Nevada’s Aging Voting Machines; NEMRA – 2017 Provides Part of the Solution

Electronic voting systems in 43 states, including Nevada, are at least 10 years old. These systems, both hardware and software are approaching, or have already exceeded their lifespan. The potential for mechanical breakdown and technological failure possibly compromising the voting process and / or election results is great. This is the conclusion of an extensive report recently released by the Brennan Center for Justice.

Nevada election officials and legislators are well aware of the situation. On July 22, 2014 a group of legislators, legislative staff, and state and county election officials met to discuss the status of the state’s aging voting machines and ways to address the issue. As long as vendors continue to support the machines and software, repairs can be made as needed. However, as technology improves, vendors stop supporting older versions. This has already happened for some software.  Prolonging the inevitable is not an acceptable plan of action. Legislators need to make voting system upgrade and replacement a priority if we are to avoid an election disaster.

Given recent low voter turnout, it’s hard to predict how many voters will participate in the 2016 general election. However, given voters will be choosing a president, a replacement for Senator Harry Reid, and deciding whether to legalize recreational marijuana and stricter background checks for the purchase of firearms, I’d expect at least 75% turnout, the average for presidential year elections, if not higher. Will 2016 be the year Nevada’s voting machines decide to really show their age?

The task for legislators in the 2017 Nevada legislative session will be to find the money stream to pay for software upgrades and eventual replacement of the physical equipment.  The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) provides one source of funding.  By eliminating at least $3 – 4 million from the cost of administering elections each election cycle, NEMRA – 2017 would allow that money to be allocated for needed software upgrades and / or towards total system replacement.

Providing funds to avoid an election catastrophe is not the only benefit of enacting NEMRA – 2017. By implementing the reforms proposed, Nevada legislators would be putting a process in place that would increase participation and voter turnout while not infringing on the rights of political parties. There is a potential the legislation could strengthen the parties themselves.

The decision for legislators is not “if” to act, it’s “when”. Nevada cannot risk the consequences of an election system failure; long delays at the polls, voters unable to cast votes, votes not recorded or recorded incorrectly, any resulting lawsuits. NEMRA – 2017 is part of the solution. 

How Partisan Was The 2015 Nevada Legislative Session – A Look At The Votes

From shouting matches, members storming out of the chamber, to alleged physical confrontation, the 2015 session of the Nevada Legislature had all the signs of being one of the most, if not the most, partisan session of that elected body. I talked to a few legislators and legislative observers following the session and all agreed on that point.

The stage was set by the 2014 election results. Republicans took control of the legislature and all executive offices. Republicans won races in Democratic majority districts because Democratic voters did not go to the polls.  Statewide turnout was less than 46 percent.

Between the election and the start of the legislative session, anticipation of the debate on education and taxes was high, with both sides of the aisle laying the groundwork for high intensity discussions. The session did not disappoint.

Was the 2015 session one of the most partisan? To answer this question, I looked at every vote on every bill, both in committee and on the floor, from the last four regular legislative sessions; 2009, 2011, 2013, and 2015.

How many bills were not voted out of committee?

How many bills did not receive a floor vote?

How many votes were unanimous?

How many votes were along party lines?

How many bills were not voted out of committee?

Just under 30% of the bills did not get a committee vote in the originating chamber. Another 5% did not get a committee vote in the second chamber. Third and fourth respectively and around the average.

How many bills did not receive a floor vote?

8% of the bills did not get a floor vote in at least one chamber. This includes bills that were referred to a second committee and not voted on. This was the highest percentage of the four sessions. The average was 7%.

How many votes were unanimous?

Of the bills that received floor votes, 54% got unanimous votes in both chambers. This was the second lowest total and well below the average of almost 58%. Conversely, the session had the highest percentage of bills with a unanimous vote from one chamber, almost 41%.  Again this was well above the average of slightly over 34%.

This trend was similar for committee votes. Of those making it out of committee, just over 69% received unanimous votes from committees in both chambers (2^nd highest) while over 35% received unanimous votes from committees in one chamber. Again, this was the highest of all four sessions and those votes were mostly Senate committees. The average for unanimous votes from all committees was just under 68%; slightly over 31% for one chamber.

  

How many votes were along party lines?

The antithesis of unanimous is party line. For reasons I do not know, 2011 had the highest number of party line votes, both on the floor and in committee of these four sessions. However, 2015 was close behind. The average for party line votes on the floor in both chambers was 1%. 2015 was 1 ½%. The average for party line votes in one chamber was just under 5%. 2015 came in second at the average.

For party line votes in committee, again 2015 was second highest just after 2011. The average for party line votes in all committees was slightly less than 2%. 2015 came in second at 2 ½%.  For party line votes for committee votes in one chamber the average is 9 ½%.   During the 2015 session, almost 12% were along party lines in one chamber.   

The 2015 session of the Nevada Legislature was one of the most partisan, if using the last four sessions as a reference point is accepted as valid.

There’s nothing wrong with respectful disagreement. There’s nothing evil about votes that are not unanimous. They are just indicators. What is important is that the political environment, where regardless of the level of disagreement, respectful discussion and collaboration can take place so the interests of all residents can be best served is maintained. The type of actions mentioned in the first paragraph shouldn’t happen. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act of 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) is a means to ensure that type of environment exists.

National Conference of State Legislatures ID’s Problem – NEMRA 2017 Provides Fix

 A study released this month by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the Pew Charitable Trusts answers an important question; how closely do the demographics of the legislature match the demographics of the state?  

Except for the number of Black / African-Americans in the legislature; 10 percent versus 8.6 percent of the population, Nevada state legislators do not reflect the population of the state. This should not be a problem since the role of a legislator is to make decisions that best coincide with the beliefs of their constituents. That is supposedly the reason people voted for them. However, one’s view of the issues and most likely their partisan affiliation or leaning are shaped by who they are; age, gender, level of education, ethnicity, religion, occupation.  

The root of the problem most likely is related to the level of political participation. If the motivation to vote is low or fluctuates based on the questions at hand, a person will not be inclined to run for office or volunteer in a campaign effort. Perhaps worse, the feeling that “my vote and opinions don’t matter” dissuades people from registering to vote.  While all age groups make up this demographic, the voter registration statistics from November, 2015 appear to show those between the ages of 18 – 34 may hold this opinion more frequently.

The key to increasing participation and then perhaps increased presence in the Nevada legislature is to reduce, hopefully significantly, the feeling of insignificance of participation in the state’s political process. The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act – 2017 (NEMRA - 2017) provides a means to accomplish this goal.

While savings taxpayers $3 – 4 million every election cycle, NEMRA – 2017 makes every vote important, restoring the belief that “my vote counts.” At the same time, NEMRA – 2017 does not infringe on a political party’s right of association or right to choose a nominee or nominees for any partisan elected office.  

The decision to address the problem revealed in the NCSL / Pew study rests with members of the Nevada legislature. By filing a Bill Draft Request (BDR) and then passing NEMRA – 2017, the 2017 legislative session would mark the beginning of the process that makes every voter in Nevada feel important, increases voter turnout, and encourages candidates to seek elected office.  

 

Legislators by Generation

	LEG	STATE
Millennial	4%	31%
Gen X	48%	29%
Baby Boom	33%	29%
Silent	15%	10%
Greatest	0%	1%

Note: Millennials, those born tween 1981 – 1997 are now the largest generation, overtaking the Baby Boomer (1946 – 1964) this year.

Voter Registration as of November, 2015

Age*(Ages may cross generation years	% Population – NCSL/Pew Study	% of Reg Voters	% N/P	% Minor Party	% Not D or R
18 - 34	31	23.58	29.37	7.92	37.29
35 - 54	29	32.39	20.32	6.65	26.97
55 +	40	44.05	13.97	5.22	19.19

Legislators by Gender

	LEG	STATE
Female	33%	50%
Male	67%	50%

Legislators by Education

	LEG	STATE
< Bachelor's	6%	77%
Bachelor's	13%	15%
Advanced	52%	8%
Unknown	29%	0

 Legislators by Race and Ethnicity

	LEG	STATE
Am Ind/Nat Alaskan	0%	1.1%
Asian/Pac Islander	0%	8.5%
Black/Af American	10%	8.6%
Hisp/Latino	14%	27.8%
Multiracial	6%	13.9%
White/Cauc	70%	68%

Legislators by Religion

	LEG	STATE
Protestant	11%	35%
Catholic	14%	25%
Other Christian	8%	6%
Non-Christian	2%	5%
Unspecified	65%	n/a
Unaffiliated	n/a	29%

Legislators by Occupation

Agriculture	3%
Attorney	17%
Business Owner	17%
Business Other	10%
Educator	11%
Consultant/ Nonprofit/Prof.	11%
Legislator	0%
Retired	11%
No Data	11%
Other*	8%

Clean-up of Voter Rolls Benefits GOP

The November, 2015 voter registration figures released on December 1, 2015 by the Nevada Secretary of State’s office held a pleasant surprise for the Republican Party. A clean-up of the active voter list; a movement of 17,416 voters to the inactive rolls and a net decrease in active voters of 13,792, resulted in the GOP gaining just under 0.2% of voter share from October, 2015.

The GOP was the only category to pick up voter share state-wide as a result of the scrub. The same is true for Clark and Washoe Counties and the 18 – 34 and 55+ year old demographics. Non-Partisan registration as share of voters showed no change in Washoe County.

The rural counties were the only demographic to buck the trend. There, Non-Partisan and minor parties gained voter share while the Democratic and Republican Party lost slightly.

Do Nevada state and federal elected officials and candidates starting campaigns have anything to be concerned about?  In 12 of the 21 State Senate districts (57.14%) the combined number of voters registered as Non-Partisan or to minor political parties exceeds or is within 5 percent of the number of voters registered as either Democratic or Republican. For the Assembly, the number is 27 out of the 42 districts (64.29%) In the first Congressional District, 27 percent of voters are not registered as either Democratic or Republican. The number of voters registered as Non-Partisan (21.24%) is only 1.94 percent lower than the Republican registration of 23.18 percent.

Given the 1.13 percent reduction of active voters in November, I don’t think this is a reversal of the trend in movement away from the major political parties. We’ll have to wait until the December and January numbers are released to make that determination. 

How Well Do Politicians Know What Their Constituents Think

Politicians, whether incumbent or candidate, do not know what their constituents think. Even worse, they may not care. Is this important? What impact could this have on voter turnout? And how does the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA – 2017) help resolve this problem?

In a study dated July 17, 2015; “What Politicians Believe About Their Constituents: Asymmetric Misperceptions and Prospects for Constituency Control”, David E. Broockman, Assistant Professor, Stanford Graduate School of Business and Christopher Skovron, Graduate Student, Department of Political Science, University of Michigan studied the perception of constituent opinion of nearly 2,000 state legislators then compared those perceptions to the actual opinions of voters in their districts. The results raise concerns that state legislators are out of touch with the true opinions of their constituents. Campaign activity, the time when politicians have the most direct contact with voters, does not appear to change this mismatch. Given that Broockman and Skovron contacted all candidates, both incumbent and non-incumbent, running for election in 2012 as of August of that year (9,825 of 10.131 for whom they could get contact information) and had a response rate 19.5% (25.6% if just those contacted are used as the base), candidates in Nevada were most likely included in this study.

Overall, politicians’ perception of their constituents’ opinion was off by over 10%. Conservative candidates and incumbents over-estimated their constituents’ opinion on conservative issues by more than 20%. These numbers did not change when the authors did a follow-up study immediately after the election in November. Additionally, candidates running in the same district had different perceptions of the opinions of the same constituents more than 20% of the time. You can read the study here.

If public opinion is supposed to be the force behind decisions made by our elected representatives and their perception of that opinion is not accurate, just whose opinion is being represented? Better yet, how can these wrong perceptions be corrected?

Is this important? Yes. Representative democracy requires elected officials to accurately understand the opinions of those they represent and express that understanding so voters can make more informed decisions at the polls. Likewise that understanding will allow those elected to make decisions that realistically reflect the desires of their constituents. Perhaps this is why voters believe politicians represent only the interests of a select few.

What impact could this have on voter turnout? Potentially quite a bit. When voters do not see their opinions being addressed and / or acted upon by those they elect, they could lose interest. Attitudes of “why bother” and “my vote is not important” are allowed to take hold.

For incumbents and candidates to have an accurate perception of their constituents opinions they need to focus on a greater number of potential voters. At the same time, voters need to believe their involvement in the electoral process matters and their opinions are valued. This is how the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA – 2017) can help resolve this problem.

By focusing on a single general election held in November using ranked choice / instant runoff voting (RCV / IRV), candidates must concentrate on the entire electorate rather than just 20% of political party loyalists (average turnout for primary elections where most races are really decided). They are not only looking to be the first choice of voters, but also looking to be the second choice of voters not willing to fully support them. To be successful, they will have to accurately comprehend the opinions of all their constituents and convey how they will act on those if elected. Elected officials win because by accurately understanding the beliefs of their constituents they can make decisions reflecting the true will of those they represent. Constituents win by knowing those they elected truly represent them, that their opinions and their votes matter.   

In February, 2017, those we elect or re-elect next year to represent us in the Nevada legislature will take their seats in either the assembly or senate. They can show their willingness to discuss this important issue by filing a bill draft request (BDR) and then introducing the bill. By enacting NEMRA – 2017, the Nevada legislature can take the lead and show the nation that state leaders are willing to change the electoral process for the better, recognizing the importance of all voters.  

How Serious Are The Democratic and Republican Party About Regaining Membership

It’s no secret; I point this out every month. The two major political parties have been, and continue to, lose share of registered voters. These voters are not switching parties. They are registering to vote as Non-Partisan. They are choosing not to affiliate with any political party knowing full well they will no longer be able to vote in primary elections or participate in party caucuses. This is happening even as we approach the February, 2016 presidential caucuses and the June, 2016 primary election.

As voters leave the parties, they take their money with them. Neither party can afford this as members are donating to national PAC’s and Super-PAC’s instead of the local party.

Both major political parties know why this is happening. In spite of this, they appear to be unable, or unwilling to stop it. They say they have to make their current positions on issues more appealing to one demographic or another. But I doubt that will reverse the trend of lost support.

Why:

•  Are voters fleeing the Democratic and Republican Parties?
•   Did only 8% of active Republican and 3% of active Democratic voters participate in the 2012 presidential caucuses?
•  Did only 19% of active registered voters participate in both the 2012 and 2014 primary elections?
•  Did only 45% of voters cast ballots in the 2014 general election?
•  Do 57% of State Assembly districts have a difference of less than 5% between the number of voters not registered as either Democratic or Republican and those that are? (In 38% the number not Democratic or Republican is greater)
•  Do 64% of State Senate districts have a difference of less than 5% between the number of voters not registered as either Democratic or Republican and those that are? (In 43% the number not Democratic or Republican is greater)
•  Is the percent of voter share for the Democratic and Republican Parties falling month after month while the percent of Non-Partisan voters is increasing?

 The answer to these questions is simple. The parties have, for one reason or another, staked out positions on the issues that are on the far left or far right of the ideological scale with no room for differences of opinion.  Campaigns and legislative action tend to be based on what is best for the party brand rather than what is best for all constituents. This has left a small minority of vocal, ideologically pure party members in control. Voters have been alienated.  They believe they have been abandoned by the parties. Accordingly they have given up party registration. As it is human nature to want to belong, this decision has most likely been very difficult. But even more disturbing, they have given up on participating in elections.

Lower voter turnout, mostly the so-called party base, requires many candidates to take positions outside their normal comfort zone to get the party nomination then struggle to find a way to not lose that base while convincing the broader spectrum of voters to support them in the general election. If they are successful in being elected, they must often choose between doing what is best for their entire constituency or cast votes that please a vocal yet small percentage of the party. The decision could decide if they are challenged by another party member in the next election.

How then do the Democratic and Republican Party stop the “bleeding”, make it easier on their candidates and elected officials, and get the voters who have left to return? The answer again is simple.

Lawmakers of both parties need to pass legislation that enacts an election system making it easier and less risky for candidates to take positions allowing them to remain in their comfort zone. That allows them to appeal to the broader electorate without jeopardizing their chance for election and subsequent success as an elected representative. That allows them and the party to adopt positions that attracted those who left to join in the first place.  The Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA) provides such a system.

By changing the way Nevada conducts its elections, requiring candidates to address all voters, both parties will benefit.  By returning to positions that represent the voters who also “lean” or who are truly in the middle rather than just those who are ideologically pure, those who left will once again feel they belong and possibly rejoin the party. With them will come their donations of time and money.

The decision is up to the legislators who will be the 2017 Nevada Legislature. They can decide to retain the current path of voter registration, intra-party dissention, and low voter turnout or return the electoral and legislative process to a place where collaboration, consensus building, and problem solving take priority.  The later will allow the Democratic and Republican Party to regain membership.

Pre-filing a bill draft request (BDR) will show legislators are serious about solving this problem. How serious are the Democratic and Republican Party about regaining membership? Legislators will have to answer that question.