It can seem too good to be true — rich, primarily out-of-state donors say they’re bringing election reform to Nevada, with more than $28 million in donations ($22.9 million in 2022 and at least $5.75 million in 2024). If these donors are to be believed, they decided what reforms we need, funded ad campaigns and a slick website, and all we need to do is vote yes to receive their ready-made “reforms.”

The Question 3 backers raised enough for this ballot measure to buy multiple Lake Tahoe, Summerlin or MacDonald Ranch mansions with cash. It’s more than any Nevada candidate running for election raised in the third quarter of 2022 and more than $8 per Nevada census resident. They really want us to go for it.

As with many things in life, when offered a huge gift from someone you don’t know, it’s good to check for red flags. There are many.

Red flag 1: The Yeson3NV website is heavy on advertising but lacking in endorsements from existing Nevada organizations — not even third-party, nonpartisan, election rights or independent voter groups.

Instead, the site aggressively solicits endorsements from visitors, who — unless they have extensive experience in politics, law, voting access or election reform — are not necessarily qualified to understand or evaluate the ballot measure. The Question 3 backers are trying to create the illusion of informed local support — because they do not have it.

Red flag 2: In contrast, Nevada leaders and groups have been coming out against Question 3 ever since its first appearance on the ballot in 2022, including Battle Born Progress, Nevada Policy Research Institute, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, Silver State Voices and Sen. Catherine Cortez-Masto (D-NV), Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Rep. Mark Amodei (R-NV), Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager (D-Las Vegas), State Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro (D-Las Vegas), Americans for Tax Reform, and Nevada AFL-CIO. This isn’t just opposition to upsetting the parties; it’s nonpartisan concern about Question 3’s potential to cause disenfranchisement, election errors and delays, excessive costs, destruction of small and third parties, and other negative impacts on democracy in Nevada.

Red flag 3: Question 3 is not proposing a tried-and-true election reform but rather a very extreme reform designed a few years ago by one of the main funders of the Question 3 effort herself, former business executive Katherine Gehl. Her election method drastically changes multiple elements of the election process at once and has no real track record outside of Alaska, where she managed to install a version of it. It caused so many problems that Alaskans will be voting this November on a ballot measure to repeal it — just two years after it was first implemented in their 2022 elections. Several states are moving to ban the ranked-choice voting included in Gehl’s reforms before she can show up with her big money and force election changes.

Red flag 4: Question 3 would make these election changes a constitutional amendment in Nevada if it were to pass by a majority vote in November, which would be difficult and expensive to undo if it went poorly. It’s the equivalent of getting married to someone we barely know.

Nevada is too important to risk on a suspicious “gift” from out-of-state donors. The proposed election overhauls could threaten Nevada political parties — including third parties — reducing Nevadans’ collective power to choose their representatives and enabling big donors, like those funding the measure, to have more influence over the representatives we send to Washington.

The most critical reform we can achieve in Nevada right now is to save the state’s politics from being another casualty in Gehl’s election experiments. There are lots of things you can do with $28 million, but getting Nevada to put a risky election method in its constitution isn’t one of them.

Michelle Runyan is a Stanford alumna living in Las Vegas.

The Nevada Independent welcomes informed, cogent rebuttals to opinion pieces such as this. Send them to [email protected].