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.