The Washington Post

How ‘none of these candidates’ won in Nevada

It's a good day in Nevada for "None of these candidates."

Yes, you read that right. The Supreme Court opted not to consider an appeal Republicans filed to get the "none" option struck from the ballot. So where did "none of these candidates" originate and why does it continue to generate controversy?

Okay, so why does voting in Nevada sound like taking an SAT test?

The state introduced the option of voting for "none of these candidates" in statewide races back in the 1970s in the wake of the Watergate. The idea was to counteract apathy about governance and campaigning in the wake of a massive corruption scandal. Voters fed up with all candidates might be tempted not to vote, period. But what if they could be for nobody and still vote? Voila. This clip from the film "Brewster's Millions" also explains it:

Interesting. But why all the fuss?

A Republican lawsuit. In the lead-up to the 2012 election, Republicans challenged the state to strike the "none" option from the ballot. The presidential election dynamics illustrated why it made political sense. Nevada was widely viewed as a key swing state heading into the election. Voters there sick of President Obama but not quite sold on Mitt Romney might have been inclined to vote for "none of these candidates." But absent that option, they would have had to choose. And that could have helped Romney in a close contest.

(Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

So what happened with the legal battle?

First, "none" was struck from the ballot. Later, before the election, it was restored. And after the Supreme Court's decision Monday, it looks like it's here to stay.

(James Steidl)

Did it matter in the 2012 presidential race?

Nope. Obama carried Nevada by about seven points. "None of these candidates" won 0.57 percent of the vote, or 5,770 for those of you keeping count at home. So, no, it wouldn't have made any difference in the final outcome.

What about the Senate race?

That's a different story. The Republican candidate -- incumbent Sen. Dean Heller (R) -- won by about a point over then Rep. Shelley Berkley (D). "None" received about 4.5 percent of the vote. So if those votes didn't exist, would the outcome have been different? Maybe, but it's impossible to know.

Has it mattered before?

Rarely. Most notable was 1998, when Sen. Harry Reid (D) defeated Republican John Ensign by just 400 votes. More than 8,000 voters selected "none" that year. But for the most part, it has not affected the outcomes of statewide races.

(The Washington Post)

What if "none" were to get the most votes?

Um, that's not going to happen. But even if it did ("So you're telling me there's a chance!") "none" could not win. "Only votes cast for the named candidates shall be counted in determining nomination or election to any statewide office or presidential nominations or the selection of presidential electors," according to state law.

Sean Sullivan has covered national politics for The Washington Post since 2012.

The Freddie Gray case

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Campaign 2016 Email Updates

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!

Get Zika news by email

Please provide a valid email address.

You’re all set!
Show Comments
Republicans debated Saturday night. The South Carolina GOP primary and the Nevada Democratic caucuses are next on Feb. 20. Get caught up on the race.
The Post's Dan Balz says...
Rarely has the division between Trump and party elites been more apparent. Trump trashed one of the most revered families in Republican politics and made a bet that standing his ground is better than backing down. Drawing boos from the audience, Trump did not flinch. But whether he will be punished or rewarded by voters was the unanswerable question.
GOP candidates react to Justice Scalia's death
I don't know how he knows what I said on Univision because he doesn't speak Spanish.
Sen. Marco Rubio, attacking Sen. Ted Cruz in Saturday night's very heated GOP debate in South Carolina. Soon after, Cruz went on a tirade in Spanish.
The Fix asks The State's political reporter where the most important region of the state is.
The State's Andy Shain says he could talk about Charleston, which represents a little bit of everything the state has to offer from evangelicals to libertarians, and where Ted Cruz is raising more money than anywhere else. In a twist, Marco Rubio is drawing strong financial support from more socially conservative Upstate. That said, Donald Trump is bursting all the conventional wisdom in the state. So maybe the better answer to this question is, "Wherever Trump is."
Past South Carolina GOP primary winners
South Carolina polling averages
Donald Trump leads in the first state in the South to vote, where he faces rivals Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
South Carolina polling averages
The S.C. Democratic primary is Feb. 27. Clinton has a significant lead in the state, whose primary falls one week after the party's Nevada caucuses.
62% 33%
The complicated upcoming voting schedule
Feb. 20

Democrats caucus in Nevada; Republicans hold a primary in South Carolina.

Feb. 23

Republicans caucus in Nevada.

Feb. 27

Democrats hold a primary in South Carolina.

Upcoming debates
Feb 25: GOP debate

on CNN, in Houston, Texas

March 3: GOP debate

on Fox News, in Detroit, Mich.

March 6: Democratic debate

on CNN, in Flint, Mich.

Campaign 2016
Where the race stands

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.