Getty Images
LAS VEGAS — When Nevadans confront Question 3 at the polls next week, they’ll be voting on one ballot initiative that proposes two enormous changes to the way the swing state votes — and the result could be a complete overhaul of its primary and balloting system.
If Question 3 is approved on Nov. 5, Nevada’s state constitution will change to accommodate both an open primary contest and ranked-choice voting, both major shifts from the traditional voting system currently in place in the Silver State.
What changes under Question 3?
Currently Nevada holds closed primaries, meaning each party holds a primary contest among its registered voters to determine its nominee.
If voters approve Question 3, the system would shift to a so-called “jungle primary” in which candidates from several parties vie for the top five spots on a general primary ballot open to all voters, regardless of party affiliation.
The measure would also adopt ranked-choice voting, in which all registered voters have the option to “rank” their top five choices on the general election ballot, with candidates requiring a simple majority to win. If no candidate receives 50% of the vote plus one ballot, Nevada’s election boards would factor in voters’ ranked choices below the top vote-getter to tabulate the winner — meaning that the candidate with a plurality of the vote could still be trumped by competitors depending on how ranked choices are weighted.
Alaska passed a similar ballot initiative in 2020 that established similar voting reforms, but may ditch them next week when voters consider a repeal of their newfangled voting system.
Besides Alaska, just Hawaii and Maine use ranked-choice voting in statewide elections. Several other states use a ranked-choice system in a handful of localities, and a number of states have prohibited the practice statewide.
A Solution in Search of a Problem?
Both the state’s Democratic and Republican parties oppose this controversial measure, which critics are calling “a solution in search of a problem.”
The apparent motivation for this open primary push is that 40% of Silver State voters, or 663,613 people, are registered as “non-partisan,” the state’s official term for independent voters. That group makes up the largest cohort of the state’s 1.98 million “active” registered voters, which also includes 593,223 Democrats and 574,270 as of September, the secretary of state’s office reported.
There are two ways to amend the Nevada Constitution: two votes of approval by the state’s legislature or two votes of approval by voters. In either case, the votes must be consecutive — approved by either two legislatures in a row or two elections in a row.
Nevadans approved Question 3 at the ballot box in 2022 with 53% of the vote, so next week the proposal faces its final hurdle to become part of the state constitution.
If voters endorse it again on Nov. 5, the measure would become a law that could only be changed by another amendment process that critics posit could take at least five years. Once enacted, a move to repeal would require a sufficient number of signatures to get on the 2026 state ballot, receive a majority of votes in 2028, and then again in 2030.
Silver Staters Split on Voting Shake-up
“When you are prohibiting the majority of voters from voting, we have a system that needs to evolve,” Sondra Cosgrove, a College of Southern Nevada professor who’s backing Question 3, told The Post.
Saying taxpayers fund primary elections, the academic said, “Where in the US Constitution or the Nevada constitution does it say that my right to vote is predicated on me joining a private political organization? It doesn’t. It just says I have the right to vote.”
Cosgrove said races for local offices such as mayor, city council and judges already use an open primary system “and the world does not end.” She said the goal is to make the top of the ticket just as accessible to voters.
Just 19% of Nevadans cast primary ballots this year, Cosgrove said, and an open primary would allow voters disenchanted with the two-party system to select “candidates who may be speaking to younger voters or rural voters or whoever’s maybe feeling left out.”
Cosgrove argues that those who don’t want to “rank” their choices in primary or general elections don’t have to do so. They can pick one candidate for each office and leave it at that. Opponents say ranked-choice ballots are rejected at a rate exponentially higher than traditional ballots, largely because voters pick more than five candidates to rank or otherwise incorrectly mark ballots.
Shelbie Swartz, treasurer of Fair Government Nevada, which is among groups opposing Question 3, said nonpartisan voters can register with a party at the primary election and pick the candidates they like.
“It’s factually inaccurate to say that folks are closed out of these primaries when they’re not,” Swartz said.
Swartz said enacting the measure could actually depress voter turnout.
“I think it’s already hard enough to turn folks out to vote, to get them to feel like their vote matters. And add this burdensome process of ranking candidates and give them five candidates to have to learn about and get even more political texts and political mailers. It’s really going to turn a lot of people off from participating in our democracy and in our democratic processes,” Swartz said.
Claudia Alvarado, a spokesperson for the Nevada State Democratic Party told The Post via email that approving Question 3 “would lock a complicated and unfair new system into Nevada’s Constitution.”
“In the states that have tried it, this resulted in up to 10 times as many ballots being thrown out because of errors — leaving thousands of eligible voters without their voices being heard. Democrats and Republicans don’t agree on much these days, but Nevada leaders from both parties along with nonpartisan civic and voting rights organizations oppose ranked-choice voting,” she added.
The Nevada state GOP did not respond to The Post’s request for comment. Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, a Democrat, told a recent conference hosted by The Nevada Independent that he would implement whatever the voters decide.