CARSON CITY -- Opponents of two measures to restrict government power by limiting spending and the taking of private land told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that the proposals are flawed and should be taken off the November ballot.

But supporters of TASC, which would limit the growth of government spending to population increases and inflation, and PISTOL, which would restrict the use of eminent domain, said the constitutional amendments were proper and voters should have the right to weigh in on the measures.

The court had a busy day, also hearing legal challenges to an anti-smoking measure and a Boulder City ballot measure that could potentially make its citizens wealthy.

Both the TASC and PISTOL measures were qualified by Secretary of State Dean Heller, and both survived lower court challenges. The Supreme Court is expected to rule quickly.

Justices want to issue final decisions on ballot question appeals so that county election departments can send out absentee ballots to overseas residents as scheduled on Sept. 28. Election Day is Nov. 7.

• TASC

The Tax and Spending Control for Nevada measure, or TASC, would limit government spending growth to increases in population growth plus inflation.

In arguments before the court, Las Vegas attorney Paul More, representing a group opposed to the measure, said the initiative petition is flawed in two areas.

The petition circulated to the public had a different effective date to impose the formula than the one submitted to the secretary of state's office in March, a difference that could amount to $1.5 billion more in spending in the state budget than TASC supporters wanted, he said.

"It was clearly a mistake," More told the court.

The constitutional requirements for qualifying an initiative petition demand strict adherence to the rules and having two different versions of the petition fails this test, he said. Even if the court adopts a less strict test for qualifying such measures, a $1.5 billion mistake can't survive the court's review, he said.

Chief Justice Bob Rose asked whether the $1.5 billion difference in the two petitions was significant under even the lower standard.

"That's not pocket change," he said.

The court spent less time on the other challenge, which is whether the petition covers only a single subject as required by Nevada law.

More, representing Nevadans for Nevada, a group of labor and union groups opposed to TASC, argued it covers more than one issue.

But Las Vegas attorney Joel Hansen, representing TASC and its supporters, including state Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, said the claims raised by the anti-TASC group do not stand up.

The issue about the different dates is a typographical error that won't even come into play, he said. The measure also complies with the single-subject requirement, Hansen said.

After the hearing, both sides said they anticipate a victory.

University system Chancellor Jim Rogers, who helped finance the anti-TASC effort and who attended the hearing, said he expects the court to invalidate the measure.

"It will kill education," he said. "It doesn't work. How dare these sons-of-bitches come in from out of state to tell us how to run our system. Who the hell are they?" he asked.

Rogers was referring to the fact the TASC measure was funded by an out-of-state group called Americans for Limited Government.

• PISTOL

The PISTOL case, appealed by a group of Southern Nevada local governments and businesses, focused only on the issue of whether it complied with the single issue rule.

The eminent domain measure, called the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land, or PISTOL, also was qualified for the ballot with money from Americans for Limited Government.

PISTOL would stop the government from taking private land away from citizens for private use, according to its supporters.

But Las Vegas attorney Mark Ferrario, representing the groups opposing PISTOL, said the measure goes far beyond eminent domain, and would allow property owners to sue if any "government action" has a substantial effect on a property value, he said.

If a local government authorized a road improvement project and businesses were adversely affected, they could sue for damages, Ferrario said.

But Las Vegas attorney Jonathan Hansen, representing PISTOL, said only "substantial economic loss" would be cause for a lawsuit.

Justice James Hardesty said he was concerned the PISTOL measure does not define such terms as significant economic loss, leaving voters without a clear understanding of what they might be supporting.

The ballot question was born amid furor following a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. New London, in which a Connecticut municipality was allowed to seize property from homeowners to build private office buildings and housing.

But Ferrario said the Nevada measure is "Kelo plus" and does not meet the single subject rule.

Las Vegas attorney Kermitt Waters, another PISTOL advocate, agreed but said expansion of property rights to cover other "governmental actions" is properly contained within the initiative petition.

"He's right," Waters said of Ferrario's comment. "It is Kelo plus."

• SMOKING QUESTION

Rose asked why the Supreme Court should be deciding now whether to remove an anti-smoking question from the November ballot.

"What is so misleading that we take the extraordinary measure of striking it from the ballot?" Rose asked lawyers for the gaming and hospitality industries, which oppose Question 4, the more restrictive of two smoking measures that voters may choose from.

Hardesty added the smoking restrictions in Question 4 "aren't even law yet." Whether people were misled into signing the petition might be an argument that could wait in case it passes.

Attorney Kirk Lenhard, representing tavern owners, slot route operations, convenience stories and restaurants, acknowledged the "record is devoid" of anyone being misled into signing the Clean Indoor Air Act petition.

Maria Pence, a lawyer for health groups supporting the petition, noted 78,000 residents who signed the petition want to see it on the ballot. If approved by voters, the proposal would change state law and outlaw smoking in restaurants, supermarkets, convenience stories, most bars and in hotel and motel rooms.

Many of the groups Lenhard represents support a counter ballot question -- Responsibly Protect Nevadans from Second-Hand Smoke -- which would keep the status quo on smoking. If both questions appear on the ballot, the one that receives the most votes becomes law as long as it secures a majority.

Lenhard told justices that backers of the more restrictive petition should have stated specifically early in the document the types of businesses where smoking would be banned.

"You aren't alerted to the fact most bars aren't exempted," Lenhard said. Only in "stand-alone" bars, which serve no food other than peanuts, would smoking be permitted.

On this point, Rose seemed to agree. But Rose also said people should read petitions they sign and "it is their own fault" if they're not aware what's in them.

Todd Bice, a Nevada Resort Association lawyer, also said petition circulators specifically told signers that smoking would not be banned in motel and hotel rooms.

Pence agreed. She said the backers, Nevadans for Tobacco-Free Kids, did not want to outlaw smoking in all hotel and motel rooms.

But in a June decision, District Judge Bill Maddox of Carson City said that's what would happen under the petition's language.

Although Pence said she would support the court modifying the question and stipulating that hotels and motels still could have smoking rooms, Lenhard refused to go along with that plan.

Following Maddox's decision, gaming industry officials said their side would have an advantage if the hotel and motel restrictions remained in the ballot question. They reasoned Nevadans would defeat the question if they realized smokers might not visit the state.

• BOULDER CITY MILLIONAIRES

The court also questioned whether a proposed ballot question that could make every resident in Boulder City a millionaire usurps a power reserved to the City Council.

Hardesty wondered aloud whether the proposal would lead to other citizen ballot initiatives that essentially would "eliminate representative government in Nevada."

Hardesty said voters could end up deciding "when and which potholes on certain streets would be fixed" or even what type of uniform police would wear.

The court did not make an immediate decision on whether the Boulder City land sale question should be placed on the general election ballot.

A group called the Coalition to Protect the Future of Boulder secured more than 1,000 signatures in June to place four ballot questions on the general election ballot. In one question, voters would decide whether to sell off 107,000 acres of land in Eldorado Valley.

A trust, whose members would include Sherman Rattner, the man who led the petition drive, would decide whether to sell land and how to dispense proceeds.

But voters also could back questions to block any future development of the property.

Rattner has estimated the land could fetch $15 billion to $50 billion, enough to give each of the 15,200 residents between $987,000 and $3.2 million.

But last month, District Judge Kathy Hardcastle pulled the question off the ballot, prompting Rattner's appeal.

His attorney, Travis Chandler, said Wednesday that "the power belongs to the people if they choose to exercise it." But attorney Paul Larsen, representing the city, contended land sales are administrative acts which are a function of the City Council.