Nevada Republican Party Joins the Pending Lawsuit Against “None of These Candidates”

The Nevada Republican Party has entered the pending federal case that argues that “None of these candidates” should not appear on the ballot in future Nevada elections, unless the law is amended to provide that if “None of these candidates” gets the most votes, that result has a binding effect (in other words, no one is nominated or elected, and a vacancy is created). The case is Townley v Miller, 9th circuit, 12-16881 and 12-16882.

The Republican Party seeks the join the case because it argues that having “None of these candidates” on the ballot, especially in general elections, harms the Republican Party and its nominees. On November 7, the 9th circuit granted the party’s motion to be added as a plaintiff. The case had originally been filed by some Nevada voters and some Republican Party nominees for presidential elector.

The Nevada law, putting “None of these candidates” on the ballot, only applies to statewide office, not district or local office.


Nevada Republican Party Joins the Pending Lawsuit Against “None of These Candidates” — 16 Comments

  1. The NV GOP is mad that “none of these candidates” was a partial cause of their losses in the past couple elections. They got an ax to grind; they’re probably not really concerned about the main issue at hand.

  2. I’d just love to see a ballot where the following options are available: None of the Above, All of the Above and Some of the Above.

  3. “None of the Above” is an important ballot choice to have so as to keep under votes from being manipulated into fraudulent votes. Recall the 2000 election where it looked like stacks of under vote punch cards were lined-up and then skewered en-mass for a particular presidential candidate. YES to having “None of the Above” as a choice for EVERY political race.

  4. Include Undecided, NOTA, SOTA and AOTA on the ballot.

    I also think that all ballots should be rotated like Australia or at least in each county, the order should vary. If you don’t vote, your vote automatically goes to the candidate ranked first.

  5. SOTA= Some of the Above, that option would allow you to mark the candidates you want after you mark the SOTA option.

  6. “…If you don’t vote, your vote automatically goes to the candidate ranked first.”
    Definitely do not like that idea. This time around, I voted but not for President as I didn’t like any of the candidates and write-ins aren’t allowed where I live.
    I would not have wanted my vote to go to anyone, let alone have had it decided randomly like a “quick pick” lottery play.
    As for “Some of the Above” or “All of the Above,” I feel you should only be able to choose one or none. Anything else is like voting more than once, even if it is for a different candidate in each instance, as it were.
    I’m definitely a NOTA fan, though. I wish that was a binding option everywhere.

  7. None of the Above should be an option for every election and for every office in the entire nation.

  8. 11 –

    If NOTA wins a US senate seat, will he or she be able to filibuster under the proposed new rules?

  9. NOTA ia a serious option for voters who want to participate, but do not agree with any of the listed choices. It is foolish to believe that removing NOTA will force them to vote for one of the options since their most likely alterntive is to simply not vote for that office or at all.

    My “solution” to this apparent problem that Republicans and others seem to have with NOTA is that any election in which less than 50% plus one of the registered voters participates is automatically voided and a second opportunity election will be scheduled one month later. If that also fails to receive 50% of the vote, the office will remain vacant until the next regular election.

  10. Then I’d turn this around and say that Republicans do harm to Libertarians by being on the ballot and create my own lawsuit. Is there much of a difference. People who vote None of The Above probably wouldn’t have Republican in the first place.

  11. Obviously many of the above posts favor hurting third parties and independent candidates in Nevada.
    Having NOTA on our state ballot has only taken votes away from the Independent American Party, the Libertarians, and other third party and independent candidates that have been on our ballot; it’s just plain stupid to have this option on there because you are wasting your vote by picking the NOTA ticket when instead the voter could have selected a third or fourth candidate on the ballot, or simply not vote in that race at all.

    The IAP and other practical Nevadans support this lawsuit and hope to see NOTA removed from the Nevada ballot in the next election.

  12. 13 –

    Interesting idea. Now, since a vacant office would effectively be occupied by “NOTA,” I have a technical question…could NOTA be subject to term limits and prohibited from holding office in successive terms? Also, how old would NOTA have to be in order to hold various state and federal offices?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *