Tuesday, April 7, 1998 | 10:40 a.m.
The fate of initiative petitions in Nevada -- especially those backed by special interests -- is in the hands of a federal judge.
After a hearing Monday involving a group that wants to legalize the medical use of marijuana in Nevada, U.S. District Judge Philip Pro delayed his decision on a challenge of a state constitutional amendment.
The questioned amendment would limit contributions supporting or opposing the ballot question to $5,000.
For Las Vegas attorney Don Campbell, who represents Americans for Medical Rights, a non-profit corporation based in California, it is a First Amendment issue.
At stake is not just the unfettered ability of people to put their dollars behind their beliefs, but their ability to stay out of jail in the process.
Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Pappa has declared in the opinion that violating the campaign reform law would be a misdemeanor. Campbell countered with the federal lawsuit because Americans for Medical Rights plans to contribute considerably more than the $5,000 allowed by law to the initiative campaign.
Campbell is asking for a temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of the law and, ultimately, for a ruling that the law itself is unconstitutional.
Without a ruling from the court, he argued to Pro, there would be a chilling effect on potential large contributors and the attempt to gather sufficient signatures and sell voters on the concept would suffer.
The decision would affect other initiatives as well, including one by the Nevada Republican Party to limit political contributions by labor unions without a vote of members. A lawsuit over that issue also is pending in federal court and might be combined with the medical marijuana case for expediency.
Assistant Attorney General Brooke Nielsen said Campbell's concerns Monday are somewhat premature.
She told the judge that Americans for Medical Rights can spend whatever it wants to get the initiative measure on the ballot and are not restricted in any way in fund-raising or expenditures.
But once the issue is on the ballot, the $5,000 individual contribution limit would be in effect, she said.
Pro will have to decide if Americans for Medical Rights is a single entity that can gather and spend only $5,000 once the issue is on the ballot or whether it is a collection organization that can collect and spend unlimited amounts so long as the individual donations do not top the legal limit.
Advocates have until June 16 to gather enough signatures of registered voters statewide to force a vote.
Americans for Medical Rights, which was involved in the successful drive in California to allow medicinal marijuana use, is sponsoring and financing initiatives in several other states for the same purpose.
The $5,000 limit in the Nevada Constitutional Amendment, passed by voters in 1994 and 1996, not only applies to political candidates but also to political ballot questions, according to Del Papa's decision.
The lawsuit said the donation limit in the Nevada Constitution was "unconstitutional and invalid in that it abridges the rights of political expression and association in violation (of the U.S. Constitution)."
The 1997 Legislature passed a law to put the constitutional amendment into effect, but it did not include the limitation on donations for ballot questions.
The legal opinion, written by Deputy Attorney General Kateri Cavin, noted there is a contrary ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in a similar case and predicted the courts would probably decide the issue.
Campbell argued that the U.S. Supreme Court in 1978 ruled that there can't be any restraint on donations in opposition or support of a ballot question.
archive
