Time has passed for primary losers to remove campaign signs

By Jessica Hill

Sunday, July 17, 2022 | 2 a.m.

Drive by most intersections throughout the Las Vegas Valley and you likely see a batch of political campaign signs.

They are designed to catch your eye with the candidate’s photo, the office they are seeking, party affiliation and more.

But what happens after the election?

Many of the candidates who ran for office and lost in last month’s primary election still have a sign presence on the area’s roadways, potentially creating confusion with would-be midterm election voters because they haven’t advanced to the November ballot.

Signs are allowed to be erected on private property adjacent to Nevada Department of Transportation right-of-ways up to 60 days prior to the primary election, said Justin Hopkins, public information officer for the department. Signs must be removed 30 days after a primary unless the candidate or ballot question has advanced to the general election in November, Hopkins said.

In Clark County, candidates who don’t win or advance to the next election must remove their signs within 15 days of an election loss. If they don’t, the county will remove them and store them while trying to contact the candidate. (To report violations, call the Clark County Public Response Office at 702-455-4191)

In Henderson, off-premises election signs must be removed within 10 days after the election is decided, according to the city.

For Las Vegas, signs supporting a candidate who loses the primary election must be removed within 15 days after the primary election, according to a January 2021 memo from the Las Vegas City Council. The city may remove and dispose of signs after five days of written notice to a candidate, and it may charge the candidate for the cost of the removal.

At this point, if you see a sign belonging to a candidate who lost, reach out to the city or county. That way, the signs that remain up will inform voters about who’s on the ballot in November.

Cortez Masto legislation blocked

Despite an impassioned speech on the Senate floor this past week, U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto was rebuffed by Republican colleagues in her quest for the Senate to quickly pass the Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act of 2022.

The legislation, introduced by Cortez Masto and cosponsored by 37 fellow Democratic senators, including Nevada’s Jacky Rosen, would ensure that women who live in states where abortions are banned would still be free to travel to undergo the procedure in a state where abortion remains legal.

Cortez Masto said the legislation was about protecting freedoms for women.

“I don’t know what it’s like to step in their shoes and walk in their shoes and nor do you, nor does anyone here,” she said. “I shouldn’t impose my beliefs, my religion, my ideas on what they should do for their lives. None of us should. That’s the freedom in this country. That’s who we are when we stand for freedoms and liberty. It doesn’t mean we get to pick and choose those freedoms and take away the rights of ... individuals because we believe differently, or our religion thinks that we should do differently.”

Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma objected on behalf of Republicans, which effectively blocked the bill from consideration.

“This legislation is very simple,” Cortez Masto said. “Let’s protect those freedoms. Let’s make sure we protect those states’ rights and allow women, health care providers and employers to actually support and help one another in this country. That’s what this legislation does. And to say otherwise is misconstruing. It’s fearmongering and a continuing erosion of the debate of the constitutional rights and the American rights in this country right now. And that’s the problem with Congress.”

“In the fallout of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, anti-choice states across the country are enacting rigid restrictions on women’s ability to travel across state lines to seek the reproductive care they need,” Rosen said in a statement. “This legislation will help protect the rights of those women to cross state lines in order to receive proper care, and the doctors and other medical providers who treat them.”

Despite the setback, Cortez Masto vowed to continue her fight.

“Senate Republicans just blocked my bill to protect women who travel for reproductive care and those who help them,” she said in a tweet. “They want to allow state legislators to reach across state lines to punish and control women. It’s absolutely outrageous. I won’t stop fighting for women’s freedom.”

Survey: Abortion access, gun control a priority for voters

A New York Times and Siena College survey of 849 registered voters from July 5-7 showed that 41% prefer Democratic control of Congress, whereas 40% preferred Republican control. Nineteen-percent preferred another party’s control.

The survey also showed a general sense of dissatisfaction among voters, with about 80% of respondents thinking the country is heading in the wrong direction.

For the respondents identifying as Democrat, the most important problems facing the country were “gun-related,” “abortion-related” or “Democracy-related.” Republicans, on the other hand, feel that the biggest problems are “economy-related.”

“The results suggest that the wave of mass shootings and the recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade have at least temporarily insulated the Democrats from an otherwise hostile national political environment while energizing the party’s predominantly liberal activist base,” the New York Times article said.

The survey shows more Democratic voters in the November midterm election may be engaging in politics with abortion and gun control issues at the forefront of their minds. But whether those issues can stay at the top of people’s minds through November remains to be seen.

Another poll conducted by Politico and Morning Consult that surveyed 2005 adults between July 8 and July 10 asked if the election for Congress was held today, which one of the following candidates they’d be most likely to vote for, and 46% said a Democratic candidate while 42% said a Republican candidate.

The poll also seems to show a general discontentment for the leaders and likely options voters will choose from the next presidential election. When asked if they believe former President Donald Trump should run for president in 2024, 25% said “yes, definitely” while 48% said, “no definitely not.” And with Biden, only 14% said, “yes definitely,” and 46% said, “no definitely not.”

Trump remains the top option for Republicans, receiving 52% of support if the Republican primary were held today, whereas Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis got 21%. All other potential candidates like fomer Vice President Mike Pence and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas were far behind.

The Republican State Leadership Committee also last week upgraded Nevada, Maine, Oregon and Washington to “Opportunities to Flip Chambers” on its state legislative target list, according to a statement, after polling that it published last weekend showed Republicans leading. Those states were originally labeled as places to “make meaningful gains,” according to the committee.

“Even in states that President Biden won by double digits in 2020, Democrat majorities are anything but safe,” said Dee Duncan, the committee’s president, in the statement. “Americans are looking to their state legislatures to serve as a check and balance on the President’s failing economic policies, giving state Republicans an opening to go on offense in places we normally don’t contest.”

Horsford touts legislation

Also last week, the Safer Communities Act — the first major gun violence prevention legislation to be passed by Congress in nearly three decades — was signed into law.

The law includes the Break the Cycle of Violence Act provision, a proposal initially introduced by Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Nev., that allocates $250 million for community violence intervention programs.

“Nevadans are horrified by the epidemic of gun violence that continues to steal away lives, devastate families and shatter communities across the country,” Horsford said in a statement. “The bipartisan Safer Communities Act will implement common-sense measures to curb the violence and keep weapons away from those who pose a danger to themselves and others.”

The legislation also includes support for state crisis intervention orders, incentivizing states to implement risk protection order laws to prohibit people who pose a danger to themselves and others from getting a gun. It also closes the “boyfriend loophole” by adding convicted abusers to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and it establishes new federal criminal offenses that cover “straw purchasing and trafficking.”

The legislation also requires longer, more enhanced background checks of up to 10 days for gun buyers under the age of 21.

Horsford also introduced the Housing Oversight and Mitigating Exploitation (HOME) Act of 2022 last week that creates institutional oversight in the housing market to ensure fair competition for Americans hoping to purchase or remain in their home, according to a statement from Horsford’s office.

The legislation makes it illegal for any person to rent or sell a unit at an “unreasonable price” during a “period of a housing emergency,” which the president can declare. It also directs the secretary of housing and urban development to investigate to determine if prices are being manipulated by artificially reducing housing capacity or through other price-gouging practices, according to the statement.

Fines collected through the law would be put into the National Housing Trust Fund, which is used to help low-income families get affordable housing.

“In the 4th Congressional District in Nevada, we saw 17% of the homes purchased last year being bought by private investors,” Horsford said in a statement. “Companies with no interest or connection to these communities are then raising rents to levels to price out the hard-working families that have lived in these areas for generations. This is a national trend that the data shows is targeting communities of color and hurting single mothers at greater numbers.”