Those confused Nevada voters
Judge tosses sanctuary city initiative
Judges reviewing initiative petitions shouldn’t act like schoolmarms trying to keep their students away from subjects they think are too difficult for the children. That’s the impression Carson City District Judge James Russell gave last week when he threw out an initiative petition that would have outlawed sanctuary cities in Nevada. As the Review-journal’s Colton Lochhead reported, Judge Russell said that “the ‘Prevent Sanctuary Cities’ petition was ‘excessively broad and general’ and likely to confuse voters.”
ACLU of Nevada Legal Director Amy Rose showed a similar disdain for voter intelligence. “We are happy the judge recognized the misleading nature of this initiative petition, which if allowed to move forward would have confused voters,” she said.
Some ballot proposals confusing. The Margins Tax Initiative pushed by the Nevada State Education Association in 2014 might well have been dubbed the “Accountant Full-employment Act.” It had pages of complicated, technical details defining a business entity and laying out how the initiative treated business revenue.
Despite the dense minutiae, the Nevada Supreme Court properly allowed voters to decide. After a robust and vigorous campaign season, they ultimately rejected it. It would have been inappropriate for judges to prevent the vote from happening, even though the outcome would have been the same. The Nevada Constitution clearly gives voters the final say on initiative petitions.
It’s also worth nothing that statewide initiatives include language on sample ballots summarizing the details and allowing those on either side of the issue to present opposing arguments for voter consideration. The very intent is to minimize voter “confusion.”
Aside from limited exceptions outlined in Nevada’s founding document, “the people reserve to themselves the power to propose, by initiative petition, statutes and amendments to statutes and amendments to this Constitution, and to enact or reject them at the polls.”
This makes Russell’s decision even more befuddling. The anti-sanctuary city initiative is just 103 words and focused solely on preventing Nevada governments from enacting policies that would prevent government officials from enforcing immigration laws. That single subject may have broad implications, but it should be up to voters to determine if the good outweighs the bad.
Senate Minority Leader Michael Roberson, R-henderson, who’s leading the initiative, says he plans to appeal, as well he should.
When it comes to citizen initiatives, judges should err on the side of allowing the people to have the final word. Judge Russell didn’t do that here, and the Nevada Supreme Court should correct his error.
The views expressed above are those of the Las Vegas Review-journal. All other opinions expressed on the Opinion and Commentary pages are those of the individual artist or author indicated.
The Review-journal welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should not exceed 275 words and must include the writer’s name, mailing address and phone number. Submissions may be edited and become the property of the Review-journal.
Email letters@reviewjournal.com Mail Letters to the Editor
P.O. Box 70
Las Vegas, NV 89125
Fax 702-383-4676 being exposed for using its powers to assist one political party to damage the other side’s presidential candidate. And now, we see the government’s case against the Bundys being dismissed due to the withholding of evidence and the realization that BLM officials did provoke the confrontation and lied about their actions.
Government is not the answer. The power lies in the people who work hard every day to take care of their families. That is the backbone of America — and when you vote, remember the above laundry list of corruption when you hear a progressive preach about all the good things the government will do for you. Nothing could be further from the truth. of Mr. Trump’s self-aggrandizement, bullying, prevarication and inarticulateness.
The Trump administration is in shambles and its accomplishments, pathetically few. Lest Mr. Pucine accuse me of providing a “rambling litany of dubious statements,” I will cite only these few reasons why Mr. Trump is so measurably unpopular at home and abroad.
What I can’t get over is that — after a year in office mired in scandal, marked by investigation and criminal indictment and governing via Twitter — Mr. Trump has any supporters left at all.