Fluoride initiative unclear to voters

Monday, Oct. 30, 2000 | 11:18 a.m.

QUESTION 1

The 1999 Legislature requires the voters of Clark County to decide if water fluoridation should continue. Because of the way the question is worded, a Yes vote means that fluoridation of water will stop on Jan. 1, and a No vote means water fluoridation will continue.

A last-minute change in the language of a ballot question could spell doom for fluoride in Las Vegas Valley's drinking water.

The change by a joint committee during the waning days of the 1999 Legislature has many voters confused on how they should vote to retain or get rid of the fluoride additive.

Question 1 for Clark County voters reads "Should the water authority and each public water system in this county that serves the population of 100,000 persons or more cease the fluoridation of the water?"

The key word is "cease," and the way the question is worded requires voters who want to keep fluoride in the water to vote no, and those who want to get rid of it to vote yes. Those votes are the opposite of what casual readers of the question anticipate.

If voters are confused about the wording, the lawmakers who wrote the language seemed almost as muddled.

Neither legislators nor staff who worked on the fluoridation bill could recall how the wording shifted in the dying hours of the session.

The bill, sponsored by Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani, D-Las Vegas, had been hotly contested throughout the session.

Proponents argued that fluoride was needed as a public preventative against tooth decay, particularly among poor children who might not brush with fluoridated toothpaste.

Opponents' stands ranged from charges that fluoride causes everything from cancer to lower intelligence in children to arguments that dental health is not the responsibility of government.

The bill passed the Assembly early in May and landed in the Senate, where Sen. Randolph Townsend, a Washoe County Republican, made sure the Northern Nevada county was exempt.

Gov. Kenny Guinn signed the bill, but insisted that the Legislature send him a "trailer bill" that would put the question before Clark County voters on the Nov. 7 ballot.

The confusing language came, recalls Lucille Lusk of Nevada Concerned Citizens, during a last-minute push to begin adding fluoride to the water before the election. Lusk, whose group opposed the fluoride additive, was in a Senate committee meeting in May 28, 1999, where the changes were discussed.

"We objected to the turning of the wording around," Lusk said. "If you want fluoride, it should be yes, and if you don't, it should be no."

Her group wanted the ballot initiative to ask voters whether they wanted to "continue the fluoridation of water."

Attempts to reach Giunchigliani for comment today were not successful.

On the final day of the Legislature, Senate and Assembly members convened a joint committee meeting that was not recorded, according to Brenda Erdoes, legislative counsel. Erdoes had to refresh her memory through the Senate's daily journal.

At that meeting the word "cease" was substituted for "continue." The trailer bill was signed by Guinn on June 9, 1999.

Lusk says that wording defeats the purpose of the ballot initiative.

"What we want to know at the end of the voting is what people wanted," she said. "And by twisting the wording like this, we'll never know."