Nevada State Trial Court Refuses to Stop Initiative for Top-Five

On January 6, a Nevada state trial court refused to disqualify a proposed initiative for top-five. The petition hasn’t gathered the needed signatures yet, but a voter had said even if it did, it could not be on the ballot because it doesn’t have a funding source specified, and in Nevada, initiatives that cost taxpayer money must specify how to pay for the expense caused by the measure. The judge said there is no evidence that the initiative, if enacted, would cost the government to spend any additional money. The state analysis on whether the measure would cost more money is still pending. Helton v Nevada Voters First PAC, 1st judicial district, 21 OC 172.

The case will be appealed to the State Supreme Court. See this story. If the measure were to become law, it would be more difficult for parties to retain their qualified status, because the measure would abolish the lenient vote test (except for president). Thanks to Fairvote for this news.


Comments

Nevada State Trial Court Refuses to Stop Initiative for Top-Five — 8 Comments

  1. John, the evidence shows that it doesn’t work that way. In California and Washington, there has never been a third party candidate for Governor or US Senator who placed higher than sixth in a primary. California has had top-two since 2011 and Washington has had it since 2008.

  2. @RW,

    There is no difference in performance between Partisan Primary and Open Primary. In large states there is little chance for minor parties or independents. There has been some independent-minded partisans in Washington.

    Independents have had some success in Louisiana and quite likely will in Alaska.

    Why would Marc Elias be involved in the Nevada litigation? I hardly think “a voter” is an accurate description.

  3. Elias is the chief lawyer hack of the red commie donkey gerrymander monarchs/oligarchs

    ie a chief ENEMY of real Democracy.

  4. @RW,

    The article clearly states who the plaintiff was. Not a mere “voter”. You might recall that Marc Elias was the lawyer in the Montana Green suppression case. The Montana Supreme Court ruled that he had no special Montana expertise and should not have been granted pro hac vice status by the lower court. What does Elias know about the Nevada Constitution?

    The plaintiff in Texas is a new voter (just turned 18). But for Rodney Ellis, et al, actions she would be able to vote for county commissioner. This is likely a violation of the 26th Amendment.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.