Title:
Nevada initiative process remains accessible
Message:
Nevada's legislature adjourned for the session, and—despite heavy opposition by politicians and special interests in Carson City—the state's system of direct democracy remains largely in tact. Thanks to efforts by Nevadans like you, the legislature dispatched bills that would have, among other things, radically increased signature requirements to place a measure on a ballot, shortened the time to gather signatures, and required that signers make two separate acknowledgments on the petition. Had these provisions passed, Nevada would be on the path to having the most restrictive ballot initiative process in the nation. Considering what was at stake, the defeat of the many undemocratic measures was a huge success.
In fact, of the several undemocratic bills filed, the legislature passed only the watered-down versions of two measures: A.J.R. 5 and S.B. 224.
As originally drafted, A.J.R. 5 would have:
*increased the number of signatures required for a statewide initiative to qualify for the ballot from 10% of the votes cast in the previous general election to 15% for a statutory initiative and 20% for a constitutional initiative;
*required that petitioners meet the new percentage quota in each of Nevada's three congressional districts; and
*banned an initiative from being placed on the ballot for three years if it did not muster 45% of the vote in the most recent election.
Had these restrictions been in place in 2004, the Marijuana Policy Project's initiative to tax and regulate marijuana would not be on the 2006 ballot.
In its current state, A.J.R. 5 contains only a modified version of the congressional-district provision, so that petitioners would need to gather only 10% of the votes cast in the previous general election in each congressional district—for both types of initiatives.
But because A.J.R. 5 proposes a constitutional amendment, it must be passed once more by the legislature in 2007 and once again in a statewide popular vote in November 2008, giving us at least two more opportunities to weaken or kill it.
The other bill that passed, S.B. 224, offered improvements to the initiative process but also added some additional red tape to the process.
*Currently, a person cannot sign a petition and register to vote on the same day.
S.B. 224 will allow a person to sign an initiative petition on the same day he or she completes an application to register to vote, as long as the person mails the application to the county clerk within three days of signing the petition.
*Prior to S.B. 224's passage, there was no limit on the breadth of the subjects that one initiative could cover.
S.B. 224 implements broad interpretation of the term "single subject." As written, this language is inclusive enough to allow measures similar to the marijuana initiative that will be on the 2006 ballot.
*Currently, there is no requirement that nonprofits register with the state before supporting or opposing an initiative. In addition, Nevada does not require any group supporting or opposing an initiative to file financial disclosure forms.
S.B. 224 requires nonprofit corporations to register with the secretary of state's office before engaging in activities in the state designed to promote or defeat an initiative. The secretary will then post the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of registered nonprofits' officers on his state Web site. S.B. 224 also requires that an organization designed to promote or defeat an initiative file reports at specified intervals listing each campaign contribution and expenditure in excess of $100.
S.B. 224 will take effect on October 1, 2005.
Thank you for speaking out for direct democracy in Nevada. Please pass this message along to friends and family in Nevada, and thank you for continuing to support the Marijuana Policy Project.
