Sometimes on DU it happens that the DU member links to an article but gives the post a title different from that of the article. In those cases, the DU member can rightly be criticized if the new title is misleading. I confess that, as I clicked the link, I was ready to write "the OP is misleading" if you had done that -- but I followed the link and found that you hadn't.
It's worthwhile to post the Gazette-Journal story, as you did, but it's also worthwhile to point out its error.
You write that "intelligent people are capable of seeing the bias...." Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There is an actual concept of "open primaries". A person could be intelligent and yet not pore over the wording of the story closely enough to realize that this particular bill isn't about open primaries. There's just one brief passing mention that suggests otherwise. It was murky enough that I didn't post until I had clicked the link in the article, to an earlier story -- "Nevada lawmaker wants to get rid of partisan primary elections" -- that gave a fuller explanation (under an accurate headline). Note how many of the responses in this thread address the concept of an open primary, even though that's not the subject of the bill.
= new reply since forum marked as read