I recently turned down the invitation to attend another round of League of Women Voters candidate forums. My reasoning is the following.
I attended the last Primary Candidate Forum by the League of Women Voters of Clark County believing it would be a genuine nonpartisan opportunity to discuss the complex issues facing District 1 voters.
Families are being pressed to the limit and businesses are shuttering under rising costs.
Real affordability starts with lower taxes and smarter spending, not endless fee and tax increases. Smarter transportation solutions that actually move people and goods are needed instead of policies that add frustration and expense. These are the everyday pressures residents face, and they deserve more than superficial treatment. I was excited to have those discussions.
What I encountered instead was a format limited to sound bites of a minute or less which cannot possibly address problems of this complexity. More troubling was the atmosphere. While there, I overheard members casually discussing how wonderful it would be if the president of the United States would kill himself. As flawed as he, or any of us are, I find such casual use of violent rhetoric abhorrent, especially couched in a forum with all the formal pretenses of promoting democracy. It revealed how normalized the politics of personal destruction has become in some circles—yes, within the League of Women Voters themselves—and how far the event drifted from the civil, substantive discourse voters expect, deserve and need.
This event caused me to dig deeper. Beneath the League’s nonpartisan branding lies a membership and organization that openly and primarily advances left-of and far-left positions only. The local League has published letters vilifying legal and necessary immigration enforcement in our community, alleging racial profiling and aggressive actions while urging residents to pressure elected officials and support specific immigrant-rights groups. Local candidates and observers have also publicly questioned the League’s participation in “No Kings” events; when challenged, leadership has described the organization as still “political” and focused on “defending democracy”—language that treats one side of the political spectrum as the sole defender of our system. Members have proudly promoted both No Kings and anti-ICE protests. These are not neutral civic activities. They are clear political advocacy. The LWV has every right to support and advocate for any positions they want, but masquerading as non-partisan falls flat under the most basic of scrutiny.
I value meaningful discussion, tough questions, and the chance to explain positions in full, including why I believe government must live within its means before asking residents for more. Politicians like Glen Yung have voted for higher taxes every year he has been in office. That record has real consequences for families trying to stay in their homes and for small businesses struggling to keep their doors open. The League’s current forum offers neither the format nor the environment for that kind of honest exchange.
I will continue engaging District 1 voters directly—through neighborhood conversations, detailed written positions, and forums that allow real discussion of taxes, affordability, transportation, public safety, and the other issues pressing our community. Voters deserve candidates who will address the substance of their concerns with more than sound bites under a facade of nonpartisanship that fails to appreciate that diversity of political thought is an asset, not a liability.
For more information, go to electbryanshull.com.
