State Supreme Court upholds recall procedure

Friday, Oct. 27, 2000 | 10:21 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court Thursday upheld key provisions of the state's recall election law, striking down efforts by a group that twice tried unsuccessfully to oust Clark County Commissioner Yvonne Atkinson Gates.

The unanimous decision said the recall law did not violate either the U.S. or Nevada constitutions.

A group called Citizens For Honest & Responsible Government launched a recall petition against Gates in March 1998. It was required that the petition contain 25 percent of the signatures of those who voted in the last election, in order to force an election.

The organization submitted 7,474 raw signatures. But after verification, there were only 4,380 registered voters who signed, 741 short of the required number.

A second recall effort was launched and 4,742 signatures were gathered. But a sampling of the signatures showed there were not enough valid names to force an election.

The citizens group filed suit and former District Judge Mike Fondi of Carson City rejected their claims. An appeal was then made to the Supreme Court

The appeal said the 60-day limit to collect the signatures violated the constitutional right of free speech, that it was unconstitutional to allow people to remove their names from the petition before it is counted and that the statistical sampling method to determine the validity of the signatures violates the Nevada Constitution.

The citizens group argued 60 days is not enough time to collect the signatures and the process is time-consuming and difficult.

The court, however, said, "While we have no doubt that the process of collecting signatures for a recall petition is an arduous one, we conclude that the 60-day limitation does not impose a severe burden on the petitioners."

The court said the recall effort may have failed due to lack of voter support, rather than the 60-day time limit.

The citizens group argued the 60-day limit protects incumbent elected officials by making it more difficult for them to be recalled. The court said the limit "discourages frivolous or harassing petitions by requiring a petitioner to submit the petition after 60 days and to refile the petition if unsuccessful."

The time limit, the court said, "promotes the efficient regulation of recall petitions so that some sort of order, rather than chaos, accompanies the process."

The citizens group also complained that those who use the initiative or referendum procedure to change a law are allowed one year to gather signatures. And these petitions need only 10 percent of the electorate.

The court responded: "Interests served by the initiative and referendum process are sufficiently distinguishable from those involved in the recall process.

"In particular, a recall petition attacks a public official whom the public has already once elected and, if successful requires a costly special election at the taxpayers' expense."

The citizens group complained that permitting a person to remove his name from a recall petition, "encumbers, rather than aids," the effort. They said the person can change his or her mind at the election.

The court said, "This procedure helps to avoid unnecessary special elections and provides direct recourse for when signatures are improperly obtained despite the existing safeguards."

The court also struck down the argument that the sampling of petitions by county clerks is invalid. The sampling allows the clerks to ascertain if the required number of registered voters signed. This method, the court said, creates a more efficient, less costly and less time-consuming process. And in the case of Atkinson Gates, the sampling was within 0.25 percent of the actual number of verified signatures.