The Nevada Independent recently reported on a concerning trend in election reform efforts in the state. Wealthy out-of-state donors have poured over $28 million into campaigns to push for sweeping changes in Nevada’s electoral system, under the guise of improving the voting process. However, upon closer inspection, there are several red flags that should give Nevadans pause before embracing these so-called reforms.
Questionable Origins of the Campaign
The backers of Question 3, the ballot measure at the center of this controversy, have raised an astonishing amount of money, enough to purchase multiple luxury homes in affluent neighborhoods like Lake Tahoe, Summerlin, or MacDonald Ranch. This influx of cash far surpasses the fundraising efforts of any Nevada candidate in the third quarter of 2022, indicating a significant push to influence the state’s electoral landscape.
Despite the seemingly generous nature of these donations, it’s essential to scrutinize the motives behind them. The out-of-state donors behind Question 3 have taken it upon themselves to dictate the reforms they believe Nevada needs, without genuine input from local organizations or experts in election rights. The lack of endorsements from established Nevada groups raises concerns about the true intentions behind this well-funded campaign.
Widespread Opposition to Question 3
In contrast to the out-of-state donors’ efforts, numerous Nevada leaders and organizations have come out strongly against Question 3. Groups like Battle Born Progress, Nevada Policy Research Institute, and Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, along with prominent political figures like Sen. Catherine Cortez-Masto and Rep. Jacky Rosen, have voiced their concerns about the potential negative impacts of this proposed reform.
The opposition to Question 3 goes beyond partisan lines, reflecting a broad consensus among diverse stakeholders about the dangers posed by this initiative. From disenfranchisement to increased costs and the erosion of smaller parties’ representation, the risks associated with Question 3 are too significant to ignore. Nevadans must heed the warnings of those who understand the intricacies of election systems and safeguard the state’s democratic processes from undue interference.
The Flaws in Question 3’s Proposed Reforms
At the heart of the debate surrounding Question 3 lies the nature of the reforms it seeks to implement. Rather than offering proven and incremental changes to Nevada’s electoral system, this ballot measure proposes a radical overhaul designed by one of its primary funders, Katherine Gehl. Gehl’s election method, which includes ranked-choice voting, has faced significant backlash in Alaska, where it was recently challenged through a repeal effort.
The rushed and untested nature of Gehl’s reforms raises serious doubts about their suitability for Nevada. By enshrining these changes in the state’s constitution through Question 3, Nevadans would be taking a considerable gamble on an unproven system with potentially far-reaching consequences. As other states move to block similar reforms, it’s crucial for Nevada voters to critically evaluate the implications of such a sweeping change before casting their ballots.
In conclusion, the purported “gift” of election reform from out-of-state donors comes with significant strings attached. Nevadans must exercise caution and discernment when considering Question 3 and its implications for the state’s electoral future. By staying informed, engaging with local organizations, and advocating for transparent and accountable reforms, voters can protect Nevada’s democratic processes from undue influence and safeguard the integrity of their elections.
