Groups: Ballot process favors rural counties

Groups challenging the constitutionality of Nevada's ballot process said Wednesday in U.S. District Court that the state discriminates against voters in heavily populated Clark and Washoe counties in favor of the rural counties.

The Marijuana Policy Project, Committee to Regulate and Control Marijuana and American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada claim that state law favors voters in rural areas because fewer signatures are required to be gathered in those places to get a petition on the ballot than in more populated areas.

Sarah Netburn, who represents the Marijuana Policy Project, said sparsely populated counties have "greater influence" than voters in densely populated areas, which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Marijuana Policy Institute and ACLU of Nevada filed a complaint in U.S. District Court challenging the ballot process in February.

The complaint names Ross Miller, who as secretary of state, has the duty of enforcing Nevada's election laws. The challenge is opposed by the state. The Nevada Resort Association has also intervened in opposition to the complaint.

U.S. District Judge Philip Pro heard arguments on the issue Wednesday and is expected to issue a ruling soon.

At issue is how Nevada qualifies measures for the ballot. Currently, a petition must have signatures from at least 10 percent of people who voted in the previous general election, multiplied by the county's share of the statewide population.

That means that in Clark County, an initiative petition must have 19,525 signatures (using 2000 census figures), according to the complaint. In contrast, Esmeralda County would need just 14 signatures.

Allen Lichtenstein, general counsel for the ACLU of Nevada, said that gives rural voters far more influence over whether an initiative will get on the ballot.

"The fundamental problem with Nevada's scheme is that it violates the rule of one person, one vote," he said. "The system is skewed to overrepresent rural areas."

The hearing Wednesday focused in part on whether the Marijuana Policy Project and others have legal standing to bring the complaint against Miller.

Todd Bice, who represents the Nevada Resort Association, told Pro that the marijuana groups and ACLU lack standing to bring the complaint because they don't have an actual petition before the voters this election year.

Lichtenstein said the group plans to file petitions in the future.

The Marijuana Policy Project has tried unsuccessfully several times to win voter approval for measures dealing with the drug.

Bice also argued that the current ballot process isn't unconstitutional because it distributes signatures proportionately based on population.

Last week, a senior judge invalidated an initiative petition seeking a California-style property tax cap because some of the affidavits required with the petition signatures were flawed. The decision was appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.

The petition was being pushed by Sharron Angle, a former state assemblywoman. Attorney Joel Hansen, who is representing the tax cap group, participated in Wednesday's federal court hearing via telephone. Hansen is seeking to become involved in the Marijuana Policy Project's case because he said the tax cap petition has many of the same issues.

Contact reporter David Kihara at dkihara@reviewjournal.com or 702-380-1039.