Editorial: Choices on ballot issues

Thursday, Oct. 29, 1998 | 12:28 p.m.

A number of important initiatives are on the November ballot, ranging from a plan to build and renovate more schools to limiting the length of legislative sessions. The Sun's endorsements on the ballot questions:

CLARK COUNTY QUESTIONS

The 1997 Legislature authorized the Clark County Commission to raise the sales tax by a quarter-cent. Question 1 gives voters two choices: "A" would raise the sales tax, which in turn would keep water rates lower while "B" would forego a sales tax increase but would result in higher water rates. "A" is the best and most sensible choice as it would allow tourists to help pay the $3 billion that is needed to fund our water-system expansion through 2025. Vote for "A" on Question 1 and tell the County Commission you want tourists to help pay their fair share for the water-system expansion.

Question 2, the school bond issue, is arguably the most important of the ballot questions that Southern Nevadans will vote on. If it passes, property taxes would be frozen for the next 10 years at the existing level. This freeze would provide a constant flow of funds over the next 10 years -- about $2.5 billion -- to the Clark County School District. The money is desperately needed to build 88 new schools and renovate older ones over the next decade. One of the biggest complaints residents have voiced is that elected officials don't do the proper planning to handle the growth. This bond issue is the perfect example of government doing the right thing, planning in advance to keep up with growth.

It's essential that school-age children have adequate classrooms so that they are able to learn and grow. Without this bond issue, the school district will be forced to keep coming back to voters frequently, asking for funds to keep up with growth. This plan makes so much sense that it's hard to imagine anyone opposing it. Southern Nevadans should look to the future and help our children by voting Yes on Question 2.

STATE QUESTIONS

Proponents of Question 1 believe that if there are two or more ballot questions on similar topics, the one with the greatest number of votes should go into effect. Vote No on Question 1 because the proper place for these types of disputes to be decided is by the state Supreme Court.

Question 2 would let the Legislature set the standards for the Commission on Judicial Discipline, which regulates the conduct of justices and judges. But this is an unwarranted grab by the legislative branch to get itself involved in the workings of the judicial branch. Vote No on Question 2.

Supporters of Question 3 believe it would be beneficial if the Legislature could designate locations in a county -- other than the county seat -- for allowing district courts to hold court. Considering the vast distances that rural counties encompass -- the Seventh Judicial District covers 23,688 square miles -- it only is common sense to vote Yes on Question 3.

Nevada Day, the day the state was admitted to the Union, is Oct. 31. Supporters of Question 4 would like to see this state holiday be marked as the last Friday of October in order to always make it a three-day holiday. But too often holidays aren't observed for what they stand for, they're just seen as another three-day holiday. Vote No on Question 4, an advisory question to the Legislature.

Question 5 would limit the sessions of the Nevada Legislature to no more than 120 days. Putting a limit on how long the legislative branch meets is a good idea. Most states put limits on the length of legislative sessions and of the six states that meet once every two years as Nevada does, four of them limit their sessions to 120 days or fewer. Nevada has been lucky to have citizen-legislators, not professional politicians, representing them in Carson City. Lately these sessions have lasted way too long -- the 1997 Legislature met for 169 days. This has made it increasingly difficult for people from Southern Nevada to serve because it is almost impossible to leave your job for six months every two years. Vote Yes on Question 5 and preserve our citizen legislature.

Although everyone believes it is important to conserve water, Question 6 is misguided. If approved, this initiative would amend the Nevada Constitution to let the Legislature reduce or eliminate property taxes for land that uses water-efficient landscaping. Government budgets are tight enough already, and giving a tax break in this area could severely strap the revenues of local and state governments. Vote No on Question 6.

Question 7 is a reasonable initiative that would require local and state governments to collect sales and use taxes on merchandise they sell to the public. Vote Yes on Question 7.

Question 8 would remove the lieutenant governor as the president of the state Senate, putting in place an elected senator instead. As the president, the lieutenant governor must decide parliamentary procedure questions and vote to break any tie votes. No compelling need has been demonstrated to do away with this power. Vote No on Question 8.

An issue that surprisingly has failed to generate much public controversy is Question 9, which would amend the Nevada Constitution to permit doctors to use marijuana for medical purposes. In an editorial in March, the Sun questioned the need to amend the Constitution for such a measure. But the Sun offers its endorsement of Question 9 providing the following conditions are met: That it is done for genuinely medical purposes, especially the management of pain, and is done only under the direct supervision of a doctor. A number of thorny questions still need to be addressed, yet a carefully controlled drug that can assist in pain management deserves a chance. Vote Yes on Question 9.

Although there are no Questions 10-16, there is a Question 17 (because it has already appeared on the ballot once, it must retain the same number as when it was placed on the ballot in 1996). Question 17 is one of the worst measures in recent memory to make it onto the ballot. While it contends to be a term-limits measure, the reality is that it contains a provision that would allow calling for a Constitutional Convention, allowing the U.S. Constitution to be changed in any way. This is a dangerous proposal. Vote No on Question 17.