One Man Dedicated to Nonpartisan Election Reform Gets Hearing in Nevada State Senate

One Man Dedicated to Nonpartisan Election Reform Gets Hearing in Nevada State Senate
Published: 17 Apr, 2015
2 min read

1 = 499. This is not a true or false math quiz. It is a statement of fact.

One person not associated with any special interest group, dedicated to the idea of election reform, willing to expend the time and effort to get something done rather than waiting for someone else to act equals Nevada State Senate Bill #499.

Back up to September 2013. Nevada has closed partisan primary elections for county, state, and federal elections. No group working election reform in the state had a legislative plan or agenda. I decided, bottom line, if anything was going to happen in Nevada, I had to do it.

In Nevada, a citizen's ballot initiative, once the petition is approved, can be a three-year process. Once the required signatures are gathered and verified, it must go before the next session of the Legislature. However, the Nevada Legislature meets every two years (on an odd year) for 120 days. Then, the initiative must go before voters in the next election (on an even year).

In May 2014, I outlined the concept I was presenting to Nevada lawmakers, the Nevada Election Modernization and Reform Act (NEMRA), in an article on IVN titled, New Type of Nonpartisan Election Reform Proposed in Nevada. I began posting voter turnout and registration figures along with other studies and information on a blog and on Twitter. I continued meeting with legislators and interest groups.

Fast forward to February 2, 2015. The 2015 session of the Nevada Legislature convenes. I am now a registered lobbyist. Over twelve hundred Bill Draft Requests (BDR) were submitted by legislators, committees, state constitutional officers, and agencies authorized to submit BDRs. Of those, 1,045 were introduced as bills or resolutions. Of course, most of these will not become law.

On February 16, 2015, the final day for BDR submissions, the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee filed a BDR for NEMRA. On March 23, 2015, the deadline for BDR’s to be introduced as bills, a modified version of NEMRA, SB #499, was introduced and referred to committee for a hearing. The bill had a hearing on April 1, 2015. Political reality set in, and on April 8, 2015, SB #499 was amended for another purpose.

Was this an unhappy ending? Not even close. For a private citizen with virtually no connections to have a radical proposal considered, filed, introduced, and receive a hearing is highly unusual. For this to happen on the first try is even rarer.

I wear glasses. I often pointed out to legislators that they were not rose-colored.

IVP Donate

The current session of the Legislature ends on June 1, 2015. By then, I will have already started planning the future of NEMRA before the 2017 session -- hopefully with an even better ending. One person can make a difference; 1 does equal 499.

Photo Credit: Niyazz / shutterstock.com

You Might Also Like

New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
Using verified California voter file data, IVP surveyed high-propensity voters from February 13 through 20. The poll tested first-choice ballot preferences alongside issue intensity on affordability and the cost of living, immigration enforcement, more choice reform, and more....
23 Feb, 2026
-
10 min read
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
Polls consistently show that nearly all Americans across the political spectrum agree that there is too much money in politics – whether from foreign sources, corporations, or so-called “dark money” groups. ...
23 Feb, 2026
-
13 min read
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
The overlap between committee assignments and stock ownership is not automatically illegal. Because the current legal framework permits this proximity as long as disclosure rules are followed, lawmakers are not operating under a system that forces change....
20 Feb, 2026
-
4 min read