Nevada’s Secretary of State released the 2024 ballot question guide on Friday. The guide explains each ballot question and the arguments for and against them.

“There are seven statewide ballot questions on the general election ballot this November,” Secretary of State Cisco Aguilar said. “Each question has the potential to make significant changes to how we live, learn or vote. Four of these questions come from bills that passed the legislature last session and were written by the Legislative Counsel Bureau. 

“One question was on the ballot in 2022 and appears exactly as it did then,” he added. “The last two questions are new, and my office had the duty of writing the condensation and digest. I asked my team to develop questions and explanations that most voters can read and understand easily, avoiding complicated legal wording.” 

Read the full guide here or the summaries below.

Voting

• Early Voting runs from October 19 through November 1
  • County polling locations may be found here
• Election Day is on November 5. Polls will be open from 7 am – 7 pm
• Same-Day Voter Registration: Voters can register to vote and update their voter registration anytime online at VOTE.NV.gov or in-person during Early Voting or on Election Day at a polling location
  • October 22 is the last day to update your registration or register to vote and be mailed a ballot
• Mail Ballots: All active registered voters will be sent a mail ballot, unless they have opted out. Mail ballots must be postmarked on or before Election Day on November 5 and received by the county election official no later than November 9 to be counted.

Question 1: Board of Regents authority

This question proposes to amend the Nevada Constitution to modify the governance of the Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education. It aims to remove certain provisions regarding their election and duties, allowing the Legislature to establish governance and auditing procedures for public higher education institutions. A “Yes” vote would enable more legislative oversight, while a “No” vote would maintain the current constitutional provisions.

Arguments for:

• Would allow for more legislative oversight and accountability of the Board of Regents to improve higher education in Nevada
• Would enable the Legislature to address controversies about Board policies and practices
• Would improve transparency and fiscal management through required audits
• Would prevent the Board from using its constitutional status to shield itself from scrutiny

Arguments against:

• Could lead to more political interference in higher education governance
• The Board of Regents has governed the higher education system for over 150 years
• The Legislature already has oversight powers and can hold the Board accountable
• Could jeopardize academic freedom and independence

Question 2: Support for individuals with disabilities

Question 2 seeks to amend Section 1 of Article 13 of the Nevada Constitution to update terminology related to individuals with disabilities. It replaces outdated terms with more respectful language and adds support for entities benefiting individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities. A “Yes” vote would enact these changes, while a “No” vote would retain the existing language.

Arguments for:

• Would replace outdated and offensive language in the Constitution with more respectful terms
• Would expand constitutional protections to people with intellectual/developmental disabilities
• Would align constitutional language with current agency policies and practices
• Would reduce stigma and discriminatory barriers

Arguments against:

• Amending the Constitution should be rare and not done just to update terminology
• The Constitution is a historical document and doesn’t need to keep up with changing language
• Changing the language won’t have a tangible impact on services provided
• Current services already cover those with intellectual/developmental disabilities

Question 3: Open primaries and ranked-choice voting

This initiative proposes to establish open primary elections in Nevada, allowing all voters to participate regardless of party affiliation. It also introduces ranked-choice voting for general elections for various state offices. A “Yes” vote would implement these changes, while a “No” vote would keep the current closed primary system. This measure was passed by voters in 2022 (53% in favor with 47% opposed) and is now up for a final vote in order to become law.

Arguments for:

• Would give all voters a voice in primary elections, not just members of major political parties
• Would give voters more choice through ranked voting in general elections
• Would encourage candidates to appeal to a broader electorate
• Would make elected officials more accountable to all voters

Arguments against:

• Would make elections more complicated and confusing for voters
• Could lead to ballots being discarded if not filled out correctly
• Could delay election results and cause voters to question validity
• Would be difficult to repeal if the new system fails

Question 4: Removal of language authorizing slavery as punishment

This question aims to remove language from the Nevada Constitution that permits slavery and involuntary servitude as a punishment for crimes. A “Yes” vote would abolish this provision entirely, while a “No” vote would maintain the current allowance.

Arguments for:

• Would remove morally unacceptable language allowing slavery/involuntary servitude as punishment
• Would align Nevada with other states that have removed similar language
• Would not impact voluntary prison work programs
• Would signal Nevada no longer accepts this outdated form of punishment

Arguments against:

• Could create legal uncertainty around current offender work practices
• Could impact prison work assignments that provide job training and life skills
• Could affect community service as an alternative to incarceration
• Is an unnecessary change that could have unintended consequences

Question 5: Tax exemption for diapers

This proposal seeks to exempt child and adult diapers from sales and use taxes in Nevada. If approved, this exemption would be effective from January 1, 2025, until December 31, 2050. A “Yes” vote would implement this tax exemption, while a “No” vote would keep diapers subject to sales tax.

Arguments for:

• Would make diapers more affordable and accessible as an essential healthcare item
• Would provide financial relief to low-income families and individuals
• Would align Nevada with other states that exempt diapers from sales tax
• Would allow families to afford more diapers or other necessities

Arguments against:

• Would reduce tax revenue for public schools and local governments
• Would narrow the tax base, potentially leading to more volatility in revenues
• Violates sound tax policy of taxing most consumer goods equally
• Sets a precedent for exempting other “necessity” items

Question 6: Right to abortion

Question 6 proposes to enshrine a fundamental right to abortion in the Nevada Constitution, allowing individuals to access abortion services without state interference until fetal viability or when necessary for health reasons. A “Yes” vote would establish this right, while a “No” vote would maintain existing laws regarding abortion. If passed, this question will appear on the 2026 ballot.

Arguments for:

• Would protect abortion rights in the state constitution
• Would prevent future abortion bans or restrictions
• Would keep abortion decisions between patients and doctors without government interference
• Would protect doctors from prosecution for providing abortions

Arguments against:

• Could allow abortions through all nine months of pregnancy
• Could force taxpayers to fund abortions
• Could remove safety regulations and allow non-doctors to perform abortions
• Is unnecessary given Nevada’s existing abortion protections

Question 7: Voter identification requirements

This question seeks to amend the Nevada Constitution to require voters to present photo identification when voting in person or provide personal information when voting by mail. A “Yes” vote would enforce these identification requirements, while a “No” vote would retain the current identification rules that are less stringent. If passed, this question will appear on the 2026 ballot.

Arguments for:

• Would increase election security and integrity
• Would reduce potential for voter fraud
• Would bring Nevada in line with many other states that require voter ID
• Would increase voter confidence in election results

Arguments against:

• Could disenfranchise eligible voters who lack proper ID
• Would be costly to implement and administer
• Is unnecessary given lack of evidence of widespread voter fraud
• Could lead to longer lines and wait times at polling places

Source: SOS