Question 1
The first ballot question before Nevada voters in November asks voters whether the Nevada Constitution should be amended to guarantee equal rights regardless “of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry, or national origin.”
It stems from Senate Joint Resolution 8, approved by the Legislature in 2019 and again in 2021. Voter approval is the final step in the process, meaning a majority vote in favor of the question would amend the state Constitution to include that language.
The ballot question is separate from a long-running effort to enshrine an Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) into the United States Constitution. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the federal ERA in 1971, followed by the U.S. Senate in 1972. From there, it was sent to the states for ratification. But the amendment — which centered around gender equality — fell short of ratification needed by three-fourths of states by a 1982 deadline.
The push for a federal equality guarantee received renewed attention in recent years as several states ratified the proposed amendment. Nevada was among them.
Thirty-five years after the deadline, in 2017, both houses of the Nevada Legislature ratified the federal ERA. But a federal judge ruled that the tardy ratifications occurred too late for the amendment to be added to the U.S. Constitution, and the question is subject to ongoing appeals.
A recent poll conducted by The Nevada Independent and OH Predictive Insights found broad support for Question 1, which is essentially the state-specific version of the Equal Rights Amendment. Roughly 72 percent of voters surveyed said they would support the question on the November ballot.
The support cut across racial and ethnic lines, with 79 percent of Black voters, 76 percent of Hispanic voters, 84 percent of Asian voters and 68 percent of white voters saying they would approve the ballot question enshrining those equal right guarantees into the state Constitution.
Praise and criticism: While it appears to have broad support, and many say it is long overdue, the effort hasn’t been without some pushback.
During a legislative hearing in 2021, public commenters raised a concern about it not being “pro-women” (an argument tied to protections that would be extended to other marginalized groups). Some also wanted the word “religion” included in the amendment because of worries that “creed” was too vague.
“If passed, Question 1 would dramatically expand the equal rights already protected specifically in the Nevada Constitution beyond sex to include a total of 10 classifications,” said a document available on the Secretary of State’s website. “Enshrining such a broad and untested rights language into the Nevada Constitution will make it difficult to fix its inevitable unintended consequences. Approval of Question 1 will result in a flood of litigation, clogging our court system because of its vague and expansive language,” critics said.
Question 2
If voters give the seal of approval to Question 2 on the November ballot, a $12-per-hour minimum wage will be enshrined in the state Constitution.
But, wait, isn’t the state already moving to $12 per hour?
Technically, yes.
Legislation passed in 2019 created a system of gradual minimum wage increases through 2024 that will bring the rate to $12 per hour for employees not offered health insurance and $11 per hour for those who do receive those benefits. As it stands now, Nevada’s minimum wage is $9.50 to $10.50 per hour, depending on the existence of health insurance.
And that’s where the distinction lies with this ballot question. It started as Assembly Joint Resolution 10 (AJR10), which lawmakers passed in 2019 and again in 2021. As a
proposed constitutional amendment, putting the question before voters marks the final step in the process.
What it does: Voter approval would set a flat rate of $12 per hour — starting July 1, 2024 — regardless of health insurance.
Question 2 would also make $12 an hour a constitutional minimum, meaning the Legislature wouldn’t be able to lower the rate on its own. Reducing it would require the passage of another amendment.
Here’s how the math works out: If an employee worked 40 hours per week all year (52 weeks total), he or she would earn $24,960 in gross income. But that’s likely a high estimate, given the improbability of someone working that many hours every week of the year.
Praise and criticism: The resolution ran into some opposition during the 2021 legislative session from conservative-leaning groups such as Nevada Families for Freedom and the state chapter of Americans for Prosperity — the latter of which argued raising the minimum wage forces companies to cut jobs. Critics also claim that the existing method in the Nevada Constitution for raising minimum wage also allows for cost-of-living adjustments, ensuring that the minimum wage will eventually increase above $12-per-hour given that increases in the cost of living will continue to occur.
“Because this ballot measure will remove the existing method for making cost-of-living adjustments from the Nevada Constitution and will not require any form of cost-of-living adjustments in the minimum wage, approval of Question 2 will harm Nevada’s workers by removing an important constitutional safeguard against the ever-increasing cost of living for Nevada’s worker,” critics said in the Secretary of State’s Ballot Questions document. That document is available for review on the SoS’s website.
The liberal-progressive group Battle Born Progress is in support, saying the health insurance provision of the existing law creates a loophole that allows employers to offer unaffordable insurance plans and then pay workers the lower wage.
“Nevada is the only state to have such a complicated and two-tiered minimum wage system,” the document stated.
Question 3
In a so-called “open primary,” registered voters can cast a ballot for any candidate regardless of political affiliation. As it stands now, Nevada operates under a “closed primary” system, in which only registered voters of the same political party can participate in a primary and, thus, help determine who moves on to the general election. In other words, only registered Democrats can vote in Democratic primaries and, likewise, only Republicans can vote in Republican primaries. Registered nonpartisans or people affiliated with minor political parties do not participate in the process.
As the name implies, an open primary would do away with partisan affiliation as a requirement for voting in primaries.
“Ranked-choice voting,” meanwhile, would allow people to select more than one candidate on the general election ballot. Instead, voters would mark candidates based on their order of preference, otherwise known as ranking.
Here’s what Question 3 would do:
This initiative would amend the state Constitution to require open primaries and then a ranked-choice voting method in the general election. It would affect most high-profile partisan elections such as U.S. House seats, Senate seats, statewide offices and legislative races — though it notably excludes the presidential race.
All registered voters, regardless of political party, would be allowed to participate in primaries. The top five candidates who receive the most primary election votes would move on to the general election.
The ranked-choice voting aspect would come into play during the general election. For partisan offices, voters could select as many of the five candidates as they wish and rank them in order of preference.
Under this proposed voting method, voters could rank up to five candidates. But that’s not a requirement. Don’t like a candidate? Don’t know enough about five candidates to rank them? No problem. Voters could mark just one candidate or as many as five. In Nevada, they also would retain the option to vote for the “none of these candidates” box.
From there, the winner would be determined in one of two ways:
Any candidate with a majority of the votes (more than 50 percent) would be declared the winner.
If no candidate has the majority, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes would be eliminated and their votes would be redistributed to the candidates listed as voters’ second preference. This shuffling and vote reallocation process would continue until one candidate reaches a majority.
Voters would need to approve the ballot question in November and again in 2024 for it to become a reality in time for the 2026 election cycle. The price tag for doing so? $3.2 million ahead of the 2026 general election and then $57,000 annually moving forward.
How we got here
The ballot question is formally known as the Better Voting Nevada Initiative. The journey started in November when a political action committee called Nevada Voters First filed an initiative petition seeking a constitutional amendment to make the proposed election changes.
The Institute for Political Innovation, a nonprofit founded by author and philanthropist Katherine M. Gehl, backed the measure. Gehl has been the pioneer behind the concept of “final-five voting,” which is what the ballot question would implement in Nevada. A similar voting and election system was adopted by Alaska voters in 2020.
The petition lists Todd Bice, a prominent Las Vegas attorney, as the registered agent and president of Nevada Voters First.
In June, the initiative cleared two hurdles, allowing it to be placed on the November ballot. First, initiative backers announced they had collected well beyond the roughly 140,000 signatures needed to qualify it for the ballot — a proclamation the secretary of state’s office later confirmed.
Then in late June, the Nevada Supreme Court weighed in on a legal challenge facing the initiative. In a 4-3 decision, the high court sided with Nevada Voters First and confirmed a lower court ruling that the proposed changes to the primary and general elections did not violate a rule that ballot initiatives focus on a single subject.
The lawsuit came in December, shortly after the ballot initiative was filed. A registered voter from Churchill County — represented by high-profile Democratic election law attorneys — filed the legal challenge, arguing that the initiative violated several state constitutional requirements, including the single-subject rule.
Praise and criticism
As the lawsuit suggests, the ballot initiative has run into some stiff opposition, including from high-profile Democrats as well as left-leaning and nonpartisan organizations.
A coalition called Let Nevadans Vote opposes the ballot initiative, casting the proposed election reforms as time consuming and confusing. The coalition includes more than 20 groups, such as the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada and Silver State Voices.
“If Question 3 passes, independent candidates not affiliated with the political parties would be prevented from launching a campaign in the general election, and would instead have to compete directly in expensive primaries against established party candidates. Nevadans need more quality voices and ideas in politics, but this initiative actually narrows voters’ options,” said a ballot questions document available on the Secretary of State’s website. “… out-of-state special interest funders want to permanently lock this extreme change into our state Constitution, meaning this risky scheme would be nearly impossible to change or repeal, and the cost of future elections would increase. ‘One person, one vote’ is at the core of free and fair elections in America. Question 3 raises questions regarding whether it undermines that basic principle, and leaves some voters at risk of having votes ultimately not counted in the final tally.
“For example, if a voter chooses to rank only one candidate, their ballot might be excluded from the final count as if they didn’t show up for the election at all.”
The document further states that “Question 3 would replace our traditional primary system with a California-style ‘jungle primary’ system. This means candidates from a single political party can overwhelm the primary and shut out other political parties from even appearing on the November general election ballot. This is an extreme change that threatens the ability to have all viewpoints represented during a general election in Nevada.”
Meanwhile, Gov. Steve Sisolak and the state’s two Democratic senators — Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen — have also expressed their displeasure with the initiative, saying it could be confusing for voters and lead to errors that cause eligible votes to be thrown out.
Protect Your Vote Nevada, a PAC set up to oppose the ballot initiative, has reported raising more than $1.2 million so far this year. Chelsey Winninger, the former executive director of the Assembly Democratic caucus, is listed as an officer for the PAC.
On the flip side, supporters say the open primaries and ranked-choice voting system would allow more people to participate, especially as the state’s share of nonpartisan voters continues to grow. Advocates also argue there is plenty of time to educate voters about the changes given that it wouldn’t go into effect until 2026.
The initiative backers raised more than $2.4 million during the first two quarters of this year, making it a well-funded effort heading into the general election. While Gehl has contributed a hefty portion (more than $1 million), the effort has received financial backing from Station Casinos, the Nevada Association of Realtors, a PAC associated with the Clark County Education Association and Laborers Local 872, among others.
An August poll released by The Nevada Independent and OH Predictive Insights found that 42 percent of Nevada voters support the ballot measure, compared with 27 percent who oppose it. But nearly a third of voters appear undecided, saying they neither support nor oppose the ballot initiative.