by Kelsey Penrose State Question 1 What it asks: Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to remove certain provisions governing the Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education and its administration of the State University and certain federal land grant funds and to provide additional legislative oversight of public institutions of higher education through regular independent audits, without repealing the current statutory election process or other existing statutory provisions relating to the Board of Regents? In a nutshell: Voting in favor of Question 1 will allow the Legislature to change the policies and procedures of the Nevada System of Higher Education and will allow legislative oversight of the University of Nevada and other public state universities and colleges. Currently, the Board of Regents oversees higher education independently. This measure would place them under the oversight of the legislature. What it means: The Nevada Constitution requires that the legislature provides for the creation of a state university controlled by a Board of Regents, as well as the election of members to the board. The Legislature also has created laws to establish the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE). The ballot measure would remove the constitutional provisions governing the Board of Regents, and would require the legislature to oversee the State University, and provide for the auditing of public higher education institutions. The measure wouldn’t repeal any existing provisions for the board, including those that provide for the election of board members. Instead, according to the language, it would make the board a statutory body governed by the law, and subject to any statutory changes made through the legislative process. Those in favor say this will allow for additional legislative oversight and accountability of the Board to improve public higher education in Nevada. They argue for years, the legislature has received complaints about the Board’s policies and practices, but the Legislature has no ability to hold the Board accountable. They say this will also reduce the potential for financial mismanagement within NSHE. Those against argue that the legislature already has the ability to require financial audits, and the Board must explain and justify its financial management to the legislature. They argue that the Legislature only wants to “gain more power and control,” and the passage of the ballot measure would only “serve to add political pressures to a system that is serving the state well.” They argue that the ability to independently pursue research to retain expert faculty could be jeopardized with increased legislative influence in higher education, and that this is an attack on academic freedom. They say the measure would increase the potential for political interference over curriculum and academic standards at colleges and universities. Cost to voters? The financial impact of passing Question 1 cannot be determined according to the legislative digest. You can read the full text of the ballot measure, including arguments for and against, on the sample ballot or by reading the sample ballot online here. State Question 2 What it asks: Shall Section 1 of Article 13 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to: (1) revise the description of the persons who benefit from institutions that the State is required to foster and support; (2) replace the term “institutions” with “entities”; and (3) add entities for the benefit of persons with intellectual or developmental disabilities to the types of entities that the State is required to foster and support? In a nutshell: Updates language in the constitution relating to disabilities using previously acceptable terms such as "insane" "blind" "deaf and dumb" with modern language. What it means: This ballot measure updates texts with more modern language. "Insane" changes to "persons with significant mental illness," "blind" to "persons who are blind or visually impaired," and "deaf and dumb" to "persons who are deaf or heard of hearing." The measure also replaces the terms "institutions" with "entities" within Section 1 Article 13 of the Nevada Constitution. Those in favor of the measure state that the constitution was written over 160 years ago, and the language contained in it is now considered outdated and offensive. By changing institutions to entities the constitution will also mirror other state agency policies describing populations as being institutionalized. The US Congress took action over ten years ago to remove terms such as 'mental retardation" and "lunatic" from the United States Code. By changing blind to persons who are blind or visually impaired, this also recognizes that visual impairment exists on a spectrum and individuals who are not fully blind may still need access to public entities such as training and assistive technologies. Those against the measure state that amendments to the constitution should be a rare occurrence, and shouldn't be changed simply to update language considered offensive by today's standards. They argue the constitution should be looked at through the lens of its time, and at the time it was created, those terms were not considered offensive. They argue that people who are visually impaired already have access to public services. Cost to voters? The financial impact of passing Question 2 cannot be determined according to the legislative digest. You can read the full text of the ballot measure, including arguments for and against, on the sample ballot or by reading the sample ballot online here. State Question 3 What it asks: 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? In a nutshell: Question 3 would change how voters can choose candidates. If passed, it allows access to primaries for voters who are registered non-partisan or within minority parties. It would also allow ranked-choice voting within the general election, similarly to how caucuses are conducted in-person, meaning if your first choice does not qualify with enough votes, your vote can then be put behind your second-choice candidate if desired. What it means: If passed, the ballot measure will eliminate partisan primaries and establish an open top-five primary election and a ranked choice voting general election for local and state elections. Partisan means within your registered party. So, if you are a registered Republican, you can only vote within your Republican primary. If you are registered non-partisan, you cannot vote within the primaries for partisan elections. If enacted, Question 3 would then allow for all voters and all candidates to participate in a single primary election regardless of party affiliation. The top five finishers would then advance to the general election, and the general election winner is determined by ranked-choice voting. Ranked choice is how in-person caucusing currently operates. For example, if you attend your party's caucus with a candidate in mind that you want to support, but that candidate does not receive enough votes to qualify, you can then throw your support behind your second or third choice candidate. Ranked choice voting would allow for the same process, but at the polls rather than at a caucus. This also allows for non-partisan or third-party voters to vote outside their registered party. For example, if someone wishes to support their Libertarian or Green Party candidate, they can choose them as their first preference. However, if that candidate does not receive enough votes to qualify, that vote would then be transferred to their second place candidate, such as a Republican candidate or Democratic candidate. However, voters can choose to still only vote for one candidate and provide no alternatives if they desire. Currently, voters registered as non-partisan or "minor" party may only vote for nonpartisan contests during a primary election. This change does not apply to elections for President and Vice President of the United States. Those in favor of passage state that the current partisan election process excludes over one third of all Nevada voters from primary elections. They say that closed primaries are controlled by "political party insiders" and forces Nevadans to join a political party in order to vote. They say that because primary elections are funded by all tax-paying citizens, all tax-paying citizens should be able to participate. Allowing for only a two-party system means that elected leaders "only represent the most extreme party constituents," leading to leaders being more concerned about "angry partisan rhetoric" rather than making policy. Those against passage argue that the ballot measure would only make the"jungle primary" political process more confusing for voters. They say it will damage the traditional conduct of Nevada's elections and could shut out parties from running in the general election in some races by reducing the total number of candidates who could qualify to be on the ballot. They say that independent candidates would be prevented from launching a campaign in the general election, and instead would have to first begin in the primary elections against established party candidates. They say that the ballot measure is funded by "out-of-state special interest millionaires." They say people will accidentally throw their votes away because of confusion. Cost to voters? There will be a financial impact to voters. While the provision would eliminate the need to mail out separate sample ballots for Democrats and Republicans in the primaries, it would require an increase in the number of pages required to print each sample ballot which would be distributed to every registered voter. Opening primaries could also increase the number of individuals who wish to run for office during primaries, which could also increase the number of pages in sample ballots. The state has estimated that a one-time cost to implement the new system would carry a cost of $3.2 million in fiscal year 2025 prior to the November 2026 general election. This would be used for voter outreach and education, increased ballot stock costs, personnel expenses, equipment, software and programming costs for voting machines, and updates to training materials. In addition, they estimate there would be a per-year cost of $57,000 for licensing fees to election software vendors. You can read the full text of the ballot measure, including arguments for and against, on the sample ballot or by reading the sample ballot online here. State Question 4 What it asks: Shall the Ordinance of the Nevada Constitution and the Nevada Constitution be amended to remove language authorizing the use of slavery and involuntary servitude as a criminal punishment? In a nutshell: Currently the state constitution abolishes slavery and involuntary servitude except as a punishment for those convicted of a crime. Passage of this question would remove that exception and state slavery and involuntary servitude are abolished in all circumstances. What it means: "Slavery" is defined as a situation in which one person has absolute power over the life, fortune and liberty of another person, according to the legislative digest. Involuntary servitude is defined as the use or threat of physical restraint or physical injury or coercion through law or the legal process to force a person to work. Currently, Article I Section 17 of the Nevada Constitution prohibits slavery and involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime. This amendment removes this exception, meaning slavery and involuntary servitude is prohibited under any circumstance. Those in favor of passage argue that slavery and involuntary servitude are morally unacceptable and should not exist in any form, even in the prison system. They say using slavery as punishment for a crime has a history of discrimination and lack of respect for basic human rights, and has "disproportionate and hurtful impacts." They say in recent years, seven of the 23 states that permitted these types of punishment have removed the language. They say that within the prison system, offenders have the opportunity to volunteer for work to earn credits towards their sentences or wages that go toward restitution, child support and commissary. This change is not intended to impact voluntary work programs, the digest states. Those against passage state that the question could lead to "untended consequences" relating to prison work requirements, community service, and parole and probation. They argue that removing the language could create legal uncertainty around current offender work practices such as those who are assigned in prisons as clerks, cooks, boiler operators, and porters that provide basic labor to meet the institutions' operational needs. They say that offenders who voluntarily participate in work programs and offenders who choose community service as an alternative to incarceration could lose those opportunities. Cost to voters? The financial impact of passing Question 4 cannot be determined according to the legislative digest. You can read the full text of the ballot measure, including arguments for and against, on the sample ballot or by reading the sample ballot online here. State Question 5 What it asks: Shall the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 be amended to provide an exemption from the taxes imposed by this Act on the gross receipts from the sale and the storage, use or other consumption of diapers? In a nutshell: Passing this measure would make it so the purchase of diapers does not include sales tax. What it means: If passed, Question no. 5 would make it so that diapers - both adult and child - are exempted from sales tax from Jan. 1, 2025 through Dec. 31, 2050. Currently, sales taxes are imposted on the sale, storage, use and consumption of all tangible personal property unless it is exempted by law. This ballot measure would add diapers to the list of exemptions to sales tax. By passing the measure, the legislature would also amend the Local School Support Tax Law to add the exception. Those in favor of passage argue that all diapers should be except from sales and use taxes to increase their affordability and accessibility. Diapers are considered basic healthcare necessities, and without a sufficient supply of clean diapers, babies are at risk for skin infection, rashes, urinary tract infections, and viral meningitis. Adults with conditions that use diapers face similar health risks, and additionally face risks of social isolation. They say Nevada families spend on average $1,000 each year on diapers, and pay up to $84 in sales tax on those diapers, the equivalent of roughly one additional month supply of diapers. They say 20 other states already exempt diapers from sales taxes. Those against passage argue that exempting diapers will result in less revenue for the state and local governments, and reduce funding for public schools. They say it would reduce tax profits by at least $400 million between January 2025 and December 2050. They argue that other items deemed as necessities such as soap and toothpaste are not exempt from Nevada sales and use taxes, and that "chipping away" at tax revenues to benefit specific groups of people will limit the services the government can provide to all Nevadans. Cost to voters? The state estimates that the total loss of revenue per year would be approximately $7.9 million including $3 million to the state education fund. You can read the full text of the ballot measure, including arguments for and against, on the sample ballot or by reading the sample ballot online here. State Question 6 What it asks: Should the Nevada Constitution be amended to create an individual’s fundamental right to an abortion, without interference by state or local governments, whenever the abortion is performed by a qualified healthcare professional until fetal viability or when necessary to protect the health or life of the pregnant individual at any point during the pregnancy? In a nutshell: This measure would add language to the constitution stating abortion is a fundamental right which is to be performed by a qualified health care practitioner until fetal viability, or when needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient. It also establishes that the legislature, county or city governments cannot enact laws in opposition of the right to abortion unless justified by a "compelling state interest." What it means: Currently, Nevada State Law allows abortions within the state within 24 weeks, or after 24 weeks if needed to preserve the pregnant person's life or health. This new measure would add an additional section to the Nevada Constitution stating that abortion is a fundamental right, allowing the option for abortion to all individuals, not just Nevadans, according to the digest. The measure also states that abortion can occur up until fetal viability or "when needed to protect the life or health of the pregnant patient." Fetal viability means the point in pregnancy when the fetus could survive outside the uterus without the application of "extraordinary medical measures." The measure would also prevent the legislature, county and city governments from interfering with the constitutional right to abortion, stating they can only interfere if they have a "compelling state interest" in doing so. According to the digest, a compelling state interest "exists only if the government uses the least restrictive means to protect or improve the pregnant person’s life or health in ways that follow clinical standards of practice." Those in favor of passage state that abortion should be between a patient and their healthcare provider, not politicians. They say this passage is in response to "extreme abortion bans" occurring across the country and passage establishes a permanent layer of protection so that no matter who is in office, extreme abortion bans cannot become law within Nevada. Those against passage argue that passage would "write a blank check to fund unlimited 9-month abortions using taxpayer money" and "may force you the taxpayer to pay for abortions." They say that the current law allows for abortion up to 24 weeks and after to save the life or health of the pregnant person, which is "more pro-choice than Roe v. Wade." They argue that the provision does not specifically state "when taxpayers must pay for abortions," nor does it state exactly when abortion is legal by month. They argue it also does not state whether someone other than a doctor can "perform a secret surgical abortion on a 13-year-old girl" outside of a hospital. Cost to voters? The financial impact of passing Question 6 cannot be determined according to the legislative digest. You can read the full text of the ballot measure, including arguments for and against, on the sample ballot or by reading the sample ballot online here. State Question 7 What it asks: Should the Nevada Constitution be amended to require voters to either present photo identification to verify their identity when voting in-person or to provide certain personal information to verify their identity when voting by mail ballot? In a nutshell: The provision would require voter to present photo ID at the polls, or include identifying information with their mail-in ballots. What it means: If passed, the measure would create a requirement for otters to provide identification before they can receive a ballot. In-person they'd need to bring and ID card that is current, expired less than four years, or expired for any amount of time if the voter is over the age of 70. This could induced a Nevada driver's license, a government issued identification card, employee photo ID card issued by a government entity, a passport, military identification card, student photo card issued by a Nevada college, university or technical school, tribal photo identification, a Nevada concealed firearms permit, or other forms of government-issued photo identification "that the legislature may approve." Voters who vote by mail would need to include one of the following with their ballot: the last four digits of their Nevada driver's license number; if they do not have a driver's license, the last four digits of their social security number; or if they have neither a license nor a social security number, the number provided by the county clerk when the voter registered to vote. Currently, only voters who register by mail or computer and who have not previously voted in an election must provide identification. Voter identity is currently determined by signatures. Those in favor or passage say that this measure will increase confidence in election outcomes, and that "many people [have] lost trust in how elections were run." They say mail-in ballots have led to fears of fraud, and requiring voters to show a photo ID before voting is a "sensible and effective step to help make our elections more secure and give people more confidence in the results." They say a recent poll shows 74% of Nevadans support the measure, and that 36 states already require photo ID for voting which have resulted no major complaints or a decrease in voter turnout. Those against passage say that an ID requirement will mean fewer people will be eligible to cast ballots, while the new law will do nothing to prevent voter fraud. They say that "impersonating someone else at the polls never happens." They argue that Question 7 overreacts to a problem that does not exist, that IDs cost money and take time to get, and voters living in rural or tribal communities would have to travel long distances to a DMV to receive an ID. They say that almost 21% of all voting-age Americans don't have a valid driver's license with their current name and address. They say it's a waste of taxpayer money and will only keep Nevadans from voting. Cost to voters? The state estimates that the measure would have a financial impact on state and local governments relating to procedures and systems used during elections, including modifications related to the check-in of voters at the polling location and verification of mail-in ballots, as well as modifications to the statewide voter registration system. They estimate the cost to make these changes would be approximately $6,750. Other costs are unknown as it is assumed alternate forms of voter identification would be provided to the voter at no cost, according to the digest, meaning costs would be carried entirely by the state or local governments. You can read the full text of the ballot measure, including arguments for and against, on the sample ballot or by reading the sample ballot online here. All information for the summary comes directly from the ballot measure digest. Please refer to it for any additional information.