Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesThese Four Initiative Petitions have been filed and signatures verified by each of the 17 counties. To qualify for the November ballot, each petition must have been signed by 10-percent of the total voters in the last general election in each of the 17 counties. Each signer must be a registered voter in that county.
They all have or are currently facing court challenges.
Property Tax Reform Initiative: The stated deadline for filing Initiative Petitions was Tuesday, May 20, 2008; however, the State Supreme Court on July 17, 2008 overturned the 2007 Legislatively set deadline of 90 + 77 days and ruled the constitutional deadline (90 days prior to the General election, plus an additional 65 days--noting the 77 days was too much--to allow time to verify signatures.) overrides that--allowing signatures for the contested Taxpayer Protection Act to be submitted up to June 17. There were the required number of valid signatures.
This Initiative is driven by former State Assemblywoman and State Senate candidate Sharon Angle and We the People.
Taxpayer Protection Act, Education Enhancement Act, Funding Nevada's Priorities Act: The State Supreme Court on August 20 will rule on an appeal to the July 2, 2008 ruling by Carson District Court Judge Todd Russell blocking the other three petitions because of problems with affidavits signed by petition circulators. A 2007 Legislative law requires circulators to sign an affidavit they personally circulated the petitions, counted signatures and observed the signing of the petitions.
These 3 are backed by Sheldon Adelson (Sands Corp) and sponsored by former State Treasurer Bob Seale and former State Controller Steve Martin.
If a petition is on the November ballot and approved by voters, it must also pass voter approval in the 2010 General Election before it can become law.
Review of pending Initiatives to be on November ballot: The Property Tax Reform Initiative for Nevada (Sharon Angle and We the People)
The Property Tax Reform Initiative for Nevada (Initiative) proposes to amend Nevada's Constitution to change how real property value is determined and establish a maximum property tax rate cap of 1 percent of the base value of the real property and cannot increase by more than 2-percent or the cost of living--whichever is less. The base value of a parcel of real property is based upon the taxable value of the property for the fiscal year 2003-2004, subject to certain exceptions and adjustments, including adjustments for allowable growth, and depending upon such factors as when the property was last sold or improvements were added. If the Initiative were implemented, the first fiscal year it could become effective is fiscal year 2011-2012 (July 1, 2011-June 30, 2012).
Example: A house has a taxable value in 2003-2004 of $147,000. The tax would be $1470 per year (1-percent) and could not increase by more than 2-percent of that number ($29.40) each year. There is additional information on www.wethepeoplenevada.org
Nevada Taxpayers Protection Act
This initiative proposes to amend Article 19 of the Nevada Constitution to require that an initiative petition that proposes, changes or repeals a statute or amends provisions of the Nevada Constitution must receive at least a two-thirds majority of affirmative votes in each required election to become law, if the proposed petition would create, generate, or increase public revenue in any form, including but not limited to taxes, fees, assessments, and rates, or increases in the computation bases for taxes, fees, assessments and rates.
The rationale behind this Petition is if it takes a 2/3 majority vote in the legislature to raise taxes, fees, assessments, etc., an entity should not be able to skirt that by getting a new law passed that would allow a simple majority vote of the people to increase taxes, fees, assessments, etc.
Education Enhancement Act
This initiative proposes to amend Article 11 of the Nevada Constitution to provide an additional funding source for Nevada's Distributive School Account. It would require a County Fair & Recreation Board in a County whose population is 800,000 or more (Currently, this would require only the LV convention and Visitor's Authority) to transfer any portion of the proceeds from a County or City license fee or license tax that exceeds the amount collected for or by the Board during Fiscal Year 2006-07 to the State Treasurer, for credit to the State Distributive School Account. The revenue threshold set forth in the Initiative is to be adjusted annually for changes in inflation and deflation.
Funding Nevada's Priorities Act
This Initiative proposes to Amend Article 10 of the Nevada Constitution to provide an additional funding source for elementary and secondary education, public safety and transportation needs in Nevada. The Initiative requires the County Fair and Recreation Board in a County whose population is 800,000 or more (Currently, this would require only the LV Convention and Visitors Authority) to transfer any portion of the proceeds from a County or City license fee or license tax that exceeds the amount collected for or by the Board during Fiscal Year 2006-07 to the State Treasurer. The revenue threshold set forth in the Initiative is to be adjusted annually for changes in inflation and deflation. The Initiative requires the State Treasurer distribute any excess proceeds as follows:
* One third of the proceeds must be credited to the Nevada Public Safety Fund, established by this Initiative for the purpose of enhancing public safety, including expenditures for law enforcement, homeland security, fire protection or corrections, and grants to local police departments, fire departments or sheriff's offices for similar purposes;
* One third of the proceeds must be credited to the State Distributive School Account for elementary and secondary education funding;
* One third of the proceeds must be credited to the State Highway Fund for transportation purposes.
The Education Enhancement Act and the Funding Nevada Priorities Act are similar in that the funding will come from the same source; however, the proposed distribution of that funding is different. If both are approved by voters, the one receiving the most votes would become law.
2006 Eminent Domain--Qualified for the 2008 General Election Ballot by being approved in the 2006 General Election by 63.1-percent of the voters. If approved in 2008, it will become law.
This Initiative 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 property 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 the 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 has 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 (5) years, the original property owner would be able to reclaim the property upon repayment of the original purchase price.
FEED