Early voting begins Saturday, and Nevadans who venture to the polls will be confronted with 10 ballot initiatives that address issues such as legislative pay, eminent domain and smoking restrictions.

Voters should be deciding 11 questions, but the state Supreme Court intervened to kill Question 3, which asked voters to impose limits on government spending increases. Too bad.

Following are the Review-Journal's recommendations on the ballot initiatives.

-- Question 1 is a constitutional amendment put forth by Rep. Jim Gibbons, the Republican nominee for governor, in response to the 2003 legislative tax deadlock that saw Democrats use the education budget to pressure GOP lawmakers to approve higher taxes. The measure would require the Legislature to approve the public school budget before any other spending plan. The proposal passed easily in 2004, but must be approved twice by voters before it can become part of the state constitution. It's doubtful that the so-called Education First initiative will have major ramifications for lawmakers, but it imposes a reasonable requirement. Vote yes on Question 1.

-- Question 2 -- also known as PISTOL -- is perhaps the most publicized proposal and would impose more burdens on governments seeking to seize land via eminent domain. The state Supreme Court struck some of the question's more controversial provisions, but local government officials remain apoplectic over the measure, claiming it will increase costs, jeopardize federal highway funding and end local land-use planning as we know it. We disagree. Question 2 is a modest response to both previous abuses of eminent domain in Southern Nevada and the U.S. Supreme Court's dangerous Kelo decision, which allows governments to transfer property from one private owner to another. Vote yes on Question 2.

-- Questions 4 and 5 are inextricably linked and deal with smoking regulations -- but supporters of both have trotted out "the children" in an effort to deceive voters. Question 5 is by far the more restrictive of the two and would ban smoking in virtually every "indoor place of employment" except casino gaming areas. But if Question 5 is really only about saving kids from secondhand smoke exposure, why does this strict smoking ban also apply to bars that don't allow minors?

Meanwhile, Question 4 is the creation of a coalition that includes local tavern owners and slot route operators who fear the passage of Question 5 will drive tobacco-addicted gamblers out of their establishments. It purports to be a less Draconian alternative to Question 5, but its changes to current law would be cosmetic, at best.

Question 5 goes too far. Question 4 is a Trojan horse. Vote no on both.

-- Question 6 is a union-backed measure to raise the minimum wage to $1 above the national standard, currently $5.15 an hour. That alone would have a negative effect on many small Nevada businesses that create entry-level jobs, but the devil here is in the details. Not only does this constitutional amendment exempt union shops from the wage regulation, it mandates annual increases based on inflation in years that Congress doesn't act to raise the national minimum wage. In other words, if this provision passes, Nevada's minimum wage could easily rise above $10 an hour within just a few years -- which would trigger a nuclear winter for the Silver State's robust economy. Vote no on Question 6.

-- Question 7 would allow adults to legally possess up to 1 ounce of marijuana. It would also increase penalties for driving under the influence of drugs and impose taxes and licensing regulations on marijuana retailers and wholesalers. Money raised by the taxes would fund state drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs. Opponents argue passionately that the initiative sends the wrong message to children. But arguing that in order to protect kids we must limit the rights of adults to make their own personal choices is to advocate the creation of an infantocracy and a return to alcohol Prohibition. In fact, many of this nation's drug policies have long been expensive failures. Let's try something new and allow law enforcement to redirect resources to more pressing priorities. Vote yes on Question 7.

-- Question 8 addresses how the sales tax is applied to vehicle trade-ins and farm equipment purchases. We traditionally oppose creating more exemptions to the state tax code, which is what this measure would do for farm equipment. But the remainder of the initiative is a worthwhile attempt to ensure that consumers aren't subject to double taxation on the value of their vehicle when they trade it in for a new car or truck. Vote yes on Question 8.

-- Question 9 would reduce the number of members on the Board of Regents from 13 to nine. Currently, all the regents are elected, but this measure would mandate that the governor appoint six of the panelists. While shrinking the size of the board certainly has merit, limiting voter involvement in selecting who oversees Nevada's higher education system is the wrong approach. Vote no on Question 9.

-- Question 10 would allow two-thirds of the Legislature to call for a special session, something only the governor is currently empowered to do. Special sessions of the Legislature should be few and far between -- but this measure virtually guarantees they'll become more frequent. That's bad news for taxpayers. Vote no on 10.

-- The last ballot measure, Question 11, is a back-door effort to double the small stipend lawmakers receive while serving in Carson City. Right now, state lawmakers are paid for the first 60 days they serve. Under this measure, that would increase to 120 days, given that they are constitutionally prohibited from staying in session for more than four months. While lawmakers can make a reasonable case that they deserve better compensation, a better approach than changing a 50-year-old constitutional provision would be for legislators to have the courage to simply approve higher daily stipends. Vote no on Question 11.