Advocates had a lot of ideas about what questions should go before voters this year, although only a few have successfully qualified for the ballot. Here at The Nevada Independent, we've built a ballot measure tracker so readers can understand the status of different proposals and who's backing each idea. 

See something that needs updating? Send us an email at [email protected].

Click the subheadings to jump to a specific topic:

• Voter ID (on the ballot)
• Abortion rights (on the ballot)
• Open primaries (did not qualify for ballot)
• Independent redistricting measure (did not qualify for ballot)
• Ballot question funding mechanism (did not qualify for ballot)
• Redistricting fairness (did not qualify for ballot)
• Freedom to try (did not qualify for ballot)
• Transgender athletes in school sports (did not qualify for ballot)
• Allowing teacher strikes (exception)

On the statewide ballot:

Constitutional Amendments

Voter ID

Description: This ballot question would amend the Nevada Constitution to require voters to present a form of government-issued photo identification to verify their identity when voting in person, or to verify their identity using the last four digits of their driver's license or Social Security number when voting by mail.

What a "yes" or "no" vote does: A "yes" vote would add those requirements to show ID when voting into the state Constitution. A "no" vote would leave Nevada's current law in place, which doesn't require ID to vote and instead relies largely on matching a voter's signature on a ballot with one on file.

Supporters and opponents: Repair the Vote, the PAC led by former Clark County GOP chair David Gibbs, originally qualified the measure for the ballot; the Nevada Voter ID Coalition, an offshoot of the pro-Gov. Joe Lombardo Better Nevada PAC, has also backed it. Supporters frame it as a commonsense election security measure that could help restore public faith in the voting process. 

Opposition comes from the Nevada Voter Freedom Alliance, formed by the progressive group Battle Born Progress, along with Silver State Voices, a nonpartisan civic engagement coalition. 

In the 2024 sample ballot arguments, opponents cited data that nearly 21 percent of voting-age Americans lack a valid driver's license with their current name and address — more than half a million people at Nevada's scale. Opponents also point to rural and tribal voters who'd have to travel long distances to a DMV to obtain a qualifying ID.

Status: Qualified for the 2026 ballot as Question 7 after voters approved it in 2024 with 73.2 percent support. As a proposed amendment to the Nevada Constitution, it must be approved in two consecutive general elections, so it appears again this year for a second and final vote.

Financial status: Fundraising has been minimal on both sides so far in 2026. Repair the Vote raised just $3,000 in the first half of the year; the Nevada Voter ID Coalition and opposition group Nevada Voter Freedom Alliance each reported no contributions, spending only a few thousand dollars apiece on consulting. 

That's a sharp slowdown from 2024, when the two committees raised far more. Las Vegas Sands gave $1.5 million to the Better Nevada PAC offshoot that later became the Nevada Voter ID Coalition, which passed along $1.4 million of that to support Question 7, while Repair the Vote separately raised more than $300,000. The next disclosure period is due Oct. 15.

Read more: Here's who's funding the abortion, voter ID questions on the Nevada ballot

Abortion rights

Description: This ballot question would enshrine Nevada's existing abortion law — which permits the procedure through 24 weeks of pregnancy — directly into the state Constitution, shielding it from future legislative or legal challenge.

What a "yes" or "no" vote does: A "yes" vote would make the current 24-week standard part of the Constitution. A "no" vote would leave abortion rights governed by existing statute.

Supporters and opponents: Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom is the main PAC backing this proposed amendment. The measure has also drawn support from Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), the Nevada Democratic Party and reproductive rights advocates, including Planned Parenthood Advocates Mar Monte, who frame it as an urgent need amid national attacks on abortion access after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. 

Opposition includes two PACs — Protect Our Girls and Students for Life Action Ballot PAC — plus national groups Americans United for Life and Priests for Life. Protect Our Girls argues the measure goes further than the standard allowed under Roe v. Wade.

Status: Qualified for the 2026 ballot as Question 6 after voters approved it in 2024 with 64.4 percent support. As a proposed amendment to the Nevada Constitution, it must be approved in two consecutive general elections, so it appears again this year for a second and final vote.

Financial status: Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom, the pro-Question 6 PAC, has raised more than $815,000 so far in 2026 and spent nearly $49,300, mostly on legal and consulting services. 

That far outpaces the two opposition PACs: Protect Our Girls has raised $10,000 and spent over $3,000, mostly on printing; Students for Life Action Ballot PAC has raised roughly $1,700 and reported no expenses. Fundraising on both sides is down sharply from 2024, when Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom alone raised more than $11 million. The next disclosure period is due Oct. 15.

Did not qualify for the ballot

Open primaries

Description: This ballot question would have amended Nevada's Voter Bill of Rights to guarantee voters the right to fully participate in any publicly funded election regardless of political party affiliation. Primaries for partisan offices in Nevada are currently "closed" — available only to people registered as a Democrat or Republican. This measure would make primaries open to nonpartisan voters, who are the state's single largest voting bloc, at 39 percent of registered voters in July.

What a "yes" or "no" vote does: A "yes" vote would let all registered voters participate in primary elections without having to register with a party, though parties could still choose to fund their own closed nominating process, similar to a presidential caucus. The petition itself establishes the right but doesn't spell out implementation mechanics. A "no" vote would leave Nevada's current primary system in place.

Supporters and opponents: This question was filed by Sondra Cosgrove, executive director of Vote Nevada PAC. Cosgrove has argued that shutting nonpartisan voters out of taxpayer-funded primaries is unfair given their size as a voting bloc.

Voters rejected 2024's Question 3 — a broader measure combining open primaries with ranked-choice voting. The following year, Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager (D-Las Vegas) introduced a narrower legislative response, AB597, which would have let nonpartisan voters request a party ballot without re-registering. 

Opposition to the bill came mainly from factions of the Nevada Republican Party: in written testimony, Washoe County Republican Party Chairman Bruce Parks argued the bill was an attempt to override Question 3's defeat "by essentially establishing open primaries for Nevada," adding that nonpartisan voters already have a remedy available in switching their registration. Gov. Joe Lombardo ultimately vetoed the bill.

Status: This did not qualify for the ballot after organizers failed to submit enough valid signatures by the state's June 24 deadline. Nevada requires roughly 149,000 valid signatures statewide, spread across the state's four congressional districts, for an initiative to qualify for the ballot. 

Independent redistricting commission 

Description: This ballot question would have stripped the Legislature of its map-drawing authority and hand it to a seven-member independent redistricting commission: four legislative leaders would each name one commissioner, and those four would then choose the remaining three, who must be unaffiliated with the two largest parties. The petition states that the amendment "will require redistricting following each federal census and will result in the expenditure of state funds to fund the Commission."

What a "yes" or "no" vote does: A "yes" vote would have amended the Constitution by creating the commission and setting out criteria for how it must draw state Senate, Assembly and congressional districts, including compactness, equal population and protection for racial and language minorities. A "no" vote would have left redistricting to the Legislature.

Supporters and opponents: Filed by Vote Nevada PAC and Sondra Cosgrove, who has pushed similar redistricting commission proposals in 2020, 2022 and 2024. It was successfully challenged in a lawsuit filed in late September 2025 by lawyers who frequently represent the Democratic Party: Elias Law Group — the firm of election lawyer Marc Elias — and the Nevada firm Bravo Schrager, on behalf of Nevada voter Juan Medina. The same two firms successfully challenged an earlier, nearly identical petition in 2024 on the same legal theory, on behalf of a different voter, Eric Jeng. A Carson City judge ruled that version created an unfunded mandate.

Read more: Nevada judge strikes down independent redistricting commission ballot petitions

Cosgrove pushed back on two separate fronts. Legally, she argued the funding-mechanism requirement should only apply to ballot questions adding language to regular state statutes, not ones that amend the Constitution, such as this one. Practically, she argued there's no real new cost to begin with, since the commission would simply take over redistricting work already funded through the Legislature's existing budget, rather than requiring new money.

Read more: Nevada PAC withdraws independent redistricting commission ballot petition

Status: Organizers withdrew the proposal Sept. 30, 2025, citing an inability to fund a legal defense against the Medina suit. Cosgrove proposed a revised version a week later (see "ballot question funding mechanism" below).

Ballot question funding mechanism 

Description: This ballot question would have reversed a 2022 Nevada Supreme Court ruling that requires sponsors of any constitutional ballot question with a financial impact to write a tax or tax increase directly into the state Constitution to cover the cost.

Read more: Nevada Supreme Court rules against ballot initiative to create a voucher-style education program

What a "yes" or "no" vote does: A "yes" vote would amend the Nevada Constitution section governing unfunded mandates to restore what Vote Nevada PAC describes as the original meaning of the section, removing the requirement that ballot sponsors propose specific taxes to fund their measures. A "no" vote would leave the 2022 court interpretation in place.

Supporters and opponents: Filed by Sondra Cosgrove and supported by Vote Nevada PAC, this was one of two petitions filed in direct response to the lawsuit that killed the original redistricting commission petition (see below). There was no major organized opposition to this petition.

Status: This did not qualify for the ballot after failing to submit enough valid signatures by the state's June 24 deadline. 

Redistricting fairness

Description: This measure would have added a right to equal treatment "in all aspects of representative government" regardless of party affiliation, explicitly including redistricting and apportionment. Unlike the original independent commission proposal, this version didn't create a new commission or carry an explicit funding component.

What a "yes" or "no" vote does: A "yes" vote would add language to the Nevada Constitution establishing that all voters have an equal right to fair treatment in all aspects of representative government, explicitly requiring that redistricting be conducted without regard to political party affiliation. This measure is framed specifically around redistricting fairness, not primary elections, and unlike the original proposal, this version doesn't spell out mapping criteria; it establishes a general constitutional principle rather than a detailed process. A "no" vote would leave current redistricting law unchanged.

Supporters and opponents: Filed by Sondra Cosgrove and Vote Nevada PAC. Cosgrove has pushed for an independent, nonpartisan approach to redistricting since 2020. There was no major organized opposition to this petition.

Status: This did not qualify for the ballot after failing to submit enough valid signatures by the state's June 24 deadline.

Freedom to try

Description: This ballot question would have established a fundamental right in the Nevada Constitution for people with life-altering diseases or conditions to access experimental treatments — including participation in physician-approved research studies reviewed by an independent Institutional Review Board (IRB) — without state regulatory barriers beyond existing federal or state requirements.

What a "yes" or "no" vote does: A "yes" vote would have barred the state from interfering with patient access to IRB-approved experimental treatments and would grant liability immunity to participating physicians, manufacturers and facilities except in cases of fraud, intentional misconduct or gross negligence. It would not require insurers or providers to offer or cover experimental treatments. A "no" vote would leave Nevada's existing "right-to-try" law, which applies only to terminally ill patients, unchanged.

Supporters and opponents: The measure was filed by the PAC Freedom to Try Medical Innovations for Nevada, led by Dan Montano, founder and CEO of Las Vegas biotech company Zhittya Genesis Medicine. Ahead of the signature deadline, Montano had said he planned to spend upward of $2 million backing the measure and was in the process of hiring a signature-gathering firm. 

Montano called Nevada's existing right-to-try law "completely worthless," pointing to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data showing fewer than two dozen investigational drugs were made available to patients under that law from 2018 to 2022. He framed the measure as a way to position Nevada as a hub for biotech and medical innovation, and hoped a wave of visible treatment results could eventually pressure the FDA to change its own approval process. Montano said he didn't expect much organized opposition in 2026, noting that opponents of measures requiring a second vote sometimes hold off campaigning until the second round. 

Read more: Biotech firm's ballot measure would make NV a medical testing ground for bypassing FDA approval

Status: This did not qualify for the ballot after supporters failed to submit enough valid signatures by the state's June 24 deadline.

Transgender athletes in school sports

Description: This ballot question would have added an exception requiring that eligibility for state-funded athletic competitions be based on biological sex at birth rather than gender identity or gender expression, effectively barring transgender girls and women from female sports and activities that receive public funding.

What a yes or no vote does:  A "yes" vote would have required schools, colleges and other publicly funded athletic programs to designate every sport or competition as male, female or coeducational/mixed-sex based on birth certificate sex, with a biological male barred from a female-designated sport and a biological female permitted in a male-designated sport only if no comparable female option existed. A "no" vote wouldn't have restored an inclusive policy — the Nevada Interscholastic Activities Association and NCAA already restrict competition to birth-certificate sex administratively, following a 2025 federal executive order. But a "no" vote leaves that restriction reversible by a future board vote or federal policy change, while the amendment would lock it into the state Constitution and extend it beyond NIAA/NCAA competitions to any state-funded athletic program. 

Supporters and opponents: The measure was filed by Filed by Protect Girls' Sports PAC, whose leaders include filer James Cavilia, Assemblywoman Heidi Kasama (R-Las Vegas), 2026 attorney general candidate Adriana Guzmán Fralick and Assembly candidate Erica Neely. Gov. Joe Lombardo served as the PAC's honorary chair.

It was opposed by Sue Burtch, head of the Nevada chapter of the National Organization for Women, and Silver State Equality, the state's LGBTQ+ civil rights organization. Burtch sued over this refiled petition, arguing on three grounds that it failed to disclose the measure would carve out an exception to Nevada's 2022 Equal Rights Amendment, that it omitted the scope of the school sports issue and that it didn't describe the initiative's true effects. 

Carson City District Judge Jason Woodbury agreed only with the first argument — the original description said only that the measure would amend the constitutional section barring discrimination based on gender and other characteristics, without disclosing that it creates an exception to that same section — and wrote corrected language into his Feb. 25 ruling himself, rejecting Burtch's other two arguments. The petition was refiled with that court-ordered language.

Read more: Judge rules Lombardo's trans athlete ballot initiative can proceed — but with new description

Despite winning the right to proceed after a state Supreme Court decision, Lombardo withdrew the initiative entirely in June 2026, citing delays from the litigation that made the signature deadline unreachable, and said he'd push the issue through the Legislature instead. Assemblymember Bert Gurr (R-Elko) has said he plans to reintroduce similar legislation for a third time.

Read more: Transgender sports ballot question dropped; Lombardo wants Legislature to take up issue

Status: Originally filed Jan. 7, 2026, withdrawn and refiled the next day, challenged in court, then refiled again with court-ordered language. It ultimately did not qualify for the ballot after supporters failed to submit enough valid signatures by the June 24 deadline.

Exceptions

Allowing teacher strikes

Description: An indirect initiated state statute that would have exempted public school teachers and certain other school personnel from Nevada's 1969 ban on strikes by state and local government employees.

What a yes or no vote would have done: A yes vote would have made it legal for public school teachers and certain school staff to strike. A no vote would have kept the existing ban in place.

Supporters and opponents: Backed by the A Teacher In Every Classroom campaign and the Clark County Education Association. Gov. Joe Lombardo opposed the ballot initiative directly. The eventual legislative alternative, SB 161, as introduced, would have created a court-authorized pathway for teachers to strike, but that provision was amended out before final passage. The bill was sponsored by state Sen. Rochelle Nguyen (D-Las Vegas) and was ultimately signed by Lombardo despite his earlier opposition to the broader strike concept. The amended bill still drew an unusual coalition of opponents from both ends of the spectrum: the progressive Battle Born Progress and the conservative Nevada Policy think tank both opposed it, and the rival Nevada State Education Association also opposed it — not over the strike provision, but because it wanted the bill's scope expanded to cover more school employees.

Read more: Nevada Policy Tracker: A quick guide to key issues in the 2025 legislative session

Status: Petitioners submitted enough valid signatures in November 2024, and under Nevada's indirect initiative process, the measure went to the Legislature in February 2025. Lawmakers didn't act within their given 40-day window, so it qualified for the 2026 ballot. It was subsequently withdrawn after Gov. Lombardo signed SB 161, which only speeds up arbitration and clarifies that protests and pickets don't count as a "strike" under state law, while still allowing discipline for striking specifically during school hours. The underlying 1969 ban on public-employee strikes remains in place.