Ballot questions far from resolved

Stacy J. Willis

Thursday, Nov. 9, 2000 | 11:12 a.m.

For a few hours Wednesday, it looked as if White Pine County might be a haven for marriage-minded gay couples.

The Secretary of State election website showed White Pine had cast 571 against the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and one in favor of it.

But in keeping with this year's election theme of flip-flopping results, state officials investigated the vote and changed the numbers late Wednesday.

White Pine, like the rest of the state, actually had voted nearly 3-to-1 to ensure that gay marriages will not be recognized in Nevada -- starting, rather than ending, a political battle that is expected to further polarize Nevada voters in the next two years.

Ballot Question 2 was one of three statewide questions that voters considered Tuesday on issues that are not likely to disappear now that the polls are closed -- gay marriage, medical marijuana and economic diversification.

Question 2's proposed constitutional amendment must be approved again by voters in 2002 before taking effect.

Although some called Question 2 "meaningless" because gay marriage is not legal now and the language in the proposed amendment is subject to vast interpretation, it may have reinvigorated the political polarities in a state where neither the radical left nor right have foothold.

During the campaign it was suggested that the issue was raised specifically to drive conservative voters to the polls, and UNLV political science professor Ted Jelen said it also may have a mobilizing effect among liberal voters in the months leading up to its reconsideration in 2002.

"Question 2 really may be the spark that lights the kindling in the gay community," Jelen said. "Because they weren't organized this time."

"One of the things I've noticed is that relative to other places there isn't a visible, gay, political force here," he said.

"It's a very atypical place. The gay community certainly has the numbers, and a lot of the people who are openly gay are well-educated and have the skills to engage in political activity but just haven't. Now maybe they will," Jelen said.

Liz Moore, campaign manager for Equal Rights Nevada, which opposed the measure, said that for the next two years her organization will focus on community education and fund-raising.

Equal Rights raised roughly $30,000 to oppose the measure; proponents -- the Coalition for the Protection of Marriage -- raised nearly $1.5 million.

"The big issue is education," Moore said. "People are surprisingly not very familiar with gay issues here. And we just want to encourage a community conversation about it. We are encouraging people to stand up and say they support (gay rights) even in circles where it is not yet socially acceptable to do so."

Riding on his conservative ideological victory, Coalition President Richard Ziser said he is going to turn his attention toward opposing other gay-rights issues, such as gay couples' spousal insurance benefits.

"We'll be active in the upcoming legislative session," Ziser said. "There's some anticipation that the other side may introduce legislation on a number of things."

Ziser and campaign aid Lucille Lusk, a longtime Nevada conservative, will switch hats from Coalition organizers to Nevada Concerned Citizens lobbyists should any gay-rights legislation arise, he said.

"But we won by 70 percent, and that's a good sign for the future," Ziser said.

Clark County voted 70.3 percent in favor of the proposed amendment; Washoe voted 65.6 percent in favor of it.

But if Question 2's effect is to polarize Nevada voters, Question 9's may be to agitate the Legislature -- which is now charged with setting up a distribution method for marijuana. The issue is both one of drug ethics and states' rights. Marijuana would be used for pain relief for certain ailments such as cancer or HIV-AIDS.

"One of the things that really surprised me is that this question didn't generate a lot of vocal opposition," Jelen said.

The medical marijuana initiative passed with 65.4 percent of the statewide vote. Some 59 percent of voters had already approved the question in 1998, which means the constitution will be amended to allow the use and possession of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

However, the Legislature must pass laws in the 2001 session to regulate the distribution of the drug by physicians. Some proponents of the idea are suggesting setting up a pilot program -- maybe at the University of Nevada Reno Medical School -- to initiate distribution.

"It's up to the Legislature, but we're just happy it passed. The lawmakers will have to go with the will of the people now," said Don Hart, a supporter of the initiative.

But the medical community is still divided on the issue, regardless of its approval by voters.

"This ballot measure was strictly emotionalism and an entire waste of time," Dr. Arnold Wax, a Las Vegas oncologist, said. "It's an issue of state's rights and federalism. The federal government has shut down efforts to prescribe it in other states, it will do the same thing here."

After California approved a similar measure, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the state's distribution of marijuana for medical purposes -- closing down marijuana clinics in Oakland, Calif.

The only one of the three statewide initiatives to fail was Question 1 -- a measure that proposed to change the constitution to allow the state to invest in corporations that would promote economic diversification.

"This state has got to do something to compete with other states for businesses, we've got to encourage economic diversification," said Thomas Gutherie, president of Southern Nevada Certified Development Co., who has been lobbying to change the constitution to allow state-backed business financing -- or venture capital -- for more than 12 years, he said.

"I'm encouraged by this -- not discouraged, because I think every time the public faces an issue like, this the more educated they become," Gutherie said.

Question 1 was crafted by the 1999 Legislature and would have allowed investments only when the state can expect a "reasonable" rate of return, and two-thirds of the Senate and Assembly, as well as the governor, approved it.

But, Jelen said, "a lot of people saw it as free-market socialism. They called it 'welfare for the rich' and voted it down."