Nevada voters have rejected the most significant proposed change to the state’s election system since mail-in ballots were implemented in 2020.
Question 3, which proposed to implement open primaries and ranked-choice voting, was behind by a substantial margin after the release of results from early voting and mail ballots received before Election Day. It’s a blow for proponents who had looked to the concept as a way to bolster centrism in politics and give a voice to a growing number of nonpartisans who can’t vote in marquee primary contests. It likely would have led to the state being a single-party state. Alaska, where a similar measure passed several years ago, is working to repeal it.
The measure’s double-digit defeat comes after it passed in the Silver State by nearly 6 percentage points in 2022. That year, it succeeded despite vehement opposition from Nevada’s top Democrats and Republicans, who argued it was confusing and could lead to ballot errors, thus disenfranchising voters.
The measure, like other proposed constitutional amendments, needed to pass in two consecutive elections to take effect.
One major difference between the two elections is that opponents spent very little money in 2022 pushing back on the measure, but the opposition political action committee, Protect Your Vote Nevada, spent more than $2 million this year, according to its most recent campaign finance report. It was still far outspent by the supporting PAC, Vote Yes on 3, which poured more than $12 million into this cycle’s efforts.
The group opposing Question 3 has primarily been funded by the Nevada Alliance, a left-leaning group that does not have to disclose its donors (commonly referred to as a “dark money” group) but has donated millions to Democratic initiatives in Nevada. It’s an ironic funding source for the group, given that it has released ads condemning Question 3 for being funded by “out of state special interests.”
Meanwhile, almost all the money supporting the effort in 2022 came from out-of-state donors, led by Katherine Gehl, a Chicago-based businesswoman who pioneered the concept of Final-Five Voting, the model for Nevada’s Question 3. This year, the effort was largely supported with donations by Article IV, a Virginia-based nonpartisan group focused on improving democracy, and Unite America, a philanthropic fund dedicated to election reform.
Battle Born Progress Executive Director Shelbie Swartz said Tuesday’s results signal that Nevada voters do not appreciate out-of-state billionaires meddling in elections.
“From the start, Question 3 proposed electoral changes that were confusing, costly and did little to address the problems its proponents said it would,” Swartz said. “We’re glad voters saw through the spin and rejected Question 3.”
The progressive organization opposed Question 3 since it was first proposed.
Sondra Cosgrove, a professor at the College of Southern Nevada who has advocated for the measure as a volunteer, said Democrats indicated they would support a measure that was limited to open primaries and didn’t lump it in with ranked-choice voting, and she wants to hold them to that promise.
She noted that initiatives for ranked-choice open primary voting failed nationwide this year and attributed it to a national-level consultant group behind the campaigns that focused on broader messaging and didn’t engage voters at an individual level.
The consultants also misled voters by not talking about the ranked-choice element of the ballot measure, she said.
Cosgrove, who has led various civic engagement groups, said grassroots organizers focused on individual outreach, conversations about ranked-choice voting and voter information guides, but didn’t have broader funding to support their efforts.