Nevada Question 3, Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2024)

Nevada Question 3
Election date November 5, 2024
Topic Electoral systems
Status d Defeated
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

Nevada Question 3, the Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative, was on the ballot in Nevada as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 5, 2024. The ballot measure was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported establishing open top-five primaries and ranked-choice voting for general elections, which would apply to congressional, gubernatorial, state executive official, and state legislative elections.

A "no" vote opposed establishing open top-five primaries and ranked-choice voting for general elections, which would apply to congressional, gubernatorial, state executive official, and state legislative elections.

Election results

In Nevada, initiated constitutional amendments need to be approved at two successive general elections. In 2022, the ballot initiative was approved. Therefore, Question 3 needed to be approved for a second time on November 5, 2024. However, voters rejected Question 3 in 2024, meaning the ballot initiative was defeated.

2024

See also: Results for ranked-choice voting (RCV) and electoral system ballot measures, 2024

Nevada Question 3
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		664,011	47.04%
No		747,719	52.96%

Results are officially certified.

Source

2022

Nevada Question 3
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		524,868	52.94%
No		466,635	47.06%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

How would the initiative have changed elections in Nevada?

The initiative would have established open top-five primaries and ranked-choice voting for general elections. Under the measure, candidates would have run in a single primary election, regardless of a candidate's party affiliation. The five candidates receiving the most votes would have advanced to the general election.

At the general election, voters would have elected state and federal candidates using ranked-choice voting. For state executive, state legislative, and congressional elections, voters would have ranked the five candidates who advanced from their top-five primaries. A candidate would have needed a simple majority of the vote (50%+1) to be declared the winner of an election. If no candidate won a simple majority of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes would have been eliminated, and votes from that candidate's supporters would have been redistributed to their next choice. The tabulation process would have continued in rounds until a candidate received a majority of the vote and was declared the winner.

What were the arguments for and against the initiative?

The initiative was supported by Represent.US, Institute for Political Innovation, and Vote Nevada. In support of this initiative for the 2022 ballot, Sondra Cosgrove, professor of history at the College of Southern Nevada, said that voters should have more options. “We want to have more options. 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,” she said.

The official argument for the initiative in 2022, which was found in the Statewide Ballot Questions 2022 Pamphlet Guide, said, "By creating an open primary, Question 3 allows all voters a voice in all those who appear on the general election ballot regardless of party affiliation. In addition to giving Nevadans more voice, Question 3 will also give voters more choice by establishing a Ranked-Choice general election system. Ranked-Choice is a simple change to our general elections that allows voters the opportunity to rank up to five candidates who best represent their positions, rather than having to choose between the 'lesser of two evils' ... This simple change encourages candidates to focus on issues that matter to the majority rather than the partisan bases of the parties."

Organizations opposing the initiative include the Nevada State AFL-CIO and Americans for Tax Reform. In opposition to this initiative, Emily Persaud-Zamora, executive director of Silver State Voices, said that ranked-choice voting could be confusing and make the voting process more complicated. She said, "Ranked choice voting makes casting a ballot more time consuming, more complicated and more confusing for voters ... It will inevitably lead to increased errors. Ranked choice vote ballots are significantly more likely to be thrown out and uncounted because of those voters’ mistakes, ultimately disenfranchising more voters because of an overly complex and burdensome process."

The official argument against the initiative in 2022, which was found in the Statewide Ballot Questions 2022 Pamphlet Guide, said: "Question 3’s jungle primary and confusing multi-stage general election proposal does nothing to address partisanship in Nevada’s political process, and will likely make things worse. Instead, this initiative will fundamentally damage the traditional conduct of our elections, and it could function to shut out parties entirely from running general election candidates in some races. ... In addition, if Question 3 passes, independent candidates not affiliated with the political parties would be prevented from launching a campaign in the general election, and would instead have to compete directly in expensive primaries against established party candidates. Nevadans need more quality voices and ideas in politics, but this initiative actually narrows voters’ options."

Did other states use ranked-choice voting?

As of 2024, Maine and Alaska both used ranked-choice voting in statewide elections, while Hawaii uses ranked-choice voting in statewide elections in certain circumstances. In 2020, Alaska voters approved Ballot Measure 2, which replaced partisan primaries with open top-four primaries for state executive, state legislative, and congressional offices, as well as establishing ranked-choice voting for general elections, including the presidential election. In 2016, Maine voters approved Question 5, a ballot measure that established a statewide system of ranked-choice voting to elect U.S. senators, U.S. representatives, the governor, state senators, and state representatives, but not for the U.S. presidential election.

Measure design

Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of the constitutional amendment.

Top-five primaries: Would have established top-five primaries for partisan office

This measure would have established top-five primary elections for partisan offices, including United States Senator, United States Representative, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Controller, and State Legislators. It would have excluded the offices of President and Vice President of the United States.

Under this measure, a top-five primary would have replaced partisan primaries with an open top-five primary. The primary would no longer have elected a single candidate as the party’s candidate for the general election but instead would have narrowed the field of candidates to the top five for the general election.

A person could have become a candidate for office regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof, and any registered voter could have cast a primary vote for any candidate, regardless of the party affiliation of the voter or of the candidate.

The five candidates receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary election would have advanced to the general election. If there were five or fewer candidates running for office, the primary election would still have been held, and the results would have been made public. If one of the top five candidates were to withdraw, be disqualified, or die after the primary election but before 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in July, the candidate who received the next greatest number of votes at the primary election would have been made a nominee and would have advanced to the general election.

Ranked-choice voting: Would have established ranked-choice voting for general elections for partisan office

Under this measure, all general elections for partisan office would have been conducted by ranked-choice voting. This would have included elections for United States Senator, United States Representative, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Controller, and State Legislators, but would have excluded the offices of President and Vice President.

The ballot would have been designed so that voters could mark candidates in the order of their preference, marking as many candidates as they wished without assigning the same ranking to more than one candidate.

When counting the ballots, election officials would have initially tabulated each cast ballot as one vote for the highest-ranked candidate on that ballot. If a candidate was the highest-ranked on the majority of ballots, that candidate would have been elected. If no candidate was the highest-ranked on a majority of ballots, the tabulation would have proceeded to another round. In each round, the candidate with the fewest votes would have been eliminated, and the next-highest-ranked candidate on those ballots would have been added to the vote totals. This process would have continued until a candidate won the majority of votes.

A voter could have chosen to rank just one candidate for office, and that vote would have been tabulated.

If a voter assigned the same ranking to more than one candidate, that ballot would have been considered inactive. If a ballot skipped a ranking, then the election board would have counted the next ranking. If the next ranking was also skipped, the ballot would have been considered inactive for that race. Any votes made for “none of these candidates” would have been tabulated, recorded, and made public, but not counted for ranking purposes.

In the case of a tie between the final two candidates, the winner would have been decided as provided by statute. If there was a tie between two candidates with the fewest votes, the eliminated candidate would have been decided by lot.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:

“

Amendment to the Nevada Constitution: Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow all Nevada voters the right to participate in open primary elections to choose candidates for the general election in which all voters may then rank the remaining candidates by preference for the offices of U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Controller, Attorney General, and State Legislators?

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article 5 and Article 15, Nevada Constitution

The ballot measure would have amended Section 4 of Article 5 and Article 15 of the Nevada Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added, and struck-through text would have been deleted: Note: Use your mouse to scroll over the text below to see the full text.

Article 5, Section 4

The returns of every election for United States senator and member of Congress, district and state officers, and for and against any questions submitted to the electors of the State of Nevada, voted for at the general election, shall be sealed up and transmitted to the seat of government, directed to the secretary of state, and the chief justice of the supreme court, and the associate justices, or a majority thereof, shall meet at the office of the secretary of state, on a day to be fixed by law, and open and canvass the election returns for United States senator and member of Congress, district and state officers, and for and against any questions submitted to the electors of the State of Nevada, and forthwith declare the result and publish the names of the persons elected and the results of the vote cast upon any question submitted to the electors of the State of Nevada. The persons having the highest number of votes for the respective offices as provided for and governed by Nevada law and/or Section 18 of Article 15 of this Constitution shall be declared elected, but in case any two or more have an equal and the highest number of votes for the same office, the legislature shall, by joint vote of both houses, elect one of said persons to fill said office.

Article 15, Section 14:

A plurality of votes given at an election by the people, shall constitute a choice, except as provided in Section 18 of Article 15 or where not otherwise provided by this Constitution.

Article 15, Section 17:

Top-five primary elections for partisan office.

1. Primary elections for partisan office shall be conducted as follows:

a. The primary election for partisan offices must be held on the date and time as provided by Nevada law.

b. A person may become a candidate at the primary election for partisan office regardless of the person's affiliation with a political party, or lack thereof.

c. Any registered voter may cast a primary ballot for any candidate for partisan office regardless of the political party affiliation of the voter or

any political party preference indicated by the candidate. The primary election for partisan office does not serve to determine the nominee of a political party or political group but serves only to narrow the number of candidates whose names will appear on the ballot at the general election for partisan office.

2. At a primary election for partisan office, only the names of the five candidates receiving the greatest number of votes at the primary election shall advance to the general election for partisan office. If, however, there are five or fewer candidates for a specific partisan office, the primary election for partisan office will still be held and the results made public, and all must be declared the candidates for the general election.

3. In the event of a tie for fifth place, the candidate who proceeds to the general election for partisan office will be decided by lot.

4. The ballot for the primary election must clearly delineate the partisan offices to which the top-five process provided by this section applies.

5. Immediately following the name of each candidate for a partisan office must appear the name or abbreviation of the political party with which the candidate is registered, the words "no political party" or the abbreviation "NPP," as the case may be.

6. The ballots for the primary elections for partisan office must include a conspicuously placed statement: "A candidate for partisan office may state a political party that he or she prefers. A candidate's preference does not imply that the candidate is nominated or endorsed by the party, or that the party approves of or associates with that candidate."

7. In the event that one of the five candidates who received the greatest number of votes at the primary election withdraws, is disqualified, dies, or is otherwise deemed ineligible to be elected after the primary election for partisan office but before the 5 p.m. on the fourth Friday in July, the candidate receiving the next greatest number of votes at the primary election for partisan office shall be declared a nominee, and his or her name shall be placed on the ballot at the general election for partisan office.

8. As used in this section: "Partisan office" means the Offices of United States Senator, United States Representative, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Controller, and State Legislators, and excludes the Offices of President of the United States and Vice President of the United States.

9. Implementation

a. Not later than July 1, 2025, the Legislature shall provide by law for provisions consistent with Section 17 of Article 15 of this Constitution to require top-five primary elections for partisan office.

b. Upon enactment of any law by the Legislature pursuant to Section 17 of Article 15 of this Constitution before July 1, 2025, and not later than that date, any laws, regulations, regulatory orders or other provisions which conflict with Section 17 of Article 15 of this Constitution will he void. However, the Legislature may enact legislation, in whole or in part, consistent with Section 17 of Article 15 of this Constitution that to provide top-five primary elections/or partisan office before July 1, 2025.

Article 15, Section 18:

Ranked-choice voting for general elections for partisan office.

1. All general elections for partisan office shall he conducted by ranked-choice voting.

2. The general election ballots for partisan office shall he designed so that the candidates are selected by ranked-choice voting.

3. The general election ballots for partisan office shall he designed so that at the voter is directed to mark candidates in order of preference and to mark as many choices as the voter wishes, but not to assign the same ranking to more than one candidate for the same office.

4. Immediately following the name of each candidate for a partisan office must appear the name or abbreviation the political party with the candidate is registered, the words "no political party" or the abbreviation "NPP," as the case may be.

5. The ballots for the general elections for partisan office must include a conspicuously placed statement that: "Each candidate for partisan office may state a political party that he or she prefers. A candidate's preference does not imply that the candidate is nominated or endorsed by the party, or that the party approves of or associates with that candidate."

6. When counting ballots in a general election for partisan office, the Registrar, County Clerk, or chief election official (as applicable) in each County shall initially tabulate each validly cast ballot as one vote for the highest-ranked candidate on that ballot or as an inactive ballot. If a candidate is highest-ranked on a majority of the active ballots, that candidate is elected and the tabulation is complete. If no candidate is highest-ranked on a majority of the active ballots, tabulation proceeds in sequential rounds as outlined in Section 7.

7. Tabulation proceeds in sequential rounds as follows:

a. If two or fewer continuing candidates remain, the candidate with the greatest number of votes is elected and the tabulation is complete; otherwise, the tabulation continues under (h) of this subsection.

b. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, votes cast for the eliminated candidate shall cease counting for the eliminated candidate and shall be added to the totals of each ballot's next-highest-ranked continuing candidate or considered an inactive ballot under (8)(b) and (8)(c) of this section, and a new round begins under (7)(a) of this subsection.

8. When counting general election ballots for partisan office,

a. A voter may choose to rank just one candidate/or partisan office, and that vote will be tabulated.

b. A ballot containing an overvote shall be considered an inactive ballot once the overvote is encountered at the highest ranking for a continuing candidate.

c. If a ballot skips a ranking, then the election board shall count the next ranking. If the next ranking is another skipped ranking, the ballot shall be considered an inactive ballot/or that race.

d. Any votes for "None of These Candidates" shall be tabulated, recorded and made public, but not be counted/or the purpose of electing or ranking any candidates for partisan office.

e. In the event of a tie between the final two continuing candidates, the winner shall be decided in a manner as provided by statute.

f. In the event of a tie between two candidates with the fewest votes, the candidate eliminated shall be decided by lot.

g. An inactive ballot may not be counted for any candidate in that particular race.

9. As used in this section:

a. "Continuing candidate" means a candidate who has not been eliminated.

b. "Inactive ballot" means a ballot that is no longer tabulated, either in whole or in part, because it does not rank any continuing candidate, contains an overvote at the highest continuing ranking, or contains two or more sequential skipped rankings before its highest continuing

ranking.

c. "Overvote" means an instance where a voter has assigned the same ranking to more than one candidate.

d. "Ranking" or "ranked" means the number assigned by a voter to a candidate to express the voter's choice for that candidate; a ranking of "1" is the highest ranking, followed by "2," and then "3," and so on.

e. "Round" means an instance of the sequence of voting tabulation in a general election for partisan office.

f. "Skipped ranking" means a blank ranking on a ballot on which a voter has ranked another candidate at a subsequent ranking.

g. "Partisan office" means the Offices of United States Senator, United States Representative, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, State Treasurer, State Controller, and State Legislators, and excludes the Offices of President of the United States and Vice President of the United States.

10. Completion of ballot count; certificate.

a. The certification of results shall be conducted as provided by Nevada law.

11. Implementation

a. Not later than July 1, 2025, the Legislature shall provide by law for provisions consistent with this constitutional amendment, including providing for disclosure as to the full ranking of each candidate.

b. Upon enactment of any law by the Legislature pursuant to this constitutional amendment before July 1, 2025, and not later than that date, any laws, regulations, regulatory orders or other provisions which conflict with this constitutional amendment will be void. However, the Legislature may enact legislation, in whole or in part, consistent with this constitutional amendment before July 1, 2025.

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2024

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The secretary of state wrote the ballot language for this measure.

The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 32, and the FRE is -24. The word count for the ballot title is 61.

Support

See also: Support and opposition to 2024 ranked-choice voting ballot measures

Yes on 3 led the campaign in support of Question 3.

Supporters

Corporations

• Wynn Resorts

Organizations

• Institute for Political Innovation
• Represent.Us
• RepresentWomen
• Vote Nevada

Arguments

• Megan Caska, RepresentUs Interim Director of Political Campaigns: "Ranked Choice Voting is sweeping the nation, and it’s not hard to see why. This simple change to our elections benefits the voters, not the political establishment or special interests. In every town, city and state that has switched to RCV, voters like it. We look forward to continuing the momentum and setting the country on a path toward having better elected officials that actually represent the voters."
• Samuel T. Lair, former research associate for the Kenny Guinn Center for Policy Priorities at UNR: "Fortunately, by implementing a ranked-choice voting system, the proposed reform will free voters to support independent candidates without the fear of aiding another party. To this end, Nevadan’s can expect the new system to result in a diverse field of candidates more capable of producing a system of representation consistent with the sentiments and interests of a true majority."
• Institute for Political Innovation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit founded by Katherine M. Gehl: "With more than 35 percent of Nevada voters unable to vote in a primary because they are registered as independent or non-partisan, and many more feeling under-represented by their respective party, it is clear that this antiquated system needs to change."

Opposition

See also: Support and opposition to 2024 ranked-choice voting ballot measures

Stop RCV Nevada led the campaign opposing Question 3.

Opponents

Officials

• U.S. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D)
• U.S. Sen. Jacky Rosen (D)
• U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei (R)
• State Sen. Nicole Cannizzaro (D)
• State Asm. Steve Yeager (D)

Former Officials

• Gov. Steve Sisolak (D)

Unions

• Nevada State AFL-CIO

Organizations

• All Voting is Local
• Americans for Tax Reform
• Battle Born Progress
• Fair Elections Fund
• Let Nevadans Vote

Arguments

• Emily Persaud-Zamora, executive director of Silver State Voices: "Ranked choice voting makes casting a ballot more time consuming, more complicated and more confusing for voters ... It will inevitably lead to increased errors. Ranked choice vote ballots are significantly more likely to be thrown out and uncounted because of those voters’ mistakes, ultimately disenfranchising more voters because of an overly complex and burdensome process."
• Protect Your Vote Nevada: "This petition you're being asked to sign doesn't do what supporters say it does. Instead, it's about out-of-state corporate billionaires trying to influence our elections. Their petition would make our elections unnecessarily confusing, complicated, and riddled with errors-- and enshrine that system in the Nevada Constitution."
• Assemblyman Steve Yeager (D-9): "Enshrining this system in Nevada's state constitution would be a mistake because meaningful access to the ballot box is too critical to our system of representative government to sacrifice at the alter [sic] of an unproven and unwieldy experiment."

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for Nevada ballot measures

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2024.

The Vote Yes on 3, Inc. and Nevada Voters First PACs registered to support the ballot initiative.

The Protect Your Vote Nevada PAC registered to oppose the ballot initiative.

In 2022, when Question 3 was previously on the ballot, the Nevada Voters First PAC raised $22.9 million, and the Protect Your Vote Nevada PAC raised $2.42 million.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$28,962,650.00	$0.00	$28,962,650.00	$32,257,225.42	$32,257,225.42
Oppose	$3,260,000.00	$0.00	$3,260,000.00	$3,711,986.20	$3,711,986.20
Total	$32,222,650.00	$0.00	$32,222,650.00	$35,969,211.62	$35,969,211.62

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the measure.

Committees in support of Question 3
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Vote Yes on 3, Inc.	$28,750,000.00	$0.00	$28,750,000.00	$31,343,843.20	$31,343,843.20
Nevada Voters First	$212,650.00	$0.00	$212,650.00	$913,382.22	$913,382.22
Total	$28,962,650.00	$0.00	$28,962,650.00	$32,257,225.42	$32,257,225.42

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Article IV	$18,380,000.00	$0.00	$18,380,000.00
Unite America	$9,620,000.00	$0.00	$9,620,000.00
Wynn Resorts Ltd	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
United America Inc.	$207,650.00	$0.00	$207,650.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the initiative.

Committees in opposition to Question 3
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Protect Your Vote Nevada	$3,260,000.00	$0.00	$3,260,000.00	$3,711,986.20	$3,711,986.20
Total	$3,260,000.00	$0.00	$3,260,000.00	$3,711,986.20	$3,711,986.20

Donors

The following were the top donors to the committee.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
Nevada Alliance	$2,760,000.00	$0.00	$2,760,000.00

Media editorials

See also: 2024 ballot measure media endorsements

Support

Ballotpedia did not locate media editorial boards in support of the ballot measure.

Opposition

The following media editorial boards published an editorial opposing the ballot measure:

• Las Vegas Sun Editorial Board: "Although the goals of reducing political extremism and fostering bipartisanship are worthwhile, Question 3 poses significant risks by combining two complex changes without addressing their potential unintended consequences. The proposal’s bundled nature, as well as concerns over election manipulation and system flaws, make it difficult to support the measure in its current form."

Polls

See also: 2024 ballot measure polls

2024 polls

Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Ballotpedia has not located polls for the 2024 initiative.

2022 polls

Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.

Nevada Top-Five Ranked Choice Voting Initiative (2022)
Poll	Dates	Sample size	Margin of error	Support	Oppose	Undecided

Suffolk University	8/14/22-8/17/22	500 LV	± 4.4%	51.6%	44%	13.8%
	Question: "There is a ballot initiative to open up Nevada’s top party primary races to all voters regardless of party, and to allow the ranking of your five top choices instead of voting for one. At this point, do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this ballot initiative?"

OH Predictive Insights	7/20/22-7/29/22	741 LV	± 3.6%	38%	42%	20%
	Question: "Changing the current method of elections so that anyone can vote in a party's primary and where choices for general elections will use ranked-choice voting, whereby voters rank their preferences."

OH Predictive Insights	7/8/22-7/19/22	924 RV	± 3.22%	42%	27%	32%
	Question: "There will be a question on the ballot in November to change elections so that anyone can vote in a party's primary and where choices for general elections will use ranked-choice voting, whereby voters rank their preferences. Do you support this change to Nevada's elections?"

Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.

Background

2022 Nevada Top-Five Ranked Choice Voting Initiative

See also: Nevada Question 3, Top-Five Ranked Choice Voting Initiative (2022)

The initiative to establish ranked-choice voting and open primaries first appeared on the 2022 ballot. On November 8, 2022, voters approved the measure by 53%-47%.

In Nevada, initiated constitutional amendments need to be approved in two even-numbered election years, meaning that the initiative needs to be approved in 2022 and 2024 to amend the Nevada Constitution.

The initiative was placed on the 2022 ballot by the Nevada Voters First PAC. They filed the initiative on November 12, 2021, and submitted 170,941 valid signatures on June 28, 2022. The initiative qualified for the ballot on July 21, 2022, after the signatures were verified by the secretary of state. The measure needed at least 135,561 valid signatures to make it to the ballot. The Nevada Voters First PAC raised a total of $19.5 million in cash and in-kind contributions in support of the initiative for the 2022 election. They reported $8.62 million in expenditures.

The Protect Your Vote Nevada PAC was registered to oppose the initiative. The PAC reported $1.57 million in contributions and $1.52 million in expenditures.

Ranked-choice voting

See also: Ranked-choice voting

Ranked-choice voting is a voting system where voters are able to rank candidates based on preference on their ballots. Ballots are processed in rounds. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, that candidate is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate in last place is eliminated, lifting the second-choice preference on the ballots. The process is continued until a candidate wins the simple majority (50% plus one) of the votes.

How ranked-choice voting works

Broadly speaking, the ranked-choice voting process unfolds as follows for single-winner elections:

1. Voters rank the candidates for a given office by preference on their ballots.
2. If a candidate wins an outright majority of first-preference votes (i.e., 50 percent plus one), he or she will be declared the winner.
3. If, on the other hand, no candidates win an outright majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated.
4. All first-preference votes for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots.
5. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won an outright majority of the adjusted voters.
6. The process is repeated until a candidate wins a majority of votes cast.

Ranked-choice voting in the United States

As of January 2024, ranked-choice voting is used in some states and localities across the United States. See the map, tables, and list below for further details. The numbers below do not include states where RCV is used by a political party for partisan primaries, or where military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots for runoff elections. For more information on these uses of RCV, see the table beneath the map below.

If you know of any additional U.S. localities using RCV that should be included here, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.

• RCV used statewide: Three states use RCV statewide. Alaska and Maine use RCV in federal and statewide elections. Hawaii uses RCV in certain statewide elections.
• RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities: Thirteen states contain localities that either use or are scheduled to begin using RCV in municipal elections.
• RCV authorized by state law, but not in use: Virginia is the only state where RCV is authorized by state law but is not currently in use, other than for a partisan primary.
• RCV prohibited: Five states have enacted legislation prohibiting the use of RCV in any elections.
• No laws addressing RCV, not in use: Twenty-seven states have no laws addressing RCV, and neither the state nor any localities in the state use it.

The map below shows which states use ranked-choice voting statewide or in some localities as of January 2024. It also shows the states where RCV is either prohibited or not addressed in the law. It does not show states where RCV is used by a political party for partisan primaries, or where military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots for runoff elections. See the table beneath the map for details on these uses of RCV.

The table below summarizes the use of ranked-choice voting in the U.S. by state as of January 2024.

Ranked-choice voting usage in U.S. states and localities
State	RCV use	Details
Alabama	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections	Military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots when voting in runoff elections.
Alaska	RCV used statewide	RCV has been authorized for federal and certain statewide elections since 2020 and used since 2022. RCV was used for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary in this state.
Arizona	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
Arkansas	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections	Military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots when voting in runoff elections.
California	RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities	RCV is used in the following seven localities: Albany, Berkeley, Eureka, Oakland, Palm Desert, San Francisco, and San Leandro. RCV is also authorized in the following two localities: Ojai (scheduled for use in 2024) and Redondo Beach (scheduled for use in 2025).
Colorado	RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities	RCV is used in the following five localities: Basalt, Boulder, Broomfield, Carbondale, and Telluride. RCV is also authorized in the following locality: Fort Collins (scheduled for use in 2025).
Connecticut	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
Delaware	RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities	RCV is used in the following locality: Arden.
Florida	RCV prohibited	RCV was banned by legislation in 2022, blocking its adoption in the following locality: Sarasota.
Georgia	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections	Military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots when voting in runoff elections.
Hawaii	RCV used statewide	RCV has been authorized statewide for certain federal and local elections since 2022 and used since 2023. RCV was used for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary in this state.
Idaho	RCV prohibited	RCV was banned by legislation in 2023.
Illinois	RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities	RCV is authorized in the following localities: Evanston (scheduled for use in 2025), Springfield (only used by overseas absentee voters in local elections).
Indiana	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
Iowa	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
Kansas	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections	RCV was used for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary in this state.
Kentucky	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
Louisiana	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections	Military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots when voting in runoff elections.
Maine	RCV used statewide	RCV has been authorized for federal and statewide elections since 2016 and used since 2018. Maine has also authorized RCV for all municipal election and it is currently used for these elections in the following locality: Portland.
Maryland	RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities	RCV is used in the following locality: Tacoma Park.
Massachusetts	RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities	RCV is used in the following two localities: Cambridge and Easthampton. Cambridge holds the record for the longest continuous use of RCV in the U.S. (1941-present). RCV is also authorized in the following locality: Amherst (schedule for use is uncertain).
Michigan	No laws addressing RCV, not in use	RCV has been approved, but is not used, in the following localities: Ann Arbor, Ferndale, Kalamazoo, East Lansing, and Royal Oak. Although Michigan does not explicitly prohibit the use of RCV, state election laws prevent the implementation of RCV. RCV was used in the following locality by federal enforcement from 2019-2023: Eastpointe.
Minnesota	RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities	RCV is used in the following five localities: Bloomington, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, St. Louis Park, and St. Paul. RCV was also used in the following locality, but it is no longer in use: Hopkins.
Mississippi	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections	Military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots when voting in runoff elections.
Missouri	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
Montana	RCV prohibited	RCV was banned by legislation in 2023.
Nebraska	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
Nevada	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections	RCV was used for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary in this state.
New Hampshire	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
New Jersey	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
New Mexico	RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities	RCV is used in the following two localities: Las Cruces and Santa Fe.
New York	RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities	RCV is used in the following locality: New York City.
North Carolina	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
North Dakota	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
Ohio	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
Oklahoma	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
Oregon	RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities	RCV is used in the following locality: Benton County and Corvallis. RCV is also authorized in the following two localities: Multnomah County (scheduled for use in 2026) and Portland (scheduled for use in 2024).
Pennsylvania	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
Rhode Island	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
South Carolina	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections	Military/UOCAVA voters use ranked ballots when voting in runoff elections.
South Dakota	RCV prohibited	RCV was banned by legislation in 2023.
Tennessee	RCV prohibited	RCV was banned by legislation in 2022, blocking its adoption in the following locality: Memphis.
Texas	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
Utah	RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities	RCV is used in the following 23 localities: Bluffdale, Cottonwood Heights, Draper, Elk Ridge, Genola, Goshen, Heber, Lehi, Magna, Midvale, Millcreek, Moab, Newton, Nibley, Payson, River Heights City, Riverton, Sandy, Salt Lake City, Springville, South Salt Lake, Vineyard, and Woodland Hills. The state adopted a pilot program allowing RCV in 2018.
Vermont	RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities	RCV is used in the following locality: Burlington.
Virginia	RCV authorized by state law, but not in use	All localities in Virginia have been authorized to use RCV since 2021. RCV is used for a partisan primary in the following locality: Arlington.
Washington	RCV used (or scheduled for use) in some localities	RCV is authorized in the following locality: Seattle (scheduled for use in 2027).
West Virginia	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
Wisconsin	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections
Wyoming	No state laws addressing RCV, not in use for general elections	RCV was used for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary in this state.

List of state ballot measures by year

2002—2024

The following table provides a list of state ranked-choice voting (RCV) ballot measures:

State	Year	Type	Measure	Position	Yes	No	Outcome
Alaska	2024	Initiative	Ballot Measure 2: Repeal Top-Four RCV Initiative	Anti-RCV	49.88%	50.12%	d
Colorado	2024	Initiative	Proposition 131: Top-Four RCV Initiative	Pro-RCV	46.47%	53.53%	d
Idaho	2024	Initiative	Proposition 1: Top-Four RCV Initiative	Pro-RCV	30.38%	69.62%	d
Missouri	2024	Referral	Amendment 7: Require Citizenship to Vote and Prohibit RCV Amendment	Anti-RCV	68.44%	31.56%	a
Nevada	2024	Initiative	Question 3: Top-Five RCV Initiative	Pro-RCV	47.04%	52.96%	d
Oregon	2024	Referral	Measure 117: RCV for Federal and State Elections Measure	Pro-RCV	42.30%	57.70%	d
Nevada	2022	Initiative	Question 3: Top-Five RCV Initiative	Pro-RCV	52.94%	47.06%	a
Alaska	2020	Initiative	Ballot Measure 2: Top-Four RCV and Campaign Finance Laws Initiative	Pro-RCV	50.55%	49.45%	a
Massachusetts	2020	Initiative	Question 2: RCV Initiative	Pro-RCV	45.22%	54.78%	d
Maine	2018	Initiative	Question 1: Overturn RCV Delayed Enactment and Automatic Repeal Legislation Referendum	Pro-RCV	53.88%	46.12%	a
Maine	2016	Initiative	Question 5: RCV Initiative	Pro-RCV	52.12%	47.88%	a
Alaska	2002	Initiative	Ballot Measure 1: RCV Initiative	Pro-RCV	36.27%	63.73%	d

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing the initiative process in Nevada

Process in Nevada

In Nevada, the number of signatures required to qualify an initiated constitutional amendment for the ballot is equal to 10 percent of the total votes cast in the most recent general election. Moreover, signature gathering must be distributed equally among each of the state's four congressional districts. The initial filing of an initiated constitutional amendment cannot be made before September 1 of the year preceding the election year. The signature petitions must be filed with county officials by the third Tuesday in June of an even-numbered year. The final submission of signatures to the secretary of state must be made at least 90 days before the next regular general election. Initiated constitutional amendments that qualify for the ballot must be approved at two consecutive general elections.

The requirements to get an initiated constitutional amendment certified for the 2024 ballot and the next even-yeared election ballot:

• Signatures: 102,362 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline to submit signatures was June 26, 2024.

Signatures are verified by county clerks using a random sampling method if more than 500 signatures were submitted in that county. If enough signatures are submitted and verified, the initiative goes on the next general election ballot. If approved at the first election, it goes on the next general election ballot.

Details about the initiative

The Nevada Voters First PAC filed the initiative on November 12, 2021. The PAC reported submitting 266,000 signatures on June 28, 2022. On July 21, the office of Nevada Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske announced that 170,941 signatures were verified, exceeding the requirement of 135,561.

Nevada Voters First hired Advanced Micro Targeting to collect signatures for the petition. A total of $2.0 million was spent to collect the 135,561 valid signatures required to put the measure before voters, resulting in a total cost-per-required-signature (CPRS) of $14.75.

Signature gathering cost

See also: Ballot measures cost per required signatures analysis

Sponsors of the measure hired Advanced Micro Targeting to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $2,000,000.00 was spent to collect the 135,561 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $14.75.

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in Nevada

See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in Nevada.

How to vote in Nevada

Poll times

All polling places in Nevada are open from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. local time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration

Check your voter registration status here.

To register to vote in Nevada, each applicant must be must a citizen of the United States, a resident of Nevada for at least 30 days before the election, and at least 18 years old by the day of the election.

Seventeen-year-olds can preregister to vote. Anyone who has been declared mentally incompetent by a court may not register to vote.

A voter registration application can be completed in person at the county clerk’s office, the Department of Motor Vehicles, other social service agencies, or college campuses. In-person registration must be completed 28 days before regular elections; registration forms submitted by mail must be postmarked by the same day. Online applications must be submitted by the Thursday before regular elections.

Nevada also allows same-day registration.

Automatic registration

Nevada automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

Nevada has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

Nevada allows same-day voter registration at polling places during early voting and on election day.

Residency requirements

In order to register to vote in Nevada, applicants must be a resident of the state for at least 30 days prior to the election.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

Nevada does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury.

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. As of January 2025, six states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, and New Hampshire — had passed laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration. However, only two of those states' laws were in effect, in Arizona and New Hampshire. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allowed noncitizens to vote in some local elections as of November 2024. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The Nevada Secretary of State’s office allows residents to check their voter registration status online by visiting this website.

Voter ID requirements

Nevada does not require voters to present identification while voting, in most cases. A voter in Nevada must sign his or her name in the election board register at his or her polling place. The signature is compared with the signature on the voter's original application to vote or another form of identification, such as a driver's license, a state identification card, military identification, or another government-issued ID.

See also

2024 measures

• 2024 ballot measures
• Elections and campaigns on the ballot
• Voting policy measures on the ballot
• 2024 petition deadlines

Nevada

• Nevada ballot measures
• Nevada initiative laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls
• Ballot measure signature costs

External links

• Text of Nevada Top-Five Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2024)