Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Nevada Question 1, Remove Constitutional Status of Board of Regents Amendment (2020)
| Nevada Question 1 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 3, 2020 | |
| Topic Education | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
Nevada Question 1, the Remove Constitutional Status of Board of Regents Amendment, was on the ballot in Nevada as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 3, 2020. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported removing the constitutional status of the Board of Regents—which governs, controls, and manages the state universities in Nevada—thereby allowing the state legislature to review and change the governing organization of state universities. |
A "no" vote opposed removing the constitutional status of the Board of Regents, thereby keeping the current governing organization of state universities without state legislative authority to change it. |
Election results
|
Nevada Question 1 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 626,146 | 49.85% | ||
|
|
630,023 | 50.15% | ||
Overview
Why is the Nevada State Board of Regents in the constitution?
The Nevada Constitution establishes the Nevada State Board of Regents, which controls eight public institutions of higher education in Nevada, including the University of Nevada System.
The original Nevada Constitution included language that established "a State University which shall embrace departments for Agriculture, Mechanic Arts, and Mining." This language was included to make Nevada eligible for the federal Morrill Act. The Morrill Act provided states with federal land to sell for the purpose of financing colleges. The Nevada Constitution also required the board of regents to invest proceeds from land sales.[1]
What would Question 1 have changed about the board?
Question 1 would have repealed the constitutional provisions concerning the Nevada State Board of Regents. Removing the constitutional status of the board would have allowed the state legislature to review and change the governing organization of the Nevada System of Higher Education.[1]
Question 1 would have also required the state legislature to make laws providing for the "reasonable protection of individual academic freedom" for students, employees, and contractors of state universities to encourage the promotion of "intellectual, literary, scientific, mining, mechanical, agricultural, ethical and other educational improvements."[1]
Question 1 would have placed the State of Nevada, rather than the Nevada State Board of Regents, in charge of investing federal land grants.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot question
The ballot question for Question 1 was as follows:[2]
| “ | Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to: (1) remove provisions governing the election and duties of the Board of Regents and its control and management of the State University and require the Legislature to provide by law for the State University’s governance, control, and management and the reasonable protection of individual academic freedom at Nevada’s public higher education institutions; and (2) revise the administration of certain federal land grant proceeds dedicated for the benefit of certain departments of the State University?
Yes [ ] No [ ] [3] |
” |
Ballot summary
The ballot explanation for Question 1 was as follows:[2]
|
Constitutional changes
- See also: Article 11, Nevada Constitution
Question 1 would have amended Section 4, Section 7, and Section 8 of Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution. The following underlined text would have been added, and struck-through text would have been deleted:[1]
Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.
1. The Legislature shall provide for the establishment of a State University which shall embrace departments for Agriculture, Mechanic Arts, and Mining, to be controlled by a Board of Regents whose duties shall be prescribed by Law. and other departments deemed appropriate for the State University.
2. The Legislature shall provide by law for:
- (a) The governance, control and management of the State University.
- (b) The reasonable protection of individual academic freedom for persons who are enrolled in or who are employees or contractors of the State University and other public institutions of higher education in this State in order to facilitate the policies of Section 1 of this Article to encourage by all suitable means the promotion of intellectual, literary, scientific, mining, mechanical, agricultural, ethical and other educational improvements.
Section 7: Board of Regents: Election and duties.
The Governor, Secretary of State, and Superintendent of Public Instruction, shall for the first four years and until their successors are elected and qualified constitute a Board of Regents to control and manage the affairs of the University and the funds of the same under such regulations as may be provided by law. But the Legislature shall at its regular session next preceding the expiration of the term of office of said Board of Regents provide for the election of a new Board of Regents and define their duties.
Section 8: Immediate Organization and Maintenance of State University
The Board of Regents shall, from the interest accruing from the first funds which come under their control, immediately organize and maintain the said Mining department in such manner as to make it most effective and useful, Provided, that all the proceeds of the public lands donated by Act of Congress approved July second AD. Eighteen hundred and sixty Two, 2, 1862, ch. 130, 12 Stat. 503, and thereafter amended by Act of Congress, for a college for the benefit of Agriculture, the Mechanics and Mechanic Arts, and including Military tactics, shall be invested by the said Board of Regents State of Nevada in the manner required by law in a separate fund to be appropriated exclusively for the benefit of the first named departments to the State University as set forth in Section Four above; 4 of this Article. And the Legislature shall provide that if through neglect or any other contingency, any portion of the fund so set apart, shall be is lost or misappropriated, the State of Nevada shall replace said amount so lost or misappropriated in said fund so that the principal of said fund shall remain forever undiminished.[3]
Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[4]
| “ |
Financial Impact—Cannot Be Determined If approved by the voters, Question 1 removes references to an elected Board of Regents from the Nevada Constitution and instead requires the Legislature to provide by law for the governance, control, and management of higher education in this State. This ballot question also requires the Legislature to provide by law for the reasonable protection of individual academic freedom for students, employees, and contractors of Nevada’s public higher education institutions. Future actions, if any, taken by the Legislature regarding the governance, control, and management of higher education cannot be predicted. Additionally, future actions taken by the Legislature to provide for the reasonable protection of individual academic freedom for students, employees, and contractors of Nevada’s public higher education institutions cannot be predicted. Thus, the resulting financial impact upon state government, if any, cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty. Finally, this ballot question clarifies and modernizes existing provisions of the Nevada Constitution relating to the administration of the federal land grant proceeds dedicated for the benefit of certain departments of the State University under the federal Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862. However, because the State of Nevada must administer those proceeds in the manner required by the federal law, this ballot question will not change the purpose or use of those proceeds under the federal law. Thus, there is no anticipated financial impact upon state government from these revisions if Question 1 is approved by the voters.[3] |
” |
Readability score
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2020
| Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary 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.
|
Support
Nevadans for Higher Quality Education led the Yes on 1 for Higher Education campaign.[5]
Supporters
Officials
- Nevada State Senator Joyce Woodhouse (D)
- Former Nevada Assemblymember John Ellison (R)
- Former Nevada Assemblymember Danny Thompson
- Nevada Assemblymember Jim Wheeler (R)
- West Wendover mayor Daniel Corona
- Henderson mayor Debra March (Nonpartisan)
- Churchill County Commissioner Harry Scharmann
Former Officials
- Former Nevada state senator Elliot T. Anderson (D)
- Former Nevada state senator Warren Hardy (R)
Unions
Organizations
- Council for a Better Nevada
- Las Vegas Asian Chamber of Commerce
- Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce
- Latin Chamber of Commerce Nevada Inc.
- Nevada Farm Bureau
Individuals
- Chet Burton - Former chief financial officer of the Nevada System of Higher Education
- Kimi Cole (D) - Chair of the Rural Nevada Democratic Caucus
- Peter Guzman - President of the Latin Chamber of Commerce-Nevada
- John Gwaltney (Nonpartisan) - Former college president
- Madonna Long - Founder of Nevada Disability Coalition
- Carol Lucey - Former college president
Arguments
Official arguments
The following arguments were included in the 2020 Nevada Voter Guide:[4]
| “ | Although some other states have elected boards with constitutional status that control and manage particular institutions and programs of public higher education, Nevada is the only state in which a single elected board with constitutional status controls and manages the affairs and funds of the State’s entire system of public higher education. In past cases before the Nevada Supreme Court, the Board of Regents has asserted that its 'unique constitutional status' gives it 'virtual autonomy and thus immunity' from certain laws and policies enacted by the Legislature. (Board of Regents v. Oakley, 97 Nev. 605, 607 (1981)) Based on legislative testimony, such assertions have given some people the impression that the Board conducts itself as a fourth branch of government, and that the Board too often invokes its constitutional status as a shield against additional legislative oversight and accountability. For example, in 1999 the Legislature exercised its constitutional powers of investigation and appropriation by passing legislation that created and funded an advisory committee to study the issue of locating a four-year state college in Henderson, Nevada. The Board responded by claiming through its counsel that the legislation was unconstitutional as an 'extreme usurpation of the Board’s authority' because the advisory committee was 'created by and reports to the Legislature and not the Board of Regents.' (Opinion of General Counsel to Board of Regents Regarding Whether Assembly Bill No. 220 Infringes on Constitutional Authority
of Board (Aug. 30, 1999)) Thus, the Board has, at various times, made sweeping arguments regarding its authority and autonomy from additional legislative oversight and accountability. However, the Nevada Constitution specifies only the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of state government, and the framers of the Nevada Constitution made clear their intent that the Board is not entitled to 'absolute control' over the management of the State University. (Debates & Proceedings of the Nevada State Constitutional Convention of 1864, at 586 (Andrew J. Marsh off. rep. 1866)) Voting in favor of this ballot question will ensure the Legislature’s authority over the Board in all matters relating to the State University by making the Board a statutory body like other executive branch agencies, which will allow for additional legislative oversight and accountability to improve the State’s entire system of public higher education. Further, while the Nevada Constitution requires the Legislature to provide financial support for the operation of the State University, it also directs the Board to control and manage the funds of the State University. This divide between the Legislature’s constitutional power to fund higher education and the Board’s constitutional power to direct how those funds are actually spent gives the Board a virtually unparalleled power within state government to control and manage higher education spending without the same level of legislative oversight typically applied to other executive branch agencies. For years, the Legislature has received complaints about the Board’s policies and practices, and the Board has taken actions that some believe have hindered, thwarted, or undermined the Legislature’s investigation, review, and scrutiny of the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) controlled by the Board. According to news reports and legislative testimony, NSHE officials were allegedly involved in providing potentially misleading information to a legislative study of higher education funding in 2011–2012. As part of another legislative study of higher education in 2017–2018, testimony indicated NSHE’s lack of an overall compensation philosophy contributed to a faculty pay imbalance that will cost approximately $90 million to address initially and will remain as an ongoing annual financial obligation. Without additional legislative oversight of the Board’s financial management decisions in a manner that is comparable to other executive branch agencies, there is a greater potential for continued fiscal irresponsibility within NSHE, which ultimately hurts taxpayers and students by driving up the cost of higher education. The Legislature has also received complaints that the Board has adopted policies and procedures that are not responsive to the higher education needs of the State. Since at least the 1970s, legislators have heard complaints that the Board’s policies regarding the transfer of student credits within NSHE’s own system have proved problematic because the policies make it difficult for students to move between the system’s institutions, resulting in unnecessary procedural barriers to the completion of degrees. Although the Board has claimed for years that it is committed to fixing this recurring issue—and some progress has been made—a recent NSHE audit shows that approximately 1 in 4 students still do not receive full credit and/or lose 3 or more credits under the system’s credit transfer process. If the Board’s control and management of the State University were subject to the same level of legislative oversight typically applied to other government agencies, the Legislature would have the power to change by law any of the Board’s policies and procedures that it determined were not responsive to the higher education needs of the State. With such power, the Legislature could exercise the full extent of its legislative authority to review, reform, and improve the control and management of NSHE. Passage of this ballot question will require the Legislature to guarantee under state law the reasonable protection of individual academic freedom for students, faculty, and contractors in NSHE. Even though individual academic freedom is currently afforded some protection under federal constitutional law, numerous courts and legal commentators have observed that the true scope of the federal constitutional protection has been unclear since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos. By requiring the Legislature to enact state statutes that provide for the reasonable protection of individual academic freedom at NSHE, this ballot question will compel the Legislature to specify the scope of that protection under state law and also consider whether to provide greater protection to individual academic freedom than is already afforded by federal constitutional law. Because the protection of individual academic freedom is essential to the pursuit of knowledge and the search for academic truth and enlightenment, this ballot question will ensure that NSHE continues to foster experimentation, invention, and a robust exchange of ideas. Finally, this ballot question will clarify and modernize existing provisions of the Nevada Constitution relating to the administration of the federal land grant proceeds dedicated for the benefit of certain departments of the State University under the federal Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862. However, because the State of Nevada must administer those proceeds in the manner required by the federal law, this ballot question will not change the purpose or use of those proceeds under the federal law. Improve our public higher education system by allowing for additional legislative oversight and accountability regarding the system, ensuring state-law protection for individual academic freedom at institutions within the system, and clarifying and modernizing existing provisions relating to the administration of the federal land grant proceeds dedicated for the benefit of certain departments of the State University under the 1862 federal law. Vote 'yes' on Question 1.[3] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
Individuals
- Jason Geddes (Nonpartisan) - Member of Nevada Board of Regents
- Trevor Hayes (Nonpartisan) - Member of Nevada Board of Regents
- Laura Perkins (Nonpartisan) - Member of Nevada Board of Regents
- Thomas Reilly - Chancellor of the Nevada System of Higher Education
Arguments
Official arguments
The following arguments were included in the 2020 Nevada Voter Guide:[4]
| “ | In 1864, the framers of the Nevada Constitution made a deliberate choice to give constitutional status to the Board of Regents to guarantee that it had independent powers to control and manage the State University without the threat of political interference by the Legislature and Governor. The Board’s constitutional status and independent powers are not unique. In at least 21 other states, elected or appointed governing boards have been given constitutional status and independent powers to control and manage state universities and other public institutions of higher education, even if those boards do not oversee the entire state system of higher education to the same extent as Nevada’s Board of Regents.
Consistent with the intent of the framers of the Nevada Constitution, the Board has not claimed that it is entitled to 'absolute control' over the management of the State University, or that it is free from legislative oversight and accountability. (Debates & Proceedings of the Nevada State Constitutional Convention of 1864, at 586 (Andrew J. Marsh off. rep. 1866)) The Board recognizes that the Nevada Constitution provides it with specific and limited authority over the State University that is independent of the more general control of the Legislature and Governor because the framers wanted to promote and ensure the academic independence of the State University without making it the political 'football of the legislature.' (State ex rel. Mack v. Torreyson, 21 Nev. 517, 528 (1893) (Bigelow, J., concurring)) When deemed necessary in court cases and legislative inquiries, the Board has legitimately asserted its constitutional status because the Board has a duty to defend the framers’ intent to protect the State University from unwarranted intrusions by the political forces of government. Proponents of this ballot question want voters to believe that the framers got it wrong, and that by removing the Board’s specific and limited authority from the Nevada Constitution—thereby making the Board a statutory body completely subject to the control of the political machinery of government—the Legislature will somehow improve the transparency, efficiency, and effectiveness of Nevada’s higher education system. Unfortunately, passage of Question 1 does not guarantee any of these promised benefits. Question 1 is nothing but the Legislature trying to gain more power and control, and it would only serve to add political pressures to a governance system that is serving this State well. Under the Board’s leadership, the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) has steadily improved higher education outcomes in Nevada. Recently, both the University of Nevada, Reno and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas were recognized as Very High Research Activity (R1) institutions by the prestigious Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. For the last ten years in which data is available, while full-time equivalent student enrollment in the system increased by roughly 8 percent, the number of diplomas and certificates awarded increased by more than 40 percent. During this period, the amount of state funding for the system—when calculated in real dollars adjusted for inflation—actually decreased. Yet the Board has, through its financial management decisions, effectively navigated the consequences of a severe economic recession and successfully guided NSHE in its academic mission while also improving operational efficiencies for the benefit of Nevada’s taxpayers and adding marketable value for the system’s students. Under the existing constitutional structure, anytime the Legislature has concerns about the Board’s financial policies and practices, the Legislature already has the power to investigate, review, and scrutinize the Board’sfinancial management decisions, and the Legislature also retains the ultimate power of the purse to determine the amount of state funding that is appropriated for higher education. Consequently, the Board is already subject to considerable legislative oversight and accountability, and it must explain and justify its financial management decisions to the Legislature in a manner similar to other executive branch agencies. The Board has governed our higher education system for over 150 years as the system has grown in size, prestige, and complexity. If this question passes, it is uncertain whether the Legislature will retain or reshape the governance of our higher education system. The sole focus of the Board is on higher education policy, and it is best equipped to govern NSHE. It does not make sense to risk losing the Board’s independence, institutional knowledge, and expertise with no assurance of what the Legislature may put in its place. Maintaining the Board’s current status in the Nevada Constitution ensures that the Board remains elected, responsible to the voters, and responsive to constituents. The Nevada Supreme Court has recognized that the constitutional status of the Board prevents the Legislature from directly interfering with its essential management and control of the State University, and for good reason. Passage of this ballot question would allow the Legislature to change existing higher education policies and procedures and even allow the Legislature to make members of the Board appointed rather than elected. Previous attempts to change higher education governance have failed because Nevadans recognize the importance of keeping the system in the Nevada Constitution as originally drafted. Further, requiring the Legislature to enact state statutes that provide for the reasonable protection of individual academic freedom is unnecessary and will likely cause confusion because federal constitutional law already provides such protection and the Board of Regents has already adopted policies related to individual academic freedom and responsibility at its institutions. Transferring this duty to the Legislature is not only unnecessary but also takes the definition of individual academic freedom out of the hands of academic professionals and places it with an inherently political body whose partisan nature may be hostile to the concept of professors and others speaking openly and freely about political, ideological, or controversial issues. Instead of facilitating and encouraging individual academic freedom, this insertion of partisanship into the realm of scholarship is more likely to stifle the concept of academic freedom than to protect it. Finally, the framers of the Nevada Constitution named the Board as the proper trustee to administer the federal land grant proceeds dedicated for the benefit of certain departments of the State University under the federal Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862. By removing the Board as the constitutionally designated trustee, this ballot question would allow the Legislature to name any other executive branch agencies or officers as a statutory trustee, whether or not they have any experience, knowledge, or understanding of the higher education system or its funding needs. Such a deviation from the intent of the framers could be a recipe for fiscal irresponsibility and mismanagement, which could potentially jeopardize the State’s compliance with the federal law. Reject this uncertain and unnecessary change to the constitutional status of the Board of Regents; do not allow the Legislature to inject politics into the protection of individual academic freedom at institutions within NSHE; and retain the existing constitutional provisions relating to the administration of the federal land grant proceeds dedicated for the benefit of certain departments of the State University under the 1862 federal law. Vote 'no' on Question 1.[3] |
” |
Campaign finance
Ballotpedia identified two committees—Nevadans for Higher Quality Education and Yes on 1—registered in support of Question 1. The committees reported nearly $1.4 million in contributions.[6]
| Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Support | $1,357,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,357,000.00 | $1,357,668.80 | $1,357,668.80 |
| Oppose | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 | $0.00 |
| Total | $1,357,000.00 | $0.00 | $912,000.00 | $1,357,668.80 | $1,357,668.80 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of Question 1:[6]
| Committees in support of Question 1 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
| Nevadans for Higher Quality Education | $912,000.00 | $0.00 | $912,000.00 | $912,668.80 | $912,668.80 |
| Yes on 1 | $445,000.00 | $0.00 | $445,000.00 | $445,000.00 | $445,000.00 |
| Total | $1,357,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,357,000.00 | $1,357,668.80 | $1,357,668.80 |
Top donors
The following chart lists the top donors to the campaigns in support of Question 1:[6]
| Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Council for a Better Nevada | $479,000.00 | $0.00 | $479,000.00 |
| Engelstad Foundtion | $415,000.00 | $0.00 | $415,000.00 |
| Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce | $192,500.00 | $0.00 | $192,500.00 |
| Cloobeck Companies, LLC | $100,000.00 | $0.00 | $100,000.00 |
| Agassi Foundation for Education | $25,000.00 | $0.00 | $25,000.00 |
| GTL GP, LLC | $25,000.00 | $0.00 | $25,000.00 |
Opposition
Ballotpedia did not identify a campaign organized in opposition to Question 1.
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Media editorials
Support
- Las Vegas Sun: "The constitutional language, written in the 19th century to make Nevada eligible for federal land grants to establish a state university, has created ambiguity over the powers of NSHE and the regents. In legal disputes over the years, NSHE attorneys have argued that the system was an independent branch of government, beyond the oversight of the executive, legislative and judicial branches. That’s not true, but the ambiguity needs to be cleared up by getting the regents out of the constitution."[7]
Opposition
Ballotpedia did not locate media editorial boards opposing Question 1. If you are aware of an editorial, please email the article to editor@ballotpedia.org.
Background
Structure of Nevada State Board of Regents
- See also: Nevada State Board of Regents
As of November 2020, the Nevada State Board of Regents was composed of 13 voting members elected to six-year terms in by-district elections. Designated members are elected every two years at the general election.[8]
| Office | Name | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Nevada Board of Regents District 1 | Carlos Fernandez | Nonpartisan |
| Nevada Board of Regents District 2 | Jennifer J. McGrath | Nonpartisan |
| Nevada Board of Regents District 3 | Byron Brooks | Nonpartisan |
| Nevada Board of Regents District 4 | Aaron Bautista | Nonpartisan |
| Nevada Board of Regents District 5 | Patrick Boylan | Nonpartisan |
| Nevada Board of Regents District 6 | Heather Brown | Nonpartisan |
| Nevada Board of Regents District 7 | Susan Brager | Nonpartisan |
| Nevada Board of Regents District 8 | Peter Goicoechea | Nonpartisan |
| Nevada Board of Regents District 9 | Carol Del Carlo | Nonpartisan |
| Nevada Board of Regents District 10 | Joseph Arrascada | Nonpartisan |
| Nevada Board of Regents District 11 | Jeffrey Downs | Nonpartisan |
| Nevada Board of Regents District 12 | Amy Carvalho | Nonpartisan |
| Nevada Board of Regents District 13 | Stephanie Goodman | Nonpartisan |
The Nevada State Board of Regents oversees eight public institutions of higher education:
- College of Southern Nevada
- Desert Research Institute
- Great Basin College
- Nevada State College
- Truckee Meadows Community College
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas
- University of Nevada, Reno
- Western Nevada College
Referred amendments on the ballot
From 1996 through 2018, the state legislature referred 31 constitutional amendments to the ballot. Voters approved 15 and rejected 16 of the referred amendments. All of the amendments were referred to the ballot during even-numbered election years. The average number of amendments appearing on the ballot was between two and three. The approval rate of referred amendments at the ballot box was 48.4 percent during the 22-year period from 1996 through 2018. The rejection rate was 51.6 percent. The following table contains data for referred amendments during even-numbered election years from 1996 through 2018:
| Legislatively-referred constitutional amendments, 1996-2018 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total number | Approved | Percent approved | Defeated | Percent defeated | Even-year average | Even-year median | Even-year minimum | Even-year maximum | |
| 31 | 15 | 48.39% | 16 | 51.61% | 2.58 | 2.00 | 0 | 7 | |
Path to the ballot
- See also: Amending the Nevada Constitution
In Nevada, a majority vote is required in two successive sessions of the Nevada State Legislature to place an amendment on the ballot.
2017 legislative session
Question 1 was introduced as Assembly Joint Resolution 5 (AJR 5) on February 13, 2017. The Nevada Assembly approved the measure 38 to 4 on April 25, 2017. The Nevada Senate modified the amendment to include the provision requiring the legislature to provide laws for the "reasonable protection of individual academic freedom." On May 25, 2017, the Senate passed the revised amendment 18 to 2 with one senator excused. As the Senate modified the amendment, the changes were sent to the Assembly for concurrence. On May 29, 2017, the Assembly concurred with the Senate's changes to the amendment.[9]
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2019 legislative session
Both chambers of the state legislature needed to pass AJR 5 during the 2019 legislative session to refer the amendment to the ballot for the election on November 3, 2020.
On March 11, 2019, the Nevada State Assembly approved AJR 5, with 36 members supporting the amendment, five members opposing the amendment, and one member not voting. On March 21, 2019, the Nevada State Senate passed the amendment in a unanimous vote, with one member not voting.[10]
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in Nevada
Click "Show" to learn more about voter registration, identification requirements, and poll times in Nevada.
| How to cast a vote in Nevada | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Poll timesAll 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.[11][12] Registration requirements
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.[13] 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.[14][13]
Automatic registrationNevada automatically registers eligible individuals to vote through the Department of Motor Vehicles.[15] Online registration
Nevada has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website. Same-day registrationNevada allows same-day voter registration at polling places during early voting and on election day.[13] Residency requirementsIn order to register to vote in Nevada, applicants must be a resident of the state for at least 30 days prior to the election.[13] Verification of citizenshipNevada does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration.[16] 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.[17] Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. 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 registrationThe Nevada Secretary of State’s office allows residents to check their voter registration status online by visiting this website.
Voter ID requirementsNevada 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.[18] | |||||
See also
External links
Support |
OppositionSubmit links to editor@ballotpedia.org. |
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 Nevada Legislature, "Assembly Joint Resolution 5," accessed June 1, 2017
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Nevada Secretary of State, "Nevada Question 1," accessed September 7, 2020
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source. Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid<ref>tag; name "quotedisclaimer" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Nevada Secretary of State, "Question 1," accessed September 29, 2020
- ↑ The Nevada Independent, "Proponents of removing Board of Regents from Constitution launch formal ‘Yes on 1’ campaign, June 16, 2020
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Nevada Secretary of State, "Nevadans for Higher Quality Education" accessed January 25, 2020
- ↑ Las Vegas Sun, "Writing its regents out of constitution can right the state’s ship on education," March 10, 2019
- ↑ Nevada State Legislature, "Chapter 396, NRS 396.040: Number of Regents; election from certain districts; residency requirements," accessed September 19, 2018
- ↑ Nevada Legislature, "AJR 5 Overview," accessed June 1, 2017
- ↑ Nevada State Legislature, "AJR 5 (2019) History," accessed March 12, 2019
- ↑ Nevada Revised Statutes, "Title 24, Chapter 293, Section 273," accessed April 17, 2023
- ↑ ACLU of Nevada, "Know Your Voting Rights - Voting in Nevada," accessed April 17, 2023
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 Nevada Secretary of State, “Elections,” accessed October 3, 2024
- ↑ Nevada Secretary of State, “Registering to Vote,” accessed April 17, 2023
- ↑ Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles, “Voter Registration,” accessed April 17, 2023
- ↑ The Nevada Independent, “The Indy Explains: How does Nevada verify a voter's eligibility?” April 23, 2017
- ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
- ↑ Nevada Revised Statutes, "NRS 293.277 Conditions for entitlement of person to vote; forms of identification to identify registered voter." accessed April 17, 2023
