Key Takeaways
- We agreed with policy and energy experts that Question 3 is risky and too costly for Nevadans. NSEA believes Question 3 would leave Nevada students, educators, and their families with higher electric rates and a less reliable power supply.
- Another reason for opposing Question 3 is the fact that once it is in the Constitution and the flaws and unintended consequences are exposed, it would take an estimated 8 years to change it. It’s just not smart to lock in risky policy into our Constitution.
The Nevada State Education Association is the largest education union in Nevada, representing teachers, education support professionals and other educators in every Nevada county. We take our responsibility representing the state’s educators seriously. That is why NSEA engages in a democratic endorsement process when considering candidates as well as ballot questions. Our aim is to always put students first.
After research and deliberation, the NSEA Board of Directors, representing educators from across the state, voted unanimously to oppose Question 3, the energy deregulation measure. We agreed with policy and energy experts that Question 3 is risky and too costly for Nevadans. NSEA believes Question 3 would leave Nevada students, educators, and their families with higher electric rates and a less reliable power supply. Ruben Murillo, Jr., a special education teacher in Clark County and President of NSEA, made the following statement...
The first Yes on 3 commercials stated that everyone should have a choice to meet their energy needs. I wondered what if they substituted the word voucher for energy? NSEA opposes vouchers, because they steal money from public schools and divert it to private schools, leaving the remainder of students with a weakened public education system. The same could be said for what Question 3 would do to the energy market. It would benefit the few at the expense of the many.
Another reason for opposing Question 3 is the fact that once it is in the Constitution and the flaws and unintended consequences are exposed, it would take an estimated 8 years to change it. It’s just not smart to lock in risky policy into our Constitution.
Tens of millions of dollars have already been spent to influence the outcome of Question 3. Proponents of this measure recently have been running a television advertisement featuring three teachers from the Clark County Education Association. The ad asks viewers to “Join Nevada teachers, and vote yes on Question 3.” However, it is not NSEA’s experience that significant numbers of teachers across the state support the measure. In fact, many have been asking why CCEA would support the measure when just about every other labor union is in opposition.
That’s why NSEA was very concerned about facts reported in The Nevada Independent on Friday, October 19th. The article points toward a pay-to-play endorsement for Question 3 from John Vellardita’s CCEA. After CCEA’s endorsement of Question 3, a vendor for the campaign made an unprecedented half-million-dollar contribution to Vellardita’s PAC, Nevada Leads. The appearance is that CCEA took dark money for their endorsement of Question 3.
In contrast, NSEA bases its endorsements on what is best for students, schools, and educators. Simply put, NSEA’s endorsement is not for sale.
NSEA would never endorse a ballot question that would take money from public education, and we would certainly take care to avoid even the appearance of our endorsements being influenced by the corrosive influence of dark money. For NSEA, this is a question of political integrity and doing right by our members and the students we educate.
