On February 7, Nevada State Senator James Settelmeyer (R-Minden) introduced SB 103, which converts Nevada partisan elections into top-two elections. This is the second session in which Senator Settelmeyer has introduced the bill.
The bill is ambiguous as to whether persons registered into unqualified parties could have their party label on the ballot.
On February 9, the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorialized against the bill.
The legislature’s bill summary misuses the term “blanket primary.” The analysis describes the bill as a blanket primary, but a blanket primary puts the top vote-getter from each party on the general election, and this bill does not do that. The editorial is also weak on vocabulary; it refers to a top-two system as an “open primary”, but for over 100 years, “open primary” has been defined in political science textbooks and U.S. Supreme Court opinions as a system in which each party has its own primary ballot and its own nominees, but any voter is free to choose any party’s primary ballot.
One Nevada activist who has worked to get SB 103 introduced says he does not really believe top-two is a good system, but he believes that having a top-two system will make it easier to transition into a system using ranked-choice voting. However, history shows that the best way to gt ranked-choice system passed is to first have a system in which strong minor party or independent candidates compete, leading most people to then deplore the results of “spoiling.” This is how Maine was persuaded to pass ranked-choice voting.
Probably not going to change anyone’s mind here, but let me tell you why I like Top-two. I live in a very liberal part of Iowa. Below the statewide/congressional level, every office was unopposed. For state legislature and county offices, the only choice is a Democrat. No Republican ever bothers to run and no third-party ever bothers to run where I live (even though Iowa has relatively good ballot access laws). If you don’t like the Democrat running, your only other option is to write-in a name, which obviously won’t make a difference. If we had top-two, then maybe people in my county (and similar counties) would get to choose from two Democrats.
Nick, you’re pointing out the only reason why to have a top-two system — if, when, where there is effectively no party competition. I live in a suburb of St. Louis, MO. The elections for Mayor in the city are still partisan elections, first there’s a partisan primary (next month) in which Democrats and Republicans (and maybe a minor party) choose who to nominate, and then a general election – a month later – in which voters choose from the Democrat nominee and the Republican nominee. The March contest is the only one that matters because the city is over 80% Democrat, and the Republican has no chance to win at all in April unless the Democrat nominee, in just one month’s time, ends up with an enormous scandal hanging over their head. Having mayoral elections that are non-partisan would make much more sense — the top-two candidates in the March primary advance to the next election in April.
But I would not want top-two in congressional elections or in any statewide elections. I would not want a repeat of the fiasco that California had in last year’s Senate contest.
Why cant there be an “at least” top two system where normally the top person in the primary from each party gets on the ballot, or if a party is unopposed the top two from that party are in the general election.
Janine Hansen is going to vigorously fight this for sure.
You should read my election article at my website waunakeegan.weebly.com in the news section.
Under current law, a major party has more than 10% of registrants; and a minor party has filed an annual certificate of existence. There are currently eight minor parties. Political parties are defined as being major parties and minor parties.
Under current law, minor parties qualify to make nominations if:
(1) They have 1% of registrants;
(2) They had 1% of the vote for representatives in Congress; or
(3) They file a petition with signatures of 1% of the votes for Congress.
I assume that this is what you mean by “qualified” party.
Currently the Independent American Party qualifies under (1) and (2); the Libertarian Party barely qualifies under (2) and just misses under (1).
When a voter registers they may specify the name of a major party or a minor party that has a current certificate of existence. If they specify “independent” they are classified as nonpartisan. A voter may also specify the name of a party that does not have a current certificate of existence. The registrar records the party name, but tabulates the vote totals with “other”. There is a provision for ascertaining a determining party affiliation for those who leave the party affiliation blank.
It would be my interpretation that a voter’s party affiliation remains the same whether or not the party has filed a certificate of existence, or that their existence status had changed.
HB 103 would eliminate nomination rights for all offices but president. For minor parties, the qualification standard based on votes for Congress would be eliminated. (It would make more sense to switch the standard to be based on the previous presidential election, since it only provides the right to nominate for Congress).
HB 103 does not define the meaning of “party preference”, and it appears that only candidates have a party preference, while voters will continue to have a party affiliation. The place for party preference replaces the place for party affiliation on the old candidate application, but that application was only for major party primary candidates. Arguably, the bill is just taking advantage of the existing text in the law. (this part needs clarification).
Current law would appear to make four classes of voter registration:
(1) Affiliation with a major party;
(2) Affiliation with a minor party, i.e. one that has a current certificate of existence;
(3) Non-partisan.
(4) Affiliation with a named party, but that does not have a current certificate of existence.
If we assume that a voter’s affiliation with a party that “exists” is the same as a candidate’s party preference, then those in classes (1) and (2) are non-distinguishable, because minor parties and major parties are political parties. Those classified as (3) would be no party preference (an improvement would be to let them say they were “Independent” on the ballot).
Those with (4) might be kept from having their party affiliation on the ballot, because their party does not “exist”. But it would only take a certificate of existence to be filed to change this.
A state has a rational interest in making sure that a candidate’s name as it appears on the ballot is truthful; and that information such as residence address, age and contact information is correct, to the extent that the SOS and election officials may need to contact a candidate, or help voters distinguish among persons with the same name, or give voters an opportunity to interact with candidates, and to verify that a candidate is qualified for an office by age, citizenship, and residence.
Making sure that a party preference is for a party that actually exists is reasonable given that the state is publishing the preference on ballots.