(Photo: Hugh Jackson/Nevada Current)
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.
Voters this year will once again have the opportunity to remove the Nevada System of Higher Education Board of Regents from the state constitution, thanks to a ballot measure that is similar to (but not identical to) one narrowly defeated in 2020.
Question 1 would remove from the Nevada State Constitution provisions that establish the Board of Regents as the governing body of NSHE. Its passage would not change anything immediately, but would, proponents believe, end decadeslong debates about a board that has long seen itself as above the authority of the Nevada State Legislature because of those references in the constitution.
Question 1 would also establish regular, independent audits of NSHE, which includes two research universities, one state university, three community colleges and a research institution. An audit requirement was not included in the proposal four years ago.
The ballot measure’s path to voters began at the Nevada Legislature, which passed the proposal in two consecutive sessions (2021 and 2023) following the narrow defeat of their similar ballot measure in 2020. That 2020 ballot measure, which was also known as Question 1, fell short by less than a third of 1 percent of total votes, or approximately 3,800 people of the more than 1 million people who weighed in.
The language of the 2020 ballot measure was criticized as being too complicated for everyday voters to understand, and proponents of the proposal believe that led many voters defaulting to “no” because it kept the status quo, or skipping the question altogether.
More voters skipped Question 1 in 2020 than any of the other five ballot measures that year.
UNLV political science professor David Damore said that, after the narrow defeat in 2020, he and others who worked on the proposal to rein the regents’ authority focused on writing ballot language that would be more easily understood by everyday voters who don’t know the specifics of higher education governance models.
The final result, which was ultimately written by the Legislative Counsel Bureau, is “not as good as it could be,” he added, but is a vast improvement over the version voters narrowly rejected four years ago.
Proponents are hoping less might mean more this year.
In 2020, more than a million dollars was raised and spent in support of Question 1. This year, there appears to be no formal political action committee in support of or opposition to Question 1.
Damore analyzed election results from 2020 and found that the proposal received 57% support in Clark County but was opposed by majorities everywhere else. That could mean that voters at the time saw the measure as a Southern Nevada priority that could hurt the rest of the state, he added, or it could reflect the influence of regents from northern and rural Nevada who were outspoken against the removal of the regents from the constitution.
Question 1 is expected to be endorsed by most of the same groups that supported its previous iteration. That includes a diverse group of labor unions and business groups. The Vegas Chamber in its early endorsement said passage would bring clarity to governance and allow for reforms.
The Nevada Faculty Alliance, in a mid-September blog post, acknowledged that the issue divides even those directly within NSHE. According to the post, a survey of 148 NFA members saw 41% in support of Question 1, 43% in opposition, and 16% undecided — with a margin of error of 7%.
NFA stayed neutral on the issue in 2020 but this year its state board has endorsed a “yes” vote, writing that “although Question 1 is flawed, it is the only available path for change.”
“Few faculty or outside observers believe the Board of Regents as currently structured is working,” reads the board’s endorsement. “After previous attempts to amend the Constitution to change to a hybrid appointed and elected board (2006) or remove the Board from the Constitution (2020) failed at the ballot box, the Board of Regents has not reformed itself or NSHE.”
The NFA board also referenced recent controversies involving regents expressing racist, transphobic and antisemitic views.
“In just the past two years, at least four Regents have made offensive racist, transphobic, or antisemitic statements in public meetings or via social media,” the board wrote.
Opponents of Question 1 argue that removing the board of regents from the state constitution is the Legislature’s first step toward making it an appointed board or exploring other broader reforms, such as having one board to oversee community colleges and another focused on its research universities.
The Legislature has already taken some action to reform the board of regents. In 2023, legislation passed to shrink the board from 13 regents to nine and reduce their term lengths from six years to four years.