EDITORIAL: New primary election law tips scale toward incumbents
The notion that a “winner-take-all” primary election for nonpartisan political offices in Nevada is little more than an incumbent-protection scheme is hard to shake.
After all, there's evidence it was proposed and passed by the 2015 Legislature for that very reason.
By way of explanation, the law until this year said the two top vote-getters in a primary election of three or more candidates advance to the general election, regardless of how many votes they each received. (This applies to nonpartisan offices such as District Court judges, higher education regents, members of the state Board of Education, school board trustees and county officers such as sheriff.)
It’s entirely possible that even an overwhelming favorite — a person who collected 80 or 90 percent of the vote — would still have to face off again in a general election with a person who collected just 10 percent.
But now, if a candidate for one of those offices manages to win more than 50 percent of the vote in the primary, he or she is elected automatically. (In order to comport with the constitution, judicial candidates who win a majority of the vote in the primary will still appear on the November ballot, as if they’d run unopposed. A single vote will be sufficient to elect them.)
State Sen. James Settelmeyer, R-Minden, proposed the changes, with the strong support of one of his constituents: Douglas County Sheriff Ron Pierini. The longtime sheriff faced competition from two challengers in 2014, forcing him to compete in both primary and general elections. He won both handily with 69 percent of the vote.
But Sheriff Pierini did not appreciate those extra months of campaigning: “When you win in the primary with 70 percent of the votes and still have another five months to campaign, it is challenging,” Mr. Pierini told the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee in February 2015. “It is hard on your family, it is hard on your job, and in my situation as sheriff, I have a lot of responsibility.”
That’s undoubtedly true. But those responsibilities include the political side of the job, regardless of their inconvenience.
There were virtually no voices of dissent, save for Assemblyman James Ohrenschall, who noted correctly that winner-take-all primaries will advantage incumbents and well-known names over challengers, and the relatively small primary election turnout will allow candidates to win with fewer voters than they’d otherwise be required to muster. Voters who skip the primary will be denied a chance to make a choice in nonpartisan races.
That’s unfortunate: This significant change in election policy deserved much more attention than it got. And that’s not good for democracy. The convenience of elected officials — and the marginal costs of a longer general election ballot — don’t justify handing out primary victories to savvy, well-known campaigners. Nevada should undo this rule in the 2017 Legislature.
