A foe to fear: Republicans fight ‘none’ in Nevada

Reduced to its essence, the Republican lawsuit seeking to knock the "none of these candidates" option off Nevada's ballot boils down to this: Presumptive nominee Mitt Romney is so lackluster that if certain Republican voters in this swing state have any possible alternative, they'll take it.

And thus, Republicans want to strike from the ballot a choice unique in the nation that's endured for 36 years.

U.S. District Judge Robert Jones agreed Wednesday with GOP lawyers, who contended that because votes for "none" aren't counted, voters selecting that option are disenfranchised. He granted an injunction striking "none" from the November ballot.

Secretary of State Ross Miller has promised to appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, perhaps in time to save "none" this year. If not, Nevada's Legislature could act in 2013 to restore "none," with one important change: If "none" ever wins a race (yes, it has happened) then the office in question would be declared vacant and filled by whatever process state law prescribes for filling a vacancy. Lawmakers might add that none of the candidates who lost to "none" could be eligible for appointment to that office.

But for right now, let's hope that "none" survives, if only because Republicans underwriting the litigation against it seem so desperate to re-write nearly four decades of Nevada election law.

And before anybody objects that Democrats might do the same thing were the positions reversed, it's worth remembering that no assault on "none" was made when they had similarly lackluster candidates. (Anybody remember Jimmy Carter in 1980, Michael Dukakis in 1988, or John Kerry in 2004? They all ended up beating "none," but losing their respective elections.)

What Jones may have overlooked in deciding to impose an injunction is that voting for "none," in addition to being First Amendment-protected political speech, also sends a unique message that cannot be sent in any other way.

Think about it: A voter has taken the time to register, to come to the polls on Election Day, and to review the list of potential candidates. Having found all wanting, he or she selects "none," unmistakably saying they all fell short. In other words, get better candidates, and voters will get more engaged.

This is why Republicans hate the "none" option so much, especially in a year when supporters of Texas Rep. Ron Paul have taken over the state Republican Party and the Clark County party, too. It took Paul voters considerable time, effort, energy and expense to get their members into party offices, and those voters in particular find Romney insufficiently conservative and wish he'd incline himself more toward the libertarian philosophy.

But now, they'll be asked to either abandon their party and vote for a more like-minded candidate in Libertarian Gary Johnson, or to violate their principles and vote for Romney, or to skip the race entirely. (The final irony? By claiming to liberate voters from disenfranchisement, this injunction will actually increase it.)

So why not just leave the race blank? You could certainly do that, but it would not send the same message. Voters could leave a race blank for other reasons, including forgetting to vote (and ignoring the reminder prompts) or making a mistake. Only in making a positive choice for "none" can a voter unmistakably drive home his or her dissatisfaction.

And that's the point here: Voters know "none" can't win. But choosing a null vote is every bit as much a legitimate choice as voting for a natural person.

Or at least it was, until Republicans had to make up for the fact that many voters in this swing state like Ron Paul way more than Mitt Romney.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.