We Asked Questions About the Ballot

So we took a look at the questions on which voters will pass judgment this November 7, and came up with a few of our own questions, about the questions. You will notice question No. 3—formerly known as TASC—is not included, and that's because the Nevada Supreme Court earlier this year ruled for the measure to be excluded from the ballot, on account of technical errors in its filing. Nos. 4 and 5, the smoking measures, are addressed separately.

Question No. 1: Sponsored by congressman and gubernatorial candidate Jim Gibbons after the 2003 calamity in which education was relegated to the back of the state budget's bus, this measure would amend the state constitution to require the Legislature to appropriate funds to Nevada's K-12 public schools before anything else in the state budget, lest those noneducation appropriations be rendered void.

Our question: What kind of practical consequences do you anticipate with either the passing or failing of this initiative?

Terry Hickman, president of the Nevada State Education Association: "If you read through it, you'll see that it just ensures education will be the first budget closed. If it mandated that education be funded first, and adequately, its passing would have a substantial positive impact. Legislature told us, as it is, it will not have a great deal of impact. That's why our position on the question is, no position at all."

Our question: So is question No. 1 more about principle than practicality?

Hickman: "Yes, a good principle, but not enough commitment to have an impact."

Question No. 2: Instigated by last year's infamous decision in Kelo v. City of New London (rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court), this measure, backed in chief by a former Nevada Supreme Court justice and a wealthy local attorney, is long and somewhat convoluted, and it seeks to change the state constitution to make sure Nevadans' property won't be taken from them and given to other private owners under the pretext of public good. In addition, it asks that the private owners whose property is taken under eminent domain be given the most money in compensation possible, according to market value and the highest worth of the property. And that the land be used within five years of purchase.

Our question: The provision calling for land to be used within five years seems to be the most critical point of controversy—why?

Oscar Goodman, one of several local politicians vehemently against the initiative: "Many of our public projects take more than five years. It would put a stranglehold on continued growth in the community." Scot Rutledge, executive director of the Nevada Conservation League: "You can't manage growth effectively if you can't plan accordingly."

Don Chairez, former Nevada Supreme Court justice and candidate for attorney general: "The intellectual framework behind the five-year component is this: Not too long ago, the government asked the homeowners on Eastern and Russell to sell their homes or have it taken under eminent domain. The government eventually took it under eminent domain, saying the land was going to be given over to the expansion of McCarran Airport. Well, more than five years later, they decided not to expand the airport and instead to sell the land to developers. It's one of the various schemes politicians use, and Question 2 would put an end to it."

Our question: This measure has stirred rebuke from politicians. Does that mean it could be doing something right?

Chairez: "Yes, and I'll tell you why: The politicians here are indebted to the developers, who right now have a good scam going. They obtain land from the government at 10 cents to the dollar. That's why the politicians are scared."

Question No. 6: In essence, it looks to change the state constitution so that the minimum wage in Nevada, for workers who do not receive benefits, be increased from $5.15 an hour (federal minimum) to $6.15, and always exceed the federal minimum wage by roughly a dollar (depending on the cumulative increase in the cost of living, as measured by the Consumer Price Index). The measure is backed by the unions, and it is a big one on this year's ballot because there are an estimated 50,000 minimum-wage workers in Nevada and an entire state's economy riding on its outcome.

Our question: Is the Nevada economy so different from other states that it must maintain a higher minimum wage than the standard?

Danny Thompson, executive secretary/treasurer for the Nevada AFL-CIO: "Studies show one-quarter of the people who make minimum wage in Nevada are single mothers, and 70 percent are over the age of 20. Now, numbers show they're working [40 hours a week] 69 percent of the time, and that would net, what, $10,712 a year? If you work full time in this state, you should be able to eat."

Paul Hartgen, president of the Nevada Restaurant Association and a spokesperson for Nix6, a self-explanatory organization: "We're not concerned with $6.15. What concerns us is the rest of the question's 700 words, which voters never see or read. We could be over $9 an hour soon, if this passes; and as far as the restaurant business goes, every 10 percent the minimum wage goes up, menu prices increase. In two to three years, this could really affect families."

Question No. 7: Backed by the Committee to Control and Regulate Marijuana (CCRM), this measure, if passed, would control and regulate the legal selling of cannabis to people at least 21 years of age. Arguments for both sides are well-known: Proponents say the government's current war on drugs is not only ineffective but also counterproductive; opponents say the war is working just fine, and legalizing marijuana would only endanger our children. Our question: What gives you reason to think this will have greater success than the 2002 initiative to decriminalize marijuana?

Neal Levine, campaign manager for CCRM: "There are more specifics in this initiative. We're taking advantage of new technology, getting the word out through MySpace, YouTube, and encouraging young people to register by texting. We're running an entirely different campaign this time."

Our question: Do you see the other side's point of view?

Levine: "No, I really don't. The problem I've been having is that now [the opposition] is lying. Not exaggerating, not slanting the truth: flat out lying. For instance, in the Rebel Yell, Sandy Heverly [executive director of Stop DUI in Nevada] says passage would raise insurance premiums. We called all the insurance companies, and not one of them said that would happen."

Question No. 8: Right now if a citizen trades in his used car—valued at, say, $10,000—for a new $20,000 vehicle at a dealership, he must pay a sales tax of 7.75 percent on the $10,000 difference, as well as a 2 percent sales tax on the first $10,000. If the measure doesn't pass, the citizen would end up paying 7.75 percent on the entire $20,000 purchase. If it does pass, the citizen would be exempt from paying that 2 percent on the value of his used car. Moreover, if passed, a citizen buying farm machinery would be exempt from paying a sales tax with his purchase.

Our question: Does "farm machinery" mean just that, or does it also encapsulate construction or mining equipment? Jim Denton, a local political consultant: "Nope. The language in the law specifies actual farm equipment."

Our question: If passed, it would reduce government revenues by $19.6 million a year, and if rejected, would increase revenues by $51 million. So, this is a measure proposed by the Legislature that, if passed, would mean less money for government to work with?

Denton: "Yep. ... The state isn't actually losing money, because it's money that hasn't been paid yet, that they've never seen."

Question No. 9: This measure asks that voters okay amending the constitution so that the Board of Regents—the 13 elected individuals responsible for governing Nevada's eight institutions of higher learning—be reduced to nine. And that the number of those elected by voters be reduced to the number of congressional seats in Nevada, which right now is three. The other six regents would be appointed by the governor.

Our question: Is this question to say the board has been unmanageable as it is?

Giunchigliani: "I wrote this measure four years ago because people started raising concerns about the infighting and lack of focus within the board. It's too big, too unworkable, and there is too much micromanagement going on." Jim Rogers, chancellor of the Nevada System of Higher Education: "Thirteen is fine. It's when you exceed 14 people that you don't get a lot done."

Our question: Won't this change the dynamics on the board—some of the regents will be accountable to only the governor and other regents to constituents?

Giunchigliani: "I don't think accountability is an issue. Because, really, I myself have worked with elected officials who couldn't care less about their constituency."

Rogers: "We don't need an appointed board, or a hybrid one. That would be a disaster. The public should retain their right to vote—not give it to the governor."

Question No. 10: A measure put forth by the Legislature seeking to give the Legislature the power to call themselves into special sessions, a power currently reserved for the governor.

Our question: Both the opponents and proponents invoke the concept of checks and balances in their arguments. Is that an underlying factor that stands to be affected?

State Sen. Mike McGinness: "It does give more power to Legislature. And I can foresee Legislature and the governor at odds over some reasons to enter special sessions. But two-thirds of the Senate would have to agree to reconvene, and that offers a check."

State Sen. Bob Beers: "Two-thirds shouldn't give anybody a large degree of comfort. Ninety percent of votes in Legislature are unanimous. For 120 years we've had a system of checks and balances, and this initiative would remove the existing method of cross-branch balancing."

Question No. 11: Though easy to associate with question No. 10, this measure is totally separate, and in reality it's just a matter of paying the Legislature for its entire work sessions. As it stands, legislators get paid for only the first 60 days of their biennial gathering, and, if necessary, for 20 days in a special session. If voters say yes to this question, legislators will get paid for any necessary days beyond that. Moreover, a yes would increase the allowance each legislator currently receives for postage and stationary each session ($60). Our question: So Legislature right now is working 120 days but getting paid for 60?

Beers: "Well ... the constitution does not require the Legislature to be there for 120 days. It just prohibits them from being there more than 120 days."

Our question: Hasn't technology—the Internet, e-mail—eliminated much of the need for postage and stationary? McGinness: "That's right. I respond to so much e-mail these days, but I can tell you I sure spend more than $60 each time around."

Beers: "I've never kept track of how much I spend on postage and stationary, but I've never had to spend more [than the $60 allowance] during session."