Editorial: Opinions on ballot questions

Thursday, Oct. 26, 2000 | 9:41 a.m.

STATE INITIATIVES

Without a doubt, Question 2 is the most divisive ballot question this election year -- it's also the most unnecessary. The measure seeks to amend Nevada's constitution so that only a marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized in Nevada. But the necessity of the initiative is dubious since Nevada law already defines marriage as being only between a man and a woman, with which we agree.

Nevada's ballot question is an overreaction to a law passed this year in Vermont that approved civil unions for gays. Supporters of the ballot measure say it's needed because the U.S. Constitution's "full faith and credit clause" would require Nevada to honor such unions if gay couples married in Vermont and moved to Nevada. But rather than pass a ballot question now, it would make much more sense to have the Legislature hold hearings and independently assess what will be the real impact on Nevada from Vermont's decision.

There certainly isn't a stampede by other states to establish civil unions between gay couples -- Vermont is the only state to do so -- making it hard to imagine that Nevada will be inundated with such unions in the first place. This ballot question unnecessarily will create walls between homosexuals and heterosexuals -- and has the potential to discriminate against same-sex couples seeking the same benefits afforded married couples. There is now no need for such a measure, which only helps fuel bigotry. The Sun recommends that Nevadans vote no on the marriage ballot question.

Voters in 1998 passed Question 9, which would allow for the medical use of marijuana. Since it is a constitutional amendment, voters need to pass it again this election before it becomes part of the state constitution. Even then, however, since federal law bans the use of marijuana for any purpose, it's unclear whether it can be put into effect. Still, the Sun supports a yes vote on Question 9, concurring with the question's supporters, who believe it's necessary to help mitigate pain from serious diseases or to alleviate the nausea or side effects from some medications. If a physician determines that marijuana has a medical benefit, then the doctor should be allowed to prescribe it under limited circumstances.

If Question 1 becomes part of the Nevada Constitution, the state for the first time would be able to invest in companies to further aid economic development. Government subsidies such as this should have severe limitations -- and this question does require approval of the governor and two-thirds of the Legislature before any investment is made. While there is a place for government incentives to encourage business growth, there still are nagging questions regarding this initiative. As the Nevada Taxpayers Association has pointed out, it's not clear where the state would get the money and how it would decide which companies receive the funds. The Sun strongly supports economic diversification, but we recommend a no vote on Question 1.

LOCAL INITIATIVES

There are two important ballot questions that deal with public safety, one in Las Vegas and another in Henderson. Las Vegas wants to levy an additional property tax for the next 30 years to pay for more fire protection and paramedic services. For owners of $100,000 homes, this comes out to an additional $33.25 every year.

Under the proposal, four new fire stations would be built in the northwest, station improvements will be carried out, new fire vehicles would be bought and an additional 113 new firefighters, paramedics and support staff would be hired. The goal of the initiative is to improve the response time to an emergency from the current average of 7 minutes, 43 seconds to an average of 6 minutes. The group supporting the measure, the Fire Safety Initiative 2000 Citizen's Committee, notes that response time can be a matter of life and death. The Sun supports this important initiative.

In Henderson, voters are being asked to improve their fire and protection services by supporting an increase in property taxes that would raise the levy an extra $84 a year for the owner of a $100,000 home. The bulk of the money -- 95 percent -- would pay for hiring more police and fire personnel and the maintenance of current police and fire stations. The Sun backs this reasonable public-safety ballot question.

Meanwhile, the 1999 Nevada Legislature passed a law that required fluoride to be placed in Clark County's drinking water. As part of that legislation, however, there was a requirement that local voters be given the opportunity to vote on whether to cease fluoridation. The Sun believes that residents should vote no on Question 1, which will allow fluoride to stay in our water. Health experts say that the introduction of fluoride is a critical way to obtain better dental health, noting that studies have shown fluoridated water reduces cavities in children by 60 percent and 35 percent for adults.