Ballot questions

When Nevada voters finally get around to punching their choices on November's ticket, they might very well believe the bottom of the ballot has been cut off. Two years ago, the electorate decided 11 statewide questions; in two months, voters could have but a single issue before them.

It's not for lack of interest in the petition process; more than a dozen initiatives have been filed with Secretary of State Ross Miller this year. So far, not one is assured of a spot on the general election ballot.

An initiative to cap Nevada property taxes was approved for placement on November's ballot, and Mr. Miller did so only after the petition's sponsors won an appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court that extended their deadline for submitting signatures. Now the initiative is being dragged through the courts again, this time by the state teachers union.

Three other petitions, backed by Las Vegas Sands Corp. Chairman Sheldon Adelson, were rejected by Mr. Miller but remain alive on appeal. Two petitions aim to divert revenue from the Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority to state agencies, and one would require two-thirds support from voters to increase taxes through elections.

The only sure thing for the 2008 ballot is the Property Owner's Bill of Rights. The proposed constitutional amendment, which would rein in government abuse of eminent domain, won the electorate's approval in 2006 and requires a second vote to take effect.

How did the ability of voters to directly decide the law diminish so quickly? The state's political establishment wants it that way. Lawmakers have created an obstructive qualification process that confuses petitioners and enables myriad legal challenges. Three recent statutory changes are to blame for this: a requirement that a minimum number of signatures be collected in all 17 counties; a requirement that petition circulators submit affidavits with voter signatures; and a requirement that initiatives deal only with a "single subject" -- a standard that actually allowed opponents of a petition to cap government spending to argue that the ballot question could not also address a process for refunding surplus revenues to taxpayers.

Throw in confusing, sometimes contradictory information from the secretary of state's office and you have a recipe for failure -- and a direct assault on the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

"Unfortunately, every recent legislative session has seen more attempts to restrict this right," said Lee Rowland, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada. "And now we're seeing the result. A zero percent success rate. That is alarming and problematic."

Yes, reasonable standards should be in place to ensure the integrity of elections is not compromised and the questions put forth are of significant importance to a wide range of voters.

But the possibility that no petitions from this year might qualify for November's ballot is a travesty, no matter what laws they aimed to change. The new 17-county rule, approved last year, flies in the face of previous court rulings that such signature standards give voters in remote, rural areas significantly more weight than those in more populated urban areas, and are therefore unconstitutional. The affidavit standard effectively requires lawyers to collect signatures, and challenges on the basis of the single-subject rule have made a mockery of common sense.

Lawmakers should strive to return simplicity to the petition process and restore an important, protected power to the citizenry.