The problem with ‘none of these candidates’
To the editor:
A complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief was filed in federal court by 11 Nevada citizens seeking the removal of "none of these candidates" as a choice for voters for Nevada's statewide election contests. We believe that the law which declares that all votes for "none" must be given no force or effect violates the Constitution and federal laws.
The same Nevada statute that requires "none" to be included on the ballot also directs election officials to completely disregard any such votes in determining the outcome of the election. Even if a plurality or majority of the votes is for "none," that result must be ignored, and a losing candidate - the one with the next highest vote total - must be declared as the winner (rather than declaring a vacancy or conducting a new election).
I would have no problem with this ballot choice if those who make that choice were not disenfranchised by the legal mandate that such votes are effectively null and void. As it is, if you vote for "none of these candidates," it is really not much different than voting for "all of the above" because one of the above is going to be elected without your vote being counted in the decision.
We believe that this statutory scheme, which appears to be designed to dilute the anti-incumbent vote, violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution, as well as the federal Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Act. It could be remedied by legislation which gives meaning to a vote for "none of these candidates" by either declaring the office vacant or requiring another vote if "none" gets the most votes.
There is no "none of these candidates" choice for county or city offices, and no other state has this choice for any of their elections. We do our best as voters to make an informed decision and cast our votes for one of the candidates, even if it sometimes is for the lesser of two evils, because, like it or not, one of these people will be declared the winner when the votes are counted. If I truly cannot make a decision, or I think all of the candidates will be a disaster, I can simply withhold my vote.
However, unless and until we are given a meaningful and constitutional "none of these candidates" ballot choice by requiring a new election, or declaring the office to be vacant and filled by appointment, we cannot let ourselves believe we have done anything of significance when we check the "none" box, knowing it will not be counted in any real way.
Bruce Woodbury
Las Vegas
The writer, a former Clark County commissioner, is one of the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit seeking to remove the "none of these candidates" option from the Nevada ballot.
Mayor Hypocrite
To the editor:
Is there a greater hypocrite than New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg? He wants to limit the size of the soda you are allowed to consume because too much soda is bad for you. Yet on Independence Day the good mayor was host of the annual Nathan's Hot Dog Eating Contest.
So let me see if I have this straight. Drinking a few extra ounces of soda is going to ruin your health. But eating 68 Nathan's wieners (wrapped in 68 white bread buns) in a 10-minute span is a good thing, worthy of promotion by the mayor of the largest city in the United States.
It's a good thing he knows what's best for us.
Richard Wassmuth
Las Vegas
Sex abuse
To the editor:
In response to your Friday story, "Nevada bill would address Sandusky-type sex crimes":
Assemblyman Pete Livermore's proposed legislation, which would lessen the legal consequences for 'mandatory reporters' who fail to disclose the sexual abuse of children, is misguided at best and downright irresponsible at worst.
If we've learned anything from watching the horrific tragedy at Penn State unfold, it's that cases of child sexual abuse almost always involve co-conspirators - those who suspect abuse and choose to look the other way. We have a duty to end the conspiracy of silence that allows abuse to continue in our schools and elsewhere.
The fact is predators do not stop until they're stopped. Any bill that protects institutions or individuals who hide sexual abuse will put countless more children in harm's way. Studies show us that the typical pedophile makes his or her way through three different school employment settings before being reported and punished. The most recent research tells us 4.5 million children are affected by educator sexual misconduct between kindergarten and 12th grade.
Sadly, what happened at Penn State occurs every day in schools across the nation. These cases cannot merely serve as a cautionary tale; they must be the impetus for reform. Nevada should seek to strengthen abuse-reporting laws to ensure perpetrators cannot quietly prey on our kids. Legislation that does otherwise is a dangerous step in the wrong direction.
Terri Miller
Las Vegas
The writer is president of Stop Educator Sexual Abuse, Misconduct and Exploitation Inc.
Ethics review
To the editor:
Regarding Steve Sebelius' Tuesday column on the pending ethics investigation against Rep. Shelley Berkley ("The second-best news for Shelley Berkley?"):
Mr. Sebelius seems to think that what Rep. Berkley did was sleazy and tawdry, perhaps showing a lack of character and poor judgment, but it wasn't downright unethical or dishonest.
Well, Rep. Berkley may not deserve to be kicked out of the House, but she sure doesn't deserve to be promoted to the Senate.
Lynn Muzzy
Minden
