The Nevada Constitution clearly gives citizens the power to enact or change laws if they feel the Legislature lacks the political will to do so. This right is spelled out in Article XIX: “The people reserve to themselves the power to propose, by initiative petition, statutes and amendments to statutes and amendments to this Constitution, and to enact or reject them at the polls.” While Nevada legislators haven’t actually said so, recent actions suggest that they consider this provision an inconvenient annoyance.
During the last several legislative sessions, Carson City has tried, with some success, to make it more difficult to get initiative petitions on the ballot. In 2005, Senate Bill 224 was passed, requiring that petitions must be limited to a single subject, supporters must file a 200-word summary with the Secretary of State, and opposition groups must be allowed to challenge petitions before signatures are gathered.
In 2007, legislators enacted Senate Bill 549, which required that a minimum number of signatures must be collected in each of Nevada’s 17 counties. Luckily, this law was struck down by the courts. Another act in 2007 (AB604) requires anyone who gathers signatures for petitions to be registered with the Secretary of State’s office, and also mandates that the backers of initiatives fill out finance reporting forms more often and in more detail than people running for elective office.
How successful have all these attempts been in silencing the voice of the people? Twelve different petitions were filed to get measures on the 2008 Nevada ballot, and all 12 were eventually withdrawn. A look at some of the topics covered by initiative petitions during the last few years should give an insight into why they have been opposed by the entrenched establishment in Carson City: property tax restraint and reform, clean and open government, increased gaming taxes, property owners’ bill of rights, and tax and spending control for Nevada.
Encouraged by their successful efforts to keep citizens from filing new petitions, in 2009 legislators tried to undo some of the provisions that had successfully passed in previous years. In 2004, voters passed Question 3, which placed a $350,000 limit on non-economic damages in malpractice cases, in order to reduce the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and keep them from leaving Nevada. During the 2009 session, legislators attempted to reverse this law by passing AB 495, which would eliminate all caps on non-economic damages and would also remove the limit on fees attorneys can charge and collect.
Nevada voters passed the Nevada Clean Indoor Act limiting smoking in many workplaces, restaurants and bars, in 2006. In 2009, lawmakers supported by the tobacco industry and tavern owners proposed Senate Bill 372, which would reverse nearly all the provisions of the Act.
In 2002, voters approved the Protection of Marriage amendment to the state Constitution, which declared that a marriage must be between a man and a woman. The 2009 Legislature did its best to ignore the voice of the people by proposing “domestic partnerships” that would give unmarried couples, including same-sex couples, the benefits of marriage. They insisted that since domestic partnerships weren’t technically the same thing as marriages; Senate Bill 283 didn’t conflict with the amendment.
Elected representatives serving in the Legislature seem to think that they know what’s best for us lowly citizens, and we should stop meddling in their affairs (except when it comes to funding them with our tax dollars). Now that the 2009 legislative session is finally winding to a close, it’s time to note which of our representatives paid attention to the will of the people as expressed in our initiative petitions, and which have decided to ignore it.
