Proposal to increase mining tax won’t appear on ballot

By Cy Ryan

Monday, June 14, 2010 | 1:19 p.m.

CARSON CITY – The backers of a proposed constitutional amendment to the boost the mining tax by 200 percent fell short and it won’t be on the November ballot.

But voters will get to decide whether Supreme Court justices and district court judges will be appointed instead of being elected. Also, voters will get to decide whether to allow the Legislature to create an intermediate appellate court between the district court and the Nevada Supreme Court.

The Legislative Counsel Bureau is putting the finishing touches on the two proposed constitutional amendments, which were passed in both the 2007 and 2009 Legislatures.

The amendments are being translated into Spanish for placement on the ballot and will be filed with the Secretary of State’s Office by July 1.

The Progressive Leadership Alliance was required to gather 97,002 signatures of registered voters to get the mining question on the ballot. Jan Gilbert of the alliance said it came up with about 66,000.

Tuesday is the deadline for turning the signatures over to the secretary of state.

She said there were 400 volunteers seeking the signatures. “We gave it a good try and we are going to bring it up in the Legislature.”

Meanwhile, a proposed constitutional amendment was filed to allow secret ballots in voting on whether employees will support formation of a labor union. There was another proposal to guarantee a secret ballot in all public elections.

There hasn’t been a major effort to gather the required signatures for these two proposals, so they won’t be on the ballot in November.

The two questions regarding the court system will be on the ballot. The proposed constitutional amendment to allow for appointment of judges was defeated by voters in 1988 by a vote of 181,368 to 144,964. A proposal to establish an intermediate appellate court lost in 1992 by 252,950 to 213,407.

The 2009 Legislature approved the judges’ selection plan by 14-7 in the Senate and 29-13 in the Assembly.

The proposed constitutional amendment was opposed by such conservative groups as the Independent American Party, Nevada Families and Nevada Eagle Forum. John Wagner of the Independent American Party said, “We believe in the right of the people to select their candidates.”

But the judicial selection plan was approved by a number of groups including the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce. James Hardesty, who was chief justice of the Nevada Supreme Court at the time, personally backed the plan and said 64 percent of the judges ran unopposed in 2008. This constitutional change would require them to be evaluated and then gather 55 percent of the vote in the election.

Hardesty said he was speaking for himself and not the Supreme Court, which didn't take a position on the change.

Judges have been elected since the formation of the state but this would change under the new proposed system. When there is a vacancy on the Supreme Court or district court, attorneys would apply and a Commission on Judicial Selection would nominate three candidates to the governor, who would make the final choice.

A judge who wants another term would declare his candidacy and his work would be evaluated by a Commission on Judicial Performance. It would issue its findings to the public and the judge would have to gather 55 percent or more of the vote in the election to be retained.

The appellate court plan was approved by the 2009 Legislature without a dissenting vote. If approved by the voters it would allow the Legislature to set up the appellate court between the district courts and the Nevada Supreme Court.

The appeals court would be composed of three or more judges, depending on the decision by the Legislature.

In 2005, there were 2,022 cases filed in the Supreme Court. In 2009, the number rose to 2,152. The court disposed of 1,950 cases in 2005 and 2,167 in 2009.

A third constitutional amendment on the ballot would modify a constitutional amendment ratified by the voters in 2008.

The 2008 amendment prohibited governments from condemning one person’s property and transferring it to another private individual. It was in response to court decisions, including one in Las Vegas, where a person’s property was condemned and given to casinos.

The 2009 Legislature, with the one dissenting vote of Sen. Barbara Cegavske, R-Las Vegas, approved an amendment to the 2008 prohibition.

If passed by voters in November, it would permit governments to use eminent domain to acquire private property and transfer it to another private interest if the land would be used to benefit the public for such things as a utility, railroad, public transportation project, pipeline, road, bridge or airport that is owned by a government.