Friday, Nov. 12, 2004 | 8:51 a.m.
While the First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government "for a redress of grievances," a right affirmed by the Nevada Constitution, federal and state courts have allowed certain rules that govern how the petitioning may be carried out. The Nevada Supreme Court weighed in on such rules this week in a case involving Nevadans for Sound Government, whose members were circulating a petition this summer to repeal the 2003 Legislature's tax increases.
The court addressed the group's experiences in May at a bus transfer station in Reno operated by the Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County, and at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. In both instances, "time, place and manner" policies were at the center of disputes. These policies impose requirements and restrictions on signature gatherers, such as providing advance notice of their intentions and where they may circulate their petitions.
At both the transfer station in Reno and at UNLV, petition gatherers were arrested and removed from the respective properties when police determined they were in violation of the policies. Nevadans for Sound Government took its case to court and District Judge Ken Cory in Las Vegas ruled in the group's favor, saying the way the policies were enforced amounted to harassment and denial of the petitioners' constitutional rights.
An appeal was filed by UNLV and Washoe County's RTC. In its decision this week the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that time, place and manner policies are "permissible restrictions." We agree. It wouldn't be right to enter a classroom while a lecture is under way, for example, or impede a person hurrying to catch a bus. But the court also found that the Washoe RTC's policies, such as requiring a three-day notice from petitioners, were unreasonably restrictive. Here again we agree, as all such policies should be in place to facilitate the efficient gathering of petitions, not to block the activity.
We part with the court in its UNLV ruling, however, which upheld the university's action in removing the petitioners. The court cited a state law saying that public buildings open to the general public and "occupied by the government of this state" must be made available to petitioners. At the time the petitioners were removed, from outside of Ham Hall, a private Republican campaign function, featuring first lady Laura Bush, was taking place inside. The court ruled that because the building was not at the time "occupied" by state government, petitioners had no right being there.
In our view, a state building is a state building, regardless of who has leased it for the day. We believe the Legislature should clarify the law to make this clear. The wording in our rules and laws should not serve to restrict or cloud our fundamental rights, but to fortify them.
archive
