As the 2022 Election process is coming closer, with early voting opportunities and mail-in ballots hitting mailboxes shortly, being prepared with how you are going to vote is something that ought to be considered. We’ve already seen the party in charge of the Nevada Legislature bring about the changes that they believed were appropriate and as long as they continue to be in charge of Nevada government that voting system will continue to be in operations.

Another group of advocates have also brought forward their agenda for how Nevada voters should conduct the process of primary elections. Ballot Question 3 on the 2022 Nevada ballot is seeking to change the way primary elections would take place going forward, if voters approve that change. The system would also be changed for how the general election choices would made, using a ranked system for selections.

Nevada Farm Bureau’s current policy does not address the topic of Ballot Question 3, but the organization’s policy hasn’t supported the changes that have been brought over the recent changes put in place…

Voting Process:                                                                                186

      We support every legal vote.

      We support the enhancement of solicited “absentee ballot” laws to include hardship of “in person” voting such as health or distance to the polls.

      We support changes to state election laws to not allow the random, unsolicited mail distribution of ballots or the harvesting of those ballots.

        We believe insuring election integrity is essential. We encourage the Secretary of State provide educational information to report on the outcomes of local audit results as well as areas of deficiencies which should be addressed with proposed changes.

A recent opinion piece by the Nevada Policy Research Institute on Ballot Question 3 drew attention to whether making the election system more complicated will actually be another “improvement”…

Earlier this week Clark County Farm Bureau held the first of three policy meetings that they have planned around the county, meeting with Farm Bureau members and seeking their input on possible Farm Bureau policy positions. The Nevada Farm Bureau water policy committee has also held a meeting to discuss possible policy positions for water. They have also been provided with some policy background papers, digging deeper into water issues and mapping out what current policy already says and options for other ideas for consideration.

Other county Farm Bureaus will be planning their local meetings for getting policy input or taking actions to advance grassroots proposals on for attention at the Nevada Farm Bureau Resolutions Committee and eventually at the Nevada Farm Bureau annual meeting in Carson City, November 10-12.

If you have ideas or thoughts on possible Farm Bureau policy, please send an email with those ideas to [email protected].  We will be happy to make sure that your county Farm Bureau leadership is aware of your proposals for topics to be covered as well as whatever specifics you would like to include.

The Advisory Committee on Sustainable Transportation Funding met in Las Vegas and virtually from the Carson City Nevada Department of Transportation offices in their next to the last meeting, ahead of the report that they will be sending to the Nevada Legislature for possible actions. The combination of declining tax funding and increased construction costs have resulted in a widening Nevada state funding gap that is projected to be about $6 billion over the next 10 years. In addition to the roadway maintenance/construction costs at the state level, local authorities are also indicating annual transportation funding needs of over $500 million per year.

Washoe and Clark Counties have instituted indexed local fuel tax options which automatically trigger annual fuel tax increases. The majority of those who are members of the Sustainable Transportation Funding Advisory Committee have voted their preferences to see a statewide indexed fuel tax approach with an initial fuel tax increase followed by annual increases based on an averaged rate of inflation for related road construction costs.

The group’s tentative proposal includes establishing a taxing system which would be applied to electric vehicles that use the state’s roads, but make no “fuel tax” contribution for the use of their miles traveled.

Currently about 20,000 electric vehicles are in operation in Nevada (roughly 1 percent of the total passenger vehicles I the state) but based on California-based regulation changes that could have an impact on Nevada, there are estimates that 25 percent of passenger miles driven by the end of the next decade will be all-electric. Various federal government spending initiatives are also pushing for the necessary infrastructure and incentives for greasing the skids in pushing conversion away from fossil fuels to electric vehicles.

The final report by the Advisory Committee is expected to receive final approval when they meet on November 9. The recommendations in the report is anticipated to serve as the foundation for legislative proposals to pursue tax increases, additional fees and establishment of new tax initiatives to infuse major increased funding into transportation spending.

Last week we reported on Nevada Farm Bureau engaging with the next round of the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) proposed regulations on water antidegradation matters.  It was highlighted that Nevada Farm Bureau's and other stakeholders specific concerns were focused on the section of the proposal that dealt with designations of “water of extraordinary ecological aesthetic or recreational value”.  

We also shared that Nevada Farm Bureau submitted these comments which called attention to the need for property rights protection and land-use protections.   We heard from several Farm Bureau members who noted their agreement about the concerns with the potential designation of these types of waters as well as the need for protections.