Editorial: Our position on questions

Friday, Oct. 22, 2004 | 9:33 a.m.

Today the Las Vegas Sun offers its views on four questions that will be on the Nov. 2 ballot. This is a continuation from Thursday, when we offered our views on the questions that would, if passed, begin the process of amending the state Constitution.

Question 3, which would amend state law, is supported by the medical community and insurance industry. It is their response to the huge increases insurance companies are imposing on doctors for their medical malpractice coverage. The issue reached a boiling point in the summer of 2002. University Medical Center closed its trauma center for 10 days when surgeons stayed away, saying they couldn't afford the risk of a medical malpractice suit. People around the Las Vegas Valley feared that doctors would close their practices or stop taking new patients, a fear the medical community said was well placed.

Insurance companies make most of their money through Wall Street investments, which took a huge hit when the economy faltered. Yet they and doctors placed most of the blame for the rising premiums on juries, which they said were awarding victims of malpractice way too much money for pain and suffering (non-economic damages). Gov. Kenny Guinn called a special session of the Legislature to reform the state's medical malpractice laws. A bill was approved limiting jury awards for non-economic damages to $350,000, with two exceptions -- for "gross" malpractice and "exceptional circumstances."

Immediately following the special session, doctors said the new tort reform had not gone far enough and began gathering signatures for Question 3. Passage of this question would limit attorneys' fees in malpractice cases and remove the exceptions for extreme malpractice. The question would prohibit taxpayer-funded third parties, such as Medicaid, from billing insurance companies for coverage provided to a victim of malpractice. It would end joint liability if a team of doctors was involved, meaning a victim's full award might never be collected if some of the doctors defaulted. And it reduces the time in which a victim has to file a malpractice suit.

The question, advertised as "Keep Our Doctors in Nevada," is stacked against the victim for the benefit of insurance companies. We are for legitimate measures that will keep our doctors in Nevada. But we are not for this approach, which reduces our citizens' chances for justice in court. We are confident that the restraints already embedded in the 2002 tort reform bill are sufficient. Insurance companies have not responded to that reform by lowering their malpractice rates, which gives us little confidence they would respond positively to this proposed measure. The Sun recommends a no vote on Question 3.

Question 8, if approved, would amend state law to expand a program for exempting certain transactions from sales taxes, meaning Nevada's revenue would be reduced. A no vote would eliminate the program, creating additional and badly needed revenue. Nevada cannot afford the exemptions. The Sun recommends a no vote on Question 8.

Question 9 asks Clark County residents if they would support an increase in the sales tax to fund more police officers. This is an "advisory" question, meaning if voters support it, the County Commission will ask the Legislature to approve the increase. We strongly agree that more Metro Police officers are needed. The national average is 2.5 officers per 1,000 residents and we are at 1.7 and dropping as our growth continues. In our view, the city of Las Vegas and Clark County, which directly fund Metro, should have worked with the Legislature a long time ago on a plan to adequately fund public safety in Southern Nevada. Because they didn't, it's now up to the people themselves to send a strong message that public safety is a top priority. The Sun recommends a yes vote on Question 9.

Question 10 is also advisory. If voters approve it, they will be advising the County Commission to seek an amendment to the state Constitution that would prohibit the Legislature from making unfunded mandates. This means if the Legislature were to require a local government to undertake a program, it would have to provide the funding for that program. We are opposed to the concept of unfunded mandates, yet we also oppose a constitutional ban on the practice. This could lead to unintended consequences. If the Legislature engages in this practice excessively, we trust that voters will then change whom they send to Carson City. The question also would prohibit the state from ever diverting county revenues for state use -- an issue inappropriate for the Constitution. The Sun recommends a no vote on Question 10.