Clark County voters have a chance to bring ranked-choice voting to county elections and could approve the establishment of a diversity, equity and inclusion department and commission.
The November general election features six potential amendments to the Clark County Home Rule Charter. Those amendments would change the county’s governing document, which was approved by voters in 2014.
The amendments were approved in December by the county’s charter review commission, a 15-member body elected to consider changes to the charter. The commission initially put up seven amendments that were voted on in 2021, and all but one passed.
For this year, the amendments range from adding a preamble to the charter to a change in how county citizens vote on county government positions.
Potentially the most prominent of the amendments would be the one that deals with ranked-choice voting. If approved, the amendment would allow voters to assign a “rank” to each candidate. Any candidate with enough first-choice votes to gain a majority would automatically move on. If no one receives a majority, then the candidate with the least first-choice votes is eliminated, and the second-choice vote for those who had the eliminated candidate as their first choice takes their place, according to information from the county on the amendment.
If approved, ranked-choice voting would start in 2026. The voting structure is only for county-level elected offices, which includes county councilors, the county assessor, treasurer, auditor, clerk, sheriff and prosecuting attorney.
Proponents of ranked-choice voting say it will eliminate the need to worry about choosing the “lesser of two evils,” according to a voter guide statement.
“Ranked-choice voting means more civil campaigns, because candidates want to reach out to voters beyond their base to earn (lower-ranked) choice support,” amendment proponents wrote.
Opponents to the measure believe ranked-choice voting overcomplicates the process. In the voters guide, the writers’ point to “ballot exhaustion,” or when there are no more valid votes to count, which leads candidates without majority support to move on through election processes.
“Do you really want your (third, fourth or fifth) choice getting elected?” the amendment opponents asked. “It’s convoluted and disenfranchises voters who are less likely to vote while attempting to keep you from electing the candidate of your choice.”
Proponents of the measure stated ranked-choice voting “is the fastest growing election reform in the country because it works and voters like it.”
The second amendment up for a vote would require a public meeting that includes both the county council and other elected county executives to appoint a new Clark County manager. Proponents of the measure say it would help the decision-making process of hiring a new county manager, which is the highest executive position in county government.
Opponents say the requirement for the other elected officials to be present could lead to a backdoor veto power when hiring someone for the position.
The third amendment to be considered in November would add a preamble to the charter. Amendment proponents reference government documents like the U.S. Constitution which features a preamble. In the voters guide, they wrote the preamble could express “the unifying visions and philosophies that guided local leaders in its formation, and which may inspire future county leaders and charter reviewers.”
Opponents of the preamble called the proposal “a diversity and inclusion, ‘woke’” section.
“It is being added as an afterthought since it was not written and included by the original commission that wrote the Clark County Home Rule Charter,” the opponents wrote. “Had it been part of the original draft of the Charter, it likely would have doomed the Charter’s adoption.”
The fourth amendment under consideration would require those county elected positions to “provide a certified list of senior office employees to serve in that official’s role if the position became vacant until the position is filled in the next general election,” according to the election guide. Currently, the charter doesn’t provide the process, amendment supporters said. Those against the amendment did not support putting an unelected official in an elected position.
Another amendment would decrease the number of petitioners required to put a referendum vote on the ballot. Currently, 10% of the population who voted in the last gubernatorial election are needed to petition, whereas the amendment would drop it to 8%.
Opponents to the measure say an approval will not improve the restrictions the county already has on citizen petitions, which they called “one of the most restrictive” in the state. It doesn’t address the timeframes needed for submission, they argue.
The last amendment is essentially a retry at the only measure put forth by the review commission last year that failed to get a majority. The amendment would establish both a “diversity and inclusion officer position” and a similarly-titled advisory commission.
The county currently doesn’t have an oversight office or commission to watch non-discrimination policy in the county. Proponents stated having such roles are “an established standard for large organizations” like the county.
Opponents pointed to last year’s failure of 56.3% against the initial attempt to create something similar. They stated it would create “a new permanent, unaccountable layer of government” that would ironically cause more divisiveness through quotas for diversity.
