Voter suppression can be defined as any attempt to curtail participation in the electoral process. It can be obvious; voter ID, reducing poll locations and hours, requiring proof of citizenship, or skillfully concealed; requiring membership in a specific political party to vote in a publicly funded election, stopping a bill that would restore the right of all voters to have a voice in who represents them, revoking the right to vote for a city official, or not expanding the way people can vote, increasing participation.
Voter suppression as public policy is unfathomable. Yet this is exactly what the Democratic leadership in the Nevada legislature has done.
Senate Bill (SB) 103 introduced by Senator James Settelmeyer (R – Minden) would have changed the state’s closed primary system to a top-two open primary. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections and never got a hearing. When asked by a reporter for the Reno Gazette Journalwhether or not the bill would get a hearing, Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford (D – Las Vegas) replied, “We don’t feel it’s worthy of a hearing. Next question.” SB 103 would have expanded the voting opportunity for more than 400,000 registered voters, 27 percent of active registered voters. It is important to remember that primary elections are paid for by all tax payers. By including membership in a specific political party as a requirement to vote, Nevada is blocking the participation of voters in a publicly funded election.
Assembly bill (AB) 226 was introduced by Assemblyman Ira Hansen (R – Sparks) to reverse a change made during the 2015 legislative session that eliminated more than 60 percent of registered voters in some districts from having a say in who would represent them in the state legislature or on their county commission. Most of those voters were registered to vote as Democratic, Non-Partisan, or in one of the minor political parties. The bill passed out of the Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee on a vote of 9-2 with two of the seven Democratic members voting “no”. In spite of committee passage and three of the Democratic committee members, including the chair signing on as co-sponsors, the Assembly Democratic Majority Leader decided not to bring the bill to a floor vote killing the bill after discussion with the Assembly Democratic caucus.
The Senate Government Affairs Committee introduced SB 434 at the request of Senators Julia Ratti (D – Sparks) and Tick Segerblom (D – Las Vegas). The bill changes the cities of Sparks and Reno city charters making their city attorney appointed rather than elected as written in the original charter. Neither Senators Ratti or Segerblom nor the government affairs committee received a request from either city asking for this change. The bill passed the senate along party lines with all Democratic caucus members voting in favor to unilaterally revoke this voter approved choice. In the assembly, five Democratic members joined Republicans in voting “no” but with overwhelming Democratic support, the bill passed revoking a ballot voters have been casting for over 40 years. The governor vetoed the bill.
SB 93 introduced by Senator Joe Hardy (R – Henderson) on behalf of the city of Henderson changes the city charter to allow elections to be conducted by mail, potentially removing obstacles to casting a ballot. The bill received a committee hearing but not a vote and therefore died.
Last session, the Democratic minority blocked changing presidential caucuses to primaries. This session, in the majority, they did not allow a vote, placing Nevada’s role in national party politics above voter participation. They also did not advance a bill having Nevada award its Electoral College votes to the winner of the nation popular vote for president.
Remember, the Democratic Party controls both chambers of the Nevada legislature and determines what bills get hearings and votes and what bills die.
“Publicly funded election”. These are the key words. Political parties are private organizations and as such are protected by the U.S. Constitution’s first amendment rights or association. When performing functions related to the internal operation of the party, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld these rights versus the state’s right to conduct open and fair elections. Selecting a nominee to represent the party in the general election is such an internal operation. This is why political parties pay for nomination caucuses and conventions. A primary election, restricted to members of a particular party is identical to a caucus or convention. Since these elections are funded with tax dollars, blocking participation simply based on party registration is a form of voter suppression.
When voters are prevented from casting a ballot for any candidate who will represent them in a legislative body, the winning candidate cannot truly claim they represent the district. Even when two candidates in a general election are members of the same political party, all voters should have the right to vote for the candidate they prefer regardless of the voters’ political party affiliation. When primaries are closed and only a small percentage of one party goes to the polls to select the candidate that will then be unopposed in the general election, this is voter suppression.
A city charter is similar to a constitution. The charter is approved by the state legislature and any changes to it must likewise be approved by the legislature. The city charters of Sparks, approved in 1975 and Reno, approved in 1971 identify the city attorney as an elected position. In 1991, the voters of Sparks reaffirmed their desire to keep this right. The charter committees of Sparks and Reno did not request this change to their charters. The voters of Sparks and Reno did not request this change. By unilaterally putting forth this change, the Democratic members of the legislature are revoking a vote that citizens have been allowed to cast for over 40 years, suppressing the right of the citizens of Sparks and Reno to elect their city attorney as currently required by their city charter.
In a slightly different scenario, the Democratic senate caucus is suppressing the voting rights of the citizens of Henderson. City leadership requested a change to their charter that would make it easier for citizens to vote as well as achieve a much needed cost savings. The bill was heard but not voted on by the Senate Government Affairs Committee. Preventing a process that would allow more citizens to vote from being implemented is voter suppression.
When Governor Brian Sandoval vetoed the legislature’s party line passage (Democratic majority) of IP-1, the automatic voter registration initiative, Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson (D – Las Vegas) was quoted in the Nevada Independent; “Nevadans agree that we need to have a voting system that protects the fundamental right of every eligible voter— Democrat, Republican, non-partisan or otherwise. Voting is a right, not a privilege and we should make it easy for Nevadans to hold their own government accountable.”
In their Nevada Blueprint for the current session of the legislature, the Democratic Caucus is clearly focused on voting rights. “We also need to protect our heritage. That means preserving Nevada’s natural environment, protecting our constitutional rights, and making it easier for our citizens to participate in the democratic process.”
These two statements seem contradictory to the action taken on the bills highlighted. Voter suppression can be obvious or skillfully concealed. The end result is the same; voter participation is curtailed by policy, process, or action. Voter suppression is alive and well in Carson City.