Court hears arguments for smoking petition

Monday, Jan. 24, 2005 | 9:46 a.m.

SUN CAPITAL BUREAU

CARSON CITY -- A coalition of health groups says its initiative petition to limit smoking in public places should be allowed to be presented to the Legislature next month because a law regarding signatures is ambiguous.

The coalition submitted its opening brief Thursday to District Judge Bill Maddox, who is being asked to overrule Secretary of State Dean Heller, who decided the petition lacks the required signatures.

The American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association have joined in a suit asking the judge to find the petition valid so as to "avoid manifest injustice and hardship" to the group.

The state attorney general's office was expected to file its answer today in a federal court in Las Vegas to a suit brought by the National Marijuana Policy Project that wants its petition to allow adults to have one ounce of marijuana submitted to the Legislature.

The attorney general is expected to argue that the federal court should dismiss the federal suit and allow it to be decided in Nevada state courts. Oral arguments in that case are set for Friday in Las Vegas.

The health alliance gathered 64,871 signatures on its initiative, an anti-smoking petition supported by casinos and bars submitted 74,348 on its competing initiative and the marijuana petition had 69,261 signatures.

The three groups started their petition drives last year with a goal of 51,337 signatures, or 10 percent of the number who voted in the previous general election in 2002. They all submitted their petitions after the Nov. 2, 2004 election.

The attorney general's office then issued a legal opinion in December that the required signature count should be 83,563 based on the returns of the 2004 election, since the petitions had been presented after Nov. 2.

The Nevada Constitution says an initiative petition must contain signatures equal to 10 percent or more of the number of voters who voted at the last preceding general election.

Robert Crowell, attorney for the health coalition, said this phrase is capable of being understood in two or more ways "by reasonably well-informed persons" and is therefore ambiguous.

Where the Constitution is not clear, Crowell said the court must look to the intent of the Legislature. In this case, he said the intent was to give voters a chance to enact their own laws, without the concurrence of the Legislature.

Crowell said the county election officials also asked those groups circulating petitions not to file them before the election because they had too much work getting ready for the balloting. He also said the petitioners relied on information contained in the publication by the secretary of state that the last day to submit an initiative was Nov. 9. All three had been submitted on or before that date.

The attorney general's office has until Jan. 28 to submit its brief opposing the health group.