As Nevadans prepare for the 2024 general election, voters will once again weigh in on a ballot initiative that could fundamentally alter the state’s election process. Ballot Question 3, which narrowly passed in 2022 with 53 percent of the vote, proposes the implementation of ranked-choice voting (RCV) and open primaries for statewide elections. This constitutional change requires a second approval by voters in November 2024, effective for the 2026 election cycle.
While the initiative garnered enough support to pass in 2022, it has faced growing bipartisan opposition as the next vote approaches. Uniting on a rare front, Democrats, Republicans, and progressive nonprofits in the Silver State have all expressed concerns about the impact the measure could have on Nevada’s elections.
Mike Draper, a representative for the PAC behind the initiative, Nevada Voters First, stated after the 2022 passage that the changes were needed to “address political extremism and polarization in our state.” The group raised $19.5 million during the 2022 election cycle and plans to continue campaigning for the initiative leading up to the 2024 vote.
However, critics argue that ranked-choice voting and open primaries will exacerbate political extremism rather than alleviate it. Mike Vallante, the Director of the Center for Election Integrity at the America First Policy Institute, voiced his concerns in a recent interview, stating that ranked-choice voting will confuse voters and complicates the electoral process.
Vallante cited examples from other regions where ranked-choice voting has been implemented, including Oakland, Calif., where voter confusion led to thousands of invalidated ballots in a mayoral race. He also pointed to the miscounted votes in Oakland’s school board elections and lengthy delays in certifying election results in New York City’s mayoral race, which took three weeks to determine a winner.
“The system creates skepticism due to its lack of transparency,” Vallante said, emphasizing that voters may wait days or weeks to know the results.
He argues that Nevada should aim for more straightforward and timely election outcomes, noting that the current system ensures that the candidate with the most votes wins—something he believes ranked-choice voting undermines.
Supporters of the initiative, such as Draper and Nevada Voters First, maintain that ranked-choice voting will provide a more inclusive platform for independents and nonpartisan voters, a growing portion of Nevada’s electorate. They argue that an open primary system allows independents to have a voice in primary elections, where they are underrepresented.
Opponents, like Vallante, see the introduction of open primaries referred to as “jungle primaries,” as another layer of confusion. In such systems, all candidates, regardless of party, compete in a single primary, with the top five advancing to a ranked-choice general election. Vallante warns that this process could lead to even greater polarization, citing California as an example, where he claims jungle primaries have shifted the political landscape further to the extremes.
“Party primaries should be for party members,” said Vallante. “If independents want to participate, they can declare which primary they wish to vote in on election day.”
As the debate intensifies, both sides will ramp up their efforts before the November 2024 vote. For now, Nevadans will again face the question: Is ranked-choice voting and open primaries the solution to political polarization, or will it create more problems than it solves?
The Old Blog in the Desert 
Leave a comment