WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 597

Revises provisions relating to elections. (BDR 24-1245)

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Steve Yeager

AB 597 would let Nevada nonpartisan voters request and cast partisan primary ballots for major parties (mail or in person), expanding who can participate in primaries.

Vetoed by the Governor.
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 597

AB 597 — Summary (BDR 24‑1245)

Status: Vetoed by the Governor (delivered to Governor 6/5/2025; vetoed 6/12/2025)
Introduced: February 13, 2025
Subject: Revises provisions relating to elections (primary voting rules for nonpartisan voters)

Main purpose

AB 597 would have changed Nevada primary‑voting rules to allow voters registered with “no political party” (nonpartisan/independent voters) to request and cast a partisan primary ballot for a major political party. The bill was advanced as an “emergency”/urgency measure and amended during the process to exclude presidential preference primaries.

Key provisions

  • Authorized nonpartisan voters to vote in partisan primary elections for major political parties by:
    • Submitting a request to receive a partisan mail ballot (deadline as amended: the seventh Monday before the primary), or
    • Appearing in person during early voting or on primary day and requesting a partisan ballot.
  • Required county clerks to prepare and distribute a partisan mail ballot to any registered nonpartisan voter who requests one.
  • Prohibited a voter from casting more than one mail ballot or ballot in a primary election.
  • Required county clerks to record on the statewide voter registration list when a nonpartisan voter requests a partisan ballot and which party’s ballot was requested.
  • Modified mechanical‑voting system rules by removing the prohibition on counting primary ballots cast by non‑affiliated voters (while retaining the ban on counting unlawful votes).
  • Required precinct election boards to issue a partisan ballot and, when applicable, a voting receipt showing the party name to a nonpartisan voter who requests a partisan ballot.
  • Allowed county clerks to require nonpartisan voters who request partisan ballots to vote in a specified manner in certain precincts (consistent with existing options for partisan voters).
  • Amendments removed presidential preference primaries from the bill’s scope.
  • The bill included an emergency/urgency clause in legislative action.

Who would be affected

  • Nonpartisan/independent voters (estimated by supporters to be ~35–36% of registered voters in Nevada) — would gain the option to participate in major‑party primaries without changing party registration.
  • Major political parties — would potentially see non‑members participating in their nomination process.
  • County clerks and local election offices — would have new administrative duties (mail‑ballot processing, recordkeeping, ballot production), which the bill’s fiscal notes characterize as a potential local fiscal impact and an unfunded mandate (sections noted).

Procedural / timeline notes

  • The bill was amended multiple times (including deadline changes and removal of presidential preference primaries).
  • It passed the Legislature (final Senate vote recorded 6/2/2025), was enrolled and delivered to the Governor on 6/5/2025, and was vetoed by the Governor on 6/12/2025.
  • Fiscal/federal considerations: fiscal note flagged potential costs to local government and the bill was identified as containing an unfunded mandate.

Support and opposition (summary)

  • Supporters (e.g., advocacy groups and “open primaries” organizations) argued the bill would enfranchise a large and growing bloc of nonpartisan voters, increase participation, and address the fairness of taxpayer‑funded primaries.
  • Opponents (including party organizations and many public commenters) argued the bill would undermine parties’ associational rights, circumvent voter decisions rejecting similar changes at the ballot box, risk strategic crossover voting, and impose administrative burdens on local election officials.

This summary focuses on the enacted language as amended and the principal policy, administrative, and political implications. If you want, I can produce a side‑by‑side comparison showing how AB 597 would have changed the current NRS sections it amended.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.