Does government of the people, by the people and for the people include the right of the public to circumvent the legislative process, and pass legislation and constitutional amendments by themselves?
This question will undoubtedly be asked several times as the 2007 Legislature gets ready to convene for its 74th session this coming February.
Nevada has some of the most relaxed initiative and referendum laws of any state in the country. It is the reason you have seen questions to legalize marijuana on nearly every ballot for the past several years. Because of the Silver State’s small population base, those wishing to change our Constitution or institute new laws can, without much cost, collect signatures and gain access to the ballot.
It takes a certain number of signatures from those who voted in the last general election to force a question or referendum onto the ballot. Collecting these signatures has been slightly challenging in the past due to difficulties with getting signatures in Nevada’s less-populated rural counties. However, those restrictions have been challenged in federal court and may be thrown out.
Large political action committees with unlimited budgets can hire signature gatherers, and collect the needed signatures in far less time than it would take in a more populous state. When an issue actually makes it onto the ballot, political committees have a national presence to push their particular measure.
Current Secretary of State Dean Heller, who oversees the election process in Nevada, has tried to put forth legislation that would tighten restrictions for initiative petitions and referendums. Incoming Secretary of State Ross Miller has plans to do the same.
One of Miller’s proposals, likely to pass in 2007, is banning questions that qualify for the ballot but are rejected by the voters. Supporters of that measure would have to wait two or more election cycles before they could bring a rejected proposal back in front of voters. Under this law, those backing the legalization of marijuana would have to wait until the 2014 election cycle before they could qualify their initiative again.
There is a fine line, however, between being too cumbersome and allowing people unfettered access to Nevada’s ballots. Advocates for tighter restrictions point out that people elect representatives to pass laws and put programs in place for the public benefit. Initiative supporters believe their way is most honest and accurate when it comes to finding out what people want, since it is truly the will of the people.
Most political experts seem to agree that ballot measures asking the public if they want to pay more in taxes or fees to fund a needy project – such as putting more police officers on the streets or building new roads – are a good way to use the process.
Those initiatives or referendums that seem to circumvent the spirit and intent of electing leaders, such as legalizing marijuana or outlawing smoking in public places, might need more public discourse and debate before automatically appearing on our ballots.
Big corporations and industries such as gaming, mining and construction are very wary of the initiative process. How appealing would it be to voters if they could vote to immediately raise gaming taxes or ban all mining in Nevada? While these may not pass automatically, it would take strong efforts by the industries being attacked to explain why these questions could be extremely detrimental to our state’s economy.