Recommendations for statewide ballot questions

Voters will consider five changes to Nevada’s constitution in November. Question 1 removes the Board of Regents from the state constitution, but doesn’t mandate any immediate changes. It is possible the Legislature could eventually revamp the board, potentially replacing elected regents with appointed ones.

Over the decades, the Board of Regents hasn’t done itself any favors by asserting that it has more power than it actually has while attempting to escape legislative accountability. There’s no reason this panel should be given the protections of a “fourth branch of government.”

The existing system gives the regents too much leeway to claim special constitutional privileges. We urge a yes vote on Question 1.

Question 2 would recognize all marriages, regardless of gender.

This is a housecleaning initiative intended to remove language from the state constitution that is in conflict with the 2015 Obergefell decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. The measure also provides protections to clergy who choose not to perform same-sex ceremonies.

We urge a yes vote on Question 2. Question 3 would make changes to the State Board of Pardons Commissioners. That board comprises the governor, attorney general and state Supreme Court justices. A majority of the board, including the governor, must approve a pardon.

This amendment would require the board to meet four times a year. There is currently no constitutional mandate on how often the board meets, but state law requires it to convene twice a year. It would also remove the governor’s veto power over pardons.

None of these changes merits a constitutional change. If more frequent meetings are needed, the Legislature may require it. Giving the governor a veto is itself a meaningful check on the board’s power. Vote no on Question 3.

Question 4 would place a declaration of voters’ rights into the constitution, mirroring a list the 2002 Legislature enacted. These provisions aren’t objectionable per se, but there is no reason to clutter the constitution with unnecessary language. The Legislature should make decisions on elections, not leave the judiciary to interpret constitutional provisions while inventing new rights. Vote no on Question 4.

Your ballot goes straight to Question 6, because it’s a repeat of a constitutional change voters approved two years ago. Question 6 would mandate that Nevada generate 50 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2030.

This is the paradox of Question 6. If renewable energy becomes both cheaper than natural gas and as reliable, it won’t require a government mandate to force its use. If it doesn’t, creating a constitutional requirement that half of electricity come from renewable sources would be wasteful, inefficient and costly and do little to stop global warming. Vote no on Question 6.

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.