Briefs on Both Sides Filed in Nevada Lawsuit Over Whether None of the Above is Unconstitutional Unless it is Binding

Both sides have filed briefs in Townley v State of Nevada, in U.S. District Court, 3:12cv-310. Plaintiffs are voters, and two Republican presidential elector candidates, who argue that “None of the Above” must either be made binding, or must be removed from the ballot. Nevada prints “None of the Above” on primary and general election ballots for statewide office. But when NOTA wins, it has no effect.

The plaintiffs argue that the voters who choose NOTA are not being treated equally, because a vote for NOTA is a vote but the state isn’t giving that vote any legal effect. Here is the state’s brief, and here is the plaintiff’s brief.


  1. Demo Rep · · Reply

    See 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 in the nearly dead U.S.A. Const.

    denied / abridged

  2. Jim Riley · · Reply

    Nevada prints “None of These Candidates”

  3. Larry Allred · · Reply

    It is what it is, not ideal. As is, the current arrangement allows voters to quite explicily undervote. If the “None of These Candidates” polls the most everyone can know the highest vote getting candidate recieved no mandate at all, which can be informative in a way so many other contests elsewhere could use could use to guage voter rejection.

    There is a widespread failure to count undervotes accross the nation, they’re worth of examination.

    The argument that a State cannot do this to voters because voters might not understand what that vote does/does not do, well there’s hardly a shortage of examples where it’s well understood by the entire electorate what the consequences are for voting this way or that. Very unfortunate that a general objection option would be tossed out for such an offense.

  4. TruFoe · · Reply

    Does anyone know where the NOTA nominating convention will be held this year? Hotel room availability shouldn’t be a problem, so I suppose it could be held just about anywhere…or…perhaps nowhere.

  5. Demo Rep · · Reply

    This mess is another legal fiction case —

    100 percent of the Voters are allegedly 100 percent aware of what a vote for NOTA means — i.e. ignorance of the law is NO excuse stuff.

    Same as with the standard plurality person in most general elections — a candidate who gets a plurality = Elected — even if such result is NOT shown on the ballot — in the voting instructions.

  6. Cody Quirk · · Reply

    NOTA is nothing but a ploy by the politicians here to hurt third parties; NOTA is a completely simpleton choice to have on the ballot.

    The IAP supports this lawsuit in principle, and if they ever needed our help, they’re welcome to it.

  7. You should be able to vote for as many candidates as you like. Now, obviously, the value of your vote decreases according to the number of candidates you vote for.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: