State Legislatures Know The Process Is Broken And Are Taking Action

What do these states have in common? At first glance, the answer of “nothing” would be understandable. However, the correct answer is something very significant.

In 2016, the state legislatures in these 13 states along with the District of Columbia, considered legislation dealing with the use of Ranked Choice / Instant Run-off voting (RCV / IRV). This does not include the approval of ballot initiatives in Maine and Benton County, Oregon.

RCV / IRV is not the only election reform legislation considered by state legislatures in 2016. Automatic voter registration (AVR) was approved by the state legislatures in California, Connecticut, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia. Voters in Alaska also approved a ballot initiative implementing AVR. Legislatures in 26 other states also did or are considering legislation to implement AVR.

In 16 states, legislatures are also debating the merits of a top-two non-partisan open primary either through direct legislation or by establishing studies or exploratory committees.

Voters believe our election systems are broken. More importantly, state legislators share this belief and are taking action to reverse the partisan divisiveness gripping our country, our states, our counties, and our cities. This divisiveness not only hinders effective governance but our economic well-being as well. Nevada is not currently on any of these lists though the legislature in 2015 briefly considered a bill to change the primary election process.

That can change in ten weeks when the Nevada legislature convenes on February 6, 2017. By filing a bill draft request (BDR) and passing the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017), Nevada can not only join the list of state legislatures addressing the issue but can be one of the first to pass and implement election reform legislation. (Other states have implemented reforms as the result of ballot initiative)

States Considering RCV / IRV

AZ       ME     

CA      MN

GA      NJ

HI        NY

IN        RI

MA      VT

MD      DC

States Considering AVR

AL       LA       OH

AR      MD      PA

AZ       MI       SC

FL       MN      TN

GA      MO      TX

HI        NJ        VA

IL        NM      WA

IN        NY      WI

IA        NC

States Considering Top-Two

AZ       MN

AK      MS

FL       NM

ID        NY

IL        OK

MA      OR

MD      SD

ME      VA

Role of Non-Partisan Voters as Nevada Legislature Returns to Blue

Just under 70 percent of Nevada voters cast ballots for state senator or assemblyperson either through in-person early voting, absentee or mail-in ballots or on election day.  Since overall turnout was approximately76 percent, this means six percent did not vote for their representatives in the state legislature.

Data currently available from the secretary of state’s office does not yet include Election Day votes broken down by party. What is known from the data available is Democratic voters made up 42 percent of that total votes cast, Republicans 36 percent, and Non-Partisan and minor party 22 percent. Turnout in Clark County was below the average at 75 percent while Washoe County and the rural counties were above at 79 and 78 respectively.

The data also shows that 56 percent of Democratic voters, 57 percent of Republican voters, and 48 percent of Non-Partisan and minor party voters cast ballots prior to election day. Breaking out that data by county shows Democratic voters turned out an average of 8 percent less than registration, Republicans 16 percent lower, and Non-Partisan and minor party 11 percent less.  

At the close of registration for the general election, Non-Partisans accounted for 21 percent of active registered voters with members of minor parties accounting for another 6.5 percent.  In Clark County Non-Partisan and minor parties accounted for 22 percent and six percent, in Washoe County 20 percent and seven percent, and rural counties 17 and seven percent.

The tables linked here show just how important these voters were to the outcome. Even in races where the majority party easily won the seat, Non-partisan and minor party voters were instrumental.  In several races, they were the deciding factor.

In the state senate, 11 seats were up for election. In the state assembly, all 42 seats were up. All major party candidates received a percentage of the vote higher than the party’s registration in their respective district. The higher the difference, the more Non-Partisan, minor party, and cross-over votes were received. In most races, these votes either increased or decreased the margin of victory. However, in Senate Districts 5 and 6, they determined the winner; the difference between the majority party maintaining or losing the seat. A similar impact can be seen in Assembly Districts 5 and 29. In Assembly Districts 4, 31, and 37 Non-Partisan and minor party voters were responsible for the majority party in the district losing the seat.

On the national level, independent voters made Donald Trump president. National turnout is said to have hit a 20-year low at 55 percent. Independent voters accounted for 31 percent. Of that percentage, exit polls show 48 percent voted for Donald Trump, 42 percent backed Hillary Clinton and 10 percent another or no candidate.

As the number of Non-Partisan voters continues to grow, candidates will have to reach out to those voters. This is the political reality. Enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) would provide a mechanism to embrace this changing political environment. 

One of the Leading Methods for Positive Structural Election Reform; NEMRA 2017

A single election in November using Ranked Choice / Instant Run-off Voting (RCV / IRV) is among the top methods to create lasting structural election reform. That is the finding of a study conducted by 14 leading political science and election law scholars. The study, released in January, 2016 was done in coordination with FairVote.org. The full study can be read here.

The focus of the study was what structural changes to current election methods would provide the most positive long-term benefits. It looked at both changes to primary and general elections.   

The top structural reforms all involved the use of RCV / IRV in the general election. Changes to the primary election, such as a Top-Two open non-partisan primary currently in use in California, Washington, Nebraska, and Louisiana, were judged not to be as effective because they have not shown impact / change to the choices offered in the general election. Changes to primary election structure were also not considered as effective when compared to structural changes in general election processes due to lower turnout and domination of partisan voters in primary elections. When evaluating each structural change, the panel looked at:

·         Legislative Functionality: Evidence-based, long-term policymaking; majoritarian policymaking; independence of legislators from party leadership

·         Electoral Accountability: Voter ability to flip partisan control of chamber; incumbent turnover; responsiveness of outcomes to electoral shifts

·         Voter Engagement: Increase in voters experiencing competitive elections; general election turnout; primary election turnout; year-round citizen engagement with officials; to what degree elections inform voters

·         Openness of Process: Influence of unaffiliated voters; influence of independent and minor-party candidates; breadth of opinion represented in elected office; representation of women; representation of racial minorities

Structural change to an institutional process such as elections is rarely easy.  It becomes easy when the need for change is known. When the details of the change are provided to those responsible for making and implementing the change, it becomes a matter of will.

Voter registration trends, negative campaigns, highly partisan legislative sessions, and outrage to the single party primary change made during the last Nevada legislative session attest to the need for structural election reform. The Nevada Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee took the first steps towards implementing change in 2015 by filing Bill Draft Request (BDR) 1149 and giving a hearing to SB 499. The Nevada legislature can finish the job started in 2015 by introducing and passing the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017) during the session that begins in three months.

More Voters Identify As Independent Than Democratic or Republican

Between January and August of 2016, Pew Research polled over 8,100 registered voters in various polls where the topic was U.S. politics and / or policy. All polls included this question: ” In politics TODAY, do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat, or independent?

In September, Pew consolidated the answers and the results are very telling. The results are tabulated both in general and detailed categories, 215 separate elements. The number of voters identifying as Independent is higher than both the Democratic and Republican Party in 65 or 30.23 percent. In an additional 130 fields or 60.47 percent, the number identifying as Independent beats or is tied with one of the major political parties.

This should not be a surprise. This data further substantiates the monthly voter registration analysis posted on this blog.

The Nevada legislature can proactively address the overwhelming concern expressed by all the data by enacting the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act for 2017 (NEMRA – 2017). All that is needed to start this process is a Bill Draft Request (BDR). The time is now.

					(VOL.)
					Other/		Rep/	Dem/	No	Unweighted
		Rep	Dem	Ind	DK		Lean Rep	Lean Dem	leaning	N
		%	%	%	%		%	%	%
ALL REGISTERED VOTERS		29	33	34	4		44	48	8	8113
GENDER	Men	32	26	38	4		51	41	8	4337
	Women	27	40	30	4		38	54	8	3776
RACE/ETHNICITY	White, non-Hispanic	36	26	35	3		54	39	7	5895
	Black, non-Hispanic	3	70	23	4		7	87	6	782
	Hispanic	16	47	32	5		27	63	10	810
	Asian, non-Hispanic (English-speaking, only)	18	44	32	6		27	66	7	164
GENERATION	Millennial (ages 18-35 in 2016)	22	34	41	3		36	57	7	1595
	Generation X (36-51)	27	33	36	4		42	48	9	1864
	Baby-Boomer (52-70)	32	34	30	4		49	45	6	3313
	Silent (71-88)	40	32	23	5		53	40	7	1176
DETAILED GENERATION	Younger Millennial (18-25)	22	33	43	2		36	58	6	613
	Older Millennial (26-35)	22	35	39	4		36	56	8	982
	Younger Gen Xer (36-43)	24	34	37	4		38	51	11	809
	Older Gen Xer (44-51)	30	32	35	3		46	46	8	1055
	Younger Boomer (52-60)	32	33	32	3		48	46	6	1602
	Older Boomer (61-70)	33	34	28	4		49	44	7	1711
	Younger Silent (71-80)	39	33	24	4		53	41	7	928
	Older Silent (81-88)	43	31	19	8		53	39	8	248
EDUCATION	College grad+	27	36	33	3		41	53	6	3956
	Postgrad	23	43	31	3		35	60	5	1289
	College grad	29	33	34	3		44	50	6	2667
	Some college or less	30	32	34	4		46	46	9	4117
	Some college	30	30	36	4		46	45	9	2258
	High school or less	31	34	31	4		45	46	8	1859
FAMILY INCOME	$75,000+	33	31	34	3		49	45	6	3341
	$30,000-$74,999	31	31	34	3		48	45	7	2584
	<$30,000	20	43	34	3		32	60	8	1464
DETAILED FAMILY INCOME	$150,000+	33	32	32	3		46	48	6	1069
	$100,000 to $149,999	34	30	33	3		51	45	4	1188
	$75,000 to $99,999	31	30	35	4		48	44	8	1084
	$50,000 to $74,999	32	30	35	4		49	44	6	1275
	$40,000 to $49,999	31	31	35	3		47	46	7	638
	$30,000 to $39,999	31	33	33	3		47	46	7	671
	<$30,000	20	43	34	3		32	60	8	1464
MARITAL STATUS	Married	35	32	30	4		51	44	6	939
	Unmarried	20	39	38	3		36	56	8	698
GENERATION BY GENDER	Millennial men	26	26	45	4		43	49	8	965
	Millennial women	18	43	36	2		28	66	6	630
	Gen Xer men	28	27	41	4		48	43	9	1031
	Gen Xer women	26	39	31	3		37	53	10	833
	Boomer men	37	27	33	3		56	38	6	1747
	Boomer women	28	40	28	4		41	52	7	1566
	Silent men	44	25	26	5		60	34	6	537
	Silent women	37	38	20	5		48	45	7	639
EDUCATION BY GENDER 2-WAY	College grad+ men	30	27	40	3		49	45	7	2142
	College grad+ women	25	45	28	3		34	61	5	1814
	Some coll or less men	33	26	37	4		52	40	8	2177
	Some coll or less women	28	38	31	4		40	51	9	1940
EDUCATION BY GENDER 4-WAY	Postgrad men	28	31	38	3		45	49	6	668
	Postgrad women	20	52	26	2		27	69	4	621
	College men	31	25	40	3		50	43	7	1474
	College women	27	41	29	3		38	56	6	1193
	Some college men	33	22	40	5		53	37	10	1153
	Some college women	27	38	32	4		40	52	7	1105
	HS or less men	33	29	34	4		51	42	7	1024
	HS or less women	29	38	29	4		40	50	10	835
REGION	Northeast	26	38	33	4		39	54	7	1396
	New England (CT ME MA NH RI VT)	19	34	44	2		35	58	8	372
	Middle Atlantic (DE DC MD NJ NY PA)	27	40	30	4		39	54	7	1241
	Great Lakes-East North (IN IL MI OH WI)	29	34	34	4		45	48	8	1194
	Midwest-West North (IA KS MN MO NE ND SD)	32	27	39	3		51	40	9	573
	Midwest	30	31	36	3		47	45	8	1767
	South	32	32	32	4		48	45	8	3145
	South Atlantic (FL GA NC SC VA WV)	31	32	33	5		48	45	8	1582
	South Central (AL AR KY LA MS OK TN TX)	34	31	31	4		50	42	8	1345
	West	28	34	34	4		40	52	8	1805
	Mountain (AZ CO ID NM MT UT NV WY)	32	29	36	3		45	48	7	637
	Pacific (AK CA HI OR WA)	26	36	33	5		37	54	9	1168
COMMUNITY TYPE	Urban	21	43	33	4		33	60	7	2728
	Suburban	32	30	34	3		48	44	7	3778
	Rural	38	25	33	3		55	37	8	1390
RELIGIOUS TRADITION	White Non-Hisp Evangelical Protestant	56	14	27	3		76	20	4	1673
	White Non-Hisp Mainline Protestant	38	25	34	3		55	37	8	1230
	Black Protestant	3	73	20	4		6	88	6	571
	Total Catholic	31	34	30	4		47	46	7	1632
	White Non-Hispanic Catholic	38	26	32	3		58	37	6	1151
	Hispanic Catholic	16	56	23	5		23	69	9	363
	Mormon	48	13	35	4		69	24	7	142
	Jewish	14	53	32	1		24	74	2	188
	Total Unaffiliated	12	39	45	3		25	66	9	1681
	Atheist	11	45	40	4		17	74	9	294
	Agnostic	8	40	50	1		21	72	7	352
	Nothing in particular	14	37	45	4		29	62	9	1035
RELIGIOUS TRADITION BY GENERATION	White NH evangelical Prot Millennial	57	13	27	3		78	20	3	198
	White NH evangelical Prot Xer	57	9	32	2		79	16	4	324
	White NH evangelical Prot Boomer	56	15	27	3		78	19	3	765
	White NH evangelical Prot Silent	56	19	21	5		70	24	6	348
	White NH mainline Prot Millennial	37	21	40	3		55	34	12	173
	White NH mainline Prot Xer	36	26	36	2		53	38	9	234
	White NH mainline Prot Boomer	37	26	35	2		56	39	6	545
	White NH mainline Prot Silent	45	30	22	3		57	37	6	251
	Total Catholic Millennial	28	37	32	3		42	53	5	246
	Total Catholic Xer	28	35	34	3		43	48	10	367
	Total Catholic Boomer	33	33	30	4		50	44	6	724
	Total Catholic Silent	37	31	25	7		55	37	8	267
	White NH Catholic Millennial	40	23	35	2		60	36	3	130
	White NH Catholic Xer	35	29	33	3		54	39	7	245
	White NH Catholic Boomer	38	26	34	2		57	37	6	540
	White NH Catholic Silent	42	26	26	6		62	32	6	217
	Total Unaffiliated Millennial	9	38	51	2		22	72	6	566
	Total Unaffiliated Xer	13	36	45	5		28	61	11	424
	Total Unaffiliated Boomer	15	44	38	3		27	63	10	563
	Total Unaffiliated Silent	15	47	36	2		23	69	7	104
AMONG WHITE NON-HISPANIC REGISTERED VOTERS
ALL WHITE NON-HISPANIC VOTERS		36	26	35	3		54	39	7	5895
GENDER	Men	39	19	38	3		61	32	7	3168
	Women	34	32	31	3		47	46	7	2727
GENERATION	Millennial (ages 18-35 in 2016)	30	25	43	2		47	47	5	966
	Generation X (36-51)	35	25	37	3		53	38	9	1251
	Baby-Boomer (52-70)	38	26	33	3		57	37	6	2571
	Silent (71-88)	44	27	24	4		59	35	6	998
DETAILED GENERATION	Younger Millennial (18-25)	30	24	45	1		49	49	3	344
	Older Millennial (26-35)	29	26	41	3		46	46	7	622
	Younger Gen Xer (36-43)	32	27	38	4		49	40	10	519
	Older Gen Xer (44-51)	37	24	36	3		56	37	7	732
	Younger Boomer (52-60)	38	25	35	2		58	36	6	1189
	Older Boomer (61-70)	39	27	31	3		56	38	6	1382
	Younger Silent (71-80)	45	26	26	3		60	34	5	778
	Older Silent (81-88)	43	30	19	8		54	38	8	220
EDUCATION	College grad+	32	32	34	3		47	48	5	3069
	Postgrad	28	39	32	2		42	55	3	997
	College grad	34	29	34	3		50	45	5	2072
	Some college or less	39	22	36	3		58	34	8	2811
	Some college	37	22	38	3		57	36	8	1610
	High school or less	41	22	33	3		59	33	8	1201
FAMILY INCOME	$75,000+	37	26	34	3		55	40	5	2634
	$30,000-$74,999	39	23	35	2		58	36	6	1894
	<$30,000	29	30	38	2		45	47	8	867
DETAILED FAMILY INCOME	$150,000+	38	29	32	2		52	43	4	860
	$100,000 to $149,999	38	25	34	3		57	39	4	933
	$75,000 to $99,999	36	26	35	3		54	38	8	841
	$50,000 to $74,999	38	24	35	3		58	37	6	973
	$40,000 to $49,999	38	23	37	2		57	36	7	465
	$30,000 to $39,999	42	21	34	2		60	35	5	456
	<$30,000	29	30	38	2		45	47	8	867
MARITAL STATUS	Married	39	26	32	4		56	38	6	686
	Unmarried	26	31	40	3		47	46	7	424
GENERATION BY GENDER	Millennial men	33	18	46	3		54	39	7	598
	Millennial women	26	33	40			40	57	4	368
	Gen Xer men	36	19	42	3		59	33	7	700
	Gen Xer women	34	31	32	4		47	43	10	551
	Boomer men	42	19	36	3		65	29	6	1368
	Boomer women	34	32	30	3		49	44	7	1203
	Silent men	48	20	28	5		66	29	5	460
	Silent women	42	33	22	4		54	40	6	538
EDUCATION BY GENDER 2-WAY	College grad+ men	34	24	39	3		54	40	5	1681
	College grad+ women	30	40	29	2		41	55	4	1388
	Some coll or less men	42	16	38	3		65	28	7	1480
	Some coll or less women	36	28	33	3		51	40	8	1331
EDUCATION BY GENDER 4-WAY	Postgrad men	32	27	38	3		52	44	4	524
	Postgrad women	24	49	26	1		33	64	3	473
	College men	35	22	40	3		55	39	6	1157
	College women	33	35	30	3		45	50	5	915
	Some college men	41	14	41	4		64	28	8	818
	Some college women	34	29	34	3		50	42	8	792
	HS or less men	43	18	35	3		66	28	7	662
	HS or less women	39	27	31	3		52	38	9	539
REGION	Northeast	32	31	34	3		47	47	6	1056
	New England (CT ME MA NH RI VT)	22	31	46	2		38	55	7	311
	Middle Atlantic (DE DC MD NJ NY PA)	35	32	31	3		51	45	5	880
	Midwest	34	26	36	3		53	40	8	1453
	Great Lakes-East North (IN IL MI OH WI)	34	27	35	4		52	41	7	954
	Midwest-West North (IA KS MN MO NE ND SD)	35	24	39	2		55	37	8	499
	South	42	21	33	3		62	32	6	2127
	South Atlantic (FL GA NC SC VA WV)	40	21	35	3		62	31	6	1078
	South Central (AL AR KY LA MS OK TN TX)	46	20	31	3		64	29	6	914
	West	33	28	36	3		47	45	7	1259
	Mountain (AZ CO ID NM MT UT NV WY)	37	23	38	2		51	41	7	485
	Pacific (AK CA HI OR WA)	31	31	34	4		45	48	7	774
COMMUNITY TYPE	Urban	29	33	36	3		45	49	6	1713
	Suburban	38	24	35	3		56	37	7	2898
	Rural	43	21	33	3		61	32	7	1164
RELIGIOUS TRADITION	White Non-Hisp Evangelical Protestant	56	14	27	3		76	20	4	1673
	White Non-Hisp Mainline Protestant	38	25	34	3		55	37	8	1230
	White Non-Hispanic Catholic	38	26	32	3		58	37	6	1151
	Mormon	52	11	36	1		71	22	7	120
	Jewish	13	53	33	1		22	75	2	178
	White non-Hisp Total Unaffiliated	14	38	46	3		27	65	8	1240
	Atheist	11	46	40	3		16	77	6	232
	Agnostic	8	43	48	1		19	73	8	279
	Nothing in particular	16	33	47	3		33	57	9	729
AMONG BLACK NON-HISPANIC REGISTERED VOTERS
ALL BLACK NON-HISPANIC VOTERS		3	70	23	4		7	87	6	782
GENDER	Men	4	63	28	4		6	85	8	379
	Women	2	75	18	4		7	89	4	403
GENERATION	Millennial (ages 18-35 in 2016)	3	58	33	6		9	84	7	183
	Generation X (36-51)	3	70	25	2		6	88	6	227
	Baby-Boomer (52-70)	3	77	15	4		6	89	5	300
EDUCATION	College grad+	2	69	26	2		6	89	5	283
	Postgrad	3	76	19	2		5	91	4	103
	College grad	2	66	30	2		6	88	6	180
	Some college or less	3	70	22	5		7	87	6	498
	Some college	3	66	25	5		9	85	6	241
	High school or less	3	73	19	5		5	88	7	257
FAMILY INCOME	$75,000+	3	66	26	4		6	86	8	221
	$30,000-$74,999	2	70	23	5		8	88	5	236
	<$30,000	4	72	21	2		7	88	5	268
RELIGIOUS TRADITION	Black non-Hisp Protestant	3	73	20	4		6	88	6	571
	Black non-Hisp Total Unaffiliated	4	65	28	3		10	87	4	100
AMONG HISPANIC REGISTERED VOTERS
ALL HISPANIC VOTERS		16	47	32	5		27	63	10	810
GENDER	Men	17	40	38	6		32	57	10	427
	Women	15	53	28	5		21	68	10	383
GENERATION	Millennial (ages 18-35 in 2016)	14	44	38	4		24	66	10	288
	Generation X (36-51)	13	45	38	4		25	61	14	209
	Baby-Boomer (52-70)	20	54	19	7		30	64	6	229
EDUCATION	College grad+	16	48	31	4		26	66	8	278
	Some college or less	16	47	33	5		27	63	11	526
	Some college	20	43	34	4		30	59	11	231
	High school or less	13	49	32	7		24	65	11	295
FAMILY INCOME	$75,000+	26	38	32	3		41	54	6	243
	$30,000-$74,999	14	48	33	5		25	64	10	262
	<$30,000	10	55	32	3		18	74	9	226
NATIVE/FOREIGN BORN	Native born	18	46	33	3		30	62	8	549
	Foreign born	11	50	30	9		20	66	14	246
RELIGIOUS TRADITION	Hispanic Catholic	16	56	23	5		23	69	9	363
	Hispanic Total Unaffiliated	7	39	50	4		24	62	14	166