Opinion: Shutting out voters?

As the June primary election nears, a change in Nevada law approved during the 2015 Legislature has critics crying foul and complaining that voters will be disenfranchised.

Senate Bill 499, which faced no opposition in the upper house and passed the Assembly 27-15, affects races in which one of the two major political parties fails to field a candidate. Under previous law, if only two contenders from the same party filed for an office, they would skip the primary and face off in the general election. If there were three or more hopefuls, the top two in the primary would move on to November. But under SB499, if a race features only Democrats or Republicans, the primary winner goes on to the general to face no opposition or a third-party long shot.

Thus, independents and voters registered as members of the party that failed to run a candidate in a particular district might have no say in selecting their representative. In the upcoming primary, four legislative seats in districts covering 80,000 voters attracted candidates from only one party.

“So, once again, we have the two political parties … deciding who we get to vote for and how we will do it,” said Sandra Cosgrove, president of the League of Women Voters of Las Vegas Valley and an opponent of the change.

Her concerns are understandable and well-intentioned. Encouraging civic participation is a worthwhile goal. But who would Ms. Cosgrove and other opponents of the bill have select the candidates if not party officials or party voters?

SB499 started out as an attempt to implement open primaries in which any voter could vote for any contender regardless of party affiliation. That crashed and burned – and for good reason. Political parties are private entities and have a First Amendment right to select their own nominees. Why should registered Democrats be involved in choosing the GOP candidate in a particular race or vice versa?

Voters who complain they’re being shut out of the process by the new rules – whether they’re independents, Democrats or Republicans – have the option of changing their registration to allow them to participate in either party’s primary, if they choose.

But critics also miss the larger point.

In many cases, Democrats or Republicans decline to offer a candidate in a specific district because they face a large registration deficit and would rather not invest precious resources in a race they will almost certainly lose. Gerrymandered districts only increase the likelihood that voters will have limited choices.

To encourage both major parties to field legislative candidates across the board, stop drawing district boundaries to guarantee a predictable outcome. Not only would both Democrats and Republicans have an incentive to field qualified candidates, voters of all affiliations would be more likely to get out and cast a ballot.