Nevada's nonpartisan voters may gain access to primaries under new proposal

In a significant move to reshape Nevada's electoral landscape, Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager (D-Las Vegas) introduced Assembly Bill 597 (AB597) on Monday, aiming to allow nonpartisan voters to participate in major party primaries for state and presidential elections. With nonpartisans comprising the largest voting bloc in Nevada—over 840,000 registered voters, or about 36% of active voters—this bill could transform the state's primary election process.

Expanding voting access for nonpartisans

Currently, Nevada law prohibits nonpartisan voters from participating in Republican or Democratic primaries, which determine candidates for offices ranging from the presidency to the state Legislature. This leaves nonpartisans, whose numbers have surged since the state implemented automatic voter registration in 2021 (defaulting new voters to nonpartisan status), unable to influence primary outcomes unless they switch party affiliation.

AB597 seeks to change this by allowing nonpartisan voters to request a partisan primary ballot, either online from their county clerk at least 14-days before the election or in person during early voting. Voters would be limited to choosing a ballot from one major political party, and their choice would be recorded in the state’s voter registration list. This proposal stops short of a fully open primary system, which would allow any voter to participate in any party’s primary, but it significantly expands voting options for nonpartisans.

“It’s just time to make sure that nonpartisans and non-affiliated voters can vote in partisan elections,” Yeager said, noting that he has been considering the idea for some time. The bill’s late introduction, with only one week left in the legislative session, suggests behind-the-scenes negotiations among key lawmakers, as Yeager remarked, “We had some things to get done first.”

Mixed reactions and political context

The proposal has sparked varied responses. The Nevada Secretary of State’s Office, led by Cisco Aguilar, is reviewing the bill and expressed support for expanding ballot access, stating it looks forward to a “substantive conversation.” However, opposition has emerged from Republican circles. Nevada Republican Party Chair Michael McDonald bluntly rejected the bill with a “NOPE” on social media, offering no further comment. The Washoe County Republican Party also opposed the measure, arguing in an email to members that it could lead to voter confusion and allow nonpartisans to “game the system,” undermining the primary process’s purpose of reflecting party preferences.

The bill follows the failure of Question 3 in the 2024 general election, which proposed open primaries and ranked-choice voting for non-presidential general elections. Despite passing in 2022, it garnered only 47% support in 2024 and was opposed by both major parties, including Yeager, who cited voter confusion as a concern. AB597 appears to take a more targeted approach, avoiding the complexities of ranked-choice voting while addressing nonpartisan exclusion in primaries.

Legislative details and broader implications

AB597 includes several key provisions to implement the change:

• Ballot requests: Nonpartisan voters can request a partisan mail ballot or an in-person partisan ballot for a primary or presidential preference primary election.

• County clerk responsibilities: Clerks must prepare and distribute partisan mail ballots to nonpartisan voters who request them.

• Voter registration changes: The bill removes the requirement for automatic voter registration agencies to notify individuals that they cannot vote in partisan primaries without a party affiliation.

• Voting system adjustments: The bill lifts restrictions on counting votes cast by nonpartisan voters for major party candidates in primaries, while still prohibiting unlawful votes.

• Election board protocols: Election boards must issue partisan ballots and, where applicable, voting receipts indicating the chosen party to nonpartisan voters who request them.

This proposal comes in a legislative session where election-related bills have been relatively quiet. Democrats, holding majorities in both chambers, have blocked GOP-backed measures like voter ID requirements and mail ballot restrictions. Meanwhile, a separate Yeager proposal to increase ballot drop boxes was vetoed by Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo, his only veto this session.

Looking ahead

The bill’s introduction reflects a growing recognition of nonpartisan voters’ influence in Nevada, where they outnumber both Republicans and Democrats. If passed, AB597 could empower this significant voting bloc, reshaping how primary elections function in the Silver State.

For more details on Nevada’s election laws and updates on AB597, visit the Nevada Secretary of State’s website or follow legislative developments at the Nevada Legislature’s website.

Silver State looking purple

Nevada, known as the Silver State, is earning a new moniker: the Purple State. According to the latest public opinion polling from Noble Predictive Insights (NPI), Nevada’s political landscape is a vibrant mix of optimism, division, and shared priorities. The Nevada Public Opinion Pulse (NVPOP), conducted last month, surveyed 814 registered voters with a margin of error of ±3.43%, revealing a state that’s politically split but hopeful about its future.

A state in flux: Optimism amid division

Nevada voters are feeling good about their state’s trajectory, with 53% believing it’s headed in the right direction—a sentiment unchanged since January 2025. This optimism persists despite a deeply divided political scene. The state remains a battleground, with Democrats leading by 3 points on a generic congressional ballot (a 5-point swing from January’s Republican lead of 2 points). However, Republicans hold a steady 4-point edge as the preferred party to run the state, signaling voters’ desire for a balance of power.

Both parties boast popular leaders. Republican Governor Joe Lombardo enjoys strong approval (+14) and favorability (+10). Meanwhile, Democratic U.S. Senators Jacky Rosen (+12) and Catherine Cortez Masto (+18), along with Attorney General Aaron Ford (+12), also command double-digit favorability ratings. President Donald Trump, however, remains a polarizing figure, with a net job approval and economic approval of -6 and a net favorability of -2, statistically similar to January’s -1.

David Byler, NPI’s Chief of Research, attributes Nevada’s purple hue to its diversity. “Nevada is a purple state because it’s diverse. There are working-class voters of every racial group, many recent arrivals, suburbs, and urban centers—both party coalitions are a wild mix, and many voters don’t belong solely to one team,” Byler explains. This complexity allows politicians from both sides to craft appealing brands.

Top issues: Economic anxiety unites voters

Nevadans across party lines are laser-focused on economic concerns. The NVPOP poll identifies affordable housing (53%), inflation (48%), and healthcare (37%) as the top three issues. Notably, affordable housing has surpassed inflation as the number one concern since January, reflecting growing frustration with the cost of living.

• Republicans prioritize inflation (52%), housing (49%), and immigration (36%).

• Democrats focus on housing (54%), inflation (42%), and healthcare (41%).

• Independents mirror the broader electorate, citing housing (55%), inflation (48%), and healthcare (36%).

Byler notes that economic discontent, particularly around housing costs, drove some voters to support Trump in the last election. “Nevada voted for Trump, in part, because they were discontented with rising prices under Joe Biden. Right now, they’re still dealing with this issue, with housing costs as a leading cause of financial pain,” he says. Interestingly, immigration, a key issue during the campaign, is fading from voters’ minds as President Trump acts on it, allowing economic concerns to dominate.

Nevada’s purple future

Nevada’s political landscape is a microcosm of its diverse population and complex priorities. While voters are optimistic about the state’s direction, they remain split on party leadership, creating a true purple state where both Republicans and Democrats can thrive. Economic issues like housing and inflation unite Nevadans, cutting across party lines and shaping the political conversation. As Byler puts it, “That diversity and complexity leaves room for politicians from both parties to build a popular brand.”

For a deeper dive into the data, check out the NVPOP Dashboard on Noble Predictive Insights’ website.

References:

Noble Predictive Insights. (2025, May 6). Nevada: The Silver State? More like the Purple State. Retrieved from https://www.nobleinsights.com/nevada-purple-state.

Nevada considers alternative training pathway for hygienists

Nevada faces a critical shortage of dental hygienists, leaving many communities—especially rural and underserved areas—without adequate access to preventive dental care. The alternative training pathway for dental hygienists, introduced in Governor Lombardo’s recently introduced health care access legislation (Sections 77-79), is a bold step to address Nevada’s critical need.

A dire shortage of dental hygienists

Nevada’s dental hygiene workforce is stretched thin. With only about 1,500 hygienists serving a population of 3.2 million—roughly half the national average—many residents struggle to access routine dental care. The state’s two dental hygiene programs produce just 30 graduates annually, far too few to meet demand. The biennial workforce assessment mandated by Section 7 of the legislation confirms these shortages, particularly in rural counties and underserved urban neighborhoods. Without action, oral health disparities will persist, leading to higher rates of dental disease and costly emergency treatments.

Breaking down barriers to licensure

Traditional dental hygiene programs, requiring two to four years of study, are time-intensive and costly, deterring potential candidates. The alternative training pathway offers a supervised, hands-on training course under a licensed dentist, bypassing the need for an accredited degree. Candidates must still pass rigorous competency, written, and clinical exams to ensure quality, but this streamlined route reduces financial and time barriers. By making licensure more accessible, the pathway can rapidly increase the number of qualified hygienists, especially for those who might otherwise be excluded due to economic or geographic constraints.

Expanding access to preventive care

The pathway doesn’t just add hygienists—it empowers them to do more. Hygienists licensed through this route can practice in non-traditional settings, like community clinics, schools, or mobile dental units, reaching populations with limited access to dental offices. They’re also authorized to prescribe and dispense additional preventive agents, such as fluoride treatments and sealants, enhancing their role in preventing dental issues before they escalate. This expanded scope is critical for addressing oral health disparities, particularly among low-income and rural Nevadans who face higher risks of untreated dental conditions.

A targeted, data-driven solution

The pathway is activated only during bienniums when Section 7’s workforce assessment documents a shortage, ensuring it’s a precise response to real needs. This data-driven approach prevents oversaturation while directing resources where they’re most needed. Coupled with funding opportunities from the Nevada Health Care Workforce and Access Program (Sections 2-18), the pathway can support training initiatives, making it a sustainable solution to bolster the dental workforce.

Expanded Function Dental Assistant legislation proposed and paused

Assemblymember Heidi Kasama and health care lobbyist Paul Klein championed legislation to authorize Nevada’s Expanded Function Dental Assistants (EFDAs) to perform coronal scaling—a preventive procedure to remove soft plaque and stains traditionally handled by hygienists. Requiring national certification and dentist supervision, this proposal aimed to alleviate Nevada’s strained dental workforce and enhance access to care in underserved areas, though it faced opposition from the hygienists’ association, which some criticize for prioritizing professional exclusivity over addressing shortages.

Despite opposition from hygienists, legislators wanted to see the EFDA training programs fully operational before expanding their duties. The legislation was paused until the EFDA training at Truckee Meadows Community College (TMCC) launches, with advocates determined to advance EFDA roles once training is established.

A Targeted, Data-Driven Solution

Both the hygienist pathway and the EFDA expansion are tied to the Section 7 workforce assessment, which identifies shortages and guides resource allocation. The hygienist pathway is activated only during bienniums with documented shortages, ensuring precision. Similarly, the EFDA legislation targets areas with limited access to hygienists, leveraging a larger pool of dental assistants to fill gaps. Coupled with funding from the Nevada Health Care Workforce and Access Program (Sections 2-18), these initiatives can support training and implementation, making them sustainable solutions.

A healthier Nevada

The alternative training pathway for dental hygienists is a game-changer for Nevada’s oral health landscape. By addressing workforce shortages, lowering barriers to licensure, and expanding access to preventive care, it tackles the root causes of dental care inequities. Nevada must fully implement and support this legislation to ensure every resident—regardless of location or income—can achieve a healthier smile. The time to act is now.

No tax on tips: House Republicans’ legislation and its impact on Nevada

In May 2025, House Republicans unveiled a sweeping tax package that includes a provision to eliminate federal income taxes on tips, fulfilling a campaign promise by President Donald Trump. This “No Tax on Tips” policy, embedded in a broader budget reconciliation bill, has significant implications for Nevada, a state with the nation’s highest concentration of tipped workers. Below, we explore the legislation’s details, its potential impacts, and its relevance to Nevada’s economy and workforce.

The Legislation at a glance

The No Tax on Tips provision, detailed in Section 110101 of the House Ways and Means Committee’s tax package, allows tipped workers earning under $160,000 annually to claim a 100% federal income tax deduction on their tips from 2025 to 2028. The policy applies to traditionally tipped roles, such as servers, bartenders, and casino dealers, but excludes highly compensated employees to prevent abuse by wealthy individuals or executives. The bill, which also includes tax cuts and spending reductions, aims to pass Congress by July 4, 2025, using budget reconciliation to bypass Senate filibuster rules.

Why Nevada matters

Nevada’s economy is uniquely tied to the hospitality and service industries, with approximately 20% of its workforce employed in roles like restaurant servers, hotel staff, and casino workers. The state’s powerful Culinary Workers Union Local 226, representing 60,000 hospitality workers, has long advocated for fair taxation and wages, making Nevada a focal point for this policy. Unlike many states, Nevada already requires employers to pay tipped workers the full minimum wage, not a subminimum wage, which amplifies the potential benefits of tax relief on tips.

Impacts on Nevada’s workers and economy

1. Financial relief for tipped workers: For Nevada’s tipped workers, the policy could mean significant savings. For example, a Las Vegas server earning $36,530 annually (the median for servers and bartenders) could save approximately $1,700 in federal income taxes, boosting their take-home pay. Workers like Sherie Cummings, a cocktail server at Mandalay Bay, have expressed enthusiasm, noting that taxes often consume much of their biweekly paychecks.

2. Economic Boost: Station Casinos executives estimate that eliminating taxes on tips could inject an additional $200 million into the Las Vegas economy, as workers spend their increased disposable income locally. This could stimulate small businesses and the broader hospitality sector, a cornerstone of Nevada’s economy.

3. Industry recruitment: The National Restaurant Association supports the policy, arguing it could attract more workers to an industry that is chronically understaffed. In Nevada, where tourism drives job creation, this could help address labor shortages in restaurants and casinos.

Relevance to Nevada’s future

The No Tax on Tips legislation resonates deeply in Nevada, where tipped workers are the backbone of the tourism-driven economy. The policy aligns with Trump’s 2024 campaign focus on Nevada, credited with helping him win the state by 3% over Kamala Harris. However, its temporary nature (expiring in 2028) and the broader bill’s controversial elements raise questions about long-term benefits versus costs. For Nevada’s hospitality workers, the promise of keeping 100% of their tips is a tangible win, but its success depends on navigating Congressional negotiations and addressing concerns about deficit growth and social program cuts.

Conclusion

The No Tax on Tips provision is a tailored response to the needs of Nevada’s tipped workers, offering financial relief and economic stimulus in a state reliant on hospitality. While it enjoys broad support, its inclusion in a contentious Republican budget bill complicates its path forward. For Nevada, the policy could reshape the financial landscape for thousands of workers, but its ultimate impact hinges on balancing worker benefits with fiscal responsibility and social safety nets. As Congress debates the bill, Nevada’s tipped workers and unions will be watching closely, hopeful for a policy that delivers on its promise.

Sources: Newsweek, The Nevada Independent, NPR, The Guardian, USA Today, Reuters, posts on X

Latest lands bill: How it impacts Nevada

A new federal lands bill, recently advanced by the House Natural Resources Committee, has sparked heated debate in Nevada. The legislation, embedded within a broader tax cut package, authorizes the sale or transfer of approximately 460,000 acres of federal land in Nevada and Utah to local governments or private entities. Congressional Republicans argue that this move will generate revenue and alleviate growth pressures in booming Western cities like Las Vegas. However, the lack of clear implementation details has raised concerns among Democrats, conservationists, and even some Republicans, who fear it could prioritize corporate interests over public welfare and set a troubling precedent for public land management across the West.

What the Lands Bill Entails

The bill targets federal lands—roughly 186,155 hectares in Nevada and Utah—for potential development. In Nevada, where about half of the state’s land is federally controlled, this represents a significant shift. The plan aligns with the Trump administration’s philosophy of treating public lands as economic assets rather than areas to be preserved for environmental or recreational purposes. Proponents, including Congressional Republicans, claim the sales will:

• Generate revenue: Selling federal land could inject funds into the federal budget, offsetting tax cuts or other fiscal priorities.

• Ease growth pressures: In fast-growing areas like Clark County, where Las Vegas continues to expand, transferring land to local governments or private developers could facilitate housing and infrastructure development to meet rising demand.

Nevada Representative Mark Amodei, a Republican, played a key role in advancing this agenda by introducing a budget amendment to enable these sales. The amendment marks a departure from years of discussion without action, as Congress had not previously voted on such a large-scale land transfer in the region.

Why It’s Controversial in Nevada

While the bill’s supporters see it as a pragmatic solution, critics argue it could have far-reaching negative consequences for Nevada. Here are the key points of contention:

1. Loss of local revenue for public amenities

Historically, proceeds from federal land sales in Nevada, particularly in Clark County, have been reinvested locally under laws like the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA). These funds have supported parks, trails, and other public spaces that enhance quality of life in rapidly growing communities. Under the new bill, however, revenue from land sales would go directly to the federal government, bypassing local coffers.

This change has drawn sharp criticism from Nevada’s Democratic lawmakers, who argue it deprives Clark County of resources needed to sustain its growth. For example, Las Vegas, one of the fastest-growing metro areas in the U.S., faces constant demand for housing, water, and recreational spaces. Diverting funds to Washington, D.C., could hinder local efforts to address these challenges.

2. Potential giveaway to developers and mining companies

Skeptics, including conservationists and Democratic lawmakers, worry that the bill’s vague framework could lead to a “land grab” by private developers and extractive industries. Without clear guidelines on how the land will be sold or transferred, there’s a risk that prime parcels could be snapped up by mining companies or real estate firms at below-market rates. This could exacerbate Nevada’s housing crisis rather than alleviate it, as developers might prioritize high-end projects over affordable housing.

Steve Bloch of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance described the bill as “the camel’s nose under the tent,” warning that it could set a precedent for similar land sales in other Western states. Conservationists fear that ecologically sensitive areas could be opened to development, threatening Nevada’s deserts, wildlife habitats, and cultural sites.

3. A clash over public land values

The bill reignites a longstanding debate in the West about who should control public lands. In Nevada, where federal agencies manage vast swaths of territory, tensions between local needs and federal oversight are nothing new. Urban centers like Las Vegas require land for housing and infrastructure, but many residents also value public lands for recreation, tourism, and environmental preservation.

Conservation groups argue that selling off federal land undermines its role as a shared resource. Meanwhile, proponents of the bill see it as a way to unlock economic potential and reduce federal overreach. This divide has created unlikely alliances, with some Republicans joining Democrats in opposing the measure due to concerns about its scope and execution.

The lands bill could reshape Nevada in several ways:

• Housing and development: If implemented thoughtfully, land transfers could support housing projects to accommodate Nevada’s growing population. However, without affordability mandates, the benefits may skew toward wealthier buyers or corporate interests.

• Economic implications: While federal revenue from land sales could fund national priorities, Nevada communities stand to lose critical funding for local infrastructure, potentially straining public services.

• Environmental concerns: Large-scale land sales risk disrupting Nevada’s fragile desert ecosystems, which are home to unique biodiversity and cultural heritage sites. Conservationists warn that unchecked development could degrade the state’s natural appeal, which draws millions of tourists annually.

• Political fallout: The bill has deepened partisan divides in Nevada’s congressional delegation. As the budget process moves forward, expect further clashes, especially if the Senate—where Democrats hold a slim majority—scrutinizes or amends the proposal.

What’s Next?

The lands bill is still in its early stages, having cleared the House Natural Resources Committee but facing an uncertain path in the full House and Senate. Its inclusion in a broader tax cut package complicates its fate, as lawmakers grapple with competing fiscal and political priorities. In Nevada, public opinion will likely play a significant role, as residents weigh the promise of economic growth against the loss of local control and environmental protections.

For now, the bill has put Nevada at the center of a national debate about the future of public lands. As Steve Bloch’s warning suggests, what happens in Nevada may not stay in Nevada. If the bill passes, it could embolden similar efforts in other Western states, fundamentally altering how America’s public lands are managed.

Nevada stands at a crossroads with the latest lands bill. On one hand, selling federal land could address urgent growth pressures in places like Las Vegas. On the other, it risks prioritizing corporate profits over community needs and environmental stewardship. As details emerge and the legislative process unfolds, Nevadans—along with conservationists, developers, and policymakers—will be watching closely to see whether this bold plan delivers on its promises or opens the door to unintended consequences.

*Insights from the provided text on the lands bill, including quotes from Steve Bloch and details on Representative Mark Amodei’s amendment.

Nevada’s $191M budget blow: Cuts loom as revenue dips

Nevada’s lawmakers are bracing for a fiscal storm as the Economic Forum, a panel of private-sector economists, delivered a sobering update: the state’s two-year budget projection is $191 million lower than anticipated in December. This 1.6% reduction, the first mid-session revenue drop since 2009, is poised to trigger a wave of budget cuts, threaten hundreds of bills, and reshape the state’s financial landscape with just a month left before the Legislature adjourns.

The Numbers Tell the Story

The revised forecast estimates Nevada will collect $12.2 billion in revenue over the next two budget years, down from the $12.4 billion projected in December. Here’s where the numbers shifted:

• Sales and Use Tax: Down $102 million, a 2.7% drop, driven by weaker consumer spending and a gloomier economic outlook.

• Modified Business Tax: A $58 million decrease, tied to sluggish job growth—private employment grew just 0.5% this year, a sharp decline from last year’s 2.5%.

• Commerce Tax: Down $20 million, hampered by a new state accounting system and broader economic woes.

• Interest Income: A $25 million shortfall from the Treasurer’s office, partly due to forecasting adjustments and system changes.

• Live Entertainment Tax: A modest $1 million dip, with stable event attendance despite tourism declines.

• Gaming Percentage Fees: Flat for FY2026, with slight growth expected later.

Not all news was grim. The Insurance Premium Tax is projected to rise by $46 million, as people prioritize insurance payments even in tough times, and the Real Property Transfer Tax will see a $7 million uptick, though growth may slow as fewer people relocate to Nevada.

Education Funding Takes a Hit

Perhaps the most alarming blow is to the State Education Fund, which faces a $160 million shortfall, contributing to a total funding drop of $350 million. This reduction, detailed in a joint forecast from the Legislative Counsel Bureau and the Governor’s Finance Office, threatens to strain Nevada’s schools at a time when resources are already stretched thin. Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager (D-Las Vegas) shared the grim figures, underscoring the challenge ahead.

Why the Shortfall?

Economists pointed to President Trumps trade tariffs and immigration restrictions as culprits. Canada, which accounts for 30% of the state’s international visitors, is scaling back travel plans due to trade tensions, as noted by Moody’s Analytics senior economist Emily Mandel. Nevada’s high exposure to Chinese imports, concentrated in electronics and communications, adds further uncertainty, according to David Schmidt, chief economist for the Nevada Department of Employment, Training and Rehabilitation.

The state’s economy is already flashing warning signs. Revenues for the first 10 months of the fiscal year are down $100 million (3%) compared to last year, which benefited from one-off boosts like the Super Bowl and Las Vegas’ first Formula One race. A strained labor market and modest unemployment gains compound the challenges.

Political Fallout and Tough Choices

With the clock ticking, lawmakers face a mad dash to balance the budget. The Legislature’s fiscal committees have already slashed $130 million by rejecting new positions and programs proposed in Gov. Joe Lombardo’s budget, but more cuts are needed. Over 300 bills with financial implications, including a high-profile film tax credit expansion, hang in the balance. Lombardo’s five priority bills, three of which are yet to be introduced, carry a $500 million price tag—already baked into his now-overbudget plan.

Gov. Lombardo, a Republican, remains optimistic, calling the shortfall “manageable” and pointing to Nevada’s robust Rainy Day Fund. “Nevadans can rest assured that the State is well-prepared to navigate moments of fiscal uncertainty,” said spokeswoman Elizabeth Ray. However, Democrats are sounding the alarm. Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro (D-Las Vegas) warned of potential special sessions to address further cuts, blaming President Trump’s policies for deterring tourists.

What’s Next?

The budget crunch will force tough trade-offs. Cannizzaro emphasized preserving existing programs, but new initiatives may be shelved. The education funding gap looms large, potentially impacting classrooms across the state. Meanwhile, the uncertainty of federal budget cuts—Nevada relies on federal funding for nearly a third of its budget—adds another layer of complexity.

As Nevada navigates this fiscal tightrope, the coming weeks will test lawmakers’ ability to prioritize and compromise. Will they lean on the Rainy Day Fund, as Lombardo suggests, or face deeper cuts that could reshape the state’s future? One thing is clear: the road to a balanced budget will be rocky, and Nevadans are watching closely.

This article draws on data from the Economic Forum’s May 2025 projections.

Gov. Lombardo defends charters, slams attacks on teacher pay

In a bold stand for Nevada’s public charter schools, Governor Joe Lombardo is doubling down on his commitment to ensuring equitable treatment for public charter school teachers and students. Yesterday, legislative Democrats stripped Lombardo’s proposed pay raises for public charter school teachers from the state’s education budget—a move the governor sharply criticized as a direct attack on educational fairness and parental choice.

“I’ve been clear and consistent on this,” Lombardo declared in a statement. “I will not sign an education budget that does not include equal pay for public charter school teachers and make teacher pay raises, including those for charter school teachers, permanent. Further, I will veto any education budget bill that falls short of addressing a serious need for accountability, transparency, and real parental choice.”

Lombardo’s stance underscores his unwavering support for public charter schools, which serve as vital alternatives for families seeking high-quality education options tailored to their children’s needs. By prioritizing equal pay for public charter school teachers, the governor is championing the educators who dedicate themselves to these innovative schools, ensuring they are not left behind in Nevada’s push for better education outcomes.

A Direct Response to Legislative Pushback

The decision by Democrats to remove public charter school teacher pay raises from the budget has sparked outrage among advocates for educational equity. Public charter schools, which operate with greater flexibility than traditional public schools, often face funding disparities despite serving diverse student populations. Lombardo’s insistence on funding parity under the Pupil-Centered Funding Plan aims to level the playing field, ensuring charter schools receive the resources they need to thrive.

“All 63 legislators have been aware of my position for months,” Lombardo emphasized, signaling that he will not back down from his promise to veto any education budget that fails to meet his standards. His message is clear: Nevada’s children deserve a system that prioritizes their needs, not political maneuvering.

The Nevada Accountability in Education Act: A Vision for Reform

Governor Lombardo’s commitment to public charter schools is part of a broader vision outlined in his recently introduced Nevada Accountability in Education Act. This ambitious proposal seeks to transform K-12 education by focusing on accountability, educator empowerment, and expanded opportunities for students. Key components of the Act include:

• Expanding transfers to charter schools: Lombardo’s plan ensures that every student, regardless of their background or zip code, has access to the educational environment that best suits their needs.

• Ensuring funding parity: By aligning resources under the Pupil-Centered Funding Plan, the Act guarantees that public charter schools receive equitable funding to support their students and staff.

• Empowering families: The proposal emphasizes parental choice, giving families a stronger voice in their child’s education and fostering a system that values transparency and accountability.

These reforms reflect Lombardo’s belief that public charter schools are a cornerstone of Nevada’s education system, offering innovative approaches to teaching and learning that can drive better outcomes for students.

Fighting for Nevada’s Students and Teachers

Lombardo’s outspoken defense of public charter schools comes at a critical time. Critics of public charter schools often argue that they divert resources from traditional public schools, but Lombardo counters that equitable funding and teacher pay are essential to creating a system where all public schools—charter and traditional—can succeed. By vetoing any budget that undermines charter schools, he is sending a powerful message: attacks on public charter schools are attacks on Nevada’s students and families.

The governor’s focus on accountability and transparency also addresses concerns about oversight in the public charter school sector. His Nevada Accountability in Education Act aims to strike a balance, ensuring that charter schools maintain their autonomy while meeting high standards of performance and fiscal responsibility.

A Call to Action

As the legislative session continues, all eyes are on Nevada’s lawmakers to see whether they will heed Lombardo’s call for a fair and forward-thinking education budget. The governor has made it clear that he expects a bill that improves education for all Nevada children—not one that sidelines public charter schools or their dedicated teachers.

For parents, educators, and advocates who believe in the power of public charter schools, Lombardo’s leadership is a rallying cry. By standing firm against efforts to undermine public charter schools, he is fighting for a future where every student has access to a world-class education and every teacher is valued for their contributions.

When faith and policy clash

President Trump is back in the White House, and his first 100 days have been a whirlwind of policy changes. But here’s the twist—some of his most loyal supporters, Christians, are starting to feel uneasy. A new poll from the National Latino Evangelical Coalition (NaLEC) reveals a surprising truth: for many Christian voters, the administration’s early moves aren’t exactly singing from their hymnbook.

Let’s dive into the numbers, because they’re telling a story that’s anything but monolithic. According to the NaLEC poll, conducted by LSG Group between April 8 and April 15, 2025, 76% of evangelicals are worried that slashing assistance abroad could harm persecuted Christians, destabilize American farmers, and even lead to preventable deaths globally. It’s a stark reminder that for many evangelicals, faith isn’t just about what happens at home in America; it’s about a global call to compassion.

But the unease doesn’t stop there. Immigration, a perennial hot-button issue, is another sore spot. While most evangelicals support deporting undocumented criminals, 65% of Christians—including 61% of evangelicals—back a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Two-thirds are also troubled by the administration’s immigration tactics, from mistaken deportations to arrests of U.S. citizens and a freeze on refugee programs. Reverend Gabriel Salguero, NaLEC’s president, puts it bluntly: “Evangelicals are not a monolith.” For many, the biblical call to “welcome the stranger” isn’t just a suggestion—it’s a mandate.

On the domestic front, 72% of evangelicals express concern over potential Medicaid cuts, particularly their impact on children and the elderly, while 71% of Christians oppose reductions to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Amid these worries, 75% of evangelicals back Republican-led efforts to expand the Child Tax Credit, reflecting a blend of pragmatism and vigilance among Christian voters focused on protecting the vulnerable.

Foreign policy is another curveball. Only 40% of evangelicals support cutting funding to Ukraine, and a mere 20% are on board with President Trump’s decision to exclude Russian goods from global tariffs. For those surveyed, geopolitics is also a matter of moral calculus.

Perhaps the most striking finding is this: fewer than half of Christian voters (48%)—and only 55% of evangelicals—believe President Trump’s policies align with their Christian values. That’s a far cry from the unwavering support expected. As Matthew Soerens of World Relief notes, “Every person—in every country—is made in the image of God.” For many evangelicals, that belief translates into a demand for policies that protect refugees, preserve family unity, and prioritize the poor.

The NaLEC poll highlights a vibrant Christian electorate—engaged, diverse, and vocal when policies stray from their faith. As faith and policy collide, personal convictions challenge governance, sparking tensions over laws and weighing individual liberty against societal needs. Thoughtful, compassionate dialogue is crucial to bridge these divides. In a polarized political landscape, this poll quietly underscores faith’s enduring role in shaping meaningful discourse.

Highlights from the poll list below. For the full poll results, visit nalec.org. *The online poll included a representative sample of 1,000 Christian likely voters across the United States, balanced to national demographics by denomination, age, gender, race, party, and income. The margin of error for the overall sample is ±3 percentage points. Results:

• 76% of Evangelicals Concerned About Foreign Aid Cuts

• 2/3 of Christians Support Immigrant Citizenship Path

  • 65% of Christians, 61% of evangelicals favor citizenship; most evangelicals support deporting criminals.

  • Concerned about mistaken deportations, citizen arrests, refugee freezes, and judicial pressure.

• 72% of Evangelicals Worry About Medicaid Cuts

  • Concerned for children and elderly; 75% back Child Tax Credit expansion, 71% of Christians oppose SNAP cuts.

• Evangelicals Wary of Russia Realignment

  • Only 40% support Ukraine funding cuts; 20% back Russian goods tariff exclusion.

• Less Than Half of Christians See Trump Policies as Christian

  • 48% of Christians, 55% of evangelicals say first 100-day policies reflect Christian values.

Debate over arena funding headed to Councilmembers

On Monday, the Reno Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board (RAAB) tackled the debate over public funding for a $1 billion Grand Sierra Resort (GSR) redevelopment, spotlighting a 10,000-seat arena for Nevada’s men’s basketball team and potentially a minor-league hockey franchise. With a 5-2 vote, the board advanced the project to the Reno Redevelopment Board for a May 7 review, but doubts about tax-increment financing (TIF) cast a shadow.

The project’s price tag has surged 20% to $786 million, with the arena alone now costing $435 million. GSR slashed its TIF request from $89.7 million to $68.1 million, tied to TIF’s 2035 expiration. Andrew Diss of Meruelo Gaming blamed Trump-era tariffs for escalating costs, insisting TIF is “essential.” Yet, board members Michael Pagni and Nettie Oliverio challenged GSR’s eligibility for TIF, reserved for blighted areas, and questioned the project’s economic payoff.

The City of Reno’s consultant, Hunden Partners, argued the arena meets the “but for” test, requiring public funds to move forward, and projected $2.6 billion in new spending by 2055. However, the Coalition—a group of rival northern Nevada resorts—disputed this, citing a study that pegs the economic impact at just $389 million, dismissing arena-driven growth as overhyped. Fears also surfaced about siphoning revenue from downtown and the city-owned, RSCVA-managed Reno Events Center.

The RAAB examined three TIF options, including up to 100% property-tax reimbursement through 2035, but members pushed for more creative alternatives. Despite the arena’s allure—95 annual events, 553,900 attendees, and boosts for local hockey and Nevada athletics—uncertainty persists. RAAB Chairman Paul Klein proposed recommending the project to the Reno Redevelopment Board without locking it into the presented options, a motion the board endorsed.

Will Reno roll the dice on this glitzy arena, or will soaring costs and skepticism kill the dream? The May 7 vote holds the answer.

Unlocking care: Nevada’s smart bet on licensing compacts

Nevada’s participation in occupational licensing compacts is a game-changer for its workforce, economy, and residents’ access to critical services. These interstate agreements allow professionals licensed in one compact member state to practice in others without the costly and time-consuming process of obtaining additional state licenses. For Nevada, a state with growing healthcare demands and a mobile population, compacts like the Physical Therapy Licensure Compact (PT Compact), the Dentist and Dental Hygienist Compact (DDH Compact), and others offer significant advantages.

The PT Compact, which Nevada seeks to join through Assembly Bill 248, streamlines licensure for physical therapists and assistants, enabling them to practice across state lines with a “compact privilege.” This reduces administrative burdens, aligns continuing education requirements, and saves therapists time and money. For Nevada, this means attracting skilled physical therapists to address workforce shortages, particularly in rural areas where access to care is limited. Patients benefit from faster access to therapy services, which can lower healthcare costs and improve outcomes.

Similarly, the DDH Compact, which Nevada lawmakers are considering through Assembly Bill 143, would enhance mobility for dentists and dental hygienists. This compact would allow professionals to apply for a compact privilege, bypassing the need for multiple state licenses. This is especially beneficial for military spouses, who often face licensing hurdles when relocating, and for practitioners near state borders or those practicing remotely. By joining the DDH Compact, Nevada could address dental staff shortages, reduce patient wait times, and improve access to oral healthcare statewide. The Nevada Legislature is also considering Assembly Bill 334 to allow for the immediate licensure of out-of-state hygienists wanting to move and work in Nevada.

Both compacts also strengthen public safety through shared licensure data systems, ensuring that disciplinary actions are communicated across states. Additionally, they support Nevada’s economy by attracting professionals who might otherwise be deterred by licensing barriers, boosting local businesses and tax revenue. For a state with a history of embracing five other compacts, including those for emergency medical services and teaching, adopting the DDH Compact and continuing to leverage the PT Compact positions Nevada as a leader in workforce mobility and healthcare access.

The Council of State Governments (CSG) plays a pivotal role in developing and promoting interstate licensing compacts to enhance workforce mobility and address state-specific challenges. CSG facilitates a consensus-driven process, collaborating with stakeholders, state regulators, and professional associations to draft model compact legislation. Since 2016, CSG has supported the enactment of over 290 pieces of compact legislation across 46 states, Washington, D.C., and three territories, covering 15 professions. By partnering with entities like the Department of Defense, CSG has prioritized compacts for highly mobile populations, such as military spouses, reducing licensure barriers and streamlining multistate practice.

In addition to the physical therapy and dental compacts, the Nevada Legislature is also considering the Occupational Therapy Licensure Compact (AB106), Counseling Compact (AB163), Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Interstate Compact (AB230), Cosmetology Licensure Compact (AB371), and the School Psychologist Interstate Licensure Compact (SB227).

Nevada is already a member of interstate licensure compacts for emergency medical services, massage therapists, physicians, teachers and psychologists. 

By embracing these compacts, Nevada not only enhances its healthcare landscape but also sets a precedent for innovation and collaboration, ensuring that residents receive timely, high-quality care from qualified professionals.

#SlamTheScam: Governments and Companies Join Forces Against Fraud

In an important show of unity, federal, state, and local governments, alongside non-profit organizations and private companies, are gearing up for National Slam the Scam Day on March 6, 2025. This collaborative initiative aims to arm consumers with the knowledge and tools needed to combat the ever-growing threat of scams, which have reached unprecedented levels of scale and sophistication in recent years.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has sounded the alarm on the escalating financial toll of scams, reporting that consumers lost a staggering $10 billion to fraudulent schemes in 2023 alone. Among the most pervasive were investment scams, which drained over $4.6 billion from victims, and imposter scams, costing nearly $2.7 billion. These figures underscore the urgency of raising awareness and fostering proactive measures to protect the public.

A Threat to All

Scammers don’t discriminate—individuals, businesses, and even government agencies are all in their crosshairs. Using cunning tactics, fraudsters often impersonate representatives from trusted entities, such as well-known companies, charities, or government offices. Their methods are as varied as they are deceptive: some dangle the promise of prizes or lucrative financial windfalls, while others prey on emotions by claiming a loved one is in danger. Increasingly, scammers are exploiting emerging technologies and psychological pressure to trick victims into acting quickly, leaving little time for skepticism or verification.

What makes these scams particularly insidious is their reliance on payment methods that are difficult—or impossible—to trace. Cryptocurrency, gift cards, prepaid debit cards, wire transfers, cash, and even gold bars have become the currencies of choice for fraudsters. In some cases, scammers pose as "helpers" offering to safeguard victims’ money, only to disappear with the funds.

A Call to Action

National Slam the Scam Day is more than a symbolic event—it’s a rallying cry for vigilance and education. Organizers are encouraging the public to follow and share the hashtag #SlamTheScam on social media platforms like X, spreading critical advice to friends, family, and communities. Experts urge consumers to adopt a healthy dose of skepticism toward unsolicited contact, whether it’s a phone call, email, or text message. The advice is simple but effective: hang up, delete, and don’t click. Suspicious links, in particular, can lead to phishing sites designed to steal personal information or install malware.

For those who encounter a scam, the FTC provides a clear path forward. Victims and concerned citizens alike are encouraged to report incidents at reportfraud.ftc.gov, helping authorities track and dismantle fraudulent operations. Additionally, the FTC’s dedicated resource page, ftc.gov/scams, offers up-to-date information on the latest scam trends and tactics, empowering consumers to stay one step ahead of the perpetrators.

A Growing Crisis

The rise in scam-related losses reflects a troubling evolution in criminal ingenuity. Investment scams, often promising unrealistically high returns, have surged as more people seek financial opportunities in an uncertain economy. Imposter scams, meanwhile, exploit trust by mimicking legitimate organizations or individuals—sometimes even using spoofed phone numbers or official-looking emails to enhance their credibility. The emotional and financial devastation left in their wake has prompted this nationwide push to educate and protect.

As National Slam the Scam Day approaches, organizers hope to turn the tide against these pervasive threats. By uniting government agencies, non-profits, and private sector partners, the initiative seeks not only to raise awareness but also to build a resilient, scam-savvy public. On March 6, the message will be loud and clear: scammers may be relentless, but so is the resolve to stop them.

For more information and tips on staying safe, visit ftc.gov/scams and join the conversation with #SlamTheScam.

Nevada’s Political Landscape Shifts: A New Centrist Battleground Emerges

In the early weeks of 2025, Nevada’s political identity appears to be undergoing a subtle yet significant transformation. Recent data from Noble Predictive Insights’ (NPI) Nevada Public Opinion Pulse (NVPOP), collected between January 14–17, offers a fresh snapshot of voter sentiment in the Silver State. Based on responses from 813 registered voters—with a margin of error of ±3.44%—the survey paints a picture of a state drifting away from its traditionally center-left leanings and stepping firmly into the role of a centrist battleground.

A State in Transition

For years, Nevada has been a reliable bellwether, oscillating between Democratic and Republican influences while maintaining a slight progressive tilt. However, the latest NVPOP findings suggest a political realignment may be underway. This shift, emerging in the wake of the 2024 election cycle, marks the first time in recent memory that Nevada’s electorate is showing signs of shedding its center-left label in favor of a more balanced, pragmatic stance.

What’s driving this change? The survey doesn’t pinpoint a single cause, but the numbers hint at a growing openness to Republican messaging, coupled with a cautious optimism about the state’s future. Nevada, long a political microcosm of the nation, seems to be mirroring broader national trends—where voters are increasingly skeptical of ideological extremes and drawn to practical solutions.

GOP Gains Momentum

One of the standout findings from the NVPOP is the uptick in optimism among Nevadans. A solid 53% of respondents believe the state is heading in the right direction—the highest level of confidence recorded in the past year. By contrast, 47% feel Nevada is veering off course. While the split isn’t overwhelming, it’s a notable departure from the gloomier sentiments that dominated 2024.

This newfound positivity could signal a boon for the Nevada Republican Party, which appears to be gaining ground in the state. The GOP’s messaging—often centered on economic stability and local priorities—may be resonating with a populace eager for reassurance after years of political tumult. Nevada’s voters, historically pragmatic, seem to be rewarding a platform that aligns with their immediate concerns rather than lofty ideological promises.

A Centrist Future?

Nevada’s shift toward the center doesn’t mean it’s abandoning its progressive roots entirely. Instead, it reflects a maturing electorate that’s less tethered to party loyalty and more focused on results. With the 2024 election in the rearview mirror, the state’s political future looks less predictable—and more competitive—than ever.

For political strategists, this realignment presents both challenges and opportunities. Nevada Democrats will need to adapt to a electorate that’s no longer a safe bet, while Republicans have a chance to solidify their gains in a state that’s proven elusive in the past. Nevada’s transformation into a true battleground could make it a critical player in shaping national outcomes in the years ahead.

As the dust settles from 2024, one thing is clear: Nevada is no longer content to sit quietly on the sidelines of America’s political divide. With a centrist wind blowing through the desert, the Silver State is poised to redefine its role on the national stage.

To view the poll, visit https://www.noblepredictiveinsights.com/post/nevada-a-political-landscape-in-transition.

Nevada Police Union Calls for Action as PERS Contributions Set to Rise

CARSON CITY, NV - An open letter has been issued to Nevada legislators, spotlighting significant concerns over the impending increase in the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) contribution rates, which is poised to impact Nevada State Police officers starting July 1, 2025.

The letter warns that the planned hike in contribution rates will severely affect the financial well-being of police officers, potentially hampering recruitment and retention within the force. Under the new rates, contributions for state police under the Employer-Pay plan will escalate from 50.00% to 58.75%, while those under the Employee/Employer plan will see an increase from 25.75% to 30.00%. This adjustment would make Nevada's rates among the highest in the nation for police officers.

The increase, equating to an additional 8.75% of contributions, comes at a time when inflation is hovering between 2-3%, significantly reducing the take-home pay for officers. This financial strain is expected to hit new recruits the hardest, with nearly a third of their earnings potentially being allocated to PERS.

Dan Gordon, President of the Nevada Police Union, emphasized the gravity of the situation, stating, "Our law enforcement officers risk their lives daily to keep our state safe. It's imperative that our legislators take immediate action to ensure that the retirement system does not become a financial burden on these dedicated public servants. We expect proactive involvement and innovative solutions from our lawmakers to address this urgent issue."

The Nevada Police Union is urging lawmakers to prioritize the welfare of law enforcement officers in their legislative decisions, ensuring that the integrity and functionality of public safety services are not compromised by these financial burdens.

The Political Shift of Nevada Voters

Reno, NV – In a political landscape that has been dominated by Democrats for nearly two decades, Nevada has witnessed a surprising turn of events. For the first time since the early 2000s, the state now counts more registered Republicans than Democrats, marking a significant shift in the political dynamics of this key battleground state.

A Historic Reversal

As of November 2024, the Democratic lead in voter registration, once a stronghold, dwindled to a mere 6,000 voters. This change comes in a state boasting over 2 million active registered voters, highlighting a dramatic erosion of Democratic dominance. The numbers tell the story: 617,204 Republicans now stand against 616,863 Democrats. However, both parties are overshadowed by a burgeoning group of nonpartisans, which since August 2022 has emerged as Nevada's largest voting bloc with nearly 692,000 members.

The Nonpartisan Factor

The rise of nonpartisan voters is not just a statistic but a reflection of broader voter disillusionment or perhaps a quest for political independence. Over the last four years, both major parties have seen their share of the electorate diminish relative to nonpartisans. Republicans, however, have managed to lose fewer supporters than Democrats, which has contributed to their unexpected lead.

Symbolic Victory and Strategic Shifts

This change in voter registration is more than symbolic for the Nevada GOP; it's a tangible victory after Republicans clinched the state in the presidential election for the first time since 2004. With Democrats no longer enjoying their registration advantage, Republicans, known for higher voter turnout, might find the path to future victories somewhat smoother.

Both parties are now adjusting their strategies accordingly. With automatic voter registration in place, the focus has shifted from merely getting people to register to persuading those who are already registered, especially the crucial nonpartisan voters.

The Clark County Conundrum

The bulk of Nevada's political action unfolds in Clark County, home to nearly three-quarters of the state's electorate. Historically, Democratic strength here has countered the Republican leanings in rural Nevada. In Joe Biden's 2020 win, Democrats had a significant 12-percentage point lead in voter registration in Clark County, translating into a 9-point victory in the county. Fast forward to 2024, and the Democratic lead in voter registration in Clark County has halved to about 6 percentage points, contributing to Kamala Harris's narrow defeat in Nevada.

Looking Ahead

The upcoming elections for statewide positions will be the first real test of this new Republican voter registration advantage. Can they maintain this lead? The focus will particularly be on defending Governor Joe Lombardo's bid for a second term.

This shift in Nevada's voter registration landscape isn't just about numbers; it's about changing narratives, voter sentiment, and strategic recalibration by both parties. As this trend continues, Nevada's role as a bellwether state in American politics could become even more pronounced, with implications reaching far beyond its borders.

All eyes are now on how these shifts influence political campaigns, voter turnout, and ultimately, the control of this pivotal state. Whether this marks a long-term change or a temporary blip in Nevada's political graph remains one of the most intriguing questions in American politics today.

SPCSA Surpasses WCSD in Student Enrollment

Carson City, NV – In a significant shift within Nevada's educational sector, the Nevada State Public Charter School Authority (SPCSA) has now become the second-largest public school district in the state, surpassing the Washoe County School District (WCSD) in student numbers. This milestone was reached following the SPCSA Board's decision last Friday, January 24, to accept the transfer of six charter schools from the Clark County School District (CCSD).

The six schools involved in the transfer are Delta Academy, Explore Knowledge Academy, Future Edge Academy, Innovations International Charter School of Nevada, Odyssey Charter School, and Rainbow Dreams Academy, which together have added 5,550 students to the SPCSA's tally. Now, the SPCSA boasts an enrollment of 69,159 students.

This development highlights a growing preference among Nevada families for charter schools, which are often praised for their innovative educational approaches, diversity, and accountability. During the "State of the SPCSA" presentation, Executive Director Melissa Mackedon elaborated on this growth:

• Enrollment Surge: The SPCSA's student count now exceeds that of WCSD, signaling a pivotal change in Nevada's educational landscape.

• Geographic Distribution: The SPCSA oversees 80 charter school campuses spread across five counties: Churchill, Clark, Elko, Washoe, and White Pine. Notably, 85% of these schools are situated in Clark County.

• Focus on Disadvantaged Communities: 79% of the new charter school campuses under SPCSA's sponsorship are classified as Title I schools, dedicated to serving students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

• Expansion of Educational Choices: In the last five years, the SPCSA has supported the establishment of 22 new charter school campuses, significantly broadening the educational options available to Nevada's public school students.

• Academic Outcomes: According to the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) test results, students at SPCSA-sponsored schools have consistently outperformed the state average in both math and English Language Arts across grades 3 to 8.

This shift in enrollment numbers not only reflects changing preferences among parents and guardians but also underscores the impact of educational policy and school choice in Nevada. The SPCSA's growth is seen as a testament to the effectiveness and appeal of charter schools in providing quality education tailored to diverse community needs.

Nevada Division of Insurance Recovers Over $9.4 Million for Consumers in 2024

CARSON CITY, NV - In a landmark year for consumer advocacy, the Nevada Division of Insurance (NDI) has announced an impressive recovery of $9,400,385.97 for Nevada residents in 2024. This financial restitution was achieved through the diligent work of the Division's Consumer Services section, which successfully closed 4,194 consumer complaint cases throughout the year.

The Consumer Services and Investigations teams at NDI are tasked with navigating the complex landscape of insurance disputes, ensuring that Nevadans receive the benefits and services they are entitled to under their insurance policies. Their efforts not only bring resolution to disputes but also underscore the Division's role in safeguarding consumer rights against insurance companies.

Commissioner Scott Kipper praised the Consumer Services team for their remarkable achievements, stating, "The accomplishments of the Consumer Services section this year are truly outstanding. Their dedication to resolving consumer issues has resulted in recoveries that surpass previous Fiscal Year records, further highlighting the Division's unwavering commitment to protecting Nevada consumers."

This year's figures represent a significant milestone for NDI, demonstrating not only growth in the number of cases handled but also in the amount of money recovered for consumers. The services provided by NDI cover a broad spectrum of insurance types, including auto, home, health, dental, life, commercial, service warranty, title, workers' compensation, surety bonds, and bail bonds.

For Nevadans facing issues with their insurance providers, the Division offers a clear path to resolution. Consumers are encouraged to reach out to the Nevada Division of Insurance for assistance with any insurance-related questions or complaints. This proactive approach ensures that individuals are not left to navigate these often complex issues alone.

The success of the Consumer Services section in 2024 not only reflects the Division's commitment to consumer protection but also serves as a reminder of the importance of regulatory bodies in maintaining fairness in the insurance market. As the Division continues to advocate for consumer rights, it solidifies its role as a pivotal protector in Nevada's insurance sector.

For more information or to file a complaint, consumers can visit the Nevada Division of Insurance website. This initiative by NDI is a testament to the ongoing efforts to enhance consumer protection in the ever-evolving insurance landscape.

Academica Nevada Schools top state’s grad rate at 99.1%

Las Vegas, NV - Public charter schools supported by Academica Nevada, the state's top education services provider, achieved an astounding 99.1% graduation rate, significantly surpassing Nevada's average of 81%.

In contrast, the state's two largest school districts, Clark and Washoe Counties, report graduation rates of 81.4%. Academica Nevada's schools celebrated the graduation of 1,110 students in the most recent academic year, with a detailed breakdown showing 437 students earning college and career-ready diplomas, 100 securing advanced diplomas, and 559 receiving standard high school diplomas.

Renee Fairless, Principal at Mater Academy - East Las Vegas, highlighted her school's success in a Title 1 community, boasting a graduation rate over 98%. "Nearly half of our graduates earned college and career-ready diplomas, with 17 also achieving an Associate of Arts degree," she remarked, crediting this milestone to the concerted efforts of the school's teachers, students, and families.

Ryan Reeves, COO of Academica Nevada, pointed out that these results come despite the schools operating with only 70% of the funding available to other district schools. "Our commitment to excellence is reflected in the achievements of our students, driven by the hard work of our principals, the passion of our teachers, and community support," Reeves said, highlighting the benefits of school autonomy and innovative educational strategies.

The success of Nevada public charter schools is supported by a strong focus on both educators and students. Teachers receive ongoing professional development, while students benefit from smaller class sizes, cutting-edge technology, personalized learning plans based on data, and targeted support for those who need it.

Academica Nevada supports more than 34,000 students across seven charter school networks, including CIVICA Academy, Doral Academy, and Somerset Academy. Enrollment for the next academic year opens from January 3rd to February 28th, 2024, with lotteries set for March 3rd. More information can be found at academicanv.org.

The full list of graduation rates and class sizes for the Class of 2024, including comparisons to 2023 graduation rates can be found HERE. For more information on the Nevada Report Card, visit nevadareportcard.nv.gov.

The 2024 Election: A Mirror to Media Bias

Frankly, the 2024 U.S. presidential election has once again revealed entrenched biases. These biases are particularly evident within Democratic Party-aligned media, pollsters, and pundits. This election cycle, where President Donald Trump alongside his running mate, Senator JD Vance (R-OH), triumphed over Vice President Kamala Harris and Governor Tim Walz (D-MN), underscores a persistent issue that not only misleads public perception but threatens the integrity of democratic processes. However, it appears that voters are beginning to see through the bias, though ideally, they shouldn't need to.

The Media's Trump Conundrum

The portrayal of Trump by mainstream media outlets - ABC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC - has long been a topic of scrutiny. Here's how the narrative unfolded:

• Early Trump Era (2016 - 2017): Studies from the Media Research Center and Pew Research Center painted a picture of unprecedented negative coverage. In Trump's initial 60 days in office, Pew reported a staggering 62% of his coverage was negative, with only a paltry 5% positive. This was in stark contrast to the coverage received by President Barack Obama.

• Mid-term and Late Presidency (2018 - 2020): The trend didn't wane; instead, it intensified. The 2018 MRC study noted 92% of Trump's coverage was negative, escalating to 95% by 2020, with the media's spotlight firmly fixed on his controversies rather than policy achievements.

• 2024 Election Cycle: The bias was palpable. Insights from MRC and social media sentiments on X (formerly Twitter) showed Trump facing an 85% negative coverage, while Harris enjoyed 78% positive, one of the most skewed portrayals in recent times.

This consistent negative slant towards Trump, focusing predominantly on political opinions of his persona rather than analysis of his policies, suggests a deep-rooted bias within many media narratives, particularly those with a liberal audience base.

In Nevada, media bias is clearly evident in the work of Jon Ralston, the political editor of The Nevada Independent. Despite his 30 years of experience in journalism and numerous achievements, he frequently fails to recognize his own biases, which have increasingly intensified over the years. In a state where nonpartisan voters predominate, one might expect Nevada journalists to provide news coverage that is either nonpartisan or reflects all perspectives. However, Mr. Ralston appears to miss this point.

The reality is that extreme media bias and distorted narratives have detrimental effects on democracy. As viewers and readers become aware of these biases, trust in media as an objective source of information diminishes. Further, echo chambers form, where individuals only consume information that aligns with their views, further polarizing the electorate.

The Way Forward

The outcome of the 2024 election should prompt a deep introspection within the media. Journalists and media personalities must critically evaluate their personal biases, striving for a balance that encourages informed debate rather than division.

For us, as consumers of news, we must demand transparency and accountability from our information sources, pushing for coverage that reflects the full spectrum of political discourse.

The 2024 election serves as a stark reminder of the need for a more nuanced approach to media coverage. Only through such reflection and reform can we hope to restore trust in our democratic processes and the media's role within them. As we move forward, the challenge will be to confront and correct the cultural and political biases that currently distort our democratic narrative.

GOTV Efforts in Nevada: A Nonpartisan Overview

As Nevada's political scene heats up with the approach of election day, both major parties are pulling out all stops in their get-out-the-vote (GOTV) campaigns, leveraging a mix of traditional canvassing, digital outreach, and community engagement to sway the voter turnout in their favor. Here's an inside look at how these efforts are unfolding across the Silver State.

The ground game battle

The ground game efforts to get out the vote for the 2024 election have showcased a blend of traditional canvassing and innovative voter outreach strategies. Both major political parties have intensified their efforts, with Democrats leveraging a robust field operation, highlighted by Vice President Harris's engagement in labor union strong hold Las Vegas. Conversely, the Trump campaign, while maintaining a lower visibility in terms of physical presence, has adopted a unique approach by focusing on activating "low-propensity voters" through a network of precinct captains who encourage early voting and mail-in ballots. This strategy, combined with significant support from outside groups, aims to counteract the Democrats' vast advantage in campaign money and grassroots mobilization. Additionally, posts on X indicate a high level of engagement, reflecting the dynamic and closely contested nature of Nevada's electoral landscape.

Leveraging technology and social media

Social media platforms, particularly X, have become battlegrounds for voter engagement. Posts from influential figures like Elon Musk have indirectly contributed to the political discourse, urging followers to consider their voting choices, though not explicitly tied to any party's GOTV efforts. These platforms serve as modern-day canvassing tools, where viral content and political endorsements can significantly sway public opinion or at least encourage participation.

Nonpartisan efforts and voter turnout

Amidst the partisan fervor, nonpartisan organizations are making strong pushes. Groups like Vote.org and RockTheVote.org focus on demographic segments traditionally less engaged in voting, using pop culture and digital media to make political participation appealing, especially among younger voters. These efforts aim at increasing the overall voter turnout rather than swaying votes to a particular side.

Looking Ahead

This election in Nevada isn't just about who turns out but how. The blend of old-school canvassing with digital innovation could set a precedent for future electoral campaigns, showcasing the evolving nature of political engagement in the digital age. As the ballots are cast, Nevada's voters will decide not only on candidates but also on the effectiveness of these varied strategies in mobilizing them.

Bad Form

In the dusty, desert town of Pahrump, Nevada, Margery quietly leads a rabble of enthusiasts seeking progress beyond the political status quo. Margery is a political zealot. Middle-aged. Cosmetologist. Self-proclaimed eco-socialist. She leads the Nevada Green Party, a minor-political party that focuses on environmentalism and social justice. Like a locker combination, the Green Party is easy to forget. They have faded from the political radar, tucked away in the attic of memory alongside Ralph Nader's 2000 presidential bid and the Y2K panic.

While the Nevada Green Party managed to qualify for the 2008 ballot, marking one of their notable achievements, their access was not consistently maintained in subsequent elections. For years, they languished in obscurity, their quest for relevance as fruitless as trying to catch the wind. They were not just sidelined from the political feast; they weren't even permitted to enter the banquet hall. But this year, the door creaked open, if only slightly, hinting at a seat they might finally claim.

Our political landscape is a chessboard where only two players are allowed to move, forcing every pawn to choose between black or white, with no room for shades of gray. The Democratic and Republican duopoly has effectively penned voters into a binary choice, like choosing between two foods when you're craving a whole buffet. Minor or third political parties are regarded as spoilers and therefore immensely defamed and attacked. The Green Party has continued to defend their mission, reminding critics that even the now behemoth Republican Party formed in 1854 as a minor-political party.

Margery is a true believer, committed to progress. To get ballot access for the 2024 general election, Margery’s Greens were required to obtain 10,095 valid signatures from Nevada voters. Clipboards in hand, they went to work. They didn't just work; they hustled, sweated, and rallied, amassing signatures like there was a gold rush for democracy. In the end, their efforts weren't just met; they were exceeded, tripling the number of signatures required with the tenacity of underdogs who knew the stakes.

In Nevada, the Secretary of State is the authority and administrator of the elections. Nevada is one of the 35 states that elects their Secretary of State. Candidates run with party affiliations, which inherently brings partisanship into the process. While the role might be intended to oversee elections and perform other duties in a nonpartisan way, the actual process of getting elected involves partisan politics. In the 2022 election cycle, Democrat Francisco Aguilar was elected as the Secretary of State.

Nevada’s Democratic Party led Secretary of State’s Office was responsible for providing the Nevada Green Party with the proper requirements and forms for collecting signatures. Enter Heather, an election’s administrator. Heather's digital existence is as elusive as a ghost in daylight. She might either be a cog in the deep-state machine or simply a bureaucratic automaton, punching the clock while reveling in the perks of government employment. Her ideals are totally unknown. Either way, Heather was directly responsible for instructing Margery. 

Prior to circulating its signature-gathering petition, on-a-mission-Margery and the Nevada Green Party filed its initial request with the Secretary of State’s Office on July 10. The petition contained the correct form for minor parties seeking ballot access. Heather responded the same day by email, noting a small technical error in the petition and attached to its email a different form. Turns out Heather instructed Margery to abandon the correct form and use the wrong form. In obedience, Margery and team went back to work pounding the pavement and soon returned with the signatures on Heather’s form. A few days later, they were told the signatures were sufficient and verified by the county clerks and registrars. Margery and her cohort rejoiced in what they thought was their triumphant entry onto Nevada's 2024 ballot. Alas, their political parade was to be a brief one, soon to be rained on by the storms of legal challenges.

Nevada law provides a deadline for legal challenges to ballot access, which in this case was June 10. At the very last moment, as the sun began to dip on June 10, the Nevada Democratic Party initiated a lawsuit to invalidate the Nevada Green Party signatures for using the wrong form for collecting signatures. The very form the Democratic Party led Secretary of State’s office directed them to use. Coincidence or conspiracy? 

“They knew it was the wrong form. I submitted the correct form to begin with and they told me it had been "updated" to the form they gave me.” ~ @GreenPartyNV on X

Heather alleged she mistakenly instructed Margery to use the form for qualifying initiatives and referenda instead of the form to qualify minor party ballot access. At no point did she or anyone at the Secretary of State’s office indicate that they were using the wrong form or that there was any problem with their petition. In fact, they officially declared the Nevada Green Party had qualified for ballot access for the 2024 general election.

Defending its right to exist on the ballot against the Nevada Democratic Party lawsuit, the Nevada Green Party raised a host of state-law arguments in defense and added that denying it ballot access would violate their federal due process and equal protection rights. While the District Court agreed, the higher Nevada Supreme Court didn’t and ruled 5-2 in favor of the Nevada Democratic Party. The court found that despite the Secretary of State directing the Nevada Green Party to use the incorrect form, the Nevada Green Party did not meet the legal requirements for ballot access. They described it as an unfortunate mistake by the Secretary of State’s office that the Nevada Green Party should have caught. 

Nevada Supreme Court Justices Kristina Pickering and Douglas Herndon dissented, expressing concerns over due process violations and the potential injustice caused by the Secretary of State's error. Herndon wrote that it is unreasonable to expect a minor party to double check the petition sent by the Secretary of State’s office, which “is supposed to be the primary authority on elections in Nevada.”

“It also shocks the conscience, offends judicial notions of fairness, and contributes to a distrust in the election process in Nevada,” Herndon wrote, which Pickering concurred.

While the Court believed there was no evidence that the Secretary of State’s office intentionally misled the Nevada Green Party by instructing them to use the wrong form, this wasn’t the only time they misled a minor political party. Before he suspended his campaign, independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s campaign was also ensnared in the Secretary of State's office's web of misinformation.

Following the Nevada Supreme Court's decision, the Green Party sought intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting an emergency stay to allow the Nevada Green Party candidate on the ballot, emphasizing the democratic right of Nevadans to have more electoral choices.

In a twist that could only be scripted in the theater of the absurd, the Nevada Secretary of State's office, with a flourish of irony, accused the Nevada Green Party of trying to jam the gears of election machinery. U.S. Supreme Justice Elena Kagan, perhaps with a judicial side-eye, nodded in agreement. Thus, with a gavel of fate, she sealed the Nevada Green Party's exclusion from Nevada's 2024 electoral dance, leaving them on the sidelines, spectators in their own political saga.

With all avenues exhausted, Margery retreated back to Pahrump. Her journey was marked not by defiance, but by disillusionment. She had traced the path laid before her, adhering meticulously to the directives of the very guardians of democracy. Yet, in an ironic twist, these same custodians of electoral trust, who vow to champion the voice of the electorate, inadvertently steered her towards disenfranchisement. The roadmap to representation, it seems, was flawed from the start. 

Was it deep-state sabotage or mere oversight? Heather's role in this electoral drama might fuel the conspiracists' fire, yet as the ballots hit boxes, the truth behind her actions becomes as irrelevant as yesterday's news.

Meanwhile the case underscores the complexities of ballot access laws, where minor errors, even if not entirely the fault of the party, can lead to exclusion from the ballot. The case also raises questions about the roles of state officials in providing accurate legal guidance and the potential for partisan influence in legal challenges to ballot access.

With an ever tightening race for U.S. President, the impacts of this case could be immense. Nevada's electoral votes may decide the presidency. Given the Electoral College system, where a candidate needs 270 votes to win, Nevada's six votes are not just a number but a critical part of various electoral scenarios. For instance, if the election is tight, with candidates closely clustered around the 270 mark, Nevada's votes could be decisive. 

In 2020, Joe Biden edged out Donald Trump by just 33,596 votes. But delve into history, and you find an even tighter squeeze: Hillary Clinton in 2016 barely outmaneuvered Trump by a mere 27,202 votes, a figure so slim it could slip unnoticed between the cards of a shuffled deck. Enter now the consequences of the Nevada Green Party’s exclusion from the ballot. They amassed nearly 30,000 signatures in support of their campaign and would have likely increased that amount if they continued on. If history is a predictor of the future, Nevada’s winner will be decided by roughly 30,000 votes. Perhaps these votes slip back into the Democratic Party’s favor, helping them secure Nevada’s electoral votes.

This election's outcome will significantly influence domestic and foreign policies, potentially affecting economic strategies, international relations, and judicial appointments, all of which have long-term implications for American and global affairs. Some whisper that we're teetering on the brink of a new global conflict, with America's stance being the fulcrum upon which the world's fate lies. As we head towards an era of new American politics, the presidential election may come down to the winner of the critical swing state of Nevada, and the consequences of a bad form.

END 

Source links:

• Green Party NVSC Filing

• Green Party SCOTUS filing

• NVSOS SCOTUS Filing

• NV Dems SCOTUS Filing

• Green Party Reply SCOTUS Filing

• Decisions:

• https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/nevada-green-party-v-aguilar/

• https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a262.html