Nevada voters will weigh in this cycle on the biggest change to the state’s election laws since universal mail-in ballots were introduced in 2020: a ballot measure that would implement open primaries and ranked-choice voting.
It’s attracted opposition from both major parties — something that proponents say shows the ballot question takes power away from the two-party system and distributes it to the voters.
“When you already have a lot of calculus done on how to get your candidates that the party approves of through the primary and to the general, you’re not going to want that messed with,” said Sondra Cosgrove, executive director of Vote Nevada and a backer of the measure, said at IndyFest earlier this month.
During a 50-minute panel discussion at The Nevada Independent’s annual politics and policy-focused conference, Cosgrove, Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar and Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Nevada Athar Haseebullah discussed the measure, Question 3, as well as a voter identification ballot measure, Question 7, threats to the election system and more.
Question 3 is twofold. It would require most partisan elections in Nevada to have a primary that is open to all voters — not just those registered with the two major parties — with the top five vote-getters (regardless of their political party) advancing to the general election. It also would establish a general election ranked-choice voting system.
The measure would exclude presidential and local government elections but affect contests for U.S. Senate and congressional races, the Legislature and statewide office positions.
If passed next Tuesday, the open primary and ranked-choice voting ballot measure would be enshrined in the Nevada Constitution and go into effect in 2026. Voters narrowly passed the ballot measure in 2022.
Aguilar said if the measure passes, it’s his responsibility as secretary of state to implement it. He warned, however, that as the state has focused on speeding up the release of results on Election Day, the ballot measure could delay those results.
“This is going to change the way we operate elections from an administrative perspective. It’ll change the way the ballot is laid out, it’ll change out the way we do the tabulation and then the way we give results,” said Aguilar, who is neutral on the proposal. “And that is my concern.”
He said staff at his office will have to focus on voter education, work to build capacity to implement the ballot measure and build trust among voters — no easy feat. Aguilar also said that a lag in reporting in 2020 led to the spread of misinformation and disinformation, and he worried that drawn-out wait times could exacerbate it.
Cosgrove responded to Aguilar’s concerns about the delayed reporting by pointing to Alaska’s voting system, which used ranked-choice voting in 2022. She said Alaska had almost the same mail-in ballot rules as Nevada, and it took the state about half an hour on election night to get the results.
“There was no lawsuits, there was no outcry that something bad had happened,” she said. “I would hope … that we can handle doing voter education and that we can be just as transparent here.”
Though Democrats and Republicans have opposed the proposal, the ACLU of Nevada is neutral on the measure.
Haseebullah said there are pros and cons, but he finds it disingenuous that proponents of the measure have focused on open primaries and not ranked-choice voting.
“[The system is] not unheard of, but it is new to Nevada voters,” he said. “However it plays out, we’ll be prepared, either way, to defend against challenges that might end up ensuing as a result.”
To watch the full panel, click here. We’ve highlighted parts of the discussion below.
Voter identification
On the ballot this year is a proposed voter identification law. The measure, supported by Republicans and Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, would amend the Nevada Constitution to require all in-person voters in Nevada to present a valid photo identification — such as a driver’s license, passport, student ID card or concealed weapon permit — before voting.
By law, when Nevadans register to vote, they must prove identity and eligibility through strong, specific identification processes, including providing a valid form of identification or verifying identity via a Social Security number. The state uses signature verification to identify voters.
During the panel, Haseebullah described the proposal as a solution in search of a problem. He said that historically voter identification laws have been used to suppress votes and are rooted in Jim Crow-era policies, and the policy disproportionately affects people with disabilities, people who are unhoused, those who are low-income and cannot afford identification or don’t have the time or ability to get one.
“We’ve talked about the concept of this being a potential poll tax. Not everybody has easy access to an ID,” he said. “The court actually punted on the substantive portion of whether or not, in fact, it is a poll tax. So we think that there’s barriers there.”
The ballot measure may also have the unintended consequence of enshrining mail-in balloting into the state Constitution, Haseebullah said, because it discusses what to do for mail-in ballots.
If there’s a lawsuit regarding the measure, “you could end up with a scenario where you don’t have in-person voter ID, and now you have permanency with respect to mail-in voting.”
Though voter identification laws are popular in Nevada, Haseebullah said support is stemming from unfounded distrust in the election system.
Aguilar said his office is prepared to implement the will of the people. It’s worth noting, he said, that voting is a constitutional right and comparing buying a beer with an ID is not accurate, because purchasing a beer is not a fundamental right. There’s also no evidence of widespread voter fraud, he said.
Voter security and intimidation
Haseebullah said what keeps him up at night is the prospect of misinformation and disinformation about the election fueling violence.
“We expect there to be protests, regardless of the result,” he said. “Leading into January, you’re going to see at least half the country likely upset … We’re hoping we do not have something occur that was as violent as Jan. 6 again.”
The ACLU of Nevada has already seen attempts to push disinformation, Haseebullah said, especially around the process of vote certification, which has been targeted as a way to throw a wrench into the election system.
In a recount of the June primary, Washoe County became one of at least 25 jurisdictions since 2020 where officials overseeing election certification processes voted not to do so, often citing unsubstantiated accounts of election fraud.
Though officials did the right thing and eventually certified the recount, Haseebullah said, the Nevada Supreme Court punted on clarifying the role of counties in certification, leading to a “problematic” level of uncertainty.
Aguilar emphasized that it’s vital for the public to understand that “a polling location is sacred” and he and his team have met with county clerks, district attorneys and law enforcement to ensure that they are prepared for any scenario, although he doesn’t want uniformed officers at polling locations.
The Nevada Secretary of State’s Office also has the election integrity task force, he said, which consists of federal, state and local law enforcement officials and representatives from his and the attorney general’s offices. He said the task force allows officials from across jurisdictions to work together to address issues in real time at a central location.
If voters face intimidation at the polls, Cosgrove said, they should remember that there are multiple vote centers so they can choose alternative locations to cast a ballot. She said one of her biggest worries is voters not casting a ballot.
In the June primary, there was a 19 percent turnout rate, she said, leading to some people having an outsized influence in the general election.
“We have a lot of young people. We have a lot of new residents, people who are just not voting,” Cosgrove said. “We need to get them into the system, and we need to hear their voices.”
