Las Vegas Sun

July 30, 2014

Currently: 104° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Sun Editorial:

A vote for ‘none’

Nevada ballot option helps voters, it doesn’t disenfranchise them

Other views

See what others say about the only-in-Nevada ballot provision: Readers sound off on "none," and UNLV political scientist David Damore dissects the arguments.

A federal lawsuit filed this month challenges a Nevada tradition by seeking to toss “none of these candidates” off the fall ballot.

Nevada is the only state that allows voters to cast a vote for “none,” and the lawsuit says the provision “disenfranchises” voters because Nevadans who choose it are essentially throwing their vote away.

Several prominent Republicans are involved in the lawsuit — former Clark County Commissioner Bruce Woodbury is a plaintiff — and Sun columnist Jon Ralston reported last week that the Republican National Committee is financially supporting the lawsuit.

Why would they want to take away voters’ rights? Technically, it’s like skipping a race because “none” can’t win an election; if it outpolls the candidates, the first runner-up wins. Voters are allowed to not vote in a particular race, so that shouldn’t be the issue. “None” simply provides voters a way to express their dissatisfaction about the ballot choices.

And certainly, Republicans can’t believe that Nevadans don’t really understand what they’re doing when they vote for “none,” can they?

Republicans are apparently concerned about their presumptive presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, who has had trouble gaining the support of the conservative base. If dissatisfied conservatives vote for “none” rather than Romney, it could cost him a close election.

Of course, they put it in much more noble language. One official told Ralston that the lawsuit wanted to “bring clarity” in the election. That seems odd to us. Clarity to what? Nevadans aren’t confused. They’ve had “none” as an option on statewide and federal races since the late ’70s.

The argument is ridiculous, and we hope a judge quickly dispatches it.

Although “none” can’t win, that doesn’t mean that it’s a wasted vote. It is a way to send a clear message that voters don’t think anyone is qualified for the office. It provides a great option in those elections where a voter might otherwise skip a race or plug her nose to make a choice because of lackluster candidates.

A vote for “none” is a clear expression of a voter’s voice, which is exactly what elections are supposed to be about. The parties should see those votes as a message that they have failed to provide quality candidates, but instead of trying to improve the candidate pool, Republicans are trying to toss “none.”

Nevadans have a right to vote for “none of these candidates.” Whether it’s wise to vote for “none” is a matter left to the voters, and we trust Nevadans with that choice. Republicans should do the same and drop the lawsuit.

• • •

What do you think?

Send us a letter c/o Letters to the Editor, Las Vegas Sun, 2360 Corporate Circle, Third Floor, Henderson, NV 89074. Or send a letter via email: [email protected]. Or fax: (702) 383-7264.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 3 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. I fully support our "None of the above" choice.

    If anything, it should be made stronger by being able to force a new slate of candidates should it win. A vote for NOTA is not throwing away a vote, but rather making one's position very clear, unlike not voting at all.

  2. As usual, the liberal lefties spin the facts.
    Conservatives will be en masse on election day to defeat Obama - it would not matter if Felix the Cat was running against the most unconstitutional corrupt president anti-Catholic president we have ever had to endure. The conservatives will be there in force to vote for Mitt Romney as clueless Nobama is a creep.
    WHen it comes to defrauding voters, Nancy Puke Pelosia and Budgetless Harry Reid _ both senile seniors - are spinning facts as fast as they now have to use Depends....

    No One is something Obama has to fear as its been used even in Democratic States like Califonia to not vote for Obama while letting the person vote for anyone else on the ballot. In some states incarcerated life long felons have won over imp Obama.

    Per usual, the liberal left does not care if they lie or are insightful....

    They just want us stuck with the most unconstitutional icky creepy dude called Obama America has ever had to endure. I think the collective IQ of news editors is now about 50.

  3. @lovestohike,

    What exactly were you trying to add to this discussion with your ridiculous accusations? Most Anti-Catholic?
    I'd bed that there were many Presidents in the early 1800s that are far more anti-Catholic than President Obama.
    How is the President a "creep"? He looks like a decent family man to me, whether or not you agree with his politics.
    Oh, and Nancy Pelosi isn't a Senator. She's the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives.
    And the President is acting unconstitutionally? Could you provide examples?

    Maybe instead of flinging vitriol all over the place, you should try speaking in a level-headed respectful way.

    As far as the topic at hand, there's no reason to throw out "none of these candidates". I don't think it confuses voters, it doesn't disenfranchise anyone, and in most states you can simply leave the ballot blank (thus having a similar effect). This lawsuit won't go anywhere...