Nevada ballot news
From Ballotpedia
| ||
| Propositions • | Recall | • Law |
Here you'll find a collection of ballot news stories from Nevada.
Secret Ballot initiative filed in Nevada
CARSON CITY, Nevada: The Nevada Secret Ballot Amendment initiative was filed this week with the secretary of state's office. The measure proposes protecting the "right to vote by secret ballot for elections for public office, for decisions on ballot measures, and for designations of employee representation." In order to qualify the measure for the November 2010 ballot supporters are required to collect a minimum of 97,002 valid signatures.[1]
The same initiative has been filed in Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, Colorado, and Utah. Currently, legislation, also known as the Employee Free Choice Act, is pending before the United States Congress that would remove that requirement from federal law.
Nevada personhood amendment faces legal challenge
CARSON CITY, Nevada: A lawsuit was filed this week against the proposed Nevada Personhood Amendment by the American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood and several individuals. According to the filed lawsuit, the petition and the description are "misleading" and does not include an explanation of the proposition's objective. Should the lawsuit be successful, the petition could still be allowed on the ballot if the language is altered.[2] The measure, if approved, would recognize the personhood of the unborn from the earliest stages of life. The amendment is supported by Personhood Nevada and is part of a nationwide effort to place the measures on 2010 ballots. [3] Maggie McLetchie, a lawyer for the ACLU of Nevada, said, "They seek to outlaw a huge range of reproductive services. Under the petition, fetuses could sue and be sued. What they are proposing is so radical and would clog up the courts." However, Richard Ziser, a supporter of the measure, said that it is clear what the petition's objective is - "It is to protect the life of the unborn. They would prefer we used the term abortion. We will see what we will end up with."[2]
Nevada voting law stirs controversy
CARSON CITY, Nevada: A new state law and the Nevada Constitution appear to have conflicting laws. According to the state constitution, in order to recall officials a minimum of 25 percent of "actual voters" is required for a recall election. However, according to SB156, sponsored by Sen. Terry Care, a minimum of 25 percent of "registered voters from a pertinent area" is required for an election. In Fernley, Nevada Councilman Monte Martin was successfully recalled after approximately 300 registered voters signed petitions. Sen. Care argues that "...even if you didn't vote in the primary, you should still have the right to participate in a recall." However, Fernley Mayor LeRoy Goodman argues otherwise. Goodman said that the new law could potentially cause a "revolving door" effect every time residents get upset.[4]
Nevadans seek injunction on state's petition rules
CARSON CITY, Nevada: This week a 12-page lawsuit was filed with the U.S. District Court in Las Vegas seeking an injunction on Nevada's current initiative and petition rules. The lawsuit was filed by Sharron Angle, U.S. Senate candidate and former assemblywoman, and two ballot advocacy groups.[5] Specifically the lawsuit seeks to halt initiative laws approved by the Nevada Legislature in 2007, which they argue to be "unconstitutional and invalid." The 2007 approved legislation requires that petition gatherers sign affidavits under penalty of perjury in order to help better verify the validity of collected signatures.[6] The new law, said Angle, has made it difficult to qualify two initiatives for the ballot. According to the filed suit, "There are no reasonable, practical or economical ways for a circulator to know, while gathering signatures in the field, whether or not, a person signing the initiative petition is in fact a registered voter in that county."[5]
Nevada Supreme Court reviews judge's legitimacy
CARSON CITY, Nevada: This month the Nevada Supreme Court announced that they will begin proceedings to determine if Family Court Judge Robert Teuton has been violating the Nevada Constitution. Teuton, who was appointed in 2008 to fill the seat of retired Judge Gerald Hardcastle, is facing a dispute about the length of his term limit. Some argue that Teuton's term ended in January 2009, others say he has 17 months left in his term. The issue was brought to the Supreme Court's attention by Las Vegas attorney Robert Lueck, who ran against Teuton for the 2008 Family Court seat. According to Lueck, Teuton's term ended in January because he did not run in the November 2008 election, however, the state attorney general argues that Teuton was appointed too late to run in the November election and therefore his term ends in 2011.[7]
Nevada 2010 ballot includes amendment to appoint judges
Nevada: Last month the Nevada Legislature approved a plan to appoint rather than elect state judges for the 2010 November ballot and already the measure has become a hot button issue for the state. The proposed constitutional amendment calls for the creation of a selection panel that would recommend candidates to the governor for appointment. After the judges' first term, voters will decide whether to allow the appointed judges to retain their positions. They would have to garner approximately 55% of the vote to stay in office.[8]
Amendment supporters argue that the appointment process would result in more qualified judges and remove the influence of campaign money. Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor sent Nevada officials a letter in support of the proposal. She wrote, “Citizens can be confident that appointed judges are insulated from special interests who would seek to buy justice through campaign donations.” Opponents, on the other hand, said that the amendment removes voting rights and places the decision only in the hands of a few - the selection panel.[8] “I’m against anything that alters the voters’ rights to pick judges. Judges should be held as accountable as any other public official,” said Republican political consultant Sig Rogich. The Nevada Eagle Forum also opposes the change.[9]
Current Nevada Chief Justice James Hardesty said that while he does not necessarily support the proposed amendment, he does support the move to an appointment process. Others said that while the appointment issue will be a hot point of discussion next year, it will also play a role for those running for political office in 2010. The issue will force candidates to pick a side, said Dan Hart, a Democratic political consultant.[9]
The constitutional amendment developed after Judge Elizabeth Halverson was permanently removed from the bench in 2008. She was suspended in 2007. The Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline found her guilty of sleeping during hearings, making improper contact with jurors, mistreating her staff, improperly hiring two bodyguards and making improper and misleading statements to the press.[10]
Currently 16 states are using the appointment process.
Nevada legislature enacts new distribution requirements
CARSON CITY, Nevada: The Nevada Legislature approved SB 212, a measure requiring that a minimum number of signatures come from each of the state's U.S. House of Representatives districts. The new distribution requirements come after previous attempts by the legislature to add similar restrictions to the initiative process, all of which were found unconstitutional. The approved bill was given to Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons for signature.[11]
Ballot access activist Richard Winger questioned the logic of the bill:
- "Most states with the initiative do not have distribution requirements. When a bill passes a legislature, no one worries about whether the legislators who vote for the bill represent all sections of the state. The only thing that matters is whether it receives a majority of the vote in that legislative chamber. Also, when a bill is introduced in a legislature, no state requires that the bill be co-sponsored by legislators from diverse ends of the state. By analogy, then, one wonders why only initiatives are required to show support in all ends of a state."[12]
Nevada Supreme Court rules against Culinary Union
Carson City, Nevada: In what will likely be its final ruling on the matter, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that the petitions for a June ballot measure were invalid and should not be placed on the ballot. In a unanimous decision, the court also stated that the city improperly dealt with the measure. "In the future, should the city council believe that a ballot measure is invalid, it must comply with its statutory duty to place the measure on the ballot, and it may then file an action in district court challenging the measure’s validity," the court argued.[13]
Nevada Supremes nix city hall vote
LAS VEGAS, Nevada: On April 8, 2009, the Nevada Supreme Court rejected an appeal from the Las Vegas Taxpayer Accountability Committee and the Las Vegas Redevelopment Reform Committee to put the Las Vegas City Hall Referendum (2009) on the June 2 ballot in Las Vegas.
The court said the groups must first file their appeal with the Nevada District Court.
The Las Vegas City Council is declining to put the measure on the ballot on the grounds that it is worded in such a way as to repeal the city's entire Redevelopment Agency.[14]
See also
References
| |||||
