Thursday, Sept. 11, 2003 | 11:09 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- The secretary of state's office said Wednesday it needs more time to analyze a decision from a federal appeals court that could help people circulating initiative petitions to change state laws or the Nevada Constitution.
Ronda Moore, deputy secretary of state for elections, said she has asked the state attorney general's office to look at a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that invalidated an Idaho law on gathering signatures on an initiative petition.
Moore said there are "some similarities" between and Idaho and Nevada. But she said she did not know if Idaho might appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In Idaho those circulating an initiative petition must gather signatures of 6 percent of the registered voters in half of the 44 counties. In Nevada those wanting to get an initiative on the ballot must submit signatures representing at least 10 percent of the voters in at least 13 of the state's 17 counties.
Nearly 85 percent of Nevada's population lives in Clark and Washoe counties. In Idaho 60 percent of the state's population is in nine of its 44 counties.
In its ruling Monday the circuit court said: "Because Idaho's counties vary widely in population, this geographic distribution requirement favors residents of sparsely populated areas over residents of more densely populated areas in their respective efforts to participate in the process of qualifying initiatives for the ballot."
Sen. Sandra Tiffany, R-Henderson, said it's possible the ruling could eventually apply to Nevada.
"I would be very happy if it applies to us," she said.
Tiffany circulated an initiative petition in 2000 to break up the Clark County School District. She gathered about 68,000 signatures but didn't get the required 10 percent in Mineral County.
As soon as she heard about the appeals court's decision, she said she called Secretary of State Dean Heller's office and asked him if the Idaho decision affects Nevada law.
If it does she wants the state attorney general's office to look at her petition and see if it qualifies under the court's decision.
"It seems it applies," Tiffany said. "I'm cautiously optimistic."
Richard Siegel, president of the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada, said that by inference the decision would carry over to Nevada.
"It will make (the initiative process) easier overall," Siegel said. "It will also ... make it a little easier for left of center groups and marginally funded groups to win the required number of signatures."
Eric Herzik, a political science professor and interim dean at the University of Nevada, Reno college of arts and sciences, said that if the ruling does cover Nevada, it could have dire consequences for less populous counties.
"Smaller counties are already barely participants at the political table, and this would take away their last chairs," Herzik said.
Without the need to get voters from smaller counties to sign off on ballot initiatives, powerful lobbying groups could concentrate their efforts in the populous counties, he said.
"This could have very negative impacts on environmental issues on the left and tax issues on the right," Herzik said. "It doesn't surprise me that the court has taken such a rigid interpretation of one man, one vote, but it places the smaller counties in harm's way."
Republican grass-roots organizer Steve Wark said that the decision, by allowing signature-collectors to concentrate on the two populous counties, could make it easier for initiatives to qualify for the ballot.
"The biggest impediment to getting an initiative on is strictly organizational," Wark said. "This would allow for the centralization of efforts in population centers, which makes it much easier."
Wark said that even if it does become easier to get issues on the ballot, it doesn't mean that the initiative will ultimately succeed. He added that there could also be a downside to the ruling.
"I could see a ballot becoming so cumbersome with initiatives that people would stop participating in the process."
There have not been any initiative petitions filed with the secretary of state's office this year.
The development would not affect the recall petition being circulated against Gov. Kenny Guinn. That law requires only that a number equal to 25 percent of the voters in the 2002 election sign the document.
Nevada GOP consultant Tony Dane, who is leading the recall effort, agreed that the ruling has no effect on recall efforts.
"We still have to get 25 percent of the voters statewide," Dane said. "The thing I'd like to see the appeals court look at is the 90-day limit that we have to collect 128,000 signatures."
In the court's ruling, it said: "Because some of Idaho's counties are far more heavily populated than others, an initiative that is popular primarily with voters in sparsely populated counties can reach the ballot with the support of many fewer voters than can an initiative that is popular primarily with voters in densely populated counties."
Idaho argued that the geographic distribution requirement prevents long and confusing list of initiatives from appearing on the ballot, protects against fraud and promotes grass-roots direct legislation efforts.
The court rejected those arguments. It said in its ruling: "Most if not all of these objectives could be satisfied, even more readily, by simply increasing the statewide percentage of signatures required -- from 6 to 12 percent or to any other percentage Idaho deemed desirable."
Dane said he hopes that opinion doesn't reach to Nevada.
"I like the idea that to get a statewide initiative on the ballot you have to get signatures from all over the state," Dane said. "That's the way it should be. I don't think the voice of the rest of the state should be cut off just because it could be possible to get enough signatures for an initiative in Clark County."
archive
