Effort to kill yet another petition fails

Proponents of big government and higher taxation have kept many Nevada initiatives from reaching the ballot by killing the questions through the courts. Many of their legal challenges have been rooted in the state's requirements that initiatives address a single subject and include a 200-word summary of the petition's effect.

With another statewide election approaching, signature collectors are out in force seeking support for various constitutional amendments to limit taxation and government power. Which means the filing of lawsuits intended to prevent the petitioners from qualifying their ballot questions.

However, where Nevada's judiciary once seemed predisposed to protect the special interests who favor the status quo, judges now appear inclined to reject frivolous challenges to the public's right to petition.

On Thursday, Carson City District Judge James Todd Russell allowed the continued circulation of a petition that would require ballot questions seeking tax increases to receive two-thirds support for passage. The Nevada AFL-CIO sat at the plaintiff's table for the umpteenth time, arguing that Nevada voters are so dumb, they might not realize that the state currently requires only a majority vote of the public to decide any ballot question, and that they might sign the petition without realizing it would make it harder for voters to approve tax increases.

Judge Russell dismissed the idea that the petition's 200-word summary should have included such a disclosure -- although descriptions of petitions can't be misleading, he said, they can't possibly include every possible ramification of passage. "Overall, the intent of this petition is very clear from my perspective," he said.

In fact, this petition, backed by former state Controller Steve Martin and financed by Las Vegas Sands Inc., might be the simplest of the bunch that could qualify for November's ballot.

It would be really refreshing if, for once, AFL-CIO counsel went before a judge and argued, "Your honor, this petition threatens the big government agenda embraced by most union bosses. We ask that you shred this petition in the name of making it easier for us to promote the continued expansion of the public sector."

Yes, the courts have a role in ensuring that blatantly unconstitutional initiatives -- say, outlawing the Methodist Church or banning those of Norwegian descent from peaceably assembling -- don't make the ballot. But that wasn't remotely the case in this instance.

Kudos to Judge Russell for allowing this petition to go forward, and for defending the public's ability to have voters decide issues the Legislature would never consider.