. North Dakota ranks first with 77 percent trusting their state government. Illinois is last at 28 percent.
Some may think since the percentage that trusts our state government is more than half, there isn’t a problem. I do not accept that. Mediocre is never good.
To understand why a low level of trust; yes 53 percent when compared to the national average and ranking 39th is low, we have to look at the reasons people do not trust government. While Gallup didn’t look into the why, an article in The Atlantic gives a good analysis. The state of the economy, the level of unemployment, and how the government is perceived to be handling those issues are driving factors. In other words, is the government solving the problems most impacting the daily lives of the state’s residents?  There is a partisan aspect. Those who are members of the political party in power tend to trust the government more.
We won’t know if this trend of declining trust in state government has continued until Gallup releases their next poll on the subject. Did the Tesla deal increase our trust in our state government? We do know trust in Congress continues to decline reaching new lows this month.
In an earlier post, Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – The Details, I link to studies that show open, non-partisan, blanket primaries and the use of Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff Voting (RCV / IRV) lead to elections where the debate is more focused on the median voter resulting in a legislative body more receptive to collaboration, more able to solve the major issues facing the state.  Addressing and solving the issues of employment, education, and taxes would increase our trust in our state government.

For the major issues to be resolved, legislators must be willing to make the difficult decisions beginning with a commitment to come up with a solution then implement that solution. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) could be the catalyst.

Posted on

New Reality TV Show Based On Congressional Gridlock

SUCCESS!! No one probably ever saw this coming. Political divisiveness and Congressional gridlock have transitioned in to reality television entertainment. We have the Kardashians. We have Honey Boo-Boo. We have Real Housewives. Welcome Senator Jeff Flake (R- AZ) and Senator Martin Heinrich (D-NM) on Rival Survival.
It’s often said Americans know more about and care more about how they will be entertained than about the events and people that impact their daily lives. People can tell you the smallest detail about their favorite celebrity but can’t tell you who represents them at any level of government. They will spend hours on social media but maybe a few minutes, if we’re lucky, on news and current political affairs. So how could having two opposing politicians join the media where Americans spend their time be a bad thing?
It could be good if they were discussing and resolving their political differences. But according to The Hollywood Reporter “The duo will be given a modest choice of items from which they can select only three. They’re forced to use the limited resources and work together as they attempt to spear fish, build shelter and find enough water to survive for a week on Eru in the Marshall Islands, where the reefs alone are littered with venomous stonefish, lionfish and scorpion fish.” 
Politicians meeting in social settings away from the confines of the legislative structure, taking time to talk about anything but politics has proven to be an effective tool in legislating. This is not what Senators Flake and Heinrich are doing. By making their differences entertaining, they are feeding the media frenzy. Reality TV will not make people rise up and demand an end to hyper-partisanship. On the contrary, this is reality TV. People will want more divisiveness so the show can stay on the air.
In an earlier blog post, “Bipartisan Policy Center Recommendations and Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act Go Hand-In-Hand”, I highlighted a recent study that showed how partisanship impacts almost every aspect of our daily lives from who we socialize or speak with to who we allow our children to marry. Bill Maher, in USA Today, puts the study into plain language; “Does everything in America have to be political?” … Two generations ago, hippies came up with the idea that “the personal is political,” but it didn’t really affect anything because there was, frankly, a pretty limited connection between ending the arms race and Janis Joplin not washing her hair. Now, it’s really come true.” You don’t have to like or agree with Bill Maher to appreciate his column. Read the rest here.

Political divisiveness has now become entertainment. That will make it harder to overcome. It also makes efforts to bring the debate back to the realm of civility even more important.  
Posted on

House of Representatives Gets Bill On Election Reform

The issue of election reform has reached the House of Representatives.
On July 31, 2014, Congressman John K. Delaney (D-MD) introduced H.R. 5334, the Open Our Democracy Act. This bill would require states to elect their members of the House of Representatives using a top-two, open, non-partisan, blanket primary. It would also require the General Accountability Office to conduct a study looking into national standards for redistricting and make the day of the general election a federal holiday. 
This bill has no chance of being debated by any of the committees it has been assigned; Committee on House Administration, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Judiciary Committee, let alone passed. I cannot imagine the chairs of those committees scheduling a hearing by the end of the current session. Article I, Section 2of the U.S. Constitution and the 10thAmendment also stand in the way.
That said, what is important is that a member of Congress so strongly believes the institution is broken, he is willing to introduce legislation to reform the election process.  Congressman Delaney, if nothing else, has raised the level of visibility of the issue.
As I have pointed out in other posts on this blog; Bipartisan Policy Center Recommendations and Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act Go Hand-In-Hand and Political Divide Highlights Importance of Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act, the toxicity of political debate and the legislative process impacts many aspects of our daily lives.  While I appreciate Representative Delaney’s effort and motive, it is up to each state to determine how their respective elections are held. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) is the mechanism for Nevada to influence the national fix.
On September 4, 2014, Nevada proved it is a leader in innovation and forward thinking. Tesla responded. The state can once again demonstrate its commitment to these traits by implementing the most inclusive electoral system in the nation, the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act.
Posted on

August Voter Registration – The Trend Continues

The Secretary of State’s office today released voter registration numbers for August. There are no surprises. The number of voters registered as Non-Partisan continues to climb; 18.9 percent of active voters and 19.4 percent of total voters. When those registered to minor parties are included, 25.2 percent of active voters and 25.9 percent of total voters are not affiliated with either the Democrat or Republican Party.  Younger voters, those 18 – 34 years of age, continue to register 10 percent higher than state totals.
These numbers highlight the need for the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA). If the major political parties want to strengthen Nevada’s electoral process, welcome those whose ideas may not be ideologically pure to the party, if they do not want to ignore over 25 percent of registered voters (35 percent of younger voters), and if they want to strengthen the party rather than continue to lose membership, all that is needed to start the discussion is for one legislator to file the BDR for NEMRA.

Given the continuing trend in voter registration numbers, there is no reason not to have this discussion during the 2015 legislative session. The citizens of Nevada deserve no less.  
Posted on

You Can’t Compare NEMRA to California’s Top-Two

Nevada is not California. Because California does it is not a valid reason for Nevada to do anything. I know of very few Nevadans who would not agree with these two sentiments.
The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) is not like California’s Top-Two system. It is superior! When discussing NEMRA, it is therefore like comparing apples to oranges to compare it to California’s, or for that matter any other state’s Top-Two system.
The key to success of any election system is how it encourages citizens to participate in the election. Does it foster open and honest discussion of the issues? Is there a real opportunity for all candidates to fully and meaningfully participate? Are all voters treated equally? Do all votes have a true impact on determining the outcome?  Does the system create interest and motive voters to go to the polls? Are there benefits to all involved in the political process? Does the system result in a government that is representative of the state as a whole and works towards to best interest of all the residents?  Under NEMRA the answer to all the questions is “yes”. Not the case under Top-Two.
Regardless of one’s opinion of the two-party system, this country’s political system is firmly grounded to it. Recent polls show over 40 percent of voters considers themselves independent. Voters are leaving the two major parties and registering as non-partisan (independent).However, this does not necessarily transfer into votes for non-partisan or minor party candidates. Rather, it usually means the voter will consider both the Republican and Democratic candidate and vote for the one they consider best. They may even vote for candidates from both parties in the same election.
Because only two move forward under Top-Two, the ideas presented by minor party and independent candidates are truly irrelevant. There is little, if any chance they will finish among the top two. Unlike the old system where they appeared on the general election ballot, competing in a two-party system Top-Two primary virtually eliminates them. No need for a totally inclusive discussion of the issues. No chance for major party candidates to voice an opinion on possibly new or innovative ideas presented by minor party or independent candidates. All candidates are not afforded the opportunity to meaningfully participate.  Not so under NEMRA.
Under NEMRA, the top three move forward. Depending on the field of candidates, there is a real possibility a minor party or independent candidate will advance. Their ideas are relevant to the debate and the discussion is broadened. Major party candidates, as I’ve stressed in conversations with legislators, have the opportunity to provide their input on innovative ideas they may not have considered. Voters benefit from this comprehensive discussion. All qualified candidates have full and meaningful participation. Candidates and voters benefit.
All voters, regardless of party affiliation are allowed to vote in the primary and general election under both Top-Two and NEMRA. But when evaluating true equal treatment of all voters, I think you have to include impact on the outcome. Since under Top-Two, the likelihood of a non-major party candidate advancing to the general election is just about nil, voters who prefer such a candidate are marginalized. Their primary vote is no different than a general election vote under standard systems and they have no opportunity to vote for that candidate in the general election. Not so under NEMRA.
Since NEMRA places three candidates on the general election ballot and uses Ranked Choice / Instant Runoff voting (RCV / IRV) all voters have a direct impact on the outcome. In the primary, all voters determine whether the candidates advancing to the general election will include a minor party or independent candidate. In the general election RCV / IRV requires voters to mark a second choice that is counted if one candidate does not get a majority; at least 50 percent plus one of first choice votes. No voter is marginalized.
Top-Two is meant to increase voter interest and motivate voters to turnout for the primary. Statistics show turnout in states that use Top-Two surpass Nevada in primary election turnout.
But what is possible if voters are not marginalized as I point out above? Under Top-Two, if one of the top two finishers receives a majority of the vote, at least 50 percent plus one in the primary, they still must run in the general election where they could lose. This means increased expense for candidates and reduces the importance of a primary vote. Voters are faced with a valid question; why vote in the primary, why not just wait for the general election? Not so under NEMRA.
NEMRA specifically states that if a candidate receives at least 50 percent plus one of the votes in the primary, they are elected. The office is not contested in the general election. Current Nevada law includes this provision. However, as I have pointed out previously, such a win is only representative of a small plurality of a plurality of voters; 20 percent of voters registered to a particular party. Since NEMRA allows all voters, regardless of party affiliation or registration as a non-partisan, to vote, a win in the primary under NEMRA is representative of a much larger share of the voters. Knowing a winner could be declared in the primary is motivation to vote. Another motivation under NEMRA is the use of RCV / IRV in the general election. Second-choice votes could determine the winner. Every vote counts in both the primary and general elections. This is not the case under Top-Two.
Does Top-Two benefit all those involved in the political process? Do the resulting legislative bodies more represent the state as a whole? Given available studies, the answer is yes.
I have to be subjective here, but I can’t help believing that NEMRA will do a better job restoring confidence in our electoral process, that NEMRA will be a greater help to the major political parties in regaining lost membership and attracting new members. Why? Because NEMRA does not marginalize any voter. Under NEMRA, the discussion of issues and solutions will be broader. Under NEMRA, every voter matters.
Some I’ve spoken with say “Let’s see what happens in California”. The Top-Two system in California is not the same as NEMRA. Legislators need to evaluate NEMRA on its own merits. It is superiorto the Top-Two system being used in California or any other state at this time. Once NEMRA is signed into law, Nevada will have the most inclusive voting system in the nation. According to the leaders of both the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada (EDAWN) and the Las Vegas Global Economic Alliance (LVGEA) this could be a positive discriminator to companies looking to locate in the state.

We need to have the discussion on how NEMRA will benefit Nevada and all Nevadans during the upcoming legislative session. By filing a Bill Draft Request (BDR), a legislator is agreeing to start the conversation.
Posted on

National Conference of State Legislatures Panel Discussion – “Bridging the Ideological Divide”

On Wednesday, August 20, 2014, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) held a panel discussion on “Bridging the Ideological Divide” as part of its 2014 Legislative Summit. The discussion with a panel of four distinguished former state and federal legislators is well worth the 89 minutes needed to view. The discussion further reinforces the need for the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA).
The overview provided by the NCSL states in part, “The problem of gridlock can’t be laid at the feet of one political party or the other. So what is causing it?” The panel will “draw from their experiences and offer ideas on specific reforms that might help improve our system of government, overcome ideological roadblocks and avoid unnecessary conflict based on party rather than principle.”
Since not everyone can take 89 minutes out of their schedules, the following summary will give you the focus of the panel members. However, whether at one sitting or over the course of a day or two, I encourage you to watch.
The moderator for the discussion was Tom Loftus (D), former Wisconsin House speaker and U.S. ambassador to Norway. Panel members were Tom Berg (D), former state legislator and U.S. attorney for Minnesota, Mickey Edwards (R), former Oklahoma congressman and current vice-president Aspen Institute, and Christopher Rants (R), former speaker of the Iowa House of Representatives.
Tom Loftusopened the session stating our institution of government is broken, that the current divide does not allow for the identification of unifying issues. As a former Ambassador, he raised a point I’ve never thought about; how the current dysfunction in government is viewed by the rest of the world and the resulting impact on foreign policy. Loftus stated that the driving argument in this nation’s foreign policy is that our system of government is the best. The current gridlock and inability for legislative bodies to agree on even the simplest of things raises many doubts. As I link in Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – The Details, studies show that open, non-partisan, blanket primaries result in legislative bodies more willing to have honest debate to resolve issues.
In an earlier blog post, “Bipartisan Policy Center Recommendations and Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act Go Hand-In-Hand”, I cover how the current political divisiveness permeates all aspects of our daily lives. Tom Berghighlighted this in his opening comment. There is now an App “BuyPartisan” that identifies companies by political philosophy allowing for purchasing decisions to be made based on closeness to our own. Berg goes on to stress the need for legislators to develop personal relationships not based on partisanship as a way to break through the rhetoric and reach consensus. Legislative leaders must set the example in this. During the question and answer period, Berg suggested legislatures establish a non-partisan research staff. He closed by saying legislators need to stop the stagnation and start acting on what is best for the state or nation and not just the party.
 Mickey Edwards started his remarks by stressing he is a party person, always has been, always will be. This is important because he goes on to say the political parties should not control ballot access. That by restricting the number of candidates, that are normally chosen by a very small plurality of voters; he gives several examples including his own nomination, and not allowing voters to have the widest possible choice, we are contradicting the intent of the Constitution. Edwards stated he supports the open, non-partisan, blanket primary system. This is what NEMRA is all about.
The system is not to blame, we are. This was the premise of remarks by Christopher Rants. He dwells on the fact that this country is more divided now than at any other time in recent history. We view people with opinions different from our own as idiots. One reason for this according to Rants is that we can now hand-pick our information sources. No more do all media get their information from the same source such as the Associate Press. All we have to do it look and we will find a source of information that “fits”. We are unwilling to listen, to find out why a person with a differing point of view holds that opinion. Because of this, collaboration, resolving problems is virtually impossible. What’s interesting is that as a former majority and minority leader in the Iowa House, Rants emphasizes resolving differences and solving problems can be done without forfeiting principles. NEMRA broadens the scope of discussion allowing various points of view to be discussed and debated by all candidates creating an atmosphere where listening can take place.
The NCSL provides tools, information, and resources to state legislators. They also serve as a major force supporting or opposing legislation in Congress that impacts the states. Nevada should be proud that our own State Senator Debbie Smith (D-Sparks) was installed as President this week.

The need for election reform is recognized as a major issue at all levels of government. The NCSL recognized the importance by including this panel discussion during their annual summit. All members of the panel agreed change is needed.  The 2015 Nevada legislative session can resolve this issue in Nevada by debating and passing the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act. 
Proudly powered by WordPress