QUESTION 7: ELECTION ISSUES

Thursday, Oct. 14, 2004 | 1:22 a.m.

Question 7 brings the Nevada Constitution up to date on two election issues: voting rights for the mentally ill and the direct election of U.S. senators.

In 1913 the U.S. Constitution was amended to provide for direct election of senators, but the Nevada Constitution was never changed. It says the Legislature will choose the person to serve in the U.S. Senate.

Before 1913 there was never a direct vote for senator. In 1908 the state Republican and Democratic conventions mutually agreed to pledge their legislative candidates to support the person receiving the highest number of votes, regardless of party.

F.G. Newland, a Democrat, won the popular vote and the Legislature named him senator. The same system was agreed to in 1910, when George Nixon, a Republican, came out on top.

In both these elections, the Legislature agreed to follow the popular vote. By the next election the U.S. Constitution had changed, superseding the state's.

The Nevada Constitution also prohibits an "idiot or insane person" from voting. That language would be replaced to say a person "who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent unless restored to legal capacity" could not vote.

The Legislature in 2001 and 2003 passed the proposed constitutional amendment, and it must be ratified by voters.

Supporters say the terms "idiot" and "insane" are no longer recognized in modern legal and medical contexts. The language is also offensive to many people.

Opponents to the change say the meaning of "idiot" and insane" are still clear. The change may result in the state creating a legal classification of "mentally incompetent" for the purpose of voting, and it could apply to people whose mental condition does not affect their ability to vote.

Carlos Brandenburg, state Division of Mental Health and Developmental Services director, said other states have changed their constitutions to bring them up to date.

But there are some distinctions in whether a person is judged to be mentally incompetent, he said.

For instance, a judge may commit a person with mental problems to the state hospital on grounds he is "a danger to himself and others." That person, Brandenburg said, would still be qualified to vote.

In another case, a judge may find a person was not mentally competent to stand trial and send that individual to Lake's Crossing for treatment until he is competent enough to go to trial. The individual would still have the right to vote, Brandenburg said.

He said a judge might find a person mentally incompetent to handle his affairs because of such things as Alzheimer's disease and appoint a guardian. In that case the person would not be able to vote, Brandenburg said.