Nevada Ballot Measures

Nevada Ballot Measures
2006

(Nov 7) Question 1 - Education First
For the November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot

Question 1 - Education First

SUMMARY

The proposed amendment, if passed, would create five new sections to Section 6 of Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution. The amendment would provide that during a regular session of the Legislature, before any appropriation is enacted to fund a portion of the state budget, the Legislature must appropriate sufficient funds for the operation of Nevada's public schools for kindergarten through grade 12 for the next biennium, and that any appropriation in violation of this requirement is void. The appropriation requirement also applies to certain special sessions of the Legislature.

FINANCIAL IMPACT - NO. Approval of the proposal to amend the Nevada Constitution would have no adverse fiscal impact.

(Nov 7) Question 2 - Nevada Property Owner’s Bill of Rights
For the November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot

Question 2 - Nevada Property Owner’s Bill of Rights

SUMMARY

[The Nevada Supreme Court removed portions of this measure from the ballot. The sections that remain on the ballot deal with eminent domain. The sections removed from the ballot dealt with regulatory takings.]

[NOTE: Nevada law requires that a constitutional amendment be passed in two consecutive general elections before it becomes effective. Therefore, if this amendment passes in November 2006, it will appear on the ballot again for approval in November 2008 before it takes effect.]

The proposed amendment, if passed, would create a new section within Article 1 of the Nevada Constitution. The amendment provides that the transfer of property taken in an eminent domain action from one private party to another private party would not be considered taken for a public use.

The State or its political subdivisions or agencies would not be allowed to occupy property taken in an eminent domain action until the government provides a property owner with all government property appraisals. The government would have the burden to prove that any property taken was taken for a public use.

If property is taken by the State or its political subdivisions or agencies for a public use, the property must be valued at its highest and best use. In an eminent domain action, just compensation would be considered a sum of money that puts a property owner in the same position as if the property had not been taken, and includes compounded interest and reasonable costs and expenses. Fair market value, for eminent domain purposes, would be defined as the "highest price the property would bring on the open market."

If property taken in an eminent domain proceeding is not used for the purpose the property was taken for within five years, the original property owner would be able to reclaim the property upon repayment of the original purchase price.

FISCAL NOTE
FINANCIAL IMPACT - CANNOT BE DETERMINED
Question 2 proposes to amend Article 1 of Nevada's Constitution regarding the determination of public use of property, payment for private property taken under eminent domain actions, and the rights of property owners in eminent domain actions. The provisions of Question 2 cannot become effective until after the 2008 General Election.

FINANCIAL IMPACT OF QUESTION 2
Question 2 declares that public use does not include transfers of property taken in an eminent domain proceeding from one private party to another private party. Although the use of this type of transfer of private property for projects by government entities is eliminated, an estimate of the financial impact to state and local governments planning to use this type of transfer after the effective date of the Question 2 cannot be determined.

The provision requiring taken or damaged property to be valued at its highest and best use potentially increases the costs incurred by state or local government entities to provide the required payments to property owners under eminent domain proceedings. Given the difficulty projecting the level and scope of eminent domain proceedings state and local governments may undertake after the effective date of the Question 2, the potential financial impact on state or local governments cannot be determined with any degree of certainty. The potential increase in the costs may cause government entities to forego certain projects requiring the taking of private property under eminent domain actions.

The provisions of the Question 2 may potentially increase the number of cases involving eminent domain actions. The potential increase in expenses incurred by state and district courts from handing a larger number of cases involving eminent domain actions cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.
The fiscal note was prepared by the Legislative Counsel Bureau pursuant to NRS 295.015

DESCRIPTION OF EFFECT
The following constitutional provisions shall supersede all conflicting Nevada law regarding eminent domain actions.
-- Transfer of land from one private party to another private party is not public use.
Before the government may occupy property, it must provide appraisals and prove the taking is for public use.
-- Property must be valued at the use which yields the highest value.
-- Just compensation is the sum of money including interest compounded annually necessary to put the owner in the same position without offsets as if the property was not taken.
-- Property taken but not used within five years for the purpose for which it was taken must be returned to the owner.
-- Fair market value is the highest price the property would bring on the open market.
-- Property owners shall not be liable for the government's attorney fees or costs.

(The following portions of the Description of Effect have been stricken to be consistent with the Nevada Supreme Court Order in Nevadans for the Protection of Property Rights, Inc. et al v. Heller et al., 122 Nev. Adv. Op. 79 (Sept. 8, 2006)):
-- Property rights are fundamental constitutional rights.
-- Government actions causing economic loss to property require the payment of just compensation.
-- Only currently elected judges may issue eminent domain decisions, and such decisions must be published to be valid.
-- In each action, the property owner may disqualify one judge at each judicial level.

Question 3 was removed.

(Nov 7) Question 4 - Second-Hand Smoke
For the November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot

Question 4 - Responsibly Protect Nevadans from Second-Hand Smoke Act

SUMMARY

The proposed amendment, if passed, would prohibit smoking tobacco at the following locations: certain indoor restaurants; certain child care facilities; elementary, secondary and high school property; hospitals and medical offices; theaters and concert halls; video arcades; government buildings; all areas within grocery stores, drug stores and convenience stores except the gaming areas; and museums, galleries, and other places of public display.

Smoking tobacco would continue to be allowed at the following locations: casinos or facilities with an unrestricted gaming license; bars, taverns, saloons; restaurants where persons under the age of 21 are not allowed; strip clubs and brothels; retail tobacco stores; private residences, including, hotel and motel rooms, and private residences that are used as office workplaces; and gaming areas within grocery stores, drug stores, convenience stores and any other businesses that hold a Nevada gaming license.

The proposed amendment would also provide that only the Nevada Legislature may regulate the smoking of tobacco.

The proposed amendment would also require "no smoking" signs to be conspicuously posted at locations where smoking tobacco is prohibited.

FISCAL NOTE
FINANCIAL IMPACT - CANNOT BE DETERMINED
Question 4 proposes to amend Chapter 202 of Nevada Revised Statutes to prohibit smoking in government buildings, schools, child care facilities, hospitals and medical offices, video arcades, indoor portions of restaurants, movie theaters, grocery stores and bakeries, retail establishments, drug and convenience stores, and museums, libraries, galleries, or other places of public display or collection. The proposed prohibition on smoking would not apply to facilities with nonrestricted gaming licenses; bars, taverns, and saloons; retail tobacco stores; strip clubs and brothels; hotel and motel rooms; and private residences, unless that private residence houses a child care facility. The proposed prohibition would also not apply to areas of businesses, such as grocery stores, drug and convenience stores, and other retail establishments, that are leased to or operated by persons licensed to provide gaming.

FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE INITIATIVE
Establishments where smoking is prohibited by Question 4 would be required to conspicuously post "No Smoking" signs at all entrances and throughout the establishment. State law currently prohibits smoking in public buildings, except in specific designated areas, and requires the posting of "No Smoking" signage in areas not designated as smoking areas. It is difficult to determine the amount of new or additional signage needed in state and local buildings, beyond those required by current statute, to comply with the provisions of Question 4. Thus, the specific financial impact to state and local governments, including school districts, with regard to the implementation of the provisions of Question 4 requiring "No Smoking" signage at all entrances and throughout public buildings cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.

The provisions of Question 4 give exclusive power over all regulations regarding the smoking of tobacco to the Nevada Legislature. Under current law, local governments are permitted to create ordinances regarding the smoking of tobacco, and to collect fines for violations of these ordinances. This provision of Question 4 would eliminate the authority of local governments to create ordinances and collect fines related to smoking. Any fines collected for the violation of regulations established by the Nevada Legislature in accordance with the provisions of Question 4 would be deposited in the State Permanent School Fund, as required under Article 11, Section 3 of the Nevada Constitution. With regard to the change of regulatory power over smoking from local governments to the Nevada Legislature, Question 4 would have a negative financial impact upon local governments and a positive financial impact upon the State Permanent School Fund. However, as it is difficult to determine the number of offenses or amount of fines that will occur as a result of the provisions of Question 4, the specific financial impact to local governments or the State Permanent School Fund cannot be reliably estimated.

Current statute requires health authorities and law enforcement agencies to enforce smoking laws within the state, but it is difficult to identify any potential increase in duties or responsibilities requiring additional resources to enforce Question 4 compared to those required by current statute. Since the need or demand for additional resources cannot be easily predicted, a reasonable estimate of the financial impact upon state and local governments with regard to enforcement of Question 4 cannot be made.

The fiscal note was prepared by the Legislative Counsel Bureau pursuant to NRS 295.015.

(Nov 7) Question 5 - Clean Indoor Air Act
For the November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot

Question 5 - Clean Indoor Air Act

SUMMARY

The proposed amendment, if passed, would prohibit smoking tobacco within indoor places of employment including the following locations: child care facilities; movie theaters; video arcades; government buildings; public places; malls; retail establishments; all parts of grocery stores; all bars with a food-handling license; and all indoor restaurants. Smoking tobacco would also be prohibited within school buildings and on school property.

Smoking tobacco would continue to be allowed at the following locations: areas within casinos where loitering by minors is prohibited; stand-alone bars, taverns and saloons; strip clubs or brothels; retail tobacco stores; and private residences, including a private residence that serves as an office workplace. A stand-alone bar, tavern or saloon means an establishment devoted primarily to the sale of alcohol, in which food service is limited to the sale of prepackaged food items that are exempt from Nevada food-handling license requirements.

The proposed amendment would also allow a county, city or town to adopt tobacco control measures stricter than those provided in the text of the Question itself.

The proposed amendment would also require "no smoking" signs to be conspicuously posted at locations where smoking tobacco is prohibited.

FISCAL NOTE
FINANCIAL IMPACT - CANNOT BE DETERMINED
Question 5 proposes to amend Chapter 202 of the Nevada Revised Statutes to prohibit smoking in government buildings, schools, and other indoor places of employment, including, but not limited to, child care facilities, video arcades, indoor portions of restaurants, movie theaters, grocery stores, malls, and other retail establishments. The proposed prohibition on smoking would not apply to areas of casinos where loitering by minors is prohibited; stand-alone bars, taverns, and saloons; retail tobacco stores; strip clubs and brothels; and private residences, unless that private residence houses a child care, adult day care, or health care facility.

FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE INITIATIVE
Establishments where smoking is prohibited by Question 5 would be required to conspicuously post "No Smoking" signs at all entrances and throughout the establishment. State law currently prohibits smoking in public buildings, except in specific designated areas, and requires the posting of "No Smoking" signage in areas not designated as smoking areas. It is difficult to determine the amount of new or additional signage needed in state and local buildings, beyond those required by current statute, to comply with the provisions of Question 5. Thus, the specific financial impact to state and local governments, including school districts, with regard to the implementation of the provisions of Question 5 requiring "No Smoking" signage at all entrances and throughout public buildings cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.

State and local governments would also be required to remove all ashtrays and other smoking paraphernalia from public buildings where smoking is prohibited. State law currently prohibits smoking in public buildings, except in specific designated areas. It is difficult to determine the amount of ashtrays or other smoking paraphernalia that may need to be removed from these designated areas in order to comply with the provisions of Question 5. Therefore, the specific financial impact to state and local governments, including school districts, with regard to the implementation of the provisions of Question 5 requiring the removal of ashtrays and other smoking paraphernalia from public buildings cannot be reliably estimated.

Current statute requires health authorities and law enforcement agencies to enforce smoking laws within the state, but it is difficult to identify any potential increase in duties or responsibilities requiring additional resources to enforce Question 5 compared to those required by current statute. Since the need or demand for additional resources cannot be easily predicted, a reasonable estimate of the financial impact upon state and local governments with regard to enforcement of Question 5 cannot be made.

The fiscal note was prepared by the Legislative Counsel Bureau pursuant to NRS 295.01.

(Nov 7) Question 6 - Minimum Wage
For the November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot

Question 6 - Raise the Minimum Wage for Working Nevadans Act

SUMMARY

The proposed amendment, if passed, would create a new section to Article 15 of the Nevada Constitution. The amendment would require employers to pay Nevada employees $5.15 per hour worked if the employer provides health benefits, or $6.15 per hour worked if the employer does not provide health benefits. The rates shall be adjusted by the amount of increases in the federal minimum wage over $5.15 per hour, or, if greater, by the cumulative increase in the cost of living measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI), with no CPI adjustment for any one-year period greater than 3%.

FISCAL NOTE
FINANCIAL IMPACT - CANNOT BE DETERMINED
Although the proposal to amend the Nevada Constitution to increase the minimum wage in Nevada could result in additional costs to Nevada's businesses, the impact on a particular business would depend on the number of employees working at a wage below the new requirement, the amount by which the wages would need to be increased and any actions taken by the business to offset any increased costs associated with the increased wage requirement.

The proposal would, however, result in beneficial financial impacts for employees who receive a wage increase as a result of the proposal and who are not impacted adversely by any actions taken by the business to offset the increased costs associated with the increased wage requirement.

In addition, if the proposal results in an increase in annual wages paid by Nevada's employers, revenues received by the State from the imposition of the Modified Business Tax would also increase.

(Nov 7) Question 7 - Regulation of Marijuana
For the November 7, 2006 General Election Ballot

Question 7 - Regulation of Marijuana

SUMMARY

The proposed amendments, if passed, would make various changes to Nevada law with respect to the possession and use of certain amounts of marijuana. The amendments would allow persons at least 21 years of age to purchase, possess, use and transport up to one ounce of marijuana.

The amendments would also require that marijuana retailers and wholesalers be licensed by the Nevada Department of Taxation. The amendments would subject the wholesale sale of marijuana to an excise tax, and would subject the retail sale of marijuana to the existing sales tax. The financial impact of license fees and excise taxes is further described in the Fiscal Note. After a deduction to defray the cost of tax collection, fifty percent of the tax revenue from the sale of marijuana would be used to fund voluntary programs for the prevention and treatment of the abuse of alcohol, tobacco, or controlled substances, and the other fifty percent would go to the state general fund.

Under the amendments, the following activities would continue to be unlawful: operation of vehicles and vessels under the influence of marijuana; possession a firearm while under the influence of marijuana; possession of marijuana by a prisoner; and possession of marijuana in a public place, correctional facility, or school.

The proposed amendments would increase the maximum prison terms and fines for violations of NRS 484.3795 (death or substantial bodily harm from driving under the influence) from 20 to 40 years imprisonment and from $5,000 to $10,000 in fines. The proposed amendments would also make it a class B felony for a person over 21 to sell or give marijuana to a minor.

The proposed amendments would have no affect on federal laws that prohibit the sale, possession, use and transport of marijuana.

FISCAL NOTE
FINANCIAL IMPACT - CANNOT BE DETERMINED
Question 7 proposes to amend the Nevada Revised Statutes to legalize and regulate the sale, possession, and use of one ounce or less of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia within the state of Nevada, by persons at least 21 years of age, under certain circumstances. Question 7 increases the criminal penalties for causing death or substantial bodily harm while driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Question 7 also provides for licensure of wholesalers and retailers of marijuana, requires the collection of state and local sales taxes on marijuana sold by retailers, and requires the Nevada Department of Taxation to collect an excise tax on marijuana sold by wholesalers.

FINANCIAL IMPACT OF QUESTION 7
State and local courts and law enforcement agencies may need additional resources or the reallocation of current resources to administer and enforce the provisions of Question 7. It is not possible to estimate the resources that may be required by state and local governments due to the legalization of marijuana under Question 7. The specific financial impact on the state or any of the various local government entities from changes in law enforcement activities and court proceedings cannot be determined with any degree of certainty.

Question 7 increases the maximum penalty for causing death or substantial bodily harm while driving under the influence from 20 years in state prison and a $5,000 fine to 40 years in state prison and a $10,000 fine. Increasing the maximum sentence that can be imposed may increase the cumulative costs associated with incarceration in state correctional facilities. Since it is difficult to predict the number of cases requiring the imposition of a sentence and the length of sentence set by judges, a specific financial impact on the state budget cannot be established.

Question 7 requires the Department of Taxation to develop and implement regulations regarding the licensing of wholesalers and retailers, and collect an annual $1,000 license fee from these entities. The Department would also be required to collect an excise tax of $45 on each ounce of marijuana sold by wholesalers licensed under Question 7. The Department would incur costs related to the development and administration of regulations regarding licensing and collection of the excise tax and license fees. This should not have a financial impact upon the state budget, as the provisions of Question 7 allow the Department to retain a portion of the proceeds sufficient to cover the administrative costs incurred by the Department as a result of these requirements.

Revenues generated from the excise tax and license fees, less the administrative costs retained by the Department of Taxation, must be deposited in the State General Fund. Question 7 requires that 50 percent of these funds be distributed to the Health Division of the Department of Human Resources for voluntary drug, alcohol, and tobacco treatment and prevention programs. Additionally, retailers would be required to collect state and local sales taxes on any marijuana sold, resulting in additional sales tax revenue for the State General Fund, local governments and school districts. The level of production and consumption of marijuana that would occur cannot be easily established. Although the taxes collected from the wholesale and retail sales of marijuana could generate additional revenue for state and local governments, including school districts, a specific dollar amount cannot be reasonably estimated.

The fiscal note was prepared by the Legislative Counsel Bureau pursuant to NRS 295.015.