Senate committee debates adding “None of These Candidates” as a counted vote on state ballots

The Senate Committee on Government Operations met Friday for a walk-through of S137, a bill offered by Senator Anderson that would add a "none of these candidates" option to primary and general election ballots and have that option counted when calculating whether a candidate has won a majority.

Senator Anderson, the bill sponsor, told the committee the change is about giving voters a formal way to withhold consent. "The consent of the voters requires the ability to withhold your consent, and we don't have that now," Anderson said, arguing that a counted "none of these candidates" choice would provide more information than a blank ballot.

Anderson noted that Nevada is the only state that currently places a "none of the above" choice on ballots, and likened some primary uncommitted-delegate votes to that idea. He said the measure could highlight districts where voters consistently reject the available candidates and suggested it might prompt consideration of alternative voting systems such as ranked-choice voting if adoption rose significantly.

Committee members raised practical and political questions. Senator Hovski asked, "what happens if none of these candidates wins?" Anderson replied that the bill leaves the existing plurality outcome in place: "it's just whoever got the most votes," and the highest vote-getter would still obtain the office if no candidate clears a majority.

Senator Clarkson questioned how much information a "none of the above" vote would actually provide. "This doesn't give reasons," Clarkson said, adding that a check of that option could reflect many motives — from protest to confusion — and would not reveal which. Others raised concerns that the option could embarrass incumbents who win while trailing the "none" option or could discourage prospective candidates.

Supporters, including several committee members, said the option would be a better signal than leaving ballots blank, noting examples where voters unintentionally skip races. "It feels like a different set of facts than just not seeing a vote," one supporter said, arguing the option would let voters express a deliberate refusal of the choices presented.

No formal vote or committee action was taken on S137 during the meeting; the session was a committee walk-through and discussion of the proposal. Committee members suggested further study, pilot options, and clarification of which offices the option would apply to; committee discussion referenced considering pilots (for example, student elections) and whether the bill should apply statewide or be limited in scope.

The discussion underscored competing goals: giving voters an explicit way to register dissatisfaction with candidates, and protecting the incentives and reputations of people who run for office. Committee members said more data from other jurisdictions and practical drafting clarifications would be useful before any bill move.

The committee paused action on S137 and moved on to review the Office of Professional Regulation bill later in the agenda.