A survey finds that many Nevada voters do not understand Ballot Question 3.

If you're among them, we're going to try and change that 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.

In 2022, nearly 53% of Nevada voters voted yes on Ballot Question 3.

Yet in 2023, a Guinn Center survey found that many Nevada voters lack awareness or understanding of the proposed reform and its impacts.

It's concerning, considering Nevadans will vote on the ballot measure again this year.

That's because Question 3 seeks to amend the state's constitution.

And in order for that to happen, voters must approve the measure in two straight elections.

So how will you vote?

Sondra Cosgrove, a College of Southern Nevada History Professor and Executive Director of Vote Nevada, is in favor of Ballot Question 3, while Emily Persaud-Zamora, Executive Director of Silver State Voices, opposes Ballot Question 3.

And I'd like to start by having each of you take about 30 seconds to make your case.

Sondra, you're first.

(Sondra Cosgrove) The first thing I'd like to say is, as of yesterday, voter turnout is 3%.

And I-- from my experience doing voter engagement and voter education, our primaries have been manipulated so much that they end up being confusing, they're not competitive, and they prohibit too many people from voting.

And so when you look at our primaries, half the races are already open primary top two, but the other half of the top of the ticket are closed primaries.

So you have to register with a party to be able to vote in them.

So if you're nonpartisan, you're prohibited.

-All right.

Your turn now, Emily.

-So democracy in the state of Nevada and across the country, I would say already is in a fragile state.

After 2016, we have seen left and right that there's a level of distrust within elections.

Yet the state of Nevada has done so much to get us to be one of the best rated states, and we've had a lot of amazing reforms.

But we know that ranked-choice voting is not something that's going to contribute to getting additional access for voters.

The ballot measure, as previously stated, passed by 53%.

But that was because all of the messaging was just about open primaries.

-All right.

We will expand on the arguments that each of you just made.

But first, let's break down that ballot measure, exactly what it would do and how it would do that.

Our source for that is Kristine Caliger.

She is Assistant Director at Guinnn Center, a nonprofit nonpartisan policy research resource.

Kristine, welcome to Nevada Week.

Thank you for joining us.

Let's first establish what Ballot Question 3 would do.

And according to this Guinnn Center report, it would do two things, which I'm going to read.

It would allow for a single primary election in which all candidates are listed on the same ballot and all registered voters can participate, and, two, it would implement ranked-choice voting for both federal and state offices, excluding the Presidential election.

We're going to break down each of those and, following the advice in this report, show sample ballots of what we're talking about, because according to voter education experts, that's the best way to educate a voter.

So the first part of Ballot Question 3, will you first explain how the primary system works right now in Nevada and how Ballot Question 3 would change that.

(Kristine Caliger) Sure.

So Nevada currently operates on a closed primary system.

So that means that Nevadans if they're registered with a major political party, Republican or Democrat, when they go to the ballot box for their primary, they're only choosing candidates from their own party to advance to the general election.

So if Nevada decides to implement Question 3, we would move toward an open primary system.

So this would change the primary to allow not only for all registered Nevada voters to participate in partisan primary races, which they're not currently allowed to do if you're not registered for a major political party, you're not able to participate in partisan races.

-It's just Republicans and Democrats.

-Republicans and Democrats.

So the first thing that would happen is all candidates, regardless of party affiliation, would be on a centralized ballot.

So a voter would go to the ballot box and be able to, and be able to select from any candidate of any party affiliation on that ballot.

And what would happen then, the influence in the way the general election plays out is rather than just one candidate or two candidates advancing to the general election, the top five vote-getters would advance to the general election.

-So then let's move on to the second part of this.

And that's the ranked-choice voting part, which is dealing with the general election.

How would that work?

But first, what is the current general election system?

-So the current general election system in Nevada is simple majority, or another way to put it is "first past the post."

So quite simply, whoever gets the most votes wins.

Now, in a ranked-choice system, the top five vote-getters from the primary election would advance to the general.

And that's where the ranked-choice voting begins.

So when a voter goes to the ballot box, they will have the option to rank those candidates.

Five candidates-- it would be maximum five candidates.

Could be fewer, depending on how many advance, but they have the option to rank those candidates from first to fifth.

And so at the first round of vote tabulation, after all of the votes have come in, if there's one candidate who gains more than 50% of the vote, just in that first round of vote tabulation, that candidate is considered the winner of that election because they have obtained more than 50% of the vote.

Now, if none of the candidates in that first round of vote tabulation are able to get above that 50% threshold, then we go into a second round of vote tabulation and perhaps subsequent rounds in order to achieve, for one candidate to achieve more than 50% of the vote.

So after that first round if no one has achieved 50% of that majority threshold, the candidate that has received the fewest number of votes gets eliminated after that first round.

And the voters who selected that candidate who is eliminated, their votes will be redistributed to other candidates based on their preferences.

So if they ranked, you know, Candidate B as their second choice, their vote will then be shifted to Candidate B as opposed to Candidate E who has been eliminated.

-And then the results, how does that work out?

-So subsequent tabulation rounds will continue until a candidate achieves more than 50% of the vote.

So there could be, there could be multiple rounds of tabulation under this system.

-Kristine Caliger, thank you so much for your time.

-Yes.

Thank you so much.

Appreciate it.

-Again, Sondra Cosgrove is in favor of Ballot Question 3.

Emily Persaud-Zamora opposes Ballot Question 3.

I'd like to start this part of the discussion with another finding from the Guinn Center survey that, even after reading the sample ballot explanation of Nevada Question 3, when asked their opinion on the reform, 37% of respondents answered, "I don't know."

Emily, I'm going to start with you.

Why do you think that amount of people answer that they cannot form an opinion on this, even after reading the explanation?

-Because they think that when you read the explanation, it's not just crystal clear to folks.

There-- it is something that you have to immerse yourself and get fully educated on.

And I would say that I think, additionally, it is, it's a complex system.

And most folks are really not exposed to ranked-choice voting because it is not a popular thing nationwide.

There are only two states that have it.

And there are only several municipalities that have it.

So it's not something that is as familiar.

-Sondra, I did see you agree.

You agree this is complex?

-It is.

I am not a fan of the way they write the description in the sample ballot.

But the reason they're written that way is because according to Nevada Revised Statute, you get 200 words and it has to be legally sufficient, because if it's not, you get sued.

So oftentimes that description is being written by attorneys and judges in a court because a lawsuit has happened.

Those are not educators.

Those are not people who know how to speak in plain language.

We need to change that law so that it can be written in a way that every person is, has access to the information that they need.

-I will add this.

Another finding from that survey was that Nevada respondents exhibit limited awareness about current primary and general election systems.

Does that help your argument?

-I think it does.

I think-- my experience, I run a grassroots organization that's a coalition of 20 different organizations that are knocking on doors, talking to voters on a day-to-day basis.

Just educating them on how to register to vote, how to cast your ballot, how to participate and vote by mail if that's something that you'd like, has been a hurdle.

Now, putting a new type of system is going to affect the level of confidence and comfort that voters have as well.

-Do you want to address that aspect, the level of confidence that voters have?

-I mean, civics education is like the rest of education in the state.

We don't invest enough in it, and we need to change that.

But I think we can do just like Emily said, you go and you talk to people, you answer their questions, you make sure they can call somebody if they need to.

But right now, there's people who don't have confidence in our election because of the mail-in voting, because of automatic voter registration.

But we're not getting rid of those things because they help voters.

-All right.

One area of confusion that I know does exist because we witnessed this when we held a Nevada Democracy Project listening session.

This is a partnership Vegas PBS has with The Nevada Independent.

At a recent session, which we have some video of, there was an interaction between a woman who got up and said, "I am worried about Ballot Question 3.

I think it will negatively impact the Presidential election."

The Question 3 supporter then corrected her and said, "No, this does not impact the Presidential race.

It is state races, it is federal offices, but it is not the Office of the President."

Our next Democracy Project listening session, June 20, at CSN in Henderson, by the way.

Back to Ballot Question 3.

Another question I have heard is people asking, Well, what if I don't want to rank all of the candidates?

What if I want to simply vote for one and move on?

Guinn Center report says, yes, your vote will still be counted.

Sondra, you say yes.

-Yes.

-What about you, Emily?

-Yes but no, because the reality is, I've met many of those voters out there that they only care about one person.

That's one candidate that's pushing them, that's motivating them to go out and to vote.

If they only circle one, they only choose one particular candidate and that candidate is not the Choice 1 after tabulation, yes, your ballot does count.

But is the person that you're electing, are they actually going to be selected?

No, they're actually not.

And so that's our argument there.

-Okay.

You want to respond to that?

-That happens now.

If you vote for the wrong person and they lose, they lose.

But we-- in this state, "none of these candidates" is an option.

If you want to vote the exact same way you do now and you pick your first candidate, the rest of the rankings are just counted as none of these candidates, which is something that we can do.

-The survey also found that respondents wanted to know where similar reforms are in place and what impacts they have had.

The report noted that Alaska is the only state with both the open primary and the ranked-choice voting in the general election.

That went into effect in 2020.

First election it was used was in 2022.

What can Nevadans learn from the state of Alaska, and what has happened there?

Sondra?

-I think Alaska proves a lot of things we theoretically thought would happen with this type of reform.

You had more choices.

So when you've got-- they've got four candidates, we want five moving forward.

You get a candidate like Mary Peltola, who's the Indigenous woman that's representing Alaska right now, who had been repeatedly told by the Democratic Party she couldn't run.

They were not going to support her running.

But with an open primary where you can go out and talk to Nonpartisans and Democrats and Republicans, she got into the top four.

And then she understood the ranked-choice voting strategy.

She was running against Nick Begich and Sarah Palin.

She said, I went everywhere I could.

And when I saw a Nick Begich sign, a Sarah Palin sign, I walked up to that voter and said, Awesome first choice.

Love Sarah.

She's a friend.

Can I be your second choice?

And then she would have a conversation with them.

And that's how she ultimately won is because she got enough second choice votes to put her over.

Lisa Murkowski did the same thing in the Senate race.

She talked to the Democratic candidates' voters, and she said, I think I can be the Republican you can trust.

21,000 of Patricia Chesbro, the Democrats, 21,000 of her voters gave Lisa Murkowski their second choice.

She went.

The Governor, he's a Trump endorsed candidate.

So Alaskans got to have-- it looks buffet style to me.

They got more choices, they were able to be more thoughtful, and they got good representation.

-And as a result of those people being elected, what purpose did that fulfill of this voting system?

What premise, the goals of it?

-So I think, I mean, one of the things people say is it's going to get you more moderate candidates.

I don't know if that's necessarily true.

But this system allows people who are being shut out, especially women of color who are being shut out, from being able to run, to be able to get into the race, to be able to go and talk to anybody to make their case, and then to win.

-I want you to respond to that.

There's a couple aspects I imagine you want to respond to.

-Yeah.

As a woman of color, I would say in looking at everything that we've observed within Alaska, you know, everything you said about Mary is amazing.

But what that sounds like to me is good campaign strategy, not as an effective electoral system favoring her.

There was one great, amazing candidate that came out of the 2022 Alaska election.

Does that mean that we need to revise a whole electoral process just to get one person elected?

I don't think so.

I think an additional thing that I would say from looking at Alaska, there have been-- there's only one election that has occurred under that, right?

It is still too soon to determine what are the actual factors that come into play when it comes to the Alaska election and RCV.

One thing I will say is that in some of the studies that have come out already, there has been fatigue around the Alaska Natives, the Alaska Native community around RCV.

Also, there has been a higher drop-off rate when it comes to ballot rejection within those communities.

If it was so perfect, why is there a ballot measure already in play for Alaska to repeal RCV?

-What else can Nevadans learn from other places that have implemented ranked-choice voting or open primaries?

And also, will you please expand on the ballot rejection issue.

-Yeah.

So when I think of the places that have implemented RCV, proponents of the yes campaign usually point to New York City, right, because it's one of the most diverse entities within our country.

And when I think of it, I'm a native New Yorker, so I get New York politics very well.

And I, when I think about that, I think about the fact that New York City itself put $15 million in voter education to educate New Yorkers in all five boroughs around ranked-choice voting.

But there was still a huge drop-off rate and rejection rate of the ballot.

It's for communities of color.

And as a woman who works, who is a woman of color and works with communities here in Nevada, that makes me scared because a ballot rejection rate, that means that there is something particularly wrong.

Their ballot rejection can be for a variety of different reasons.

But in this case study, it was because of RCV.

And what I would say to that is there are so many different elections that are very close here in the state of Nevada.

You know, take a look at County Commission District C in 2020.

That was decided by 10 votes.

And that's the case for many instances here in the state of Nevada.

Go ahead.

-Real quick.

So is the idea that more ballots are being rejected because they're not being filled out correctly because the system is too confusing?

-Yes.

-What do you think Sondra?

Do you believe that more ballots will be rejected as a result of ranked-choice voting?

-No.

We already have a problem right now with mail-in voting paper ballots being rejected because people are not filling them out correctly.

We have that problem right now.

There's already 1,700.

Even though we have 33% turnout right now, there's almost 1,700 that need to be fixed right now.

We need voter education on that.

There's different ways that people talk about ranked-choice voting and why a ballot might be exhausted or where there might be an error.

If people use the voting machines, you can't make a mistake; you cannot make an error.

So if anybody feels nervous about ranked-choice voting, we have vote centers.

They're open many hours.

Vote on a voting machine.

But if someone's ballot is exhausted, they only ranked 1 or they only ranked 2, that is a choice somebody made.

It's not because they were misinformed.

That's not because they were uneducated.

That was a choice that they made.

And Mary Peltola is going to come and campaign with us this fall because she is a very strong proponent of this system.

-A key-- yes.

-Amber, I have to say that I just firmly disagree.

I think that there's the, the factor of we can sit here and we can say we've taken a look at different states and different cities that implemented.

Nobody can really say that it's not going to happen, because we just don't know.

It's something completely new to the state of Nevada.

If it were to pass, it would be implemented in the 2026 election.

So I think that it's not, as practitioners of this work, it's not appropriate for us to say that it's not going to happen, because we just don't know.

And I think the other part of it that is super important is that of education.

There is a lot of education that happens, but that-- but for many communities, that's just still not enough.

If you take a look, for example, the Secretary of State's office, they did a lot of education around the PPP.

Yes, different model, but they did.

It was the first time that the PPP happened.

-Will you say the entire acronym.

-Sorry, Presidential Preference Primary.

There was a lot of education as to what that was, since we were moving away from the caucus.

There was still so many people who called into the Secretary of State's office who called into the registrar's office and said, I don't know how to do this.

The other point that I just have to firmly disagree on is this that if you want to participate in RCV, you should go and vote at a vote center.

That's, that's a privilege, right?

Not every person has the ability to go into a vote center and participate in person.

There's we have mail ballots.

That helps a lot of different communities vote.

We're talking about tribal communities, folks with disabilities-- -Why the need to go in person for ranked-choice voting?

-That's what she said.

-If you feel you're nervous and are going to make a mistake, you have the option to vote on a machine.

I didn't say you had to.

-But that's also-- what I think you're missing is that that's a privilege.

Not everybody has that.

You could be nervous about a process, but not have the ability to participate.

-To physically go.

-So then we help people with the mail-in ballot.

-Let's quickly cover that you brought up the cost of educating New Yorkers.

I think you said $15 million?

-Yes, ma'am.

-So in Nevada, it has been estimated a one-time expenditure by the state and local governments of approximately $3.2 million relating to voter outreach and education, increased ballot stock costs, personnel expenses, equipment, software, programming costs, etc., and then ongoing costs related to the implementation of ranked-choice voting, about $57,000 per fiscal year.

You think this money is justified?

Will it be enough, Sondra?

-I am always for education.

We just spent quite a bit-- -Even when this money could go somewhere else, potentially?

-Education?

No.

I-- this is voter education, which we need right now.

We're not getting rid of the Presidential Preference Primary.

That costs money.

People were confused.

We're not getting rid of mail-in voting.

That costs a lot of money.

People are confused.

Let's take this opportunity to put a huge investment into voter education around all the things that we have added into the way we vote for people and the way we elect officials.

Let's actually bring that level of voter education up using these expenditures.

-We have to touch on the issue of communities of color.

This is something that US Senator Jacky Rosen said she was concerned about, particularly with Ballot Question 3, that it would impact communities of color.

How?

-I think there's a variety of different ways, and I'm not sure what Senator Rosen's reasoning is.

But as somebody-- I have dedicated my life to civic engagement.

I've been doing this work as an organizer, and now I have the privilege of being an Executive Director.

But in doing that work at my coalition, there is a diverse entity of different organizations that represent different communities.

And when we talk about this, there is a level of confusion that folks have as to how do we interpret these things, right?

Even now, I'm just going to use an example.

Just two or three weeks ago, I was sitting down with my communications coordinator.

I'm fluent in English, Spanish, and Portuguese and can translate all of those things very well.

We were just talking about the word "early voting" in Spanish.

There is the literal way that you translate it, but that's also for one country.

There are different dialects of Spanish, right?

And there are different ways of translating it.

And what is the actual appropriate thing?

I think one of the things that we have to think about when we're talking about any electoral reform is that we also have Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act where materials have to be translated for certain communities in the state of Nevada, in Clark County, English, Spanish, and Tagalog.

Very soon also Chinese.

In Nye County, Shoshone as well.

And some other counties translate in Spanish.

It's a matter of how do we find the translators to translate in these particular terms where folks may not be familiar with these particular things.

-You want to respond to that?

-Sure.

They've translated into Yupik in Alaska.

There are people, there indigenous speakers that can make sure the translation is happening.

And as Emily just said, we're already doing that with the changes that have happened over the last five years with mail-in voting, with a Presidential Preference Primary, with the caucus that got added on.

So we're already doing translations.

We're already helping communities.

This would just be something that we would add in.

-Another question I want to make sure we get because we're running out of time.

A key difference between both of your arguments is what impact this will have on candidates who are not Democrats and who are not Republicans.

An Independent candidate, for example, what do you think this will do for them?

-It's going to make sure as a candidate that they don't have to wait until the general election to start talking to people.

So 40% of our voters are not registered Democrat or Republican.

If you want to be an Independent candidate, you have to go in and you have to get signatures, and then you go to the general election ballot.

You don't get to have a primary.

But we're finding that disadvantages them because they're not getting their name out soon enough, and they're not getting it out early enough.

And then people love a candidate in the primary, and they're not going to switch in the general election.

It's going to help them because they'll be able to talk to people and have their name on the ballot in the primary.

-Emily?

-I'm seeing this as a Nonpartisan entity.

The reality is that in the general, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is not going to go away.

If this passes, if anything, it might encourage more Democrats to run against each other and more Republicans to run against each other.

That might have party support, that might not, or that might have more name recognition.

And I think that it might actually in some cases in the more competitive races might make it more difficult for folks that are not affiliated with a party to get their name out there.

-Emily Persaud-Zamora, Sondra Cosgrove, we have run out of time.

There is a lot to learn about this topic, and I encourage our viewers to do so.

Thank you for coming in.

And thank you for watching.

For any of the resources discussed, including a link to the Guinn Center report on Ballot Question 3, go to our website, vegaspbs.org/nevadaweek.

And a quick programming note: Starting next week, Nevada Week will begin airing on Thursdays at 7:30 p.m.