Monday, Oct. 30, 2006 | 7:28 a.m.
The general election ballot seeks yes or no answers from voters on 10 questions, including six that would amend the Nevada Constitution. (Question 3, about whether to place tax and spending restraints in the Constitution, was stricken from the ballot in September by the Nevada Supreme Court.) Today the Las Vegas Sun offers its recommendations.
Question 1, sponsored by Republican gubernatorial candidate Jim Gibbons, is a throwback to the fight in the 2003 Legislature over Gov. Kenny Guinn's recommendation for increased taxes. The age-old process for the Legislature is to vote on the most expensive services, such as education, toward the end of the session when the funding picture is more clear. In 2003, however, this led a few anti-tax legislators to falsely claim that education was being held hostage to force a yes vote on the new taxes. Question 1 would amend the Constitution to require that the Legislature fund education very early in its sessions.
We cannot envision changing the Constitution because of a one-time partisan controversy. The order in which education is funded is a decision for our elected representatives, not the Constitution, whose purpose is to guarantee fundamental freedoms. Question 1 was approved by the voters in 2004, meaning that if it passes the Constitution will be amended over what amounts to a procedural matter in the Legislature.
The Sun recommends no on Question 1.
Question 2, on the surface, would amend the Constitution to prohibit land transfers from one private property owner to another private property owner under governmental eminent domain proceedings. If that's all it did we could support it.
But the question as written contains many sections with language that could prevent legitimate eminent domain proceedings, such as the government paying "the most probable price" for private land needed for road construction or other public purposes. If passed, this question would either prevent intelligent community planning or make it prohibitively expensive. One study found that it could cost taxpayers $6.5 billion over 25 years.
The Sun recommends no on Question 2.
Questions 4 and 5 have to do with prohibitions on smoking tobacco in public places. Voters could easily become confused on these questions, as ads for Question 4, outnumbering by far the ads for Question 5, make it sound like it would offer the ultimate in protection from deadly second-hand smoke. The ads advise "Yes on 4, no on 5."
In fact, Question 5 is more restrictive than Question 4. For example, Question 4 would allow for continued smoking in the slot machine areas of grocery stores, while Question 5 would prohibit smoking in those public areas. Question 4 prohibits smoking in "certain" indoor restaurants while Question 5 prohibits it in "all" indoor restaurants. Because smoking and second-hand smoke have been proven to pose severe health risks, we support the more restrictive measure.
The Sun recommends no on Question 4, yes on Question 5.
Question 6 was passed by an overwhelming margin in 2004 and if passed again in November it will amend the Constitution. It would raise the state's minimum wage to $6.15 an hour for workers whose employers do not pay health insurance, and it would provide a formula for annual increases not exceeding 3 percent. We believe full-time workers should be able to earn a wage that keeps them out of poverty.
The Sun recommends yes on Question 6.
Question 7 would open the door to legalized marijuana in Nevada. It would amend state law to allow anyone aged 21 or over to use, possess and purchase up to 1 ounce of marijuana. Driving under its influence would remain a crime and other restrictions, including against any public use, would be imposed. Buyers would pay sales tax and wholesalers would pay an excise tax. The state would use about half of that revenue to fund anti-drug programs.
The out-of-state groups behind this question keep bringing it back, election after election, believing a small state like Nevada might pass it and kick-start a national movement. We approve of the medicinal use of marijuana, but when schools, governments and parents are working hard to prevent recreational use that can lead to addiction, it would be counterproductive to approve a question like this.
The Sun recommends no on Question 7.
Question 8 asks if the value of farm equipment, and the value of regular vehicles traded in to dealers, should be exempted from the entire state sales tax, which funds local and state government services. There is no exemption now for farm machinery. And trade-ins are exempt from only the local portion of the sales tax, limiting the savings to consumers.
We do not believe in loading up the state's tax code with exemptions for special interests, as that takes away needed revenue for state services such as education. As it stands, education and other vital services, such as public safety, are already underfunded in Nevada.
The Sun recommends no on Question 8.
Question 9 tries to fix the past turmoil of the university system's elected Board of Regents by changing the Constitution to limit the number of regents to nine, down from 13. We agree that 13 members are too many and often unwieldy. But this proposal would create a strange mix of regents - three elected and six appointed - and that makes no sense to us, especially as the board has worked together much better since hiring Jim Rogers as chancellor.
The Sun recommends no on Question 9.
Question 10 would amend the Constitution to give the Legislature the ability to call itself into special session. Currently only the governor has that power. We can't recall a time when the governor didn't call a special session when there was a clear need for one. This question, if approved, could set up unnecessary power struggles.
The Sun recommends no on Question 10.
Question 11 has to do with the pay of lawmakers during regular and special sessions. In 1998 voters approved a constitutional amendment to limit the length of the Legislature's biennial sessions to 120 days. But the provision in the Constitution that says legislators will be paid for 60 days in regular sessions and 20 days in special sessions was not amended. So legislators were left with receiving pay for only half their work in regular sessions, and no pay after the 20th day of a special session.
This ballot question asks if legislators should be paid for each day of service, and whether their constitutional limit of $60 - set in 1864 - to cover postage and other office expenses should be reworded to a "reasonable allowance." Expecting our citizen legislators to work for free and to limit their office expenses to an outdated standard is unreasonable, and deters many otherwise qualified people from becoming candidates.
The Sun recommends yes on Question 11.
archive
