Discussions on gerrymandering often call for the creation of independent redistricting commissions to draw electoral maps. But in this episode of the Democracy Works podcast from the McCourtney Institute for Democracy, Christopher Fowler explains that plan is just part of a bigger solution to gerrymandering.
"On Las Vegas Boulevard" sign.
CARSON CITY, NEV. - A surprise last-minute bill to open primary elections to Nevada’s largest voting bloc, registered unaffiliated voters, moved quickly through the state legislature and was approved by a majority of lawmakers on the last day of the legislative session Monday.
The bill, AB597, allows voters not registered with a political party to pick between a Republican and Democratic primary ballot in future election cycles. It does not apply to the state’s presidential preference elections, which would remain closed to registered party members.
It was a long day for reform advocates as they waited late into the night for AB597 to come up for a final vote. Sponsored by Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager, the bill was introduced on May 26, approved by the House on May 30, and moved to the Senate on May 31.
The final vote in the Assembly was 27-15. The final vote in the Senate was 12-9.
“This is a bill that strengthens our democracy and brings our elections closer to the people that we are meant to serve,” Yeager said during a joint meeting of the Assembly and Senate committee on legislative operations and elections on Thursday.
It also seems clear that the near passage of Question 3 in November had a lasting impact. Yeager described his bill as a “pushing back” to the initiative, and said reformers will continue to try to exploit the issue of closed primaries “to fool around” with state elections.
“The dam is going to break one way or another. The question is: Are we going to be part of the process?” He said, implying that primary reform was inevitable. If it wasn’t approved by the legislature, a citizen initiative campaign would no doubt succeed in the future.
Registered unaffiliated voters make up roughly 35% of the state’s 2.13 million registered voters. They outnumber registered Democrats and Republicans (who each make up 29% of the electorate) -- yet they are denied equal access to the public elections process.
Notably, Yeager amended his bill to stipulate that unaffiliated voters who vote by mail must request a party’s ballot by the 7th Monday before primary election day. If we used last year’s June 11 primary as an example, the deadline would have been April 23.
Voters who fail to meet the deadline will have to vote in person.
Yeager opposed Question 3 in 2024, which would have implemented a nonpartisan primary open to all candidates and voters, regardless of party, and advanced the top 5 candidates to the general election where voters could use ranked choice voting to pick a majority winner.
The initiative was similar to the Top 4 system approved by a majority of voters in Alaska in 2020 and then protected by a majority of voters again in 2024.
In Nevada, Question 3 needed to be approved by voters in 2 consecutive elections in order to become law since it would have made changes to the state’s constitution. A 53% majority voted for it in 2022, but the same percentage rejected it in 2024.
It was strongly opposed by both political parties, who would have lost control of taxpayer-funded primaries as well as their outsized influence over election outcomes (especially considering that neither party can boast having the most voters in the state).
AB597 offers more limited reform. It gives unaffiliated voters access to non-presidential primary elections, but they have to choose between a Republican and Democratic ballot and can only pick from the candidates on that ballot.
It is similar to the semi-open primary system signed into law in New Mexico earlier this year.
The bill does not offer the same freedom of choice as Question 3, but it does open doors to critical elections that were previously closed to independents. And as far as reformers are concerned, it is a step in the right direction.
“To protect civil rights in Nevada, every eligible voter must be empowered to participate fully in all publicly financed elections,” said Sondra Cosgrove, executive director of Vote Nevada – which advocated for Question 3.
“It is encouraging to see that so many of our legislators, and we hope the governor, also share this view through their support of Assembly Bill 597,” she added.
It is unclear whether the governor will sign the bill into law. The Democratic majority in the legislature and Nevada Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar, a Democrat, have shown support and got it through the legislative process.
However, the state’s Republican Party strongly opposes it. In response to the bill being introduced in the legislature, Nevada Republican Party Chair Michael McDonald simply tweeted “NOPE.” The state’s governor, Joe Lombardo, is a Republican.
McDonald later elaborated and said unaffiliated voters "do not need, nor should they be allowed, to interfere in Republican or Democrat primaries” and accused state lawmakers of trying to overturn the will of voters.
No matter what action the governor takes, Cosgrove said AB597 is not the end of the conversation for reform advocates in Nevada.
“As we celebrate the legislative passage of AB597, supporters of Ballot Question 3 are ready to continue working to ensure that our election processes are fair, open, and genuinely reflect the needs of the people,” she said.
Independent Voters Just Got Power in Nevada – if the Governor Lets It Happen was originally published by Independent Voter News and is republished with permission.
Shawn Griffiths Is An Election Reform Expert And National Editor Of IVN.us.
In April 2025, the SAVE Act has been reintroduced in the 119th Congress and passed the House, with a much stronger chance of becoming law given the current political landscape.
In July 2024, I wrote about the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act when it was first introduced in Congress. And Sarah and I discussed it in an episode of Beyond the Bill Number which you can still listen to. Now, in April 2025, the SAVE Act has been reintroduced in the 119th Congress and passed the House, with a much stronger chance of becoming law given the current political landscape. It's time to revisit this legislation and examine its implications for American voters.
Read the IssueVoter analysis of the bill here for further insight and commentary.
The SAVE Act amends the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections. The acceptable forms of documentation include a REAL ID-compliant identification card, a valid U.S. passport, military identification with service records showing U.S. birth, a government-issued photo ID showing U.S. birthplace, or a combination of government-issued photo ID and secondary documents like birth certificates.
The bill requires states to implement programs to verify citizenship status and mandates that federal agencies share information to help states confirm citizenship. It also imposes criminal penalties on election officials who register non-citizens to vote.
Representative Chip Roy, the bill's sponsor, frames it as necessary to protect election integrity: "Secure elections are a key cornerstone for any representative government; without them, we won't have a country. Radical progressive Democrats know this and are using open border policies while also attacking election integrity laws to fundamentally remake America... we must end the practice of non-citizens voting in our elections."
While the goal of ensuring only eligible citizens vote is important, evidence suggests the SAVE Act is addressing a problem that largely doesn't exist.
According to the Migration Policy Institute, noncitizen voting in U.S. elections is "exceedingly rare." A study by the Brennan Center for Justice of the 2016 election found just 0.0001% of 23.5 million votes cast in 42 jurisdictions surveyed were suspected noncitizen votes. Forty of those 42 jurisdictions reported no known incidents of noncitizen voting.
The database of election fraud cases maintained by the Heritage Foundation (a conservative organization deeply invested in proving widespread voter fraud is real) identified only 23 instances of noncitizen voting between 2003 and 2022. And according to the Bipartisan Policy Center, there were only 77 instances of noncitizens voting between 1999 and 2023.
Several states have conducted audits of their voter rolls. The Associated Press reported that states including North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona, California, and Texas reviewed their voter rolls between 2016 and 2022 and found fewer than 50 noncitizens in each state had voted in recent elections, out of upwards of 23 million total votes per state.
These findings are unsurprising given the severe consequences for noncitizens who attempt to vote. Federal law already prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections, with penalties including up to five years in federal prison and potential deportation. The current voter registration system also requires applicants to affirm under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens.
While the SAVE Act would likely have minimal impact on preventing the already rare instances of noncitizen voting, it could create significant barriers for eligible U.S. citizens trying to exercise their right to vote.
Elizabeth C. Matto, writing for The Hill, argues that the SAVE Act "would exclude millions of eligible Americans from registering and voting simply because they lack the necessary paperwork to satisfy its extreme documentation requirements." Many Americans do not have passports or ready access to their birth certificates, and most driver's licenses, even those that meet REAL ID requirements, do not prove citizenship.
According to research cited by the Bipartisan Policy Center, "more than 9 percent of American citizens of voting age, or 21.3 million people, don't have proof of citizenship readily available." The burden would fall disproportionately on already marginalized communities, including college students, people experiencing homelessness, and women who have changed their names after marriage.
This was evident in Arizona, which began requiring proof of citizenship to vote in 2004. Analysis conducted by Votebeat found that rather than catching noncitizens, the requirement disproportionately affected "college students and individuals experiencing homelessness—both transient populations that are more likely to lack identifying documentation."
Beyond the impact on individual voters, the SAVE Act presents significant implementation challenges for states and election officials.
The Bipartisan Policy Center notes that the act "requires significant changes to each step of the voter registration process: how voters register, how their identities are verified, and how list maintenance is performed on an ongoing basis. These changes would be costly and time consuming, taking months–if not years–to achieve."
Despite these challenges, the act provides no transition period or funding to help states implement the new requirements. It becomes effective immediately upon enactment, and the Election Assistance Commission is given just 10 days to provide implementation guidance to states.
Previous attempts at large-scale citizenship verification have also proven problematic. In 2019, Texas Secretary of State David Whitley flagged 95,000 registered voters as potential noncitizens. The effort ended with his resignation after it emerged that tens of thousands of names on the list were legitimate citizens.
If the goal is to improve voter roll accuracy while minimizing barriers to voting, there are more effective approaches available.
The Bipartisan Policy Center suggests improving data sharing between state departments of motor vehicles and election offices. In Colorado, for example, the state DMV shares daily updates with the election office, enabling them to continuously evaluate voter eligibility without placing additional burdens on voters.
The center also recommends expanding state access to federal eligibility data to make it easier and less costly for election officials to verify citizenship status when necessary.
The SAVE Act passed the House on April 10, 2025 on a largely partisan vote - four Democrats joined all Republicans to get it over the line. They were Reps Jared Golden (Maine), Marie Gluesenkamp Pérez (Wash.), Henry Cuellar (Texas) and Ed Case (Hawaii). The bill is currently awaiting committee assignment in the Senate. A companion bill has been reintroduced in the Senate by Senator Mike Lee. With Republican control of both chambers and Donald Trump in the White House, the bill has a much stronger chance of becoming law than it did in the previous Congress, particularly as Republicans have declared it to be one of their top priorities. It would require 60 votes in the Senate, however, to overcome an expected Democrat filibuster. Given the widespread opposition, this currently looks unlikely.
If it were to become law, it would represent a significant shift in how America approaches voting rights. As Matto notes: "Throughout the nation's history, constitutional amendments and landmark legislation ranging from the Voting Rights Act to the Americans with Disabilities Act have broadened the franchise making the promise of American democracy a reality for 'we the people.' As the nation prepares to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it seems an unfortunate moment to undermine this promise."
While ensuring that only eligible citizens vote in American elections is an important goal, the SAVE Act represents a disproportionate response to a minimal problem. By creating significant barriers to voting for millions of eligible Americans, particularly those from marginalized communities, the act risks undermining the democratic principles it claims to protect.
As House Minority Whip Rep. Katherine Clark stated during the previous debate, "Despite numerous recounts, challenges in court, and deep-dives by conservative think-tanks, there has been zero evidence of the widespread fraud that this bill purports to target."
In the end, the SAVE Act may save us from a largely imaginary threat while creating very real barriers to participation in our democracy. As we continue to debate this legislation, we should ensure that any efforts to secure our elections don't come at the cost of excluding eligible American citizens from the democratic process.
The SAVE Act: Addressing a Non-Existent Problem at the Cost of Voter Access? was originally published by Bill Track50 and is shared with permission.
Stephen Rogers is a Data Wrangler at BillTrack50.
With the stroke of a pen, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham enfranchised almost 350,000 independent voters recently by signing a bill for open primaries. Just a few years ago, bills to open the primaries were languishing in the state legislature, as they have historically across the country. But as more and more voters leave both parties and declare their independence, the political system is buckling. And as independents begin to organize and speak out, it’s going to continue to buckle in their direction.
In 2004, there were 120,000 independent voters in New Mexico. A little over 10 years later, when the first open primary bill was introduced, that number had more than doubled. That bill never even got a hearing. But today the number of independents in New Mexico and across the country is too big to ignore. Independents are the largest group of voters in ten states and the second-largest in most others. That’s putting tremendous pressure on a system that wasn’t designed with them in mind.
Independent voters in the United States are often overlooked or disregarded. That is, until their votes are needed, because independents often decide most close elections in November. The problem is that most elections in America aren’t decided in November anymore, as fewer and fewer seats, from Congress to County Sheriff, are competitive. That means primary elections are our country’s most important elections. Millions of independent voters are shut out of many of them. They are finding themselves increasingly represented by politicians whom they were never able to cast a meaningful ballot for or against.
For too long in New Mexico, where calls for equality and democracy are part of everyday conversation, the silence from the political class on these issues was deafening. However, something interesting began to happen. Independents began speaking out about the injustice of paying taxes for public elections that excluded them from participation. The media and many party members themselves began questioning the premise. Closed primaries are so unfair, so antithetical to American democracy, they are hard to defend for anyone but the most rabid partisans.
There were various attempts to obfuscate the issue, though. In equal terms, officials questioned whether independents wanted to vote and how they might cast their votes. The same questions have been asked about every disenfranchised group of voters since the fight to extend the franchise beyond white male landowners began.
Officials then sought to enact policies they claimed would serve the same interest, such as same-day voter registration. However, these policies had little impact on independent voter participation because they still required them to join a political party, and voters continued to demand a fair shake. They adopted automatic voter registration, only to find that when given a choice, new voters were overwhelmingly choosing to register as independent.
As independents began to stand up, their full diversity was on display. A 21-year-old Navajo voter, Rodzaiah Curtis, declared in an editorial that “Native voters are almost three times more likely to register as unaffiliated with a political party than non-Native voters.” Many of the legislature's representatives were hard pressed to oppose reform after finding that 42% of Hispanic voters are independent in a state with one of the largest populations of Hispanic voters in the country.
The youngest female representative to ever serve, Representative Cristina Parajón, declared in an editorial that “young people are registering as unaffiliated voters at an increasingly overwhelming rate. Young people in New Mexico vote at some of the lowest rates in the country. It’s not because they don’t want to participate, it’s because there are barriers to participating — like closed primaries.”
New Mexico is far from alone. And independents are just the tip of the iceberg. Americans of all stripes are questioning why our political system is increasingly at odds with the views of ordinary voters. When the first round of voting is restricted to narrow party bases, we get a system that prioritizes party loyalty over the public good. Partisanship is poisoning our great democracy and leaving voters with the false choice of playing along or sitting it out.
But independents are no longer playing along or sitting it out. They are beginning to organize and flex their muscles. Fellow independents and party members alike are standing with them and demanding a more perfect union. Political leaders, at least the ones smart enough to want to build bridges with the fastest-growing group of voters in the country, are starting to listen.
And New Mexico is just the beginning.
Jeremy Gruber is the SVP of Open Primaries, a national election reform organization. He was part of the coalition that passed open primaries in New Mexico.
"Voter Here" sign outside of a polling location.
President Trump’s election-related executive order begins by pointing out practices in Canada, Sweden, Brazil, and elsewhere that outperform the U.S. But it is Trump’s order itself that really demonstrates how far we’ve fallen behind. In none of the countries mentioned, or any other major democracy in the world, would the head of government change election rules by decree, as Trump has tried to do.
Trump is the leader of a political party that will fight for control of Congress in 2026, an election sure to be close, and important to his presidency. The leader of one side in such a competition has no business unilaterally changing its rules—that’s why executive decrees changing elections only happen in tinpot dictatorships, not democracies.
The Constitution is very clear: the states and Congress determine the time, place, and manner of elections, not the president. Trump’s decree will almost certainly be overruled in court. If not, America is in deep trouble.
Last week, Republicans in the House voted unanimously to pass the SAVE Act, which contains key elements of Trump’s order. The Act requires documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, meaning significant hassles for citizens who lack passports and birth certificates. The goal is to prevent voting by noncitizens even though many studies have found it’s vanishingly rare.
The full impact is hard to assess but certainly some citizens—of both parties—will lose their ability to vote. In other words, Republicans have chosen fealty to their leader’s false narrative over the rights of their own voters.
The Senate will likely stop the SAVE Act, just as the Supreme Court will likely overturn Trump’s decree. But it won’t be so easy to contain the downstream impact of what’s going on in Washington on state elections and the people who run them.
The oversight and management of state elections are in the hands of secretaries of state, county clerks, and state and county election board members. In nearly every state, these people are deeply connected to—and exposed to pressure from—one competing party or another.
America has long been able to trust that these individuals will abide by the norm of country over party and act with neutrality, even when laws don’t explicitly require they do so. But they now face major political pressure—and political incentives—to put their party first, not their country.
We’ve already seen the downstream impacts on this vulnerable election system of dangerous ideas at the national level. Following Trump’s assertion that the 2020 election was stolen, local officials in eight states baselessly refused to certify election results. Counties imposed deeply flawed ideas like hand-counting all ballots.
The secretary of state position, now a magnet for the politically ambitious, is most deeply vulnerable to the new distortions arising in our politicized election world. In 2022, thirty candidates ran for secretary of state while refusing to accept lawful presidential results. In 2023, eight secretaries of state took their states out of ERIC, the interstate data-sharing system critical to election integrity, just to win points with partisans and conspiracy theorists.
On both sides of the aisle, some secretaries of state have completely abandoned the neutrality their job requires. Ohio Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose probably changed the result of an anti-gerrymandering ballot initiative by imposing deeply deceptive ballot language. Colorado Democratic Secretary of State Jena Griswold acted with such overt partisanship during the presidential campaign that an impeachment resolution was filed against her.
Next year, elections will take place for secretary of state in 26 states. We shouldn’t be surprised if Republican candidates insist that elections can’t be legitimate without documentary proof of citizenship for registration, deeply undermining trust in the laws of their own states.
We need a huge neutrality campaign to ensure that secretaries of state and others in charge of elections act with strict public neutrality toward all candidates and referenda they oversee and with strict obedience to the rule of law. For the time being, this campaign will need to rely on voluntary commitments—but with enough persistence, maybe the question of “Are you committed to neutrality?” could factor into press coverage of secretary of state campaigns.
Next, we should move beyond voluntary commitments to enact state laws that explicitly require neutrality and enact state constitutional amendments that restructure key positions like chief election officer, election board member, and canvass board member to be less exposed to political pressure. Bipartisan public support is there to make this happen: voters on both sides strongly support impartiality from the people who run elections.
The bottom line is clear: we don’t need banana republic diktats from President Trump or banana republic loyalty from state election officials. But we do need a recommitment across the election ecosystem that puts our country before a party.
Kevin Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization.
