A proposal to change the way Nevada votes is one step closer to getting on the November ballot after the State Supreme Court rejected a legal challenge.

The "Better Voting Nevada" campaign wants to end closed, partisan primaries where you can only vote for your registered party, and move to an open primary.

Sondra Cosgrove, professor of history at the College of Southern Nevada and a supporter of the "Better Voting Nevada" campaign, would like to change the state constitution to expand the number of candidates who move to the general election, to give more independent candidates a shot.

"We want to have more options," Cosgrove explained. "We don't want just two people moving forward from the primary to the general election. We want five people, because oftentimes when you look at the people who move forward, it's just the people with the most money."

The proposal would also institute ranked-choice voting in the general election. People would rank the candidates in order of preference, and if no one gets 51%, the lowest vote-getter falls off. Then, the second choice of their voters gets added to the total, and so on until someone has a majority.

The ballot measure is opposed by many of the state's top Democrats and by Silver State Voices, on the grounds it would be too confusing for voters.

Cosgrove argued the open-primary system would give candidates incentive to appeal to the widest range of voters, instead of producing far-right or far-left candidates who appeal to the extremes of their base.

"We're hoping ... the candidates will do the more moderate platform in the primary, and then just continue with that moderate platform as they move forward," Cosgrove emphasized.

The campaign turned in the last batch of signatures this week. Because the proposal would amend the state constitution, it would have to be approved by voters in two successive elections.

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

Voting-rights advocates are suing the state of Arizona over new regulations they say make it harder for some people to register and would block thousands of voters from the polls.

The lawsuit targets a pair of "election security" bills passed this year by the Republican-controlled Legislature, calling them an attempt to disenfranchise thousands of otherwise eligible voters.

Courtney Hostetler, an attorney with Free Speech for People, sees them as a deliberate attempt to exclude newly naturalized citizens, communities of color, Native Americans and others.

"These laws are working to suppress the vote," she said, "by basically taking lawfully registered voters off the voting rolls and making it difficult for them to either get back on, or to get on in the first place."

The suit initially was filed by the Campaign Legal Center, but Free Speech for People and Arizona tribes and other groups have signed on.

GOP lawmakers claim the new restrictions will prevent "widespread fraud" they believe was part of the 2020 elections, although there is no credible evidence to support their assertion.

Hostetler said she believes one of the most onerous elements of the bills is the inclusion of criminal penalties for even minor infractions of an election law. She said it's designed to intimidate potential voters.

"I think what we're seeing, unfortunately," she said, "is this concept of fraud is becoming the boogeyman that Republicans in particular are pointing to, in order to wave away what, I think, is really at issue here, which is voter suppression."

The lawsuit alleges that the Arizona measures violate the National Voter Registration Act and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Hostetler said some GOP proponents have talked openly about the purpose of the bills.

"One of the legislators said, and I'm paraphrasing, 'We have to worry about the quality of who's voting, not the quantity.' And that's really alarming when you see who these laws target," she said, "that they do have this idea that some people deserve to vote more than others."

The suit asks that a federal judge issue injunctions to prevent House Bills 2243 and 2492 from being enforced.


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

Minnesota's primary vote is less than a week away, and a pro-democracy group reported it is one of several states with a number of "election deniers" on the ballot. States United Action contended the nationwide trend poses a threat to future elections.

The group's "Replacing the Refs" summary said as of midsummer, 60% of Secretary of State contests around the U.S. include an election denier, described as candidates who promote conspiracy theories and false information about voter fraud and rigged outcomes. More than a third are in governor and attorney general races.

Lizzie Ulmer, senior vice president of communications and strategic partnerships at States United, said the offices play a role in securing fair elections.

"I think it's really important for people to take away that a single election denier in a single state really has the potential to throw our elections into chaos and put our democracy at risk," Ulmer asserted.

Her group's report said there are five candidates for statewide office in Minnesota who have the "deniers" tag, including Republican Kim Crockett, who is running for Secretary of State. Crockett argued the concerns raised about her perspectives are designed to silence candidates who want to make it harder for a voter to commit fraud.

But Ulmer countered voters should not lose sight of what's being promoted by those who align themselves with misinformation about election policy and access. While such candidates often fall on the conservative side, she said it should not be viewed as a partisan issue.

"As Americans, we can all agree on free and fair elections, regardless of our party or our beliefs or the issues we care about most," Ulmer stressed. "This is really fundamental to our American democracy."

The report added the candidate trend coincides with recent policy action. As of May, legislatures in more than 30 states were considering 229 bills to politicize, pose criminal sanctions, or interfere with elections. Fifty such bills have been enacted or adopted since the beginning of 2021.

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

CLARIFICATION: Information has been added to clarify the significance of the '170,000 voters' figure in a quotation. (9:40 a.m. MDT, Aug, 4, 2022)

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled this week to affirm expanded mail-in voting in the state is constitutional.

The ruling is seen as a setback to the 14 Republican lawmakers who opposed expanding mail-in voting two years ago, and then challenged the expansion in court. Now, Pennsylvania voters can request and use an absentee ballot for any reason, and the law will be in place for this November's midterm election.

Meg Pierce, executive director of the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania, said mail-in ballots are important to ensure elections are accessible to everyone.

"Voting by mail is convenient and secure, and has resulted in an incredible boost in voter turnout in Pennsylvania's recent election," Pierce pointed out. "About 170,000 registered voters voted in Pennsylvania elections when they were allowed to vote by mail."

Pierce explains those 170,000 voters are folks who voted by mail in 2020, but did not vote at all between 2016 and 2020.

She added the midterm ballot is a critical one, with races for governor, U.S. Senate and House seats, state legislative seats, as well as Democratic and Republican Party committee members.

A Pennsylvanian must be a registered voter to request the mail-in ballot. The deadline to register is Oct. 24. The ballot must be completed and mailed to the local county election office by 8 p.m. on Election Day, Nov. 8.

Pierce emphasized the League recommends voters visit the website Vote411.org to study the ballot before they head to the polls or mail in their ballot.

"You put in your address, and it will autopopulate what your ballot will look like, depending on where you live," Pierce explained. "I encourage everyone who plans to vote to research their candidates and find out what's going to be on the ballot, well ahead of Election Day."

Gov. Tom Wolf addressed the Supreme Court decision, saying it "definitively asserts that voting by mail is a constitutionally valid method of voting," which will allow voters "to cast ballots without disruption or confusion."