COMMENTARY: Nevada should follow Florida’s lead: Vote ‘yes’ on Question 7

COMMENTARY: Nevada should follow Florida’s lead: Vote ‘yes’ on Question 7 By Bob McClure August 8, 2026 - 9:02 pm This November Nevada voters will have a second opportunity to adopt an important election safeguard: photographic identification. Question 7, a citizen‑initiated constitutional amendment, garnered roughly 73 percent support in 2024 and now returns for the required second vote. Nevada can look to a state that has operated under a similar voter‑ID requirement for two decades—Florida—where the evidence tells a clear story. Critics contend that voter‑ID laws suppress turnout, especially among those who struggle to obtain identification. Florida’s experience undermines that claim. After strengthening its photo‑ID rule in 2005, presidential‑year turnout did not fall; it rose, reaching 72.3 percent in 2020, the highest level in state history. Midterm turnout followed a similar pattern, climbing to 54.3 percent in 2018, its strongest showing in decades, more than ten years after the requirement took effect. If photo identification discouraged voters, the numbers would have moved in the opposite direction. Florida’s Hispanic electorate mirrors the statewide trend. Hispanic voter turnout increased from 36 percent in 2014 to 44 percent in 2018, and Hispanic registration grew 56 percent over that period. The growth continued into the 2020s, with Hispanic registration hitting a record 2.5 million in 2020, up from about 2 million in 2016. A plausible explanation is confidence. When voters believe an election is secure, they are more willing to participate. Security and accessibility are not mutually exclusive; in Florida they have advanced together. An October 2024 Marist poll found 79 percent of Floridians confident that state and local officials would conduct a fair and accurate election, three points above the 76 percent national average recorded in the same survey. Question 7 mirrors much of Florida’s existing framework. In‑person voters would present valid photo identification, while mail voters would attach a personal identifier—such as a driver’s license number or Social Security number—to their ballot. Florida already requires this for mail‑ballot requests, and its mail voters can track their ballot’s status through systems like BallotTrax, ensuring they know it was received, verified, and counted. That transparency, combined with verified identity, constitutes a secure, voter‑friendly system. Opponents may argue that Nevada does not need the measure because in‑person fraud is rare. While that may be true, an ID’s value extends beyond preventing fraud that has already been detected; it builds confidence at a moment when trust in institutions, including elections, is fragile. A state that can demonstrate every ballot belongs to a verified voter produces results that are harder to credibly challenge. To be clear, correlation does not prove causation, and Florida’s rising turnout cannot be attributed solely to its ID law. Nevertheless, if photo identification subtly suppressed turnout as opponents claim, two decades of Florida elections would show some indication of it. Instead, Florida posted its highest presidential turnout on record and its strongest midterm performance in decades, both occurring well after the ID requirement was implemented. The specific fear driving resistance to Question 7—that requiring ID keeps people from voting—has not materialized where the policy has been tried. Nevada voters approved Question 7 by a resounding 73 percent in 2024. They should finish the job this November. Two decades of Florida data demonstrate that expanding access and strengthening election integrity through voter ID can proceed hand in hand. Bob McClure is president and CEO of The James Madison Institute in Tallahassee, Florida.