Nevada’s move away from caucus format is good for state, nation, democracy

Thursday, June 3, 2021 | 2 a.m.

Bravo to Nevada lawmakers for approving a bill that would replace the state’s presidential caucuses with a first-in-the-nation primary. The Legislature’s action is a step in the right direction both for Nevada and the nation.

For Nevada, it means that our messy and arcane caucusing process will give way to a standard primary election. That move was long overdue.

Caucusing, in which the outcome is determined by people physically standing in spots designated for various candidates, is simply a terrible way to decide elections in the 21st century. Not only is it confusing, but it injects peer pressure and intimidation into the selection process and opens the door to small groups using coercion to get their way.

Primary voting, in which voters cast their ballots in private just like in a general election, is inherently better for democracy.

As for moving Nevada ahead of New Hampshire and Iowa in the presidential selection process, the bill is merely the first of several tumblers that will have to fall into place for that to happen. The move would have to be approved by the national political parties, which could deny the state delegates to national party conventions or issue other sanctions if Nevada acted without its blessing. Other potential obstacles: Nevada can’t control other states from trying to jockey into position, and it wouldn’t be surprising if New Hampshire or Iowa — or both — dug in their heels.

In fact, New Hampshire’s longtime secretary of state, Bill Gardner, is already saying he’ll uphold a state law saying the Granite State must hold its primary “7 days or more immediately preceding the date on which any other state shall hold a similar election.”

“Our law hasn’t changed,” Gardner told Fox News. “I’ll follow the law like I always have — like the oath of office I take says.”

Iowa officials appear to be playing it closer to the vest. Iowa’s Democratic Party chair, Ross Willburn, issued a statement saying the party was working to ensure Iowa “continues to have a crucial voice” in the nominating process, but didn’t go so far as to say his organization would contest Nevada’s move.

To both states, we’d say don’t take our action as a form of aggression, but rather consider how much better it would be for the nominating process if Nevadans got to decide the first round. With the rich socioeconomic diversity of our population and our mix of metro residents and rural dwellers, we offer a much better indicator of a candidate’s support among a cross-section of Americans than does Iowa or New Hampshire. The populations of those states are predominantly white and rural — 89.8% non-Hispanic white in New Hampshire, 85% non-Hispanic white in Iowa, and no metro bigger than 700,000 in either state.

In Nevada, people of color make up 51.8% of the population, while our state offers a much better balance between urban and rural residents than Iowa and New Hampshire. As Assembly Speaker Jason Frierson has said, Nevada provides a better reflection of where the country is headed, as projections show that the nation’s demographics in 2050 will reflect Nevada’s current demographics if current trends continue.

With the fortunes of candidates turning heavily on the early results, it would be meaningful for our spectrum of voters in Nevada to make the call on the first round.

Meanwhile, Nevada resembles Iowa and New Hampshire in that our population isn’t so large that campaigning here would be prohibitively expensive or logistically challenging for candidates.

If everything were to fall into place, Nevadans would vote on the first Tuesday in February beginning with the 2024 presidential nominating process.

It’s exciting to think about. Not only would the move put Nevada at the center of global attention and spur even more state residents to get involved in the political process, it would get the nominating process off to a more representative start.