I remember the first time I saw Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV). She was speaking at an event for Awaken, a Reno-based nonprofit that helps victims of sex trafficking. She was inspiring, and I followed her work as Nevada’s attorney general, particularly her efforts to tackle sex trafficking. So, I enthusiastically supported her when she initially ran for Senate.
But over the years, that enthusiasm has faded. What began as promising political potential has gradually eroded into a familiar pattern of political complacency. What has emerged is a troubling disconnect from constituent needs, with allegiance shifting more toward entrenched power structures and the false hope of “bipartisanship.”
The Nevada Democratic Party faces a crossroads: To revitalize its political movement, it must move beyond blind party loyalty and embrace the dynamic energy of competitive primaries that reflect the evolving needs and aspirations of its constituents.
One of the clearest signs of Cortez Masto’s shift toward political expediency is her voting record. She and Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) often tout their bipartisanship, but at what cost? Their support for measures such as the Laken Riley Act, which raises serious concerns about due process, demonstrates a willingness to prioritize how they are perceived over their principles.
It is especially troubling that Cortez Masto touts her immigrant roots yet supports this cruel bill, which will make targeting immigrants much easier in President Donald Trump’s America. For someone with a background as Nevada’s top law enforcement officer, her support for legislation that erodes civil liberties is deeply concerning.
Her weak statement doesn’t inspire confidence: “I voted to support the Laken Riley Act because Nevadans want solutions that keep our communities safe. My priority is to deliver results for our families, and I’ll work with anyone to get it done.” These platitudes turn off voters. Immigration advocates and legal experts have criticized this misguided law and that the ACLU urged senators to vote no on the bill. But hey, it was bipartisan so that might win a couple of indie votes, right?
Then there is their curious vote to reverse a President Joe Biden era policy regarding offshore drilling. Although Cortez Masto and Rosen might have very good reasons for supporting offshore drilling, you cannot ask them directly because they have not held a town hall meeting in several years. This growing disconnect between the representatives and the people raises questions about their efforts to safeguard the public from the challenges posed by the second Trump administration.
Most recently, we had the continuing resolution battle that demonstrated Cortez Masto’s pattern of not stepping up to the plate and taking a swing but rather playing it safe. For non-political junkies not following this drama, Senate Democrats had a rare opportunity to possibly check the Trump/Elon Musk chaotic overhaul of government through the spending bill. When Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) briefly signaled resistance before ultimately surrendering, all eyes turned to senators such as Cortez Masto and Rosen to see how they would vote on the crucial cloture vote. This obscure procedural vote, which most Americans would understandably be oblivious to, represented Democrats’ only real leverage point.
Despite the difficult choice between potential government shutdown and enabling further chaos in Washington, D.C., and beyond, there was growing consensus among various political perspectives that this moment called for Democrats to finally bring an actual knife to a knife fight. Instead, Cortez Masto capitulated, arguing that a shutdown would paradoxically “give President Trump and Elon Musk even more power” while harming Nevada’s federal workers. Her statement, filled with familiar rhetoric about protecting “veterans, seniors, and working families,” leaves some wondering when — if ever — she is going to do something about what is happening to our country.
In normal political times, one could understand the desire to be seen as a centrist or bipartisan but these days are far from normal. We currently have an unelected billionaire destroying our constitutional order daily. It is unclear to me what either of our senators plan to do to be a bulwark against the onslaught of daily offenses against our constitutional republic. Being a centrist in an environment of rising authoritarianism doesn’t appear to be a long-term strategy.
Both senators appeared alongside Vice President Kamala Harris during her presidential campaign warning Nevadans — rightly — about the threat of a second Trump administration. So why are they now voting to enable him?
One must ask, what would the late great Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) be doing at this moment? I doubt it would be whatever is happening now among Senate Democrats.
Harry Reid was an undeniable force in the Senate and built an awe-inspiring political operation that helped deliver Democratic victories in Nevada for years. But this machine is showing signs of wear, such as Harris’ loss in the state where Trump had lost twice before and Rosen’s narrow victory against a weak opponent in 2024 should serve as warning signs. I saw this firsthand while canvassing – the energy was there among volunteers but not voters, who seemed disengaged and disillusioned.
Rosen’s lackluster performance compared to her decisive 2018 victory over Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) underscores something happening in Nevada. The problem isn’t just Republican gains — it’s Democratic complacency. I believe Nevada is still a purple state that could shift back to blue but it’s going to take a shakeup in how the Democrats reach voters — particularly, how they talk to the largest group of registered voters: nonpartisans.
Will the party be able to adapt to the shifting political landscape here in Nevada? Or will they continue to cling to outdated ways of doing things? They need to reengage with voters and tap into the energy on the ground. One way to do this is by encouraging a competitive primary contest. By propping up status quo candidates such as Cortez Masto and Rosen without fostering competition, they stifle the very energy they need to win elections.
Rather than addressing the concerns of disillusioned voters, Democratic leaders in Nevada have actively worked to limit voter choice in the primaries. Their opposition to Question 3, a ballot measure aimed at expanding voter participation, was disappointing but not surprising. While the party is bleeding support, they fought against reforms that would have allowed more Nevadans to engage in the electoral process.
Similar to their republican counterparts, they behave like a party more concerned with controlling the electoral system than with earning voter support.
Question 3 wasn’t perfect, but it represented a step toward a more open and representative process. I was excited about the idea of participating in a primary without having to register with either political party. The Democratic Party’s opposition to this reform only reinforced what many voters already suspected — that it cares more about consolidating power than listening to the people.
Cortez Masto will likely run for re-election in 2028 without a serious primary challenge because the party will shield her from competition. Instead of the party embracing healthy debate and competition, it will most likely stifle calls for an open primary. The result will be predictable: another uninspired campaign against a Republican who will pledge loyalty to Trump, leaving voters with a choice between mediocrity and extremism.
Ultimately, Cortez Masto may be the most qualified candidate for the seat with the best shot at winning. However, voters should be given the opportunity to consider alternative options and not feel compelled to accept the current situation without a say in the process.
If Democrats continue with business as usual, they will keep losing ground with voters who are desperate for decisive leadership. Voters are drawn to candidates who come across as genuine and willing to fight for them.
Nevada stands at a pivotal moment. In 2026, the state party could regain voter confidence by defeating Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo and maintaining Democratic control of the attorney general’s office. What strategies are being implemented to secure victory in these crucial statewide elections and address the challenge of widespread misinformation?
It has been suggested that the Democratic Party, at the local and state levels, could transform into mini-resource centers providing mutual aid to those in need. With the anticipated federal budget cuts and the possibility of an economic recession, this initiative could assist the Democrats in reshaping their image from being perceived as a party of elites to one that stands in solidarity with working families.
Our elected leaders and the party could hold listening sessions in all 17 counties, which would allow officials to hear constituents’ priorities, concerns and ideas. Engaging with voters and documenting feedback could build stronger community relationships and gather actionable insights to align party initiatives with voter priorities.
The Democratic Party in Nevada — and nationwide — is in decline. Its leaders must recognize their role in this moment and take real steps to change from a top-down approach to a bottom-up one. That starts with listening to voters, not consultants. If they fail to do this, they shouldn’t be surprised when the money dries up, the volunteers disappear and voters turn elsewhere.
Theresa Bohannan is a native Nevadan, wife and mother. She attended UNR and currently works in the energy industry.
The Nevada Independent welcomes informed, cogent rebuttals to opinion pieces such as this. Send them to submissions@thenvindy.com.
