Las Vegas (AP) – Nevada Republican Governor Joe Lombard unexpectedly vetoed the bill, which would require voters to see the swing state voters to show a photo identity document in surveys – a conservative priority across the country and what has long been on the list of governor’s legislative wishes.
This step gives a dramatic end to one of the most surprising results of the legislative session: a bilateral agreement that combined the voter’s identification requirement with a democratic supported measure to add more drop boxes to the vote voting, which was initially vetoed by Lombardo.
The draft law came together in the last days of the session and had only passed before the Democrats controlled by the legislator was postponed immediately after June 3. Midnight. The pawnshop is expected to sign.
In his veto message, the pawnshop said he “sincerely” supports voter ID laws, but he believed the bill felt that his voting voting could still be resolved, as such ballots could still be adopted “just because of the signature match” under the draft law.
Since it would “apply the voter ID unevenly between personal and postal voters and does not guarantee a sufficient guarantee of a ballot paper, I cannot support it,” he said.
The voter ID’s requirements in the draft law reflected the voting ballot initiative called the question 7 that Nevada voters confirmed largely in November last year. But for voters in 2026. Should pass this again to amend the Constitution of the State. The claim will then be fulfilled by 2028.
The Assembly Chairman Steve Yeager, a Democrat who mediated the agreement with the pawnshop, said that after entering the laws, the voters seemed ready to grant the final approval and that the voter’s ID law would be able to start a smooth permit before the next presidential election.
In an honest statement, Yeager called the governor’s decision “a violation of trust”, saying that he believed the Lombard had surrounded the surrounding pressure to veto the bill appointed draft law 499.
“The pawnshop was dedicated to AB499 before that before that, promoting all the laws’ authorities to support what they did,” Yeager said.
The voting rights group condemned the law, saying that some people would find it harder to vote, including low -income or unprotected voters, disabled people and older voters.
Let the Nevadans vote, which describes themselves as a non -partisan coalition, said Thursday, a report said that the governor’s veto was only temporarily suspended by what he called “false and improperly thought out voter ID implementation in Nevada.”
“Come in 2026, the question 7 will still be in the vote,” the group said, describing the voter’s ID requirements as ‘strict modes’ who “decide who can exercise their constitutional right to vote and who cannot.”
Surveys showed that most Americans support voter ID laws, and it was consistent over the years and all party lines. 2024. The Gallup survey found that 84% of American voters supported the seats for a photo identity document, taking into account the conclusions of Gallup from 2022 and 2016. This includes about two -thirds of Democrats, according to 2024. In the survey.
According to the conference of the National Legal Publishers at the Conference of the National State, voters are required or asked to show the person personally in 36 states.
However, not all states need an identity document. Some accept documents such as a bank report, and some allow voters to vote without IDs to vote by signing a statement. Several states allow interviews to voters voters without an identity document.
Lombardo also vetoed a bill on Thursday, which would have allowed Swing State to vote in national or democratic primary race to vote for voters.
The draft law aimed to include more than 855,000 voters registered as the non-partisan-the-country voting block-to-divide the Congress racing and public offices.
In November last year, voters rejected the voting initiative to open the basics of all registered voters. The resistance of the leaders of both sides, which also tried to implement a rating vote, on both sides, who said it was too wide and confusing.