Thursday, Sept. 16, 2004 | 11:03 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- Chief Justice Miriam Shearing has ordered Secretary of State Dean Heller to respond today to the Nevada Supreme Court to claims that he has allowed misleading statements to be placed on the November ballot.
Four Clark County residents, backed by the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, have filed suit in the court saying that the arguments on the ballot in favor of the Keep Our Doctors in Nevada petition are inaccurate.
The matter before the state's highest court marks the latest battle in the war between doctors and trial lawyers over the issue of medical malpractice.
Heller appoints committees to write the pros and cons of the initiative petitions on the ballot.
Kathleen Murphy Jones, the chairwoman of the committee against the petition and the others in the suit, have challenged the statements in the argument in favor of Question 3. They want Question 3 removed from the ballot.
They particularly object to the initiative's statement that physicians continue to leave Nevada at an alarming rate despite the 2002 law aimed at curing the medical malpractice problem.
The state Board of Medical Examiners said it does not have the number of doctors who have left the state, but it is trying to gather that information.
The board said the number of physicians practicing in Nevada has increased in the last two years because of new doctors coming in, but those numbers were not immediately available. Doctors groups have said the state board may not be correct because doctors may have left the state without notifying the board.
The opponents of Question 3 also object to its statement that:
The committee for the malpractice initiative failed to identify any fiscal impact on the state budget, the suit claims.
Besides Murphy, the other plaintiffs are Jeffrey Stempel, Sari Aizley and Rick Myers.
Renee Parker, chief deputy secretary of state, withheld comment, saying the office has had less than 24 hours to review the numerous documents. But she said some of the election ballots including the disputed question have already been printed.
Shearing, in issuing the order, said these issues have arguable merit and ordered Heller to respond to the suit that seeks a writ of mandamus to remove Question 3 from the ballot.
The proponents of the initiative, worried about the continued rising cost of medical malpractice insurance, had circulated an initiative petition to make more changes to the law adopted at the 2002 special session of the Legislature.
It gained the required signatures and was submitted to the 2003 Legislature that refused to approve the petition. It then went to voters to decide whether to further amend it.
archive
