CARSON CITY, Nev. - The State Assembly passed a bill on Tuesday that would make Nevada the 16th state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The proposal would require the state to pledge all six of its Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins a majority of the national popular vote.

If enough states sign on, said Barry Fadem, president of the nonprofit National Popular Vote, it could go into effect for the 2024 presidential election.

"Two-hundred-seventy electoral votes worth of states, that's the number you need to be elected president," Fadem said. "When enough states do that, yes, those states will award their electoral votes to whoever wins the most votes in all 50 states."

New Mexico recently joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and the Oregon Senate just approved joining. If it becomes law in Nevada and Oregon, the compact would have 202 pledged delegates, 70 percent of what is needed for the popular vote to swing the Electoral College and, thus, the election.

Opponents have said the change would dilute the power of the eight to 10 "swing states" that currently have the most weight in determining the outcomes of national elections. However, Fadem said, it would give voters in every state their fair say.

"It makes every vote in every state cast for president count," he said. "So, it doesn't really diminish any states at all; it allows every state to participate in the presidential election."

Twice in the past 20 years, Republicans have won the U.S. presidency with a majority in the Electoral College after winning slim majorities in battleground states, despite losing the popular vote for their candidates - namely, George W. Bush and Donald Trump.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has not passed in a single so-called "red" state.

The text of Assembly Bill 186 in Nevada is online at leg.state.nv.us, and more information on the Compact is at nationalpopularvote.com.


get more stories like this via email

States are required to conduct regular voter list maintenance to ensure the rolls are accurate. But a new Michigan State University study suggests the state's process may disproportionately target underrepresented and lower-income communities.

Purging voter rolls typically means removing inactive voters, or those who have died or relocated.

The MSU analysis of over 175,000 voters removed between 2014 and 2018 found higher purge rates in cities, and among Black voters and registered Democrats.

Assistant Professor in MSU's School of Criminal Justice Thomas Wojciechowski said during that time period, Michigan had a Republican majority in its Legislature.

"We found that having a greater proportion of Black residents in certain communities was associated with greater rates of over-purge," said Wojciechowski. "So, there was a statistical relationship right there that says, 'OK, there's a racial disparity in voter purging going on.'"

The researchers agree that the purging practice is necessary but could lend itself to voter disenfranchisement, especially among inactive voters.

The study was prompted by the group Michigan Faith in Action.

Areas included in the purge had a 17% Black population, average annual incomes of just under $50,000, and about half the population listed as Democrats.

Wojciechowski said despite accounting for legitimate reasons for higher purge rates in these areas, they still found racial disparities.

"We can't go in and actually impugn intent or anything," said Wojciechowski, "but certainly there is incentive to disproportionately marginalize the voting power of these communities."

Although the purge in question took place between 2014 and 2018, the team says its findings are still relevant.

Study coauthor, MSU Associate Professor of Public Health and Family Medicine Richard Sadler, said not many other states have analyzed voter purging in this way. He said he hopes that will change.

"To the extent we can get this data in other states, and other research teams can start replicating this," said Sadler, "we may be able to show the importance of voter registration and retention policies that keep people on rolls."

If you're planning to vote in person this election, Sadler said you can check your registration status online at the Michigan Voter Information Center - mvic.sos.state.mi.us - before showing up at the polls.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Voting-rights groups in New Hampshire have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state's new election law, which requires proof of citizenship for first-time voters.

It also does away with the affidavit system, which allows people without photo ID to sign a legal document swearing to their voter eligibility.

Henry Klementowicz, deputy legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire, says thousands of voters could be impacted.

"Voter fraud is vanishingly rare in New Hampshire, citizenship fraud even more so," said Klementowicz. "What is to be gained by just fencing all these people out of our elections?"

State Republicans claim the law is needed to not only prevent fraud, but boost public confidence in the election system.

Democrats say it creates needless barriers for people who can't access the required legal documents.

The law will take effect November 11 and will not impact the upcoming election on November 5.

Critics of the new law say changes to the state's voter challenge process also create opportunities for abuse.

Under current law, if a voter's eligibility is questioned at the polls, the election moderator on site can resolve the dispute - allowing that person to cast a ballot and sign an affidavit to attest to his or her identity.

Klementowicz said with affidavits now gone, challenged voters must head to court.

"There's a theoretical right of appeal to the Superior Court," said Klementowicz. "It costs over $200. They're not open as late as the polls are on Election Day. It can take hours if you're lucky."

Klementowicz called the law unconstitutional as well as one of the most restrictive in the country. A similar bill in Kansas requiring proof of citizenship to vote was struck down by a federal judge in 2018.

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

With a month to go before the presidential election, voters in swing states such as Wisconsin are likely to hear more messaging about the outcome shaping the future of the nation's highest court.

In a recent Ipsos poll, four in five Americans said nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court will be an important factor when casting their ballot.

The court and its conservative majority have come under scrutiny over decisions regarding abortion protections and presidential immunity, as well as ethics issues.

Joe Hines - managing director of digital campaigns with the left-leaning advocacy group Stand Up America - said with four of the nine justices soon turning 70, another Trump presidency could push the court even further right.

"We are trying to make it clear to voters that when you're voting this year, you're not just voting for a president, you're not just voting for Congress," said Hines. "You're also voting for generations of decisions that will impact you, your family, your children, your grandchildren's fundamental rights."

As for public polling, a majority of Americans back the idea of Supreme Court term limits, but only a small percentage of Republican voters support expanding the court to 15 justices.

Most Democrats embrace that possible reform. Some GOP lawmakers have argued certain changes would be unconstitutional.

But advocates such as Hines contend there's a huge conflict of interest with the court right now.

"They'll continue to hear a lot of cases around voting rights - including, probably, cases around this very election, cases around the president's power," said Hines. "So, they'll be hearing a lot of cases that concern the people that are appointing them."

He noted that a handful of justices taking up these issues, especially matters directly involving former President Donald Trump, were appointed during Trump's term in office.

In the same Ipsos poll, more Americans said they think the court decides cases on the basis of political views than the law.