Voter
suppression can be defined as any attempt to curtail participation in the
electoral process. It can be obvious; voter ID, reducing poll locations and
hours, requiring proof of citizenship, or skillfully concealed; requiring
membership in a specific political party to vote in a publicly funded election,
stopping a bill that would restore the right of all voters to have a voice in
who represents them, revoking the right to vote for a city official, or not
expanding the way people can vote, increasing participation.
Voter
suppression as public policy is unfathomable.
Yet this is exactly what the Democratic leadership in the Nevada
legislature has done.
Senate
Bill (SB) 103 introduced by Senator James Settelmeyer (R – Minden) would have
changed the state’s closed primary system to a top-two open primary. The bill was
referred to the Senate Committee on Legislative Operations and Elections and
never got a hearing. When
asked by a reporter for the Reno Gazette Journal
whether or not the bill would get a hearing, Senate Majority Leader Aaron Ford
(D – Las Vegas) replied, “We don’t
feel it’s worthy of a hearing. Next question.” SB 103 would have expanded
the voting opportunity for more than 400,000 registered voters, 27 percent of active registered voters. It
is important to remember that primary elections are paid for by all tax payers.
By including membership in a specific political party as a requirement to vote,
Nevada is blocking the participation of voters in a publicly funded election.
Assembly
bill (AB) 226 was introduced by Assemblyman Ira Hansen (R – Sparks) to reverse
a change made during the 2015 legislative session that eliminated
more than 60 percent of registered voters in some
districts from having a say in who would represent them in the state
legislature or on their county commission. Most of those voters were registered
to vote as Democratic, Non-Partisan, or in one of the minor political parties.
The bill passed out of the Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee
on a vote of 9-2 with two of the seven Democratic members voting “no”. In spite
of committee passage and three of the Democratic committee members, including
the chair signing on as co-sponsors, the Assembly Democratic Majority Leader decided
not to bring the bill to a floor vote killing the bill after discussion with
the Assembly Democratic caucus.
The
Senate Government Affairs Committee introduced SB 434 at the request of Senators
Julia Ratti (D – Sparks) and Tick
Segerblom (D – Las Vegas). The bill
changes the cities of Sparks and Reno city charters making their city attorney
appointed rather than elected as written in the original charter. Neither Senators
Ratti or Segerblom nor the government affairs committee received a request from
either city asking for this change. The bill passed the senate along party
lines with all Democratic caucus members voting in favor to unilaterally revoke
this voter approved choice. In the assembly, five Democratic members joined
Republicans in voting “no” but with overwhelming Democratic support, the bill
passed revoking a ballot voters have been casting for over 40 years. The governor vetoed the bill.
SB 93 introduced
by Senator Joe Hardy (R – Henderson) on behalf of the city of Henderson changes
the city charter to allow elections to be conducted by mail, potentially
removing obstacles to casting a ballot. The bill received a committee hearing
but not a vote and therefore died.
Last
session, the Democratic minority blocked changing presidential caucuses to
primaries. This session, in the majority, they did not allow a vote, placing
Nevada’s role in national party politics above voter participation. They also
did not advance a bill having Nevada award its Electoral College votes to the
winner of the nation popular vote for president.
Remember,
the Democratic Party controls both chambers of the Nevada legislature and
determines what bills get hearings and votes and what bills die.
“Publicly
funded election”. These are the key words. Political parties are private
organizations and as such are protected by the U.S. Constitution’s first
amendment rights or association. When performing functions related to the
internal operation of the party, the U.S.
Supreme Court has upheld these rights versus the
state’s right to conduct open and fair elections. Selecting a nominee to
represent the party in the general election is such an internal operation. This
is why political parties pay for nomination caucuses and conventions. A primary
election, restricted to members of a particular party is identical to a caucus
or convention. Since these elections are funded with tax dollars, blocking
participation simply based on party registration is a form of voter
suppression.
When
voters are prevented from casting a ballot for any candidate who will represent
them in a legislative body, the winning candidate cannot truly claim they
represent the district. Even when two candidates in a general election are
members of the same political party, all voters should have the right to vote
for the candidate they prefer regardless of the voters’ political party
affiliation. When primaries are closed and only
a small percentage of one party goes to the polls
to select the candidate that will then be unopposed in the general election,
this is voter suppression.
A city
charter is similar to a constitution. The charter is approved by the state
legislature and any changes to it must likewise be approved by the legislature.
The city charters of Sparks, approved in 1975 and Reno, approved in 1971 identify
the city attorney as an elected position. In 1991, the voters of Sparks
reaffirmed their desire to keep this right. The charter committees of Sparks
and Reno did not request this change to their charters. The voters of Sparks
and Reno did not request this change. By unilaterally putting forth this
change, the Democratic members of the legislature are revoking a vote that
citizens have been allowed to cast for over 40 years, suppressing the right of
the citizens of Sparks and Reno to elect their city attorney as currently
required by their city charter.
In a
slightly different scenario, the Democratic senate caucus is suppressing the
voting rights of the citizens of Henderson. City leadership requested a change
to their charter that would make it easier for citizens to vote as well as
achieve a much needed cost savings. The bill was heard but not voted on by the
Senate Government Affairs Committee. Preventing a process that would allow more
citizens to vote from being implemented is voter suppression.
When Governor
Brian Sandoval vetoed the legislature's party line passage (Democratic
majority) of IP-1, the automatic voter registration initiative, Assembly
Speaker Jason Frierson (D – Las Vegas) was quoted in the Nevada
Independent; “Nevadans agree that we need to have a voting system that protects the
fundamental right of every eligible voter— Democrat, Republican, non-partisan
or otherwise. Voting is a right, not a privilege and we should make it easy for
Nevadans to hold their own government accountable.”
In their Nevada Blueprint for the current session of the legislature, the Democratic Caucus is clearly focused on voting rights. "We also need to protect our heritage. That means preserving Nevada’s natural environment, protecting our constitutional rights, and making it easier for our citizens to participate in the democratic process."
These two statements seem contradictory to the
action taken on the bills highlighted. Voter suppression can be obvious or skillfully concealed. The end result is the same; voter participation is curtailed by policy, process, or action.
Voter suppression is alive and well in Carson City.
