How Nevadans elect many officials could change drastically under initiative

By Casey Harrison (contact)

Sunday, Nov. 6, 2022 | 2 a.m.

Whether future elections in Nevada look drastically different from the way they do now will hinge on how voters answer a controversial measure on their ballots this month.

Ballot Question 3 asks voters to amend the Nevada Constitution and establish an open primary in which constituents would no longer need to register with a political party to participate in Democratic and Republican primaries, and the top five vote-getters — regardless of party affiliation — would advance to the general election.

Under the current system, voters may only cast a ballot in the primary of the party for which they are registered.

Question 3 also asks voters to transition to a ranked-choice framework for the general election for the offices of U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, the state’s top executive offices and the Nevada Legislature.

Even if the measure passes this week, it would need to again be approved in the 2024 general election before being instituted for the 2026 election cycle.

Supporters of the measure say both open primaries and ranked-choice voting would give voters more options on the ballot, yield more ideologically diverse candidates who tend to be more moderate on their stances, and increase turnout among nonpartisan and independent voters, a growing share of Nevada’s electorate that already makes up 35% of the state’s active voters.

Opponents, meanwhile, argue that these provisions can disenfranchise voters by creating an unfamiliar and confusing voting system, and specifically for ranked-choice voting, can lead to uncounted votes if a person decides to rank just a few candidates who get disqualified for not reaching a count threshold.

Critics also say it increases opportunities for “strategic voting,” which would let voters aligned with one party intentionally pick an unpopular candidate of the opposing party, potentially leading to upsets.

What does that mean?

Any registered voter in a top-five primary can cast a ballot for any candidate, regardless of party affiliation, according to Ballotpedia. Rather than having a closed primary in which only registered members of a party choose a single candidate as that party’s choice for the general election, an open primary would narrow a list of all candidates down to the top five vote-getters — regardless of party affiliation — who would all advance to the general election.

If Question 3 passes, voters in the general election would then be able to rank the five candidates in order of their preference.

There is no stipulation on the minimum number of general election candidates from each party and hypothetically, the five finalists could all come from the same party.

To win the general election, a candidate would need a true majority (50% + one vote) as voters’ top preference in all ballots cast. If no candidate reaches that threshold after the first tally, the lowest preferred vote-getter would be eliminated. Ballots where the eliminated candidate was listed as the first choice would be redistributed to the candidate those voters ranked second. That process would continue until one of the candidates reaches a true majority.

Where the system is being used

The Institute for Political Innovation, a “cross-partisan” nonprofit organization that advocates for top-five-style primaries, reports that the framework is used in 24 states at the legislative level only, while Alaska is the only state to institute a top-five primary and ranked-choice general.

Maine in 2016 approved a similar ballot measure that established a ranked-choice system for the U.S. Senate, U.S. House, governor and the state legislature, but does not apply when voting for the president, according to Ballotpedia.

In 2019, New York City voted to move to a ranked-choice system for primaries and special elections for mayor, comptroller, borough president and city council.

In June, Hawaii Gov. David Ige signed into law a bill establishing ranked-choice voting in federal special elections and any special election to fill a vacancy on a county council. The law will go into effect Jan. 1.

Who supports and who opposes?

The political action committee (PAC) Nevada Voters First was behind the petition drive to get the question on the ballot. It has raised more than $19.5 million this election cycle, with Institute for Political Innovation founder Katherine Gehl donating $5 million to the PAC, according to the secretary of state.

Hedge fund manager and Republican activist Kenneth Griffin has given $3 million and Katheryn Murdoch, daughter-in-law of Fox News co-founder Rupert Murdoch, donated $2.5 million.

Wynn Resorts Ltd., the Clark County Educators Association’s PAC and the Nevada Association of Realtors each contributed $250,000, according to the secretary of state.

The question has received criticism from candidates on both sides of the political aisle, including Democratic U.S. Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen, and Gov. Steve Sisolak, who claim it would be confusing for voters.

Republican Mark Robertson, a retired financial adviser running to unseat U.S. Rep. Dina Titus in the 1st Congressional District, also said he would vote no. Even the Nevada AFL-CIO, which represents many of the largest labor unions in the state, advocated to strike down the proposal. Protect Your Vote Nevada, the PAC opposing the question, argues on its website that “out-of-state billionaires” are attempting to “completely overhaul our elections” with the aim of making voting more complicated and time-consuming. Protect Your Vote Nevada has raised $1.5 million.

Sondra Cosgrove, a history professor at the College of Southern Nevada, told the Public News Service she supported the proposed amendment because it would ultimately give voters more choice and less extreme candidates.

“We want to have more options,” she wrote in June. “We don’t want just two people moving forward from the primary to the general election. We want five people, because oftentimes when you look at the people who move forward, it’s just the people with the most money.”

Mike Draper, a spokesperson for Nevada Voters First, told KSNV-TV he believed the Democratic and Republican parties were against the measure because it would give them less control over who advanced in elections.

“I think the parties are against it because the system, as it is now, works for the parties,” Draper said. “But does it work for the people?”