• Home
  • Opinion
  • Quizzes
  • Redistricting
  • Sections
  • About Us
  • Voting
  • Events
  • Civic Ed
  • Campaign Finance
  • Directory
  • Election Dissection
  • Fact Check
  • Glossary
  • Independent Voter News
  • News
  • Analysis
  • Subscriptions
  • Log in
Leveraging Our Differences
  • news & opinion
    • Big Picture
      • Civic Ed
      • Ethics
      • Leadership
      • Leveraging big ideas
      • Media
    • Business & Democracy
      • Corporate Responsibility
      • Impact Investment
      • Innovation & Incubation
      • Small Businesses
      • Stakeholder Capitalism
    • Elections
      • Campaign Finance
      • Independent Voter News
      • Redistricting
      • Voting
    • Government
      • Balance of Power
      • Budgeting
      • Congress
      • Judicial
      • Local
      • State
      • White House
    • Justice
      • Accountability
      • Anti-corruption
      • Budget equity
    • Columns
      • Beyond Right and Left
      • Civic Soul
      • Congress at a Crossroads
      • Cross-Partisan Visions
      • Democracy Pie
      • Our Freedom
  • Pop Culture
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
      • American Heroes
      • Ask Joe
      • Celebrity News
      • Comedy
      • Dance, Theatre & Film
      • Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging
      • Faithful & Mindful Living
      • Music, Poetry & Arts
      • Sports
      • Technology
      • Your Take
  • events
  • About
      • Mission
      • Advisory Board
      • Staff
      • Contact Us
Sign Up
  1. Home>
  2. Election Dissection>
  3. voting rights>

Nevada's Question 4 could be the beginning of a new voting rights era

Laura Williamson
October 30, 2020
Las Vegas
Wikimedia

In an election year when voting rights have been under tremendous attack, Nevada voters have the chance to make their state the national leader in voting rights.

Question 4, which has mostly flown under the national radar, would enshrine Nevada's Voters Bill of Rights into the state Constitution. If voters pass the measure, this bill of rights will become the most affirmative, comprehensive set of voter protections in any state.


While all 50 states provide some voting protections in their constitutions, none are as detailed as Nevada's would be. And the fine print matters. The absence of affirmative, comprehensive voter rights in the U.S. Constitution — and the limited protections in state constitutions — have allowed state legislators to pass laws that infringe on voting rights, suppressing the vote. Courts have upheld these restrictions.

The elections of 2020 have been carried out amidst a deadly pandemic. Uprisings in support of Black Lives Matter have been met with a violent white supremacist backlash. This has starkly exposed the impact of insufficient constitutional protections for the right to vote. They've also left many wondering what voting could have looked like this year, with stronger voting-rights laws.

There's good reason to believe, if voters in every state had the constitutional right to "receive and cast a ballot that is written in a format," as the voters of Nevada may soon have, states like Texas and Tennessee would have had a harder time justifying strict excuse requirements for absentee voting during a pandemic.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

It's hard to imagine how, if voters in all states had a constitutional right to "vote without being intimidated, threatened, or coerced," a judge in Michigan would have allowed for the open carry of guns at polling places. Or how, if all voters had a constitutional right to "have equal access to the elections system without discrimination," Alabama could have succeeded in banning curbside voting. That's a critical option for voters with disabilities and others facing heightened Covid-19 risk.

To be sure, such state constitutional protections won't solve everything. The federal courts today are a hostile venue for voting rights, and it may get worse. In an opinion this week preventing Wisconsin from counting ballots postmarked by but received after Election Day, Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled the court's willingness to usurp state courts' power to interpret their own voting laws.

Yet, constitutions are still the place where we enshrine our most fundamental values and protections. They're one of the most powerful strategies in the fight for an inclusive democracy. That's why at Demos we have advocated for an amendment that achieves a truly pro-democracy U.S. Constitution. And it's why, as the votes are counted after Nov. 3, we'll be watching to see whether Nevadans lead the nation in advancing such a vision.

Laura Williamson is a senior policy analyst working on voting rights and democracy at Demos. Read more from The Fulcrum's Election Dissection blog.

From Your Site Articles
  • Fact checking Trump's claim about Nevada's vote-by-mail plan - The ... ›
  • Voting rights restored to felons in Nevada - The Fulcrum ›
  • Fact check: Nevada's absentee ballot plan is legal - The Fulcrum ›
  • Nevada - The Fulcrum ›
Related Articles Around the Web
  • Nevada Ballot Initiative Analysis: Question 4 (2020) | Reason ... ›
  • What is Question 4 on the 2020 Nevada ballot? - YouTube ›
  • The Indy Explains: Question 4, enshrining voting rights in the state ... ›
  • Nevada Question 4, State Constitutional Rights of Voters ... ›
voting rights

Want to write
for The Fulcrum?

If you have something to say about ways to protect or repair our American democracy, we want to hear from you.

Submit
Get some Leverage Sign up for The Fulcrum Newsletter
Follow
Contributors

Reform in 2023: Leadership worth celebrating

Layla Zaidane

Two technology balancing acts

Dave Anderson

Reform in 2023: It’s time for the civil rights community to embrace independent voters

Jeremy Gruber

Congress’ fix to presidential votes lights the way for broader election reform

Kevin Johnson

Democrats and Republicans want the status quo, but we need to move Forward

Christine Todd Whitman

Reform in 2023: Building a beacon of hope in Boston

Henry Santana
Jerren Chang
latest News

Becoming the (healthy) fungus among us

Debilyn Molineaux
4h

Podcast: God squad: Let friendship redeem the republic

Our Staff
5h

Facebookopoly

Seth David Radwell
5h

Does partisanship impact happiness?

Lynn Schmidt
07 February

Return copyright to its roots: Compensate human creators

Samantha Close
07 February

It’s the institutional design, stupid! With a parliamentary system, America could avoid gridlock and instability

Milind Thakar
06 February
Videos

Video: America's civic education gap: What can business do?

Our Staff

Video: What does it mean to be Black?

Our Staff

Video: The dignity index

Our Staff

Video: The Supreme Court and originalism

Our Staff

Video: How the baby boom changed American politics

Our Staff

Video: What the speakership election tells us about the 118th Congress webinar

Our Staff
Podcasts

Podcast: God squad: Let friendship redeem the republic

Our Staff
5h

Podcast: Why Democrats fail with rural voters

Our Staff
06 February

Podcast: Anti-racism: The pro-human approach

Our Staff
03 February

Podcast: 2024 Senate: Democrats have a lot of defending to do

Our Staff
02 February
Recommended
Becoming the (healthy) fungus among us

Becoming the (healthy) fungus among us

Big Picture
Podcast: God squad: Let friendship redeem the republic

Podcast: God squad: Let friendship redeem the republic

Podcasts
Facebookopoly

Facebookopoly

Big Picture
Does partisanship impact happiness?

Does partisanship impact happiness?

Big Picture
Return copyright to its roots: Compensate human creators

Return copyright to its roots: Compensate human creators

Business & Democracy
Video: America's civic education gap: What can business do?

Video: America's civic education gap: What can business do?