Two new groups have formed on opposite sides of the Nevada voter ID ballot question, heating up the political fight about an issue likely to be among the most competitive questions on the 2024 ballot.

Republican Gov. Joe Lombardo announced Thursday that he will be chairing a group called the Nevada Voter ID Coalition focused on passing the ballot question that would require voters to provide proof of their identities when voting either via mail or in-person. 

Meanwhile, Battle Born Progress — a progressive group — launched a PAC called the Nevada Voter Freedom Alliance opposing the initiative. Both PACs were registered last month with the secretary of state’s office, but had not been publicized until Thursday.

The announcements of the new PACs — exactly two months before Election Day — indicate that the partisan fight over voter ID will heat up in the home stretch of this election cycle. If a majority of voters support the question this year, it would be placed on the 2026 ballot, when another affirmative vote would amend Nevada’s Constitution.

Until last month, the pro-voter ID group was named the Better Nevada Ballot Advocacy Committee, a PAC created earlier this year that was an offshoot of the pro-Lombardo Better Nevada PAC. The Las Vegas Sands has been a prominent donor to the voter ID effort, making a $1.5 million contribution to the Better Nevada PAC earlier this year, which then transferred $1.4 million to the offshoot PAC.

The co-chairs of the newly named group are Sparks City Attorney Wes Duncan, real estate agent Tina Brown and businessman Tim Cashman, according to Thursday’s announcement. An official with the PAC declined to comment on what its campaign strategy would look like.

Lombardo had tried to pass a bill requiring voter ID last year, but it stalled in the Democratic-controlled Legislature, leading the Republican governor to say Thursday that he “made a promise to voters that if the legislature would not support the will of the people, I would take the vote directly to them.”

The Nevada Voter Freedom Alliance is hoping to “prevent the passage of undue burdens on Nevada voters,” according to its registration form, and plans to invest in digital and radio advertising, said Shelbie Swartz, the group’s secretary and the executive director of Battle Born Progress.

Its announcement Thursday included support from officials affiliated with Planned Parenthood Votes Nevada, the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada Action Fund and the Native Voters Alliance Nevada.

“It is nothing more than a calculated effort to silence thousands of eligible Nevadans, especially seniors, people of color, rural voters, students, and low-income communities,” Swartz said in a statement.

About the ballot question

The proposal — brought by a separate group led by former Clark County GOP Chair David Gibbs — would amend the Nevada Constitution to require all in-person voters in Nevada to present a valid photo identification (such as a driver’s license, passport, student ID card or concealed weapon permit) before voting.

It would also require those voting by mail to include part of a personally identifiable number — such as their driver’s license or Social Security number — alongside their signature.

Thirty-six other states have some form of voter ID laws, and the measure has bipartisan support in Nevada — a Nevada Independent poll last year found 74 percent of respondents in favor, with just 8 percent opposed. Proponents say voter ID increases election security and would help rebuild trust in elections.

Opponents of the measure say it would make it harder to vote and could amount to disenfranchisement, particularly affecting voters in rural areas and tribal communities because of the long distance to DMV offices. 

A 2022 study by University of California, Berkeley researchers found Black and Latino voters were most affected by voter ID laws in Texas, while voter impersonation is extremely rare in the U.S.

A group of Democratic-linked attorneys sued to block the voter ID effort last year — arguing its description was inadequate and that the costs of IDs mean the proposal is akin to an unconstitutional poll tax — but the suit failed in district court and the state Supreme Court.