Propositions, Amendments, Ballot Initiatives, Referendums… whatever your state calls them, it’s time to start sharing information.
We have this seventh set from a battlebornecon. If you live in a state with a number of these and you want to put something together, please let me know.
THANK YOU FOR SHARING THIS WITH US.
And big thanks to everyone who has put something together this year!
NEVADA
ecause this is a Nevada-based blog, sometimes I talk about Nevada-based stuff. Like ballot questions! I’ve weighed in on individual initiatives in past elections, but I’m doing them all together like I did in 2022, though there are considerably more of them this time. A full account of the ballot initiatives, arguments for and against, and actual legislative language is at the Nevada Secretary of State (NV SoS) site. All of my information on these initiatives comes from the state site unless otherwise cited.
Before I get started, here’s my general philosophy on ballot initiatives: I lean NO by default because they always involve modifying the state constitution and require multiple rounds of voting to be enacted—and modified when the sudden but inevitable “unforeseen consequences” occur. That said, I try to consider each on the merits.
Question 1:
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to remove certain provisions governing the Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education and its administration of the State University and certain federal land grant funds and to provide additional legislative oversight of public institutions of higher education through regular independent audits, without repealing the current statutory election process or other existing statutory provisions relating to the Board of Regents?
Reviewing the information provided by NV SoS, I think this has all the earmarks of an internal fight that has spilled into public view. That said, the question boils down to: do you want to amend the state constitution to remove language establishing a state university and how it is administered, devolving that power to the legislature?
Removing language from the constitution to give the power back to the legislature is something I would normally support. Yet, in this case, it involves the Board of Regents and the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE), which makes this difficult to judge. The arguments included by the NV SoS strongly suggest that funding and auditing of funding is part of the reason behind this question appearing on the ballot. The For argument also alludes to times when the Board has used its constitutional status to shield itself from the Legislature, even in court. Removing that status has to come from a ballot initiative, so, here we are.
The Against argument comes down to: we know there were problems with how the funds were managed because the legislature audited NSHE, so we don’t need to do this to get an audit. The Legislature has the power to shape the Board already, we know this because they changed both the size of the board and the length of the term members server. Moving this all the way to the Legislature opens up the possibility of no more elected boards, but appointed boards, injecting partisan politics deep into NSHE.
The Nevada Independent’s explanation of Question 1 offers insight into the history behind the measure. More importantly, it also explains that the incidents of the Board using its unique status against the Legislature refer to court cases in 1948 and 1981 – not exactly recent history. It also highlights something I missed in my initial review: the For argument never states why the current legislative oversight is insufficient.
I lean NO on all ballot questions by default. While I think the For argument makes a strong case in general, it’s not strong enough to make up for not being able to explain why 1) current Legislative oversight is insufficient and 2) how removing the Board of Regents entirely from the state constitution will resolve that. I will be voting NO on Question 1.
Question 2:
Shall Section 1 of Article 13 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to: (1) revise the description
of the persons who benefit from institutions that the State is required to foster and support;
(2) replace the term “institutions” with “entities”; and (3) add entities for the benefit of persons
with intellectual or developmental disabilities to the types of entities that the State is required to
foster and support?
Nevada became a state in 1864. If the most objectionable terms remaining in our oft-amended state constitution are “insane,” “blind,” and “deaf and dumb,” I’d be pleasantly surprised. Yet, none of the changes in this amendment will materially alter the care and services available for Nevadans. Revising these terms with their currently acceptable synonyms is a feel-good surface fix—one that will need to be revisited when the term “intellectual or developmental disabilities” becomes objectionable. Therefore, I will be voting NO on Question 2.
Question 3:
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow all Nevada voters the right to participate in
open primary elections to choose candidates for the general election in which all voters may then
rank the remaining candidates by preference for the offices of U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives,
Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Controller, Attorney
General, and State Legislators?
This is the same question that was on the ballot in 2022. Since this is a repeat, so is my response:
When the Nevada Democratic primary in 2020 allowed ranked choice voting, I found it easy to do and fairly intuitive. I also found it required me to think more about who I preferred and why, requiring me to dig more into candidates and their policies to help me make those choices. I do wonder, though, how easily others will adapt – ranked-choice voting hasn’t been as easy in practice as its supporters say, nor are the results quick enough to satisfy a 24-hour news cycle. And I do worry that the delay in reporting final results will spur Nevada’s homegrown MAGA contingent. What I don’t worry about is the argument that ranked-choice voting will lead to disenfranchisement. If someone votes, their vote will be counted. If they choose not to rank their choices and their preferred candidate doesn’t win, that doesn’t mean that they were disenfranchised, nor does it mean others got to vote multiple times. It means they left a section of the ballot blank.
On the other hand, the open primary proposal has me deeply concerned. I do not like the outcomes I’ve seen in the jurisdictions that opt for this system. It seems to lead to otherwise good candidates being excluded from the general (independent and third-party candidates), a lack of choices as the primary leads to multiple contenders from the same party (all-Democratic or all-Republican candidates), and little change to voter participation. I am not persuaded by the argument that closed primaries disenfranchise independent and third-party voters (the term “purity dildo” may or may not have been used concerning this), though I am absolutely willing to concede that closed-party primaries should not run by the state and local election authorities without compensation from the parties.
In the end, I’m voting NO on this question. I would love ranked choice voting, even at the loss of my beloved “None of the Above” option, and if this was separated from the open primary proposal, I would likely vote in favor of it. However, the changes to the primary system bring little benefit to Nevada voters.
Question 4:
Shall the Ordinance of the Nevada Constitution and the Nevada Constitution be amended to
remove language authorizing the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as a criminal
punishment?
Nevada is known as the Battle Born state because it became a state during the Civil War. Part of that includes explicitly declaring it was not a slave state. The state constitution declares, “Neither Slavery nor involuntary servitude unless for the punishment of crimes shall ever be tolerated in this State.[ emphasis added]” It’s that punishment part that’s at issue here. The full text of the proposed change leaves the remainder of the statement intact.
This amendment is not about striking out language that speaks to Nevada’s history from the state’s constitution but instead removing language that makes it easier to exploit prisoners for labor. As the argument against passage says, “However, this ballot question could lead to unintended consequences within the criminal justice system relating to prison work requirements, community service, and parole and probation.”
It, rightly, points out that this could impact everything from community service programs in place of jail time to work release to vocational training. Good. If the only reason that those programs exist is because of a provision allowing slavery and involuntary servitude as a punishment for crimes then those programs are clearly not focused on rehabilitation but instead are focused on exploiting prisoners as a source of indentured labor. Somehow, I expect that programs focused on providing alternatives to prison and education and vocational skills will survive the removal of this language from the state constitution without much of a hiccup. On the other hand, Prison Industries, aka Silver State Industries, may have to pay more than pennies an hour for prison labor. This is a YES vote for me.
Question 5:
Shall the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 be amended to provide an exemption from the taxes
imposed by this Act on the gross receipts from the sale and the storage, use or other consumption
of diapers?
I touched on this in 2018 when there was a proposal to exempt feminine hygiene products from state and local sales taxes. I think 2018 me was pretty smart and 2024 me agrees with her 100%.
Sales tax is regressive and disproportionately impacts lower-income families. The fact that a family could spend $1000 a year on diapers and have nearly 10% of that be sales tax is absolutely true. The sales tax rate in Clark County, Nevada is 8.325%. But that’s also true for nearly all non-food goods and services. Sales tax isn’t a tax that targets specific products or services, nor does it target specific populations. And while I sympathize with lower-income families that are unduly burdened by sales tax, I don’t find the argument to carve out an exception here any more compelling than I did six years ago, especially with an estimated fiscal loss of $7.9 million per year.
If this is truly based on a desire to help lower-income families afford necessities, then let’s tackle the sales tax itself. Until then, this is a NO vote for me.
Question 6:
Should the Nevada Constitution be amended to create an individual’s fundamental right to an
abortion, without interference by state or local governments, whenever the abortion is performed
by a qualified healthcare professional until fetal viability or when necessary to protect the health
or life of the pregnant individual at any point during the pregnancy?
One of the flaws of the amendment process is that it makes making changes to the state constitution a difficult and drawn-out process. Amendments must pass in two consecutive elections to be successful. This is round one for this amendment and I, for one, am here for it. I even appreciate that it doesn’t cede to the legislature the ability to define or limit abortion. This is a YES vote all the way.
Question 7:
Should the Nevada Constitution be amended to require voters to either present photo
identification to verify their identity when voting in-person or to provide certain personal
information to verify their identity when voting by mail ballot?
I will give credit to the framers of this amendment – the list of approved documents is rather long:
Voters who vote in-person at a polling place would need to show an ID that is current or that has not been expired for more than four years. If a voter is more than 70 years old, the identification could be expired for any length of time so long as it is otherwise valid.
The acceptable forms of identification include:
- Nevada driver’s license.
- Identification card issued by the State of Nevada, any other State, or the US
Government.- Employee photo identification card issued by the US government, Nevada government, or any county, municipality, board, authority, or other Nevada government entity.
- US passport.
- US military identification card.
- Student photo identification card issued by a Nevada public college, university, or
technical school.- Tribal photo identification.
- Nevada concealed firearms permit.
- Other form of government-issued photo identification that the Legislature may
approve.
It even includes ceding modifications to the legislature in the future. However, this is rooted in the entire voter fraud scam perpetuated by people who want to sow doubt on the integrity of our elections. I’m disappointed because I know this will pass, but I won’t be helping that happen. This is a hard NO vote for me.
The Tally
For the tl;dr crowd, here’s the final tally:
- Question 1: NO
- Question 2: NO
- Question 3: NO
- Question 4: YES
- Question 5: NO
- Question 6: YES
- Question 7: NO
Happy Voting!
It’s Ballot Initiatives & Amendments Time – Nevada EditionPost + Comments (7)