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.