Pubdate: Thu, 06 Jan 2005
Source: Reno News & Review (NV)
Copyright: 2005, Chico Community Publishing, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.newsreview.com/issues/reno/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2524
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/decrim.htm (Decrim/Legalization)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topics/marijuana+initiative
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/pot.htm (Cannabis)

THE BALL'S IN THE COURT'S COURT

There can be little doubt that Nevada's secretary of state and
attorney general recently raised questions about the fairness of laws
regulating citizens' initiatives and referenda.

The attorney general's office last month issued an opinion that
disqualified three initiative petitions--Nevada Clean Air Act,
Regulation of Marijuana and Responsibly Protect Nevadans from Second
Hand Smoke Act--due to a lack of sufficient valid signatures.

The problem is that signature gatherers were told by official sources
they had to collect a certain number of signatures in order to
qualify, but, after the signatures were submitted, the number was
increased, thus voiding the efforts of collectors and disenfranchising
voters who signed the petitions.

The problem is deceptively simple. The Nevada Constitution requires
that the signature gatherers collect signatures equaling 10 percent of
the voters who voted in the entire state at the last preceding general
election. The petitions were filed and registered well before the 2004
election. In this instance, logic would appear to suggest the groups
would have to gather at least 51,337 signatures--10 percent of the
number of voters who went to the polls in the 2002 election. The 2004
election totals hadn't yet been certified, but on Nov. 2, the date of
the "last preceding general election" changed, becoming Nov. 2, 2004,
and requiring 83,156 signatures.

There is no reason for believing that there was some kind of collusion
between the attorney general's office and the office of the secretary
of state to disqualify those petitions. There does seem, though, to
have been a certain incompetence on the part of the elections division
not to have foreseen the predicament, and for government employees to
offer incorrect and uninformed advice on the totals required for
success can only be described as negligent.

Secretary of State Dean Heller is in an unfortunate position, as is
Attorney General Brian Sandoval. While the interpretation of the
Nevada Constitution fell to the AG, Heller gets to be the person who
disqualified the petitions.

"As I have stated before, I do not believe that Nevada's Constitution
is a fast-food menu that I, as a duly elected and sworn constitutional
officer, should pick and choose which areas to abide by and which
areas to interpret," Heller was quoted in a press release that
described how the interpretation was submitted back to the AG's office
for reconsideration. "Further, the Attorney General's office is by
statute the legal counsel to this office, and to not follow their
legal guidance would open this office and the State to
litigation."

Well, it's pretty obvious that either decision was going to land
Heller and Sandoval in court. In fact, it did. It can only be hoped
that the courts will look beyond the state's interpretation to the
spirit of the law--a fair method for citizens to redress grievances
with their government.

Sometimes, legal justice requires a look beyond black-and-white words
on paper, and when citizens operate under the directions of
authoritative sources, sources who've sworn to uphold the Nevada
Constitution, they have no choice but to assume those words are law,
and the advice they received is accurate. 
- ---
MAP posted-by: Richard Lake