More than $40 million was raised by backers of the abortion and ranked-choice voting ballot questions in 2024, primarily from groups that do not have to disclose their donors.

The measure was part of national groups’ multistate campaign to curb political polarization. Opponents, including major political parties, decried it as confusing.

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.”

If voters pass the measure, Nevada would become the third state to implement statewide ranked-choice voting, after Maine and Alaska.

A new PAC pre-booked more than $9.4 million in ad buys in Las Vegas, Reno and on Satellite from Sept. 10 to Nov. 5, 2024.

Though a ballot question proposing to implement open primaries and ranked-choice voting passed by a slim margin, another hurdle in the form of a second statewide vote in the 2024 election remains.

Almost all of that money has come from out-of-state donors, led by a $5 million contribution from Katherine Gehl, a Chicago-based businesswoman who founded the Institute for Political Innovation and pioneered the concept of Final-Five Voting, the model for Nevada’s Question 3.

The new September poll instead surveyed likely voters, a more Republican-leaning group, and found that opposition had swelled significantly, outweighing support for the changes by a 4-point margin (42 percent opposed to 38 percent support).

Question 3 will ask voters whether they want to overhaul the state’s election system and fundamentally change the way people cast votes.

The ranked-choice ballot question comes after a protracted campaign and legal battle to qualify for the November ballot.

Multiple proposed ballot initiatives met their demise Wednesday, the signature-gathering deadline for measures attempting to amend the Nevada Constitution.

On Wednesday, attorneys representing Helton and Nevada Voters First, the group backing the so-called “Better Voting Nevada” initiative, made their final pitches to the court in oral arguments before the justices.

Cannizzaro echoed that opposition, saying in a statement that “locking this change into the state constitution is risky and would make it nearly impossible to fix if things go wrong.”

Amounting to almost $2.3 million, the funds represent a significant investment in an initiative largely aimed at giving Nevada’s growing nonpartisan voters a greater voice in the election process. 

The ruling was issued Thursday evening and rejected all three claims raised against the initiative, and the judge concluded that changes to primary and general elections did not violate the single-subject rule for ballot initiatives.

The suit claims the proposed initiative violates three state constitutional requirements: the single-subject rule, addition of a cost without a funding source, and a deficient “description of effect.”