A coalition of community groups calling itself "Let Nevada Vote" is speaking out against a proposed ballot initiative that would require the state to adopt ranked-choice voting.

Backers of the so-called "Nevada Voters First" initiative say it's intended to give independent voters a greater voice and produce election winners with the broadest support.

But Emily Persaud-Zamora, executive director of Silver State Voices, said she thinks ranked-choice voting would only trip voters up - and result in more invalid ballots.

"Ranked-choice voting makes casting a ballot more time consuming," said Persaud-Zamora, "more complicated and more confusing for voters."

With ranked-choice voting, people rank multiple candidates by preference. If anyone gets more than 50%, they win.

If not, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated.

And each voter who had ranked the now-eliminated candidate as their first choice has their single vote transferred to the candidate who was their next-highest choice.

Eric Jeng, director of outreach for the Asian Community Development Council, noted that New York City and San Francisco have tried ranked-choice voting - with mixed results.

"Even with these big cities devoting tremendous resources and research into how best to educate their voters," said Jeng, "we still see a very hard, steep learning curve for them."

And Ruben Murillo, former president of the Nevada State Education Association, said he thinks ranked-choice voting should not be enshrined in the state constitution.

"I'm opposed to this," said Murillo, "because I don't like putting something into the constitution that you can't change easily."

The initiative would also abolish partisan primaries and move to an open primary in which the top five candidates advance, regardless of party affiliation.

The initiative must get enough signatures to qualify for the ballot by June 21.

The coalition is also informing people about how to withdraw a signature from the petition, on the website - 'protectyourvotenv.com.'

Next month, newly elected candidates for many levels of government will be sworn in.

In North Dakota, civic engagement leaders hope there is a willingness to hear from the public and bolster voter turnout in future elections. Data from the Secretary of State show North Dakota had a voter turnout of 62% for the 2024 election, which is on par with 2020 but not as consistent with higher totals seen in the 1980s and '90s

Barbara Headrick, president of the League of Women Voters of North Dakota, said she is disappointed neighboring states such as Minnesota outperform in turnout. She feels North Dakota has suffered too much from races not being competitive enough.

"When there's not a contest to get people excited about, it's more likely that people will stay away," Headrick pointed out.

Republicans in North Dakota have maintained control over the Legislature and statewide offices. Headrick noted the League, which is nonpartisan, wants all parties to energize voters but she urged Democrats to broaden their appeal with the idea of creating more interest come election time. She also called on those in power to govern in a way to keep the entire electorate engaged and not just a party's base.

Headrick warned when voters become used to choosing one party to control an entire state, it eventually creates a recipe for bad governing overall.

"No matter how much the people who run for office are sincerely wanting to do what they think is best, all they're hearing is their own voices," Headrick contended.

Headrick argued a one-party scenario does not lead to meaningful policy debate, while also opening the door to issues such as corruption. Political experts said candidates often take their cues from voters but Headrick feels there are many people who do not want divisiveness and prefer compromise. She urged those individuals to speak up at public hearings and take advantage of other options to be engaged.


get more stories like this via email

A nonprofit leader from Missouri joined a national panel to tackle what they described as escalating threats to ballot measures and to develop strategies for their protection.

The panel, hosted by Ethnic Media Services, discussed how ballot measures, such as Missouri's 2020 Medicaid expansion, are crucial for health equity.

Richard Von Glahn, organizing director for Missouri Jobs With Justice, highlighted such measures as essential checks on the state Legislature.

"There have been years where ballot initiatives have not been very common and then there have been years where ballot initiatives have been very common," Von Glahn recounted. "I think that reflects on whether the Legislature is meeting the needs of our community."

Missouri allows citizens to propose ballot measures, including laws and constitutional changes, by gathering signatures. Voting on ballot measures in the Show-Me State has been in place since 1907, following Progressive Era reforms.

In the Nov. 5 Missouri election, Proposition A passed, affecting workers' rights. The measure will raise Missouri's minimum wage to $15 per hour by January 2026 and mandate paid sick leave for workers.

Von Glahn stressed the ballot measure will have a significant effect on the state's workers, particularly the paid leave provision, because one in three Missourians did not have paid time off.

"If you are already living check to check, the idea of taking an unpaid day in order to care for your health or your loved one's health, is an impossible choice," Von Glahn contended. "It means not being able to afford your groceries or an electric bill."

In recent years, Missouri has seen more ballot measures on health care, workers' rights and electoral reforms.


get more stories like this via email

It's no secret President-elect Donald Trump wants to fire thousands of federal workers.

But in a state like Maryland - home to the fourth-highest number of federal employees - they and their union are readying for a fight to protect their jobs.

Trump has said he wants to revive what's known as Schedule F - a policy that can strip civil servants of their protections and make them at-will employees, meaning they can be fired without cause.

Ottis Johnson, vice president of the American Federation of Government Employees District 14, said any drastic cuts to the federal workforce wouldn't just hurt union members.

He said Americans will feel the impact to services like Social Security and veterans' healthcare.

"You can't run the United States government the same way that you run Twitter," said Johnson. "We represent over 800,000 federal workers, and we can't remove 80% and still expect to be able to serve the American people with the same proficiency and knowledge that they have right now."

Trump has also picked billionaire Elon Musk and tech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy to co-lead an informal effort to restructure the federal government.

The pair floated the idea of "large-scale firings" in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.

In 2020, Trump signed an executive order for Schedule F a few months before the end of his presidency. President Joe Biden then revoked it in his first month in office.

Johnson said the AFGE has reached out to the incoming administration to discuss the important work federal employees do, and has a legal team prepared to challenge firings.

He said a major reduction in the federal workforce would hurt efficiency.

"It will be affecting the American people as well," said Johnson. "How can you get your benefits when you don't have the people there that have been doing the work for all these years? And now you're down to a skeleton crew, which will not be able to put out the type of work that we have now with the workforce that is going forward."

More than 2 million people work for the federal government, and Maryland is home to more than 140,000 of those workers.