Tuesday, Sept. 21, 2004 | 9:10 a.m.
Knowing full well the predicament in which its decision would place county election departments, the Nevada Supreme Court on Saturday ordered either that the explanation of Question 3 be reworded for the ballot, or that the question be stricken entirely. Staff from the offices of secretary of state and attorney general reworded the explanation to comply with the court's order, which was fully warranted. The original wording was misleading and incomplete, and the court was correct to order a change, even though many election departments had already begun printing ballots.
Work on Question 3, also known as the "Keep Our Doctors In Nevada" initiative, was undertaken by the state's medical community shortly after the 2002 special session of the Legislature, during which emergency laws were passed to contain the rising cost of malpractice insurance. The escalating cost had driven some doctors out of state and others restricted their practices. It also resulted in the temporary shutdown of the trauma center at University Medical Center. Doctors did not believe the new laws were strong enough and so began gathering signatures for Question 3.
If voters pass the initiative, insurance companies would be less liable for noneconomic damages in cases of medical malpractice. The theory is that if they are less liable, they will reduce doctors' premiums for malpractice insurance, creating an incentive for doctors to stay in Nevada and practice the full range of specialties, even those considered high risk. Nevada trial lawyers, who represent malpractice victims and whose fees are proportionate to the victims' awards, naturally oppose Question 3 and filed a lawsuit crying foul about its explanation on the ballot.
Say what you will about the lawyers' motives (they filed another suit Monday to strike the question from the ballot), they were right that the language needed changing. The original explanation skipped over most of the financial impacts on a victim, which any voter could be someday. It's important to have explanations that are both succinct and complete. The Supreme Court performed its rightful role as a check and balance on our initiative process, which is required by state law to be fair.
archive
