Federal court upholds Nevada initiative process

Associated Press

Wednesday, March 14, 2012 | 1:07 p.m.

A federal appeals court Wednesday upheld a Nevada law requiring sponsors of citizen initiatives to collect a percentage of voter signatures from each congressional district to qualify for the ballot.

The ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upholds a lower court ruling against former state lawmaker and Republican U.S. Senate contender Sharron Angle and others who argued initiative regulations passed by the Nevada Legislature in 2007 are unconstitutional.

Angle and others sued Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller in 2009 over the law that requires signatures amounting to 10 percent of the votes cast in the previous general election in each Nevada congressional district to qualify. Nevada had three congressional districts at the time. After reapportionment last year, it now has four.

Their lawsuit argued the mandate gives unequal influence to the voters in one district where sponsors might fail to meet the 10 percent threshold.

They further argued that the mandate imposes a "severe burden" on the free speech rights of initiative sponsors.

"It makes it nearly impossible for us to collect signatures," Angle told The Associated Press by telephone when contacted Wednesday shortly after the ruling was issued.

She said problems are more abundant in southern Nevada's populous Clark County, where congressional districts may abut in urban areas. If a voter signs the wrong petition in the wrong district, that signature can be deemed invalid.

"If they're mixed up on the petition, the courts throw those petitions out," Angle said. "It's a ruling that disenfranchises the people's right to petition."

In its ruling, the appeals court said in part, "There is no First Amendment right to place an initiative on the ballot."

The opinion, written by Judge Raymond Fisher, noted that half the states that allow initiatives impose a geographic distribution requirement. He also cited a 2010 National Conference of State Legislatures report that said such signature requirements "are important because they force initiative proponents to demonstrate that their proposal has support statewide, not just among the citizens of the state's most populous region."

"Nevada has therefore articulated an important regulatory interest sufficient to justify the all districts rule," the opinion concluded.