<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Sunday, December 3, 2023
Dec. 3, 2023

Linkedin Pinterest

Voters support 8 of 9 Clark County charter amendments

Diversity, equity, inclusion proposition appears to fail

By , Columbian staff writer

Of the ballots counted by Tuesday evening, voters overwhelmingly supported eight of the nine proposed charter amendments on the ballots.

Propositions 1-7 were placed on the ballot by the county’s Charter Review Commission and Propositions 8 and 9 came from the Clark County Council.

Proposition 1: With 68.63 percent of voters approving the measure, the elected positions of assessor, auditor, clerk, prosecuting attorney, sheriff and treasurer will likely change from partisan to nonpartisan positions.

Currently, candidates are required to list party affiliation when filing to run for office and is listed on the ballot and in the voters’ guide.

Only 31.37 percent of the voters disagreed and rejected the ballot measure.

Proposition 2: Similar to the previous amendment, Proposition 2 also makes the five county council seats nonpartisan.

This measure also drew wide approval from voters with 67.24 percent voting in favor and 32.76 percent voting against.

Proposition 3: This measure to change how the county districts are represented by the council drew the largest support from voters of all the charter amendments. Initial results show 73.2 percent of voters approving the measure and 26.8 percent voting against.

Beginning Jan. 1, the county council will have five elected members representing five geographic districts. The five council members will select one of the members to serve as chair and one to serve as vice chair.

Proposition 4: Under this measure, the county charter will be reviewed every five years instead of every 10 years. Additionally, charter review commissioners will be elected for a two-year term rather than the one-year term they now serve. Of the ballots case, 64.17 percent of voters approved of the changes with 35.83 percent of voters against.

Proposition 5: The amendment, which adds a code of ethics and autonomous review process to the home rule charter, drew 69.19 percent of voters approving. Penalties for violating the code still have to be established.

Proposition 6: Voters appear to be rejecting the county’s efforts to establish an office of diversity, equity and inclusion. Tuesday’s ballots showed 55.79 percent of votes against with 44.21 percent in favor. Charter Review Commission member Chuck Green said he received calls from voters that thought the measure was advancing critical race theory.

“A lot of people felt it just wasn’t needed because the county already has a diversity provision it’s working on,” Green said. “They were concerned it is creating a bureaucracy that is not needed.”

Proposition 7: This proposition to make minor corrections and technical clarifications to the charter had 72.05 percent of votes in favor. Of the ballots cast, just 27.95 percent voted against it.

Proposition 8: This amendment to the county charter comes from the county council at the request of Auditor Greg Kimsey and specifies changes related to processing initiatives, mini-initiatives and referenda petitions.

It received 79.22 percent of votes in favor and 20.78 percent of votes against.

Proposition 9: Also brought forward by the county council, Proposition 9 addresses eligibility to vote on certain initiatives, mini-initiatives and referenda. It received 71.92 percent of votes approving the measure and 28.08 percent rejecting it.

Be sure to check www.columbian.com for updated election results.

Support local journalism

Your tax-deductible donation to The Columbian’s Community Funded Journalism program will contribute to better local reporting on key issues, including homelessness, housing, transportation and the environment. Reporters will focus on narrative, investigative and data-driven storytelling.

Local journalism needs your help. It’s an essential part of a healthy community and a healthy democracy.

Community Funded Journalism logo