Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2004 | 11:20 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- Special interest groups pushing to get their ideas before the voters in the November elections have sparked confusion and court challenges over initiative petitions and referendums, some lawmakers say.
Two Republican senators from Clark County are now asking that bills be drafted for the 2005 Legislature to clear away some of the problems that have arisen this election season, they say.
Sen. Dennis Nolan, R-Las Vegas, said Monday the biggest complaints he hears are the way the circulators of the petitions pitch the issue. He said those gathering signatures never inform the voter of all the elements being sought in the petition.
For instance, he said the petition to reduce insurance rates by 20 percent has a section tucked away that would repeal all the laws on medical malpractice that the Legislature enacted in a special session. The petition said these laws that limit pain and suffering awards to $350,000, would be eliminated if malpractice rates did not fall by 10 percent in 2006.
Secretary of State Dean Heller, in a television interview aired Sunday in Reno, said he was approached by one circulator that asked him to sign the petition to repeal the "luxury tax." There isn't anything on the ballot that refers to a luxury tax, only to the $833.5 million tax package approved by the 2003 Legislature.
Nolan and Sen. Barbara Cegavske, R-Las Vegas, have both asked for separate bills to require certain information be provided the person who is asked to sign a petition in the future. Their requests were revealed Monday in release of a list of bills requested for the 2005 Legislature.
There are more initiative petitions started by citizen groups in this election than any in at least the last 30 years, according to the secretary of state's office.
Nolan wants a requirement that a simple explanation of the pros and cons of each petition be available to the person who is asked to put his name on a petition.
The requests by Cegavske were made on behalf of Carole Vilardo, executive director of the Nevada Taxpayers Association that wants legislation to eliminate the problems and lawsuits plaguing this election.
Vilardo said one bill to be introduced by Cegavske would require the backers of an initiative or referendum to provide a "summary in plain language what the issues proposes to do," before the petition was circulated. And this summary would have to be made available to anybody who asked.
The synopsis would have to be approved by the secretary of state's office. The secretary of state could reject it and order it rewritten. The backers of the petition, said Vilardo would have an appeal process.
Vilardo also wants to require the signature gathering on these petitions be completed 150 days before the election, rather than the present 120 days. She said county clerks and registrar of voters are in the midst of preparing for the September primary election and are now also being required to re-count the signatures on the petitions.
She noted that early voting starts Saturday and this adds to the burden of the local election officials. Another benefit of the proposed change is that it would give the courts more time to consider the challenges to the petitions, she said.
Vilardo said there is also a bill to propose a change in the Nevada Constitution to eliminate the requirement that a registered voter must sign the affidavit attached to the voter signatures.
In cases that arose during this election cycle, the circulator of a petition was not a registered voter in Nevada. The Constitution requires that a registered voter must sign the affidavit to attest that the signatures gathered were registered voters.
Vilardo said that provision is outmoded. Proponents of the requirement, however, say it makes sense because it should help keep people who are not eligible to vote in Nevada from affecting the state's elections.
There is a challenge in the Nevada Supreme Court on this issue. It involves the minimum wage and frivolous lawsuit petitions. District Judge Bill Maddox has ruled that the registered voters did not have to sign the affidavit. That ruling was appealed by the secretary of state's office. The Supreme Court is to hear arguments in the case on Aug. 31.
Renee Parker, chief deputy secretary of state, said there is also a dispute regarding whether U.S. District Judge James Mahan in Las Vegas ruled that section of the Constitution invalid in his decision on the marijuana petition.
Mahan said that the section of the Constitution that requires initiatives have 10 percent of the voter signatures in 13 of the 17 counties was invalid. He ordered a recount of the signatures on the marijuana petition.
Parker said the state Attorney General's Office feels that Mahan did not rule the affidavit requirement in the constitution was invalid. She said the attorney general's office believes Mahan held the regulation of the secretary of state was flawed, but not the Nevada Constitution.
But those supporting the marijuana petition believe Mahan struck down the affidavit requirement in the Constitution.
Both sides are waiting for the written decision from Mahan.
Supporters for the marijuana petition are appealing part of the Mahan ruling to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Parker said the attorney general's office will probably file a cross-appeal on the issue of 10 percent of the voters in 13 counties.
archive
