Might be for constitutional reasons - can't have the main vote for Congress on a date different from the rest of the US, that sort of thing. Pretty damn pointless that way, though.
Louisiana does.
Louisiana
did.Until 1997, Louisiana held its general election in October, and would only hold runoffs where no candidate had a majority on the November election day.
In
Foster v. Love (No. 96-670) this was challenged as being in violation of the date set by Congress for electing representatives and senators. The USSC ruled that since in the overwhelming majority of cases no election was held in November, that this violated the federal statute.
The federal district court then modified the process specified by Louisiana law to hold the election in November, with any runoffs to follow. The Louisiana legislature later modified the Louisiana laws to follow the court decision (they have since changed this for future congressional elections).
The group that challenged the Louisiana law, also challenged the Texas early voting law, claiming that since a large share of votes were cast before election day, the voters weren't choosing their representatives on election day. This case never got to the USSC, with lower courts ruling that early voting was not significantly different from absentee voting by mail; and that since Congress mandates absentee voting by mail for some persons, they couldn't literally mean that all votes must be cast on election day.
I'd guess if Nevada law provided for a new election if NOTC won, it would conform to current federal law.