Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act Could Benefit Party Finances - UPDATE

This article was originally posted on June 22^nd.  Now as Jon Ralston reported on July 17^th and Politico reporter Tarini Parti wrote on July 18^th, two national groups are set to try to influence Nevada elections this year. Both the Republican Legislative Campaign Committee and a new PAC, State Conservative Reform Action PAC, or “SCRAP,” will inject money into Nevada legislative races.  Reread the original article. Are state political party leaders willing to give up control or would they rather be the ones to determine what gets done in Nevada?

Instituting open non-partisan blanket primaries along with ranked choice / instant runoff voting in the general election, reforms that draw candidates and political parties closer to the median voter could actually help the political parties’ financial bottom line.

In an article earlier this year for Politico, Byron Tau analyzed the increasing impact of Super PAC’s on the ability of state political party organizations to raise money and hence control the candidate selection process. The two major political parties in Nevada are experiencing this trend. Review of the state, Clark County, and Washoe County Republican and Democratic Party’s contribution and expense reports available on the Secretary of State’s website bear this out. Could Super PAC’s actually help efforts to reform state and local elections?

As Tau points out, fund raising and reporting rules favoring Super PAC’s are draining state party coffers. This lack of cash diminishes the control state parties have over issues and candidate selection. Outside special interest organizations, focused on maintaining the rhetoric on national issues are dictating many an election agenda.  If allowed to continue, the Republican and Democratic parties at the state level could join the dinosaurs as extinct. How much outside influence will voters and state party leaders tolerate before they realize there is a way to fight back?    

By supporting efforts to implement open non-partisan blanket primaries and ranked choice / instant runoff voting in the general election as proposed in the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA), local political leaders can reclaim the influence they are losing to these national interests. Party members who have given up their party registration could return, new members could register, bringing their money with them. In a primary election where the top three vote getters advance to the general election as provided for in NEMRA, shouldn’t a candidate focused on local and state issues and backed by local and state interests defeat a candidate selected or endorsed by an outside special interest group? Could this have been one of the reasons Democrats did not field a viable candidate for governor or representative for the 2^nd Congressional District for this year’s election? If no local party candidate showed promise, state party leaders willing to think out of the box could endorse an independent candidate sharing many of their goals and objectives. In a general election that uses ranked choice / instant run-off voting again as provided for in NEMRA, shouldn’t a candidate backed by local and state organizations defeat a national special interest group’s candidate? In my opinion, the answer to these questions is “yes”.

Many times, actions have unintended consequences or results. Perhaps the elimination of state political party organizations was one not anticipated by Super PAC’s. I’d wager that aiding the effort to reform the election process refocusing the discussion back to the majority of voters, reestablishing the importance of state and local political parties, and returning the focus back to state and local issues and solutions was definitely not considered.