EMINENT DOMAIN A divided Nevada Supreme Court allowed the eminent domain portions of the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land measure to remain on the November ballot. However, the court removed parts that opponents said went too far. The land beneath the Fremont Street Experience parking garage, above, was the subject of a bitter eminent domain dispute between shop owners and the city of Las Vegas. -- ON SPENDING CONTROL The court kicked a proposal to limit growth in government spending off the November ballot. The Tax and Spending Control for Nevada measure, or TASC, would have limited government spending growth to increases in population plus inflation. Backers vowed to again bring it before voters at some future date. -- OFF SMOKING Justices allowed the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act, the more restrictive of two anti-smoking measures, to remain on the ballot. But the measure, also known as Question 5, won't include language banning smoking in hotel and motel rooms, the court ruled. -- ON BOULDER CITY LAND SALE The court tossed out an initiative proposed by a group led by Boulder City resident Sherman Rattner, above, calling for the sale of more than 100,000 acres of vacant city land. The proceeds from the sale, estimated at up to $50 billion, would have been divided among every man, woman and child in Boulder City. -- OFF A county worker counts petitions in June brought in by Don Chairez. His initiative, known as the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land, remains on the ballot in truncated form. Photo by Samantha Clemens.

CARSON CITY -- Voters in November will be allowed to weigh in on government's authority to seize private property, but not its ability to tax and spend.

The Nevada Supreme Court on Friday kicked the Tax and Spending Control for Nevada measure, or TASC, off the November ballot.

The court also curtailed the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land, or PISTOL, but allowed the portions dealing with eminent domain to go before voters.

Foes of the TASC measure, which would have limited government spending growth to increases in population plus inflation, commended the court for striking it from the ballot.

"The court did the right thing," Danny Thompson, chairman of the union-backed group that fought TASC, said Friday.

But proponents of TASC called the court's decision a political one carried out by activist judges and promised to again bring the proposal before voters.

"I'm very concerned that the ruling today is going to widen the gulf in Nevada between taxpayers and tax consumers," said Bob Beers, the Republican state senator who was TASC's most prominent backer.

Meanwhile, PISTOL's proponents predicted that the truncated version of their measure would largely eliminate its opposition.

But Bruce Woodbury, head of Nevadans for the Protection of Property Rights, said the group's campaign against the initiative would continue.

While the court's decision "strikes out probably the worst provision," the Clark County commissioner said, other sections left in the law would create "unlimited liability for every act of government."

In its unanimous decision, the court said TASC supporters failed to file an accurate copy of the proposed constitutional amendment with the secretary of state's office prior to gathering signatures, thus violating the state constitution.

The court agreed with TASC opponents, who at an Aug. 23 hearing said those who seek to amend the state constitution must strictly comply with the document's requirements for such proposals.

The court said "to allow a sweeping amendment to it (the constitution) or to this state's legislative acts, without strict adherence to the rules set forth therein, would work against government stability."

While circulation of one petition while a different version was on file with the secretary of state's office might have been inadvertent, the result was a $1.5 billion error in favor of higher government spending that TASC supporters did not want, the court said.

The opinion reversed a decision by Carson District Judge Bill Maddox.

The union-backed Nevadans for Nevada had used multiple avenues to block TASC, including trying to head off its signature gatherers, alleging signature fraud and challenging the initiative in court.

Thompson said the measure, which was funded largely by out-of-state conservative interests, would have been a disaster for Nevada.

Thompson said he would push for legislation to "overhaul" the ballot initiative process. The fact that TASC got as far as it did is proof that the process lacks checks and balances, he said.

TASC's supporters vowed to fight another day.

"Despite the court's horrible decision, the people want this," said TASC's executive director, Bob Adney. "I think we'll be back. We'll have to get it on the ballot again next time."

Adney accused the justices of "being activist judges and silencing the will of the people."

TASC was based on a similar measure in Colorado that voters there last fall decided to put on hold for five years.

Beers said the Supreme Court justices had voted in their own self-interest. The Supreme Court is among Nevada government institutions whose spending growth is out of control, he said.

"There was fact and law that could be used to support any decision," Beers said. "This was all about judgment, and I don't know how they possibly could have set aside their feelings and political biases. Ultimately, this was a political decision."

The court's decision on the PISTOL issue was divided, with justices Bill Maupin and James Hardesty favoring removal of the entire measure from the ballot.

Written by Justice Michael Douglas, the majority opinion found that the measure, aimed primarily at stopping some eminent domain practices by governments, violated a state law requiring such measures focus on a single subject.

But rather than remove the entire measure from the ballot, the court majority let stand the eminent domain portions, which would prohibit governments from taking private land for use in economic redevelopment by another private entity, among other provisions.

Those provisions will have to be approved twice, this year and in 2008, before they can take effect.

The decision removed two sections of the PISTOL measure that had focused more generally on private property rights. Those two sections had most alarmed some local government officials across the state who had come out against the proposal.

In arguments against the measure on Aug. 23, an attorney for the anti-PISTOL group said those sections would allow property owners to sue if any "government action" has a substantial effect on a property's value, not just the taking of land for a government project.

The example given by anti-PISTOL attorney Mark Ferrario was that if a local government authorized a road widening project and businesses were adversely affected, they could sue for damages. Such a provision would go far beyond eminent domain, he said at the hearing.

The court majority agreed, taking out those provisions.

The justices also removed other sections they said dealt with administrative details rather than policy as required for such petitions. Those sections would have allowed for the preemption of judges in eminent domain actions, among other proposals.

Joining Douglas were justices Mark Gibbons, Nancy Becker, Ron Parraguirre and David R. Gamble, a Douglas County District judge sitting in for Chief Justice Bob Rose.

Although PISTOL was neither entirely killed nor entirely kept, the court's decision was viewed as a victory by supporters of the eminent domain question.

"I'm not disappointed," said Don Chairez, PISTOL chairman. The parts of the initiative that were taken out, he said, were "basically footnotes. They were not of major importance to us."

The PISTOL 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.

Chairez said he expected the decision to defang PISTOL's opponents, because it removed the parts of the initiative that they were concerned with.

"I think that a lot of the opposition should wither away at this point," he said.

But Woodbury, the leader of the opposition, indicated his group's campaign against the initiative will continue.

The initiative is still problematic, Woodbury said, because the decision "left intact virtually all of the provisions that will cause major problems in the ability of state and local government to implement infrastructure programs."

Eric Herzik, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, said justices Douglas and Becker, who both face re-election this November, could become the focus of a conservative backlash from voters as a result of the court's decisions.

"All the fears that the conservatives have about the courts were just confirmed," Herzik said. "I think you are going to get a conservative backlash. The question is, when does it show up."

Becker may be the most vulnerable, he said, because of her siding with the majority in the 2003 Guinn v. Legislature case, which said the requirement to fund public education trumped a two-thirds vote requirement for lawmakers to raise taxes.

Becker is the first Supreme Court justice who supported that the decision to run for re-election. Her opponent is Clark County District Judge Nancy Saitta.

The decisions may have other political ramifications, Herzik said. A move to make judges and justices appointed rather than elected to avoid the taint of campaign contributions might now be more difficult to sell, he said.

Those who disagree with the decisions might want to retain the right to vote on judicial candidates, Herzik said.

The decisions also may help Chairez in his bid as a Republican candidate for attorney general, he said.

A divided Nevada Supreme Court allowed the eminent domain portions of the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land measure to remain on the November ballot. However, the court removed parts that opponents said went too far. The land beneath the Fremont Street Experience parking garage, above, was the subject of a bitter eminent domain dispute between shop owners and the city of Las Vegas.

Justices allowed the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act, the more restrictive of two anti-smoking measures, to remain on the ballot. But the measure, also known as Question 5, won't include language banning smoking in hotel and motel rooms, the court ruled.

The court tossed out an initiative proposed by a group led by Boulder City resident Sherman Rattner, above, calling for the sale of more than 100,000 acres of vacant city land. The proceeds from the sale, estimated at up to $50 billion, would have been divided among every man, woman and child in Boulder City.

The court kicked a proposal to limit growth in government spending off the November ballot. The Tax and Spending Control for Nevada measure, or TASC, would have limited government spending growth to increases in population plus inflation. Backers vowed to again bring it before voters at some future date.