Another Election Scheme in the Silver State

Here we go again. Nevada Democrats are at it with another plan to change how elections work. This time, they want to let nonpartisan voters pick candidates in Republican and Democratic primaries.

Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, a Las Vegas Democrat, just introduced AB597 with only one week left in the legislative session.

The bill would let Nevada’s 840,000 nonpartisan voters request a ballot for either the Republican or Democratic primary. That’s about 36 percent of all registered voters in the state. Right now, these folks can’t vote in party primaries unless they officially join a party first.

Why This Matters to Conservatives

This isn’t just about voting rules. It’s about who gets to pick Republican candidates.

Think about it this way. You and your neighbors spend years building the local Republican Party. You attend meetings, donate money, and volunteer for campaigns. You know the candidates and the issues that matter to conservatives.

Now imagine thousands of people who never joined your party suddenly showing up to pick your nominee. Some might be genuine conservatives who just never got around to registering Republican. But others could be Democrats or liberals who want to mess with your primary by picking the weakest Republican candidate.

Nevada Republicans already said “NOPE” to this plan. State GOP Chair Michael McDonald shot it down on social media right after Yeager announced it. The Washoe County Republican Party sent emails to members warning that nonpartisans could “game the system” and hurt “genuine party preferences.”

They’re right to worry. Primary elections are supposed to let party members choose their best candidate for the general election. When you open that process to everyone, you water down what the party stands for.

The Bigger Picture

This isn’t Nevada Democrats’ first try at changing election rules. Remember Question 3 from last year? That would have created open primaries for everyone and added ranked-choice voting. Voters rejected it with only 47 percent support.

But here’s the interesting part. Even some Democrats opposed Question 3, including Speaker Yeager himself. Both major parties said ranked-choice voting would confuse voters.

So why is Yeager now pushing a similar plan? Maybe because this version is sneakier. It doesn’t change everything at once like Question 3 did. Instead, it chips away at party control bit by bit.

There’s another lesson here from recent Nevada history. Remember when the legislature tried to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact back in 2019? That scheme would have given Nevada’s electoral votes to whoever won the national popular vote, even if Nevada voters picked someone else.

Democratic Governor Steve Sisolak actually vetoed that bill. He said it “could diminish the role of smaller states like Nevada in national electoral contests and force Nevada’s electors to side with whoever wins the nationwide popular vote, rather than the candidate Nevadans choose.”

Sisolak added:

“In cases like this, where Nevada’s interests could diverge from the interests of large states, I will always stand up for Nevada.”

That was a Democrat governor standing up to his own party because he saw the danger of outside forces controlling Nevada elections.

What Critics Are Saying

“Voters rejected open primaries and ranked choice voting by an overwhelming majority in 2024. The Democrat leader, again, is ignoring the will of Nevadans,” said Megan Barth, former founding editor of The Nevada Globe.

Barth makes a good point. Nevada voters already spoke on this issue. Question 3 failed with only 47 percent support last year. That was a clear rejection of changing how elections work.

The timing also raises eyebrows. Yeager introduced this major election bill on Monday, May 26th – Memorial Day, a federal holiday – with just one week left in the legislative session. It’s hard not to wonder if Democrats are trying to slip this through while people aren’t paying attention.

Progressive groups will argue this is about “voter rights” and “democracy.” They’ll say nonpartisans deserve a voice in picking candidates.

But that misses the point. Nonpartisans already have plenty of choices. They can register with a party if they want to vote in primaries. They can vote in all the general elections. They can even run for office themselves.

What they can’t do is have it both ways. You can’t refuse to join a party but still demand to pick that party’s candidates. It’s like wanting to vote for student body president at a school you don’t attend.