Recommendations
for Questions on the Statewide Ballot
In reviewing our recommendations for ballot questions Nevada Families considered the following questions. Does the question harmonize with or violate Constitutional principles? Is there a compelling reason to change the Constitution? Is the issue appropriately addressed in the Constitution or should it be a statute? Will the question increase or decrease taxes? Will the question increase or4 decrease government accountability? Will it increase or decrease the size and scope of government? Is the question “family friendly”? We have reviewed only state ballot questions. We encourage you to apply these same principles when deciding how to vote on your local ballot questions.
Shall
the Nevada Constitution be amended to require the Nevada Legislature to fund the
operation of the public schools for kindergarten through grade 12 before funding
any other part of the state budget for the next biennium?
The Nevada Constitution already requires that the State fund K-12 education. We agree with the arguments against this ballot question, which you will find in your sample ballot. The so-called education-funding crisis was politically motivated and purposely created by those who forced through the largest tax increase in Nevada history during the 2003 Legislature. This created a problem that has occurred only once in 73 sessions. It is not sufficient reason to change the Constitution taking flexibility away from the Legislative process. Requiring that education be funded first interferes with the Legislature’s Constitutional responsibilities and could delay the Legislative process possibly causing Special Sessions. We are concerned that this amendment might give greater power to the anti-family Teacher’s Union, one of the most powerful and destructive lobbies in our state.
YES:
Question 2 “Nevada Property Owners Bill of Rights”
Shall Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution be amended in order: to
provide that the transfer of property from one private party to another private
party is not considered a public use; to provide that property taken for public
use must be valued at its highest and best use; to provide the fair market value
in eminent domain proceedings be defined as the “highest price the property
would bring on the open market,” and to make certain other changes related to
eminent domain proceedings?
The worst abuses of private property owners perpetrated by local and state government have come under US and Nevada Supreme Court decisions which have allowed government to take the private property of one individual and give or sell it to another private party so that the government can collect more property taxes. This is what happened in the Nevada Supreme Court case of Pappas v the City of Las Vegas Redevelopment Agency where Pappas’ property was given to casinos. This is nothing less than a complete abuse of the power of eminent domain and a destruction of the fundamental constitutional right of private property. Under this measure the government can’t take private property from one party and give it to another party. In eminent domain proceedings the government must provide copies of all appraisals to the private property owner, so they can decide if the offer of the government is in good faith. Right now the landowner is not entitled to the appraisals until after they are in a costly lawsuit. “Until 1993, Nevada defined ‘just compensation’ as the ‘highest price’ the property would bring on the open market.” The Nevada Legislature changed that definition to the “most probable” price. This ballot question will return it to the traditional “highest price” definition protecting the citizen whose property is being condemned under eminent domain. This ballot question is necessary because the Nevada Legislature and the Nevada Supreme Court have not protected citizens’ most fundamental right of property. For more information: http://www.propertybillofrights.com/your_rights.html
Maybe/No/Yes?
Question 4 “Second-Hand Smoke Act”
Shall Chapter 202 of the Nevada Revised Statutes be amended in order to prohibit smoking tobacco in certain public places, except all areas of casinos, gaming areas within establishments holding gaming licenses, bars and certain other locations?
This is an attempt to stop the extreme measures in Question 5. If you want additional smoking bans this is far more reasonable than Question 5, but it does remove all jurisdiction from local governments (the school district) and place all smoking regulations in the hands of the state Legislature.
NO:
Question 5 “Indoor Clear Air Act”
Shall Chapter 202 of the Nevada Revised Statutes be amended in order to prohibit smoking tobacco in certain public places, in all bars with a food-handling license, but excluding gaming areas of casinos and certain other locations?
Question 5 goes too far. It even bans smoking in bars that serve food. There is a question as to whether or not it would ban smoking in motel/hotel rooms. The big question is who is going to police all those smokers? We have enough Big Government.
NO:
Question 6 – NO Minimum Wage
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to raise the
minimum wage paid to employees?
This issue should never be in the Constitution. If we believe in free-enterprise in America, then the government should not be setting wages or prices. That’s what they did in the Soviet Union. Increases in the minimum wage hurt the very vulnerable people it is meant to help. Unskilled workers who are hired get a chance to learn job skills, but if they cost too much for an employer to hire they won’t get any job at all or any experience. Businesses are already feeling the pinch from higher taxes, higher gas prices, and continuing inflation. Jobs are getting harder to find. This proposal places Nevada’s minimum wage at a dollar above the national minimum wage making it more difficult for Nevada businesses to compete and create new jobs. This proposal as it says in the ballot argument discriminates against non-union companies—which include the great majority of small businesses in Nevada. It gives labor unions the power to permit union companies to hire new employees at a rate below the new minimum wage. No wonder union officials support it. Unfortunately, illegal immigration is placing significant downward pressure on wages, but this ballot issue will do nothing to stop that.
NO:
Question 7 “Regulation of Marijuana Initiative”
Shall Titles 32, 40 and 43 of the Nevada Revised Statutes be amended in order to allow and regulate the sale, use and possession of one ounce or less of marijuana by persons at least 21 years of age, impose licensing requirements on marijuana retailers and wholesalers, allow for the sale of marijuana by licensed marijuana retailers and wholesalers, impose taxes and restrictions on the wholesale and retail sale of marijuana, and to increase the criminal penalties for causing death or substantial bodily harm when driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol?
We do not want our
children to use marijuana or any other dangerous drug.
We do not want to encourage or legitimize marijuana/drug use by
legalizing it. However, it is true that drug laws have not worked.
The current drug laws create economic incentives to
deal drugs and thus promote drug cartels and gangs, putting our families at
additional risk. There is no legitimate war on drugs because our borders remain
open to illegal entry due to the policies of our federal government. Citizens
are caught in the middle. What is
the answer? It may seem simple, but there is no good answer particularly because
we have been betrayed by our government and we live in a morally corrupt
society. Currently, Nevada law classifies possession of one ounce of marijuana
as a misdemeanor subject to a ticket and a fine.
This previous reduction of penalties seems to be a good compromise until
we find a better answer. We encourage you to vote your conscience.
YES: Question 8 “Sales and Use Tax”
Shall the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 be amended to exempt from the tax the value of any used vehicle taken in trade on the purchase of another vehicle and the value of farm machinery and equipment?
We agree with the arguments for passage of this amendment in your sample ballot. “The (current) exemption for the value of a used vehicle taken in trade on the purchase of another vehicle from the local portion of the Sales and Use Tax has provided millions of dollars of tax savings for the consumers in Nevada by reducing the sales tax on the purchase of a vehicle involving a trade in. If this proposal is not approved, the exemption from the Sales and Use Tax will be entirely eliminated. Passage of this proposal will provide a complete exemption of the trade in value of a vehicle from the Sales and Use Tax,” lowering taxes and saving taxpayers money.
Before January 2006 the sale and use tax rate on farm machinery and equipment was only 2 percent. Now the tax rate is between 6.5 and 7.75 percent. As a result farmers are purchasing equipment from out of state placing Nevada dealers at a disadvantage. This hurts the local economies especially in our rural communities, which are already struggling.
NO: Question 9 “Appoint Instead of Elect Board of Regents”
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to provide for the election of certain members of the Board of Regents of the University of Nevada and for the gubernatorial appointment of certain members, and to specify the number and terms of members?
Currently all
thirteen members of the Board of Regents are elected by the people.
This amendment would reduce the number of Regents to nine and make six of
those nine appointed by the Governor instead of elected by the people.
Because only three members would be elected, the appointed members could
always out vote those who were elected. Appointing members of the Board of
Regents would greatly increase the power of the Education Establishment,
particularly the very liberal Teachers Union (NSEA).
Appointed Regents would not be accountable to or responsive to the
concerns of the people.
YES: Question 10 “Legislators Call Special Session”
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to change
the provisions regarding special sessions of the Legislature to provide that a
special session may convened by a petition signed by two-thirds of the
Legislature of each house; to limit the duration of special sessions of the
Legislature to 20 calendar days; and to limit the matters which may be
considered during a special session.
Currently, only the Governor can call a special session. This amendment requires that two-thirds of the Legislature sign a petition to call a special session, which would limit its use to extraordinary events. Allowing the Legislature to call a special session improves the balance of power between the Legislature and the Governor and adds an additional check on the Governor. Also, in time of extraordinary events, a crisis or emergency, the Legislature, representing the people, could be part of the decision-making process helping to respond to our needs and safeguard our liberties. In addition, this amendment limits a special session called by the Governor or the Legislature to just 20 days. Currently, there is no limit for special sessions.
YES: Question 11 “Legislators Paid for Every Day of Session”
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to provide for the payment of
compensation to members of the Nevada Legislature for each day of service during
regular and special sessions and to provide for payment of reasonable allowances
to legislators for postage, newspapers, telecommunications, and stationary?
Currently, Nevada’s Legislators are paid for only
one-half, that’s 60 days of the 120 days of a regular Legislative Session.
The Constitution limits the regular Legislative Session to 120 days every
other year. This amendment would allow Legislators to be paid for each day of
the 120-day Session. This amendment would not change the amount of $130 dollars
per day they receive or the per diem expenses for lodging and meals, or that
they are now paid for 20 days of a special session. Everyone, including
legislators, should be paid for the time they work.
The current limitation, paying Legislators for only half the time they
serve, threatens the nature of a citizen Legislature.
It makes serving for the average Nevadan a financial hardship,
discouraging a broad range of citizen participation, leaving it only to those
with independent means. Currently, only $60 is provided to Legislators for
postage, newspapers, telecommunications and stationary.
This amendment would allow a more reasonable amount to be set by statute.