Connect with us

Nevada

NEVADA VIEWS: Lessons from Nevada’s Question 3

Published

on

NEVADA VIEWS: Lessons from Nevada’s Question 3


A majority of Nevada voters rejected Question 3 on the Nov. 5 ballot. This complex amendment would have eliminated party primaries, advanced five candidates to general elections and introduced a new voting method in general elections

I moved to Nevada in 2021 to care for my aging mother. Before that time, I lived in Maine, where I led efforts that opened Maine’s primaries to all voters and protected the nation’s first statewide ranked-choice voting law.

My values and experience inform me that initiatives to change how we elect our leaders should make their way to voters as the result of home-grown and grassroots movements that are thoughtful, collaborative, strategic and patient.

I am dumbfounded that out-of-state donors and advocates would come into Nevada, steamroll stakeholders and potential allies, rush a constitutional amendment to ballot and spend millions to score a quick win for their preferred policy prescription to our political ills.

Advertisement

As a recent Review-Journal editorial noted, the national coalition behind Question 3 pushed similar initiatives in other states in 2024. Voters rejected each of these proposals.

Here are a few of my takeaways from these failed efforts:

■ Mission and strategy must align. Election reform is inherently hopeful and optimistic. Ramming through policy changes and seeking to buy elections are anti-democratic and deeply cynical approaches to politics. Coalitions with antithetical missions and strategies will almost always fail to achieve the real and lasting change that they seek.

■ Patience is practical. Process matters. How change is made can be as important as what change is made, especially when it comes to process reforms. Elections and voting reform initiatives must be organized by local leaders who will build coalitions and recruit volunteers to secure majority support for their cause, one voter and one conversation at a time. The proper role of national groups is not to lead or dictate, but to support.

■ There is no single solution to fix our broken politics. There are 50 states and more than 50 ways of conducting elections and voting in the United States. While policymakers and advocates should learn from one another, we should be skeptical of anyone or any group that promises a silver bullet or pushes a one-size-fits-all solution.

Advertisement

Voters aren’t stupid. We have a sense when politicians and special interests are trying to put one over on us. Question 3 didn’t pass the straight-face test.

That’s too bad because my experience with ranked-choice voting in Maine has taught me that it works to eliminate vote-splitting and ensure majority winners. You have the freedom to vote for the candidate you like best without worrying that your vote will be “wasted” or that you will help to elect the candidate you like least. In both Maine and Alaska, ranked-choice voting has stopped extreme candidates from winning congressional races.

Ranked-choice voting also increases voter turnout, reduces negative campaigning and encourages more women and minorities to run for office.

Surveys from the states and cities in which millions of Americans rank their vote indicate that voters find it to be simple and easy to use and preferable.

One of the most disappointing false attacks on ranked-choice voting is that communities of color might find it difficult to rank candidates. To suggest that white voters are intellectually superior to voters of color is a racist argument.

Advertisement

Nevadans are frustrated with politics as usual. We know that our system isn’t working like it should. We know that billionaires and corporations have too much power and influence over decisions that affect us all. We want to strengthen our democracy for future generations.

Had the national advocates behind Question 3 approached this effort differently, I believe that there might have been a different outcome.

Kyle Bailey moved to Nevada in 2021 and previously served in the Maine House of Representatives.



Source link

Advertisement

Nevada

WPAA: Basketball splits the week; one-on-one with swim & dive head coach Brendon Bray

Published

on

WPAA: Basketball splits the week; one-on-one with swim & dive head coach Brendon Bray


Wolf Pack All Access is Nevada Sports Net’s exclusive 30-minute show covering Nevada athletics, airing from late August through late March. This week’s episode features highlights from Nevada men’s basketball at Utah State and Air Force, a spotlight on swim & dive head coach Brendon Bray, Nevada women’s basketball action at Grand Canyon and against Fresno State, a one-on-one interview with new Nevada soccer head coach Jeremy Evans, and more.

Segment One: Nevada men’s basketball highlights at Utah State and Air Force, plus postgame interviews with head coach Steve Alford.

Segment Two: Feature on swim & dive head coach Brendon Bray, followed by This Week in Wolf Pack History.

Segment Three: Nevada women’s basketball highlights at Grand Canyon and vs. Fresno State, with postgame interviews with Amanda Levens and Olivia Poulivaati, along with updates from Pack skiing, track & field, and tennis.

Advertisement

Segment Four: Five Questions with men’s basketball’s Elijah Price, plus a one-on-one interview with new Nevada soccer head coach Jeremy Evans.

Segment Five: News and notes from Nevada Athletics.

Watch this week’s edition of Wolf Pack All Access below.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Nevada

OPINION: Block of FAIR BET Act brings jeers from fans of gambling tax fairness – The Nevada Independent

Published

on

OPINION: Block of FAIR BET Act brings jeers from fans of gambling tax fairness – The Nevada Independent


The annual Super Bowl bacchanalia approaches, but American gamblers and casinos operators have already witnessed the misplay of the season with the congressional fumble of the commonsense FAIR BET Act.

Officially known as the Fair Accounting for Income Realized from Betting Earnings Taxation, the bill was introduced in July by Rep. Dina Titus (D-NV) in an attempt to reverse a recent federal gambling tax policy change that reduced the amount of losses bettors could deduct from their taxes from 100 percent to 90 percent. Titus has rightly called the policy change a “tax increase on Americans who gamble.”

Titus’ bill amounted to a swift fix of a damaging mistake contained in President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act that threatens to hobble gamblers across the country with an unfair tax on winnings.

FAIR BET quickly picked up 23 co-sponsors and bipartisan support that included Nevada House members Reps. Steven Horsford (D), Susie Lee (D) and Mark Amodei (R). Clearly weighing the politics of the Trump era, the American Gaming Association (AGA) and many influential members of the industry were initially much slower to express strong opinions about the damaging impact the change would have on casino customers.

Advertisement

The vast American gambling community, however, has been lighting up social media for months expressing outrage over the approach of the unfair tax. Under the current provision, gamblers could break even for the year and still owe taxes on their winnings.

Titus pushed through the fall and the AGA and casino CEOs found their voices, but she was surprised as anyone that a bill that impacts so many states was snubbed by Republican-chaired committees. FAIR BET failed to be inserted as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.

In the new year, just about everyone is trying to recover this bouncing political football.

A House version of Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto’s (D-NV) FULL HOUSE Act was introduced this week by Horsford and Ohio Rep. Max Miller (R). Officially the Facilitating Useful Loss Limitations to Help Our Unique Service Economy Act, it’s a mouthful that attempts to correct a law that Horsford says is “fundamentally unfair.” He adds in a statement, “This policy would drive tourism across our state elsewhere.” This bill also enjoys bipartisan support in both houses.

After Cortez Masto’s attempt to reverse the gambling provision failed, she told The Associated Press, “My understanding is many Republicans, many Democrats did not even know it was part of that process.”

Advertisement

With so much support, you’d think it would be game over. But not so fast.

By my count, there are three bills in the House and one in the Senate. All have bipartisan support. Titus’ bill is the simplest and contains just a few words, a veritable fortune cookie by congressional standards, but whatever bill gains steam, it will have to do so under Trump’s cloud of chaos in 2026.

“Everybody wants a piece of it now that it’s very popular, and gaming is on board and wants to fix it,” Titus says. “There are show horses and there are work horses. There are those who do the heavy lifting and those who come for the photo op. And you can figure out who’s who.

“I’ve said all along, I don’t care what vehicle we use, we just need to get it fixed.”

The gambling world is watching. Sports betting and casino industry websites continue to follow developments closely. They recognized the obvious hustle unfolding in Washington is more chaos, and chaos is bad for business. An NBC News story echoed the sentiment under a headline, “Bettors are worried Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ could cause professional gambling in the U.S. to fold.”

Advertisement

Overstated? Perhaps. But what amounts to a 10 percent tax on a break-even bankroll would bury plenty of gamblers — and not just the minnows or the poker players, as some gaming industry numbskull first suggested. It’s bad for them and worse for the state’s largest and most politically influential industry.

There’s still time left on the 2026 congressional clock, but the delay makes the Democrats look like they have a communications problem and the lone Republican like he needs to learn to raise his voice on behalf of his constituents. Say it ain’t so.

Now, about Amodei. He was chided for admitting he didn’t know of the existence of the change in the gambling tax code, but in fairness the amendment wasn’t in the House bill. It came from the Senate side. It was introduced by Idaho Republican Sen. Mike Crapo and was, at best, an ill-conceived attempt to raise revenue tucked inside a behemoth piece of legislation that is projected to cost the country more than $3.4 trillion.

At this point, maybe it’s time to set politics aside and remember the words popularly attributed to Vince Lombardi. When it comes to defeating this stinker of a tax, “Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.”

John L. Smith is an author and longtime columnist. He was born in Henderson and his family’s Nevada roots go back to 1881. His stories have appeared in New Lines, Time, Reader’s Digest, Rolling Stone, The Daily Beast, Reuters and Desert Companion, among others.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Nevada

Polymarket Drawn Into Nevada’s Prediction Market Showdown

Published

on

Polymarket Drawn Into Nevada’s Prediction Market Showdown





Polymarket Drawn Into Nevada’s Prediction Market Showdown






















Advertisement



Advertisement

Advertisement


Advertisement


Advertisement


Advertisement








Source link

Continue Reading

Trending