Three questions appear on this year's midterm ballot.

We explore each this week on Nevada Week .

♪♪♪ Support for Nevada Week is provided by Senator William H. Hernstadt.

-Welcome to Nevada Week .

I'm Amber Renee Dixon.

Nevadans will vote on three ballot questions this year.

Question 1 addresses equal rights under Nevada law, Question 2 would make Nevada's minimum wage part of the state's constitution, and Question 3 would establish open primary elections and ranked-choice general elections.

Joining us to examine each of these questions, both the pros and the cons, are Jessica Hill, politics reporter for the Las Vegas Review-Journal ; April Corbin Girnus, deputy editor at the Nevada Current ; and Jacob Solis, reporter from The Nevada Independent .

Thank you all for sharing your time today.

Let's go in order and start first with Question 1, which if passed, would amend the Nevada Constitution to add new language, specifically, guaranteeing equality of rights under the law.

Those rights shall not be denied or abridged based on race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry, or national origin.

So on one hand I think, who is really going to oppose this?

On the other hand I think, well, there are already a lot of federal protections in place, some state protections, so why is this really necessary?

What are proponents saying?

April?

(April Corbin Girnus) Proponents are saying it's a good statement of-- it's a good statement of equality, right?

It's like it's Nevada as a state saying, We value equality for all of these types of things.

And it's hard to talk about the implications of the bill because, really, the intent of the bill is just to say, We consider all of these people equal; and the basis of what all of our laws should be is it should be equal based off of these things.

It's pretty simple.

It's pretty straightforward in terms of the opponent or the proponents of the bill.

-Well, opponents would say, Well, that's a nice intent, but there's more that could possibly happen as a result.

What are some of the criticisms, Jessica?

(Jessica Hill) Some of the criticisms are especially coming from conservatives.

They are worried about religious freedom being in jeopardy.

For instance, you know, with that baker who declined service to a gay couple, they worry that this could prohibit religious freedoms.

However, I do believe that this is only for state bodies and, you know, state jurisdictions, not private businesses.

-Jacob, what are you hearing oppositionwise?

(Jacob Solis) Yeah, you know, there is a lot of this sort of religious question, right, because it's his creed, not religion.

So that was kind of a discussion point when it was happening in the first place.

But you know, I think conservatives are just worried about the legal implications of language like this, right?

What does it mean?

And that's not really a question that's been answered, because it's not a question that's been challenged so far.

So it's, what do we don't know about how it might impact the sort of legal structure of these equality questions?

-And one thing to know about this, when you think about it is like conservatives opposing it, it had bipartisan support in the legislature when it passed.

There were a few Republicans and actually one Democrat who opposed it, but for the most part, it was bipartisan support for the bill.

So it's not this very controversial thing.

And I think that people who are opposing it represent a pretty small segment of, at least of the legislature and of the wider body.

-You have some of the opponents saying that this could lead to taxpayer funded abortions, transgender athletes competing in female school sports, transgender bathrooms in public buildings.

How accurate are those claims?

-Those are really extreme examples of what might happen, right?

So this is, like I said earlier, it is a statement that we care about equality, and that's it.

It's a statement that we care.

How courts interpret that statement and how they implement it will be a whole separate thing.

So when we focus on the, you know, the examples that you did, they could possibly come up in a court case and they would use that, but that's not the intent of the bill, and it's not a sure thing that those things are going to happen.

And if you look into the cases that they're talking about, like the abortion one, that's not the only thing-- That's not the only legal argument that would help that.

And it's far more nuanced than sort of those opponents are sort of claiming.

-And, Jessica, abortion specifically is already addressed within the state constitution.

-Yeah, there's currently protections in place addressing sex.

This just adds race, creed, and those other things that you mentioned.

So I don't totally understand how those will apply with this new proposition.

-Because of the unknowns within this-- within this measure, what impact could it have on the legal system in Nevada, Jacob?

-Well, like April said, it really would require a court case to test it, right?

Something would have to happen and someone would have to challenge it.

So, you know, at this point, there's nothing really to point to until that happens.

-Potential lawyers utilizing this and clogging up the court system, that is-- that is a criticism.

Could you see that?

-I mean, people are allowed to file lawsuits, all sorts of lawsuits.

We see a lot of really dumb lawsuits.

So it certainly could be used, but I think that if voters are thinking about how they want to vote on Question 1, that that shouldn't be a deterrent, because that could happen anyway.

Like, people are clogging up our legal system with dumb lawsuits already.

So I don't think that this is gonna add any sort of tremendous workload to our court system.

-Okay.

And then before we move on to Question 2, in an opinion piece by the Review-Journal , it is written, quote, " Enactment of this vaguely worded amendment would send the state into unchartered legal territory and asks whether, for example, a minimum drinking or driving age is discriminatory."

So the RJ is saying to vote no on that.

Also important to note that the Nevada Secretary of State does not expect a financial impact-- rather, cannot be determined, the financial impact on the state.

Let's move now to Ballot Question 2, which, if passed, would amend the Nevada Constitution to require the minimum wage be $12 per hour, effective July 1, 2024.

It would also remove provisions that set different rates of pay depending on whether an employer offers health benefits.

And it would remove provisions that adjust the minimum wage based on cost of living increases not exceeding 3%.

Right now, the minimum wage in Nevada is $10.50 an hour if the employer does not offer health benefits, $9.50 an hour if the employer does offer health benefits.

This gets rid of that $1 difference.

What's the potential impact of that, April?

-I think the proponents of Question 2 are basically saying that this two-tiered system is flawed, where you having employers offer really bad health insurance plans to their employers and then, just so that they can pay that lower minimum wage rate.

But then what happens to the employer-- to the worker is that they still can't afford that really bad health care plan.

So it's still too expensive because the premium is too high, or they still know that healthcare co-pays are really high and deductibles are really high, so it's not going to be affordable to them anyway.

So they're either declining it or they're not using it, but then they're still stuck at that lower minimum wage rate.

So the idea is remove that option so that everybody is on a level playing field and that you kind of just clean it up and make it more simplified.

-There are already annual yearly increases in the minimum wage, gradual increases that started in 2019 via the state legislature, and by the time we reach July 2024 when this would go into effect, we would be at $12 an hour for an employer that is not offering health insurance.

So it brings back into question, kind of like Question 1, is this necessary?

Why do the proponents say it's necessary?

-I think right now there's a group of people that are making $1 less than those who don't have, you know, health insurance through employers.

So this would have just kind of bring everyone to a same even playing field.

-Is it risky to get rid of that guaranteed cost of living increase that is capped at 3% currently?

-It could be, but I think that what proponents are really interested in here, too, is that there's a constitutional protection to the minimum wage at this point, where there wouldn't be currently, right?

Where any legislature in the future could get rid of this, right?

And, you know, if you talk about, sort of, protections for that 3% cost of living increase, any legislature could mess with that, too.

So, you know, I think there's legal avenues that proponents want to keep that in place if they could.

This ballot question in particular is just looking at placing this in the constitution, and that's really the crux of it.

-And I think that cost-of-living part of the question is throwing a lot of people off, where they go, It sounds like a good thing, right?

Because right now in our country, we're talking about cost of living a lot because inflation is so crazy, and it's on the top of everyone's minds.

But when you think about that cost of living provision in state law right now, it hasn't led to major increases in the minimum wage in Nevada.

Like, the recent minimum wage increases we've seen in Nevada came through legislative action that happened in 2019.

They did not come from that cost of living provision.

So think about if you're a minimum wage worker, think of what your salary was from 2009 to 2019.

It didn't change very much.

The minimum wage didn't change very much during that part of time.

So I think the proponents of removing that, of say yes to Question 2, we're saying that's in there, but it doesn't do much of anything.

So it's easier to just to remove it.

And then if the state legislature wants to come in later and make some other new formula that would actually lead to actual increases, they could do so because that language wouldn't be there clouding them up.

-And the reason that some people want this in the constitution, as you mentioned, is in case a future legislature goes in and changes it.

But I mean, is that a real risk, a legislature going in there and lowering the minimum wage?

-I think it would be wildly unpopular, but-- -Why?

- --maybe that's my opinion.

I don't foresee even the most-- that getting very far, but it certainly could happen, I guess.

-And how much do people really care about this measure when you look around and see some of the starting wages at fast food places being, you know, $18 an hour?

What is the argument of why this is necessary when, when that's already kind of in place?

Jacob?

-Well, I think it kind of undermines the sort of arguments against it, right?

If your argument is that a higher minimum wage would dissuade businesses, or would hurt small businesses rather, because they have to increase their employee costs, you know, if the minimum wage is already $18 because the market demands it, well, then what is the argument that $12 is too high?

So it's an open question, I suppose.

You know, how does it affect this if the market will bear what the market will bear?

But, you know, I'm not sure that we have a good answer necessarily.

-All right.

And according to the Review-Journal 's opinion, "Markets are far more efficient at setting wages than government edicts.

Voters should reject Question 2."

Also, it is undetermined, the financial impact that Question 2 would have.

Lastly, let's break down Question 3, which, if passed, would amend the Nevada Constitution to allow all Nevada voters the right to participate in open primary elections in order to choose candidates for the general election for federal, state, administrative, and state legislative races.

The top five finishers would advance to the general election.

It would also establish ranked-choice voting in general elections.

This would also have to be passed in 2024.

So you could be seeing this measure again in a couple of years.

Let's first start with the aspect of the open primary elections.

Right now in Nevada, only registered Democrats and registered Republicans can vote.

If you are a registered Republican, you can only vote for a Republican.

This would change it, opening it all up.

And I can't imagine that there would be a lot of opposition from independent voters themselves, but there is plenty of opposition.

Where's it coming from, Jessica?

-Yeah, so both Republican and Democratic parties have expressed opposition to this.

The Republican Party Chairman, Michael McDonald, had said, you know, under this new system, Republicans wouldn't get elected.

And Democrats are also against it and, as well as, voting groups who argue that this could be confusing and complicated for voters.

It could lead to disenfranchisement.

The Clark County Clerk, Joe Gloria, has said that, you know, a lot of times we underestimate voters, and, you know, we learn and we adapt, and they could figure it out eventually.

And then another proponent for this is, you know, that it will really lead to nonpartisans, you know, being able to vote in those primaries, and it will require campaigns to rethink how they run their campaigns.

So they'll have to appeal to the moderate voter from the very beginning, rather than, you know, make a radical statement before the primary and then when the candidate wins the primary, have to kind of roll back that radical statement.

Here they'll have to just appeal to the nonpartisan and moderate and the majority the entire campaign season.

-You wrote an article on how this worked out in Alaska recently, April.

For the primary aspect in particular, how did it work out?

-Yeah.

So Alaska had a special election recently for a house seat after one of their congressmen people died sort of unexpectedly.

And so they had an open primary where there were like 48 candidates.

It was a ridiculous amount.

So everybody just voted one, and then the top three ended up being-- The top three people ended up on one ballot, and they had a ranked-choice voting thing.

So the Democrat was ahead, and there were two Republicans that were sort of in second and third place.

And so that lowest candidate, the one who got the least amount of votes, was eliminated, and all his votes were redistributed to all of those voters' second-choice candidates.

-And that was in the primary?

-Yeah.

Well, it was for the-- It was a general because it was a special election, yeah.

-Okay.

-And so they did-- They redistributed the votes, and the Republican--which was Sarah Palin, who everybody knows--needed two-thirds of the other Republican's votes.

They needed to go to her.

But instead of voting for her, about half of them voted for her and then the other half either voted for the Democrat or voted no candidate or some other candidate, or whatever.

It's like a write-in; so they said, Neither one of them.

So you saw-- That's kind of an example where an electorate who was backing a Republican said, I can't have my candidate, but I'm not going to go for the other Republican, I would rather have the Democrat.

And I think that speaks to the appeal of ranked-choice voting.

For Nevadans and for a lot of people in the electorate is that it's not necessarily, I'm always gonna vote right or I'm always gonna vote left, it's a little more mixed.

And this allows people to play with this system in a way that represents their interests better, I think.

-Okay.

I do want to go over that aspect of this measure, the ranked-choice general elections and how that would work.

So voters would rank candidates in order of preference from first to last, but only if they wish to rank more than just their first preference.

A candidate who receives first-choice votes of more than 50% would be declared the winner.

If no candidate receives the first choice of more than 50%, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated.

First-choice votes for the eliminated candidate would be transferred to the voters' next highest choice.

And the process would repeat until one candidate receives more than 50% support.

How confusing is this?

-It's new, certainly.

And it's not simple, right?

I think when you have to explain to someone how this sort of exhaustion of ballots works, getting people second choices and their third choices sometimes in there, it takes some explaining.

But like Jessica said with Joe Gloria, right, voters can understand this kind of thing.

And politicians can argue that they won't, but other states have tried ranked-choice.

Other countries have tried ranked-choice.

It's not a necessarily new system.

And in the United States, in particular, if you're looking at a two-party system, candidates right now can win with less than 50% of the vote, sometimes close to 40% of the vote is enough to do it.

And if you're looking at a system that is more representative and it actually gets the candidate with more than 50% of the vote, then ranked-choice, if that's your aim, will do that.

-And proponents say that, you know, we make choices every day, you know?

We decide where to go to eat, and maybe we have a first choice, then we have a second choice, and then maybe we have a third.

They think that, you know, we'll be able to understand how this will work just because we do it every day.

-And it's worth noting that in Alaska in their special election that they just had, there were 295 votes that couldn't be-- or 295 ballots that couldn't be distributed to at least one candidate, which was like .15% of the entire total.

Like it's a really good error rate in terms of elections.

And so they're kind of using that as proof that, Look, it's not that complicated.

Like, I have a seven year old.

I can tell him, Name your five-- Put these in your five favorite.

Which is your favorite toy, what is your next favorite toy?

And like the counting part of it, that's like, maybe a little more confusing, but clearly, our elected official-- I mean our county clerks and all of those people will know how to do that.

And I think you can, you know, if you have faith in the system, which, you know, that's another question entirely, but it's possible.

-What was the faith in the system following the results of Alaska's election?

-You know, they had the proponents, the people who pushed that ballot measure there, the Alaskans for Better Elections they were called, you know, did polling afterward that said that people really liked it.

And then you've got people who are opposing the question or the ranked-choice voting measure there saying, No, people were confused.

So I mean, I think they're pulling the people.

That's a polling issue, but it largely hasn't-- It doesn't seem like it's created too many waves there.

-The argument that this could be more time consuming and extend the time period in which we are waiting for results, what do you think of that?

-Well, it is an argument.

But, certainly, we're already waiting for results because of mail voting.

So how much does it extend it beyond?

It could.

Absolutely.

The counting process is complicated.

Voting, not necessarily.

But counting can be because of the way you have to redistribute ballots.

Does that extend it any further?

Possibly.

But, you know, I think everyone looks at 2020 in the way that Nevada, in particular, was waiting for presidential results in November.

You know, we've seen it before, and is it an argument against?

It could be, but are voters already inured to it?

Also, maybe.

-US Senator Jacky Rosen had told you, going back to the disenfranchisement issue, that she thought this would particularly disenfranchise people of color.

What did she mean by that?

How?

-To be honest, I don't particularly understand that argument other than, you know, people of color can understand and can figure this out, too.

I don't understand the argument of how it targets a specific group of people.

-What is the support for this, Jacob?

-Well, I think there is some support, especially among nonpartisans.

And I think crucially, Nevada has seen an explosion in nonpartisan voters, especially in the last five years.

The state has implemented automatic voter registration at the DMV.

You go get a driver's license, you get registered to vote.

A lot of those people, if you don't mark party preference, you get automatically registered as a nonpartisan voter.

And on top of that, there are people who are simply exhausted with the two-party process and don't want to engage with it and register as nonpartisan.

For those people, they're functionally locked out of primary elections, in particular.

But also, you know, they exist in a space where, if you're someone who's dissatisfied with a two-party system, ranked-choice gives you an opportunity to split your ticket, to vote multiple ways.

Because it's no longer necessarily winner take all.

I mean, it is, but it gives you more latitude to sort of have flexibility with your choice.

And if you're a nonpartisan voter and that's important to you, then that's what this does functionally, right?

And simply, there are so many nonpartisans, right?

40% of Clark County, almost, is nonpartisan.

You look at statewide, there's almost half a million nonpartisans.

They're quickly approaching the number of Republicans in the state.

So it's a huge segment of the population.

Do all those people vote?

No, not necessarily.

But it's a sort of unactivated part of the electorate we'll say, especially in the primary, -And right now, we have 20% of the electorate deciding the primary for 100% of the electorate.

So this would, you know, even that playing field.

-So there's opposition from people in office to this on both sides.

But what about the actual voters, Republican voters, Democratic voters?

April?

-I mean, I know there's been polls that have sort of suggested that there's different levels of support by party, but I think the real test is going to be this November, right?

I mean, the thing about all of these polling isn't moot, and all of these groups that are saying-- You know, I think there's been a lot of attention about how it's bipartisan opposition, right, because you have prominent Democrats and prominent Republicans both saying this is terrible, right?

But then I look at the people that I know who aren't really engaged in politics beyond voting, and it's kind of a selling point.

They're like, Oh, everybody hates this in the political system?

Well, good, because I hate them, and I would rather have something different, right?

I think that's a selling point.

So it's really hard to gauge interest of this, because I think who it appeals to, or who it might appeal to, are the people who aren't already engaged in politics.

So like us as political reporters and people as pollsters, they're the people who care about this, are the ones that are hanging up on those things.

So I think we're only going to be able to tell in November when we see what the election results are.

-How significant could the outcomes of elections be, the change in the outcomes, if this were to pass?

-Well, I think that every politician is afraid of being the next Sarah Palin, right?

She is now the poster child for ranked-choice.

You're getting rid of a politician who has, frankly, has high name recognition, and in a deeply Republican state, a Republican lost to a Democrat, right?

So in Nevada, if you're a Democrat, right, where they've been dominant, frankly, since 2016, and may not be this cycle, but the, you know, that's always the risk, that you had this base of support that evaporates because everyone's second choice is someone else, right?

And you're terrified of that if you're a politician.

So it's so difficult to say, though, whether or not that actually is the case.

Because if there's really, say, a hard Democratic electorate or Republican electorate, their second choice might still be a Democrat or Republican, right?

Their second choice might be you, the candidate who wins.

So the-- It's no telling that, you know, someone's necessarily going to lose because ranked-choice gets implemented.

-Jessica, as you had mentioned, perhaps more moderate candidates would be elected as a result of this.

-Right.

-You also wrote an article recently about how much money is being pumped into support for this measure.

Where's that money coming from?

How much, how significant?

-Yeah, so in the last fundraising quarter between July 1st and September 30th, the PAC behind this initiative received $17 million, which is even more than, you know, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto received.

Most of this money is coming from out of state, super PACs or political action committees.

Those are all the committees that are backing this initiative across the country.

And I talked with a professor, Dan Lee at UNLV, who was talking about, you know, this is how if you want to see change in the election system, you have to go state by state.

And so it makes sense that there's a lot of out of state, you know, organizations funding this initiative.

One of the proponents I talked to said, you know, Everyone is getting out-of-state funding, and this isn't an issue, basically.

-Who are these people that are putting this money forward?

-A lot of them are billionaires.

I saw Catherine Murdock.

I forget the exact number, but I think it was like $5 million that she put into this.

There's like the Final-Five PAC-- or Final-Five funding, which is an initiative kind of similar to this where there's a final five, five different candidates are listed in the-- you know, you have five final options going through the primary.

So lots of different initiatives that have already expressed support and have, you know, founded these ideas of open primaries and nonpartisan primaries.

-Anything that we didn't discuss from your takeaways from the Alaska election?

-It was exciting, and it was different, right?

And I think that scares some people, and the people that scares the most are people who are in political office now and who are engaged in politics now, because people know how to campaign and they know how to fundraise, they know how to poll, we know how to count votes in this thing.

Like, it's like the establishment is scared of this.

And the people who are sort of antiestablishment who would like something different are really excited about this.

So I think that's what it comes down to more than any of the, like, who's funding this and which political parties.

It's about whether or not you want to change the system fundamentally.

And I think that's really what people should be focusing on is, Do you like this system, and should it be something that Nevada embraces?

-All right.

So things are getting shaken up.

But again, in 2024, Nevada voters would have to approve this again in order for it to amend the state constitution.

Also, unlike Questions 1 and 2, Question 3 is expected to have a financial impact on the state.

Thank you so much for joining us, our panelists.

And thank you for joining us for this edition of Nevada Week.

For any of the resources discussed, including a link to election information, go to vegaspbs.org/nevadaweek.

And remember, Election Day is Tuesday, November 8th.

♪♪♪