Just like the title says, this post is about the three statewide ballot initiatives up for a vote this election. I’ve weighed in on individual initiatives in past elections, but I’ve decided to tackle all three this cycle because, well, there are only three, and they all matter. A full account of the ballot initiatives, arguments for and against, and actual legislative language is at the Nevada Secretary of State site linked above. All of my information on these initiatives comes from the state site unless otherwise cited.
Before I get going, my general philosophy on ballot initiatives: I lean NO by because they always involve modifying the state constitution and require multiple rounds of voting to be enacted – and modified when the sudden but inevitable “unforeseen consequences” occur. That said, I try to consider each on the merits.
First up, State Question no. 1:
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended by adding a specific guarantee that equality of rights
under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this State or any of its cities, counties, or other
political subdivisions on account of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or
expression, age, disability, ancestry, or national origin?
Nice, easy opener. My main argument against passage is that by defining protected groups, any groups not explicitly included are excluded from protection. Yet, that list is pretty darn inclusive and includes key protections for sexual orientation and gender identity, which lack protection in many jurisdictions. With that in mind and when I consider that the argument against basically boils down to “how will we discriminate if you protect all these groups,” this is a YES vote all the way. I’m confident bigots will find a way to be themselves.
Next, State Question no. 2:
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended, effective July 1, 2024, to: (1) establish the State’s
minimum wage that employers must pay to certain employees at a rate of $12 per hour worked,
subject to any applicable increases above that $12 rate provided by federal law or enacted by the
Nevada Legislature; (2) remove the existing provisions setting different rates for the minimum
wage based on whether the employer offers certain health benefits to such employees; and
(3) remove the existing provisions for adjusting the minimum wage based on applicable increases in the cost of living?
I learned something new preparing this post: Nevada has a two-tier minimum wage system. Basically, employers who offer some health benefits to their employees can pay $1 / hour less than the minimum wage. As I am confident employers have been loopholing this provision for as long as it existed – and it predates the ACA – I am not persuaded that removing this provision removes an incentive for employers to offer health benefits to their employees. I’m okay with seeing it removed.
Likewise, I’m okay with setting the minimum wage at $12 because this provision does something to fix my #1 problem with constitutional amendments – it gives the legislature the authority to make future changes to the minimum wage. No, $12 an hour isn’t enough. It’s not a living wage. Even before rents skyrocketed the last couple of years, it wasn’t enough to pay for a decent apartment. But it’s better than it was and it makes it easier to improve the minimum wage in the future.
The tricky part of this question is part three – removing the automatic cost of living adjustments (COLA) from the minimum wage. On the surface, this seems like a terrible thing – the whole point of an automated COLA is to make the wage keep up with inflation. However, the current law caps that at 3% annually, based on CPI. I talked about this in my post on inflation. CPI is a lagging measure. Not to mention, the measure doesn’t capture volatile expenses like gas and energy. And, finally, in periods of high inflation, like now, the 3% cap means that COLA can’t keep up.
In the end, I think the benefits – a higher baseline wage, removing the two-tier wage system, and giving the legislature the power to increase the minimum wage without further amendments – outweigh the potential downside of losing the automatic, inefficient COLA. So, YES of question 2.
Finally, State Question no. 3:
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow all Nevada voters the right to participate in
open primary elections to choose candidates for the general election in which all voters may then rank the remaining candidates by preference for the offices of U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Controller, Attorney General, and State Legislators?
Well, at least the first couple of questions were a warmup. This is round one of this question [Nevada requires constitutional amendments like this pass twice in consecutive elections before they become law.] and one I’m divided on. I’ve been paying attention over the years to ranked-choice voting initiatives and open primaries like this amendment proposes. When the Nevada Democratic primary in 2020 allowed ranked choice voting, I found it easy to do and fairly intuitive. I also found it required me to think more about who I preferred and why, requiring me to dig more into candidates and their policies to help me make those choices. I do wonder, though, how easy others will adapt – ranked-choice voting hasn’t been as easy in practice as its supporters say, nor are the results quick enough to satisfy a 24-hour news cycle. And I do worry that the delay in reporting final results will spur Nevada’s homegrown MAGA contingent. What I don’t worry about is the argument that ranked-choice voting will lead to disenfranchisement. If someone votes, their vote will be counted. If they choose not to rank their choices and their preferred candidate doesn’t win, that doesn’t mean that they were disenfranchised, nor does it mean others got to vote multiple times. It means they left a section of the ballot blank.
On the other hand, the open primary proposal has me deeply concerned. I do not like the outcomes I’ve seen in the jurisdictions which opt for this system. It seems to lead to otherwise good candidates being excluded from the general (independent and third-party candidates), a lack of choices as the primary leads to multiple contenders from the same party (all-Democratic or all-Republican candidates), and little change to voter participation. I am not persuaded by the argument that closed primaries disenfranchise independent and third-party voters (the term “purity dildo” may or may not have been used in relation to this), though I am absolutely willing to concede that closed party primaries should not run by the state and local election authorities without compensation from the parties.
In the end, I’m voting NO on this question. I would love ranked choice voting, even at the loss of y beloved “None of the Above” option, and if this was separated from the open primary proposal, I would likely vote in favor of it. But the changes to the primary system bring little benefit to Nevada voters, which makes me wonder who – and why – is funding the pro-argument; it has out-raised the against by over 12 to 1.
Despite my preference for not modifying the constitution, I’m planning to vote in favor of two of the three proposals:
State Question no. 1: YES
State Question no. 2: YES
State Question no. 3: NO
Happy voting!
Battle Born Econ 