Jim Hartman
Question 3 on the ballot in November would change the Nevada Constitution and the state’s election system in two fundamental ways.
First, Nevada would be adopting a “jungle primary” allowing all voters to participate in primary elections regardless of party affiliation. The top five vote-getters in each race (regardless of their political party) would advance to the general election.
Second, voters at the general election would rank candidates by order of preference. Voters could mark as many as five preferences but could choose to rank only one candidate or any number less than five.
Under this ranked-choice voting (RCV) system, any candidate who receives a majority of the votes (more than 50 percent) would be declared the winner.
If no candidate wins a majority, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes would be eliminated and their votes would be redistributed to the candidates listed as voters’ second preference. This shuffling and vote reallocation process would continue until one candidate reaches a majority.
It’s the second time Question 3 will be on the ballot after narrowly passing in the 2022 general election with 53% approval. As a Nevada constitutional amendment, it requires approval at two consecutive general elections – in 2022 and now again in 2024.
Question 3 would require most partisan elections in Nevada to move to the RCV system, including contests for U.S. Senate and congressional races, state legislative elections and statewide office positions.
Maine and Alaska are the only states that have adopted RCV.
Maine voters approved RCV in 2016 (52%-48%) conducting their first election using the system in 2020.
In 2020, Alaska voters narrowly approved (50.5%-49.5%) an initiative establishing an open primary for state offices and congressional elections. The initiative also established top-four RCV for general elections.
RCV for local elections is used in over 20 U.S. cities, including progressive enclaves like Cambridge, Massachusetts; San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley, California; Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota; as well as in metropolitan New York City.
But RCV has met strong criticism and resistance.
Massachusetts voters decisively rejected (54.8%-45.2%) RCV in 2020, with GOP Gov. Charlie Baker making a convincing argument that it was too confusing and complicated for voters.
In Alaska’s 2022 special election, RCV didn’t work as intended. A “loser” became the winner because voters were unfamiliar with the system. Alaska has a ballot measure for 2024 to repeal RCV.
Problems with RCV in Arlington County, Virginia in 2022 caused county election officials to return to ordinary, plurality voting.
In Oakland, California election officials botched RCV voting in 2022 by systematically counting the ballots incorrectly.
Almost all the money supporting Question 3 comes from out-of-state sources, led by Chicago-based businesswoman/philanthropist Katherine Gehl, a RCV champion. Gehl donated over $6 million in 2022.
Other major contributors include billionaire Kenneth Griffin ($3 million), a Florida-based GOP mega donor, and Kathryn Murdoch ($2.5 million), the New York-based daughter-in-law of billionaire media mogul Rupert Murdoch.
Nevada’s two Democratic senators – Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen – have been sharp critics of Question 3 as confusing for voters, warning the process could lead to votes being thrown out. Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV) is another opponent.
RCV is coercive, forcing voters to play its complex game or risk their votes not being counted.
Both the Nevada GOP and Nevada Democratic Party oppose Question 3.
The conservative Nevada Policy Research Institute argues that RCV leads to delays in ballot tabulation and the liberal Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada has denounced the measure.
The main objective of having an open primary is a worthy goal. That can be accomplished simply by submitting an initiative that would do just that – adopt open primaries.
Question 3’s fatal flaw is attempting to lock a confusing, untested general election top-five RCV system into the Nevada Constitution. It’s a “bridge too far.”
Vote “No” on Question 3.
E-mail Jim Hartman at lawdocman1@aol.com.