Inside Politics - October 2006

Many of these interests were well-funded and able to hire teams to gather signatures on petitions, which is how these questions qualify for ballot status. Unfortunately for the petition sponsors, however, it was this very process that led to their ultimate downfall.

Once such example was TASC, or the Tax and Spending Control initiative. This proposed change to the Nevada Constitution, championed by State Senator Bob Beers and others, would have required votes of the people before state and local governments could increase tax rates or spend taxpayer money on certain projects.

It was strongly opposed by a variety of private and public organizations under the premise that it would completely cripple economic development in the state. Proponents said TASC would force governments to do what businesses and private citizens have done since the beginning of organized societies – work with what they have in their budget.

Regardless of how you feel about TASC, you won’t get a chance to voice your approval or disapproval this year because of the way the signatures were collected on the initiative. The signature gatherers circulated two slightly different petitions when collecting sponsors throughout the state, and the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the signatures from both petitions could not be counted as supporting just one version of the initiative. That meant the petition fell short of the needed support to be put on the ballot this fall.

Another initiative that was ruled on by the Supreme Court is PISTOL, or the eminent domain initiative. It seeks to severely limit a government’s rights to impose eminent domain to take private land for public use. As of press time, the outcome of this ballot question was still up in the air. The Supreme Court stripped many of the initiative’s provisions because they did not agree with the state’s constitution, but the fundamental part of the question has been left intact.

Opponents filed another suit with the court, stating that because the court had so changed the question, it should not be allowed on the ballot because it no longer reflected what Nevada voters had signed on to support.

A couple of proposals that you will definitely see in November are the anti-smoking initiative and he "pro" smoking ballot question. It may be extremely confusing to voters, but one would completely eliminate smoking in any establishment that serves food. The other would not go that far, but would put additional smoking bans into Nevada law that aren’t quite so intrusive and disruptive to our tourist economy.

The initiative to allow up to an ounce of marijuana for personal use is also on the ballot again. This question would allow government stores to sell up to one ounce of marijuana to adults for personal use, but would create stiffer penalties for those who sell the drug to minors.

The Nevada Legislature has for the past few years gotten a bit tougher on requirements for the initiative and referendum process. However, the Silver State still remains one of the easier states for interest groups to get their questions on a statewide ballot.