Coalition of Nevada organizations argue Question 3 would make voting harder and disenfranchise voters

The groups opposing the measure have expressed concern that the reforms included in Question 3 could actually lead to voters being disenfranchised by making voting more confusing and time-consuming. A series of studies suggests those concerns are valid.  

An array of pro-democracy, advocacy, and progressive groups in Nevada are urging voters to vote against Question 3 when they cast their ballots in November, arguing it would be a step backwards that makes voting harder, more time consuming, and more complicated.

Question 3 will ask voters to choose between “establishing open top-five primaries and ranked-choice voting for general elections which would apply to congressional, gubernatorial, state executive official, and state legislative elections,” or keeping voting in the state as is. 

If the ballot measure passes, party-specific primaries would become a thing of the past in congressional, gubernatorial, state executive official, and state legislative elections, with the state holding just one primary for all candidates. Voters would then rank the candidates from both parties in order of preference, rather than casting one vote for one candidate when they vote. 

The changes, notably, wouldn’t apply to presidential races or local races, like those for school board, county commission, or city council.

The groups opposing the measure — which include Mi Familia en Accion, All Voting is Local, Silver State Voices, the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada Action Fund, the Institute for a Progressive Nevada, and Battle Born Progress — have expressed concern that the reforms included in Question 3, which supporters say will open up the voting process and make it more democratic, could actually lead to voters being disenfranchised. 

“Question three would lock a complicated and unfair new election system into Nevada’s constitution requiring voters to learn about five candidates and rank their top five choices, and also not in every single election,” Kerry Durmick, Nevada State Director, All Voting is Local Action, said in a statement last month. 

How Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) works

Under Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), if a candidate receives more than 50% in first place votes, they win. But if no candidate earns more than 50% of the vote among first-choice ballots, the candidate finishing last is eliminated. Voters who ranked the eliminated candidate as their first choice will have their votes go to their second choice.  If any candidate surpasses 50% of the vote after this round, that candidate is elected. Otherwise, the process continues until one candidate earns more than 50% of the vote. 

RCV has been used in local elections for decades, but in recent years, there’s been a push to adopt the policy for state and federal elections.

Proponents of the practice say RCV ensures the candidate with the strongest and broadest base of support is elected, encourages more civil campaigning, and reduces “wasted votes,” meaning that there’s no penalty for voting for a candidate who isn’t likely to win.

Several studies have shown, however, that RCV leads to voter confusion, error, and decreased voter turnout, specifically among low income voters, less educated voters, and communities of color.

For example, a recent study incorporating data from Alaska and Maine, where RCV has been implemented for some elections, found that 1 in 20 voters improperly mark ballots in RCV contests. Other studies show that these errors are particularly common in areas with higher minority populations and populations of people who don’t speak English very well. These studies also show that ballots in RCV elections are ten times more likely to be rejected than ballots in non-RCV elections.

In Nevada, the change being proposed would also be enacted through an amendment to the state constitution, which would effectively lock the state into the practice of RCV. This would limit the ability of state lawmakers to revise procedures in response to implementation challenges or unintended consequences, since changes to the voting structure would require another constitutional amendment. 

“Question 3’s implementation of ranked choice elections – seared into the Nevada Constitution – would be a disastrous step backward for Nevada’s elections, making voting harder, more time consuming and more confusing,” Shelbie Swartz, executive director of the Institute for a Progressive Nevada, said in a statement. 

Question 3 would also pair RCV with jungle elections, where all of the candidates are thrown together on the same ballot, which can lead to a runoff between two candidates of the same party. 

Question 3 backed by out-of-state donors

Some critics of RCV and jungle elections argue it could benefit wealthier candidates who might struggle to win party primaries, but could use their wealth to self-fund and outspend other candidates, possibly prevailing even if they have lukewarm backing among their party’s base. 

Opponents of the measure have also pointed out that it’s been supported by political action committees heavily funded by out-of-state billionaires.

When the ballot question was first posed to voters in 2022 — Nevadans must approve a ballot measure in two consecutive elections to amend the state constitution — it received tens of millions of dollars from out-of-state donors. 

Nevada Voters First, the in-state group backing Question 3, received more than $17 million from political donors in the third quarter alone, more than any other Nevada candidate or state or federal office raised during that same time period.

Kenneth Griffin, a Florida-based billionaire and Republican mega donor who was one of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ biggest donors in the GOP presidential primary, spent $3 million to back the 2022 effort. 

Kathryn Murdoch, daughter-in-law of Fox News founder and conservative billionaire  Rupert Murdoch, donated $2.5 million. Action Now Inc., a Texas-based philanthropic group funded by billionaire couple John and Laura Arnold, donated $3 million.

The Arnolds also have close ties to Project 2025, the far-right plan for a second Trump term. The couple has donated over $1.4 million to the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a Project 2025 contributor that was previously led by chief Project 2025 architect Kevin Roberts. 

This time around, Vote Yes on 3 PAC, which was created earlier this year to support Question 3, reported raising $5.7 million between April and June. Most of that money came from two national groups who fund election reform efforts across the country: the Virginia-based group Article IV, which describes itself as a nonpartisan organization focused on improving democracy, and Unite America, a philanthropic venture fund focused on election reform. 

“Yes on Question 3 is a way for out-of-state interests to meddle in our system of government by allowing wealthy consultants to manipulate the presentation of a ballot measure, obscuring a permanent, complex change with a simple question,” Manuel Santamaria, state director of Mi Familia en Accion, said in a statement. 

Emily Persaud-Zamora, executive director of Silver State Voices, said in a statement that should Question 3 pass, “it would require extensive amounts of new voter education to explain how ranked choice voting works, education that could cost millions.” 

“We urge Nevadans to vote ‘no’ on Question 3,” she added.

Support Our Cause

Thank you for taking the time to read our work. Before you go, we hope you'll consider supporting our values-driven journalism, which has always strived to make clear what's really at stake for Nevadans and our future.

Since day one, our goal here at The Nevadan / El Nevadense has always been to empower people across the state with fact-based news and information. We believe that when people are armed with knowledge about what's happening in their local, state, and federal governments—including who is working on their behalf and who is actively trying to block efforts aimed at improving the daily lives of Nevada families—they will be inspired to become civically engaged.

Frank Alejandre, Community Editor

Give $5 Give $25 Give $50 Other

Your support keeps us going

Help us continue delivering fact-based news to Nevadans