Question 3 on the Nevada general election ballot in is an initiative that, if enacted, would eliminate partisan primaries and establish an open primary election and a top-five “ranked-choice” voting general election.
All candidates for congressional, state constitutional offices and Legislature and all voters would participate in a single primary election regardless of party affiliation or non-affiliation. The top five finishers would advance to the general election, with the general election winner determined by “ranked-choice” voting.
“Ranked-choice” gives voters the right to rank up to five candidates in order of their preferred choices or to vote only for their top choice.
Under current law, Nevada’s partisan primaries are open exclusively to Nevadans who register as Republican (30%) or Democrat (33%). Current law excludes the growing 37% of all Nevada voters not registered as Republican or Democrat from taxpayer-funded partisan primary elections.
These closed partisan primaries are controlled by political party activists and increasingly dominated by the most extreme party constituents. The current system excludes voters and entitles a very small, partisan minority to determine the general election candidates.
Nevada would be adopting a “jungle primary” system leaving the top-five vote getters, regardless of political party, facing off in a “ranked choice” runoff election in November.
In 2004, Washington became the first state to adopt a “top-two” open primary system in which all candidates are listed on the primary ballot. The top two vote-getters, regardless of their partisan affiliations, advance to the general election for congressional and state-level elections.
Consequently, it’s possible for two candidates belonging to the same political party to win in a “top-two” primary and face off in the general election.
California followed suit in June 2010 when voters adopted Proposition 14. It was intended to moderate the state’s politics and give centrist candidates a chance. The open “top two” primary was meant to reduce extreme partisanship and encourage independents.
The extent to which the change had a “moderating effect” on California politics is debated. It did result in Democratic U.S. Sens. Kamala Harris and Dianne Feinstein, in 2016 and 2018, having no Republican general election opponents.
In 2020, Alaska voters narrowly approved (50.5%-49.5%) a ballot initiative establishing an open primary for state offices and congressional elections. The initiative also established top-four “ranked choice” voting for general elections.
Maine voters approved “ranked choice” voting in 2016 (52%-48%) conducting their first election using this system in 2020.
“Ranked choice” voting for local elections is used in more than 20 U.S. cities, including progressive enclaves like Cambridge, Massachusetts; San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley, California; and Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota.
New York City, the largest voting population in the U.S., used “ranked choice” voting in 2021.
But “ranked choice” voting has met resistance.
Despite being vastly outspent and having endorsements from Democratic Senate progressives Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, Massachusetts voters decisively rejected (54.8%-45.2%) “ranked choice” voting in 2020. GOP Gov. Charlie Baker argued “ranked choice” voting was too confusing and complicated for voters.
Alaska had an eccentric result in their first use of the “ranked choice” system in an August special House election. It didn’t work as intended. Democrat Mary Peltola won despite being the first ranked choice of only 39.7% of voters. Unfamiliar with the system, majority Republicans failed to vote strategically.
“Nevada Voters First” PAC is spending more than $7 million on advertising supporting Question 3.
Not surprisingly, the political partisans – both Democrats (Gov. Steve Sisolak, Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto, Jacky Rosen) and Republicans (Rep. Mark Amodei) – oppose Question 3.
An open “jungle” primary should be adopted in Nevada. Closed party primaries disenfranchise 600,000 Nevada voters.
Question 3’s fatal flaw is attempting to lock a confusing general election top-five “ranked choice” system into the Nevada Constitution. It’s a “bridge too far.”
Reluctantly, I’ll vote “no” on Question 3.
E-mail Jim Hartman at lawdocman1@aol.com.
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment