DIFFERENT LIPSTICK, SAME OLD PIG

State Initiative Petition Rules Face Lawsuit

Prior to 2004, Nevadans wishing to qualify an initiative petition for
a statewide ballot were required by state law to gather signatures in
at least 13 of Nevada's 17 counties.

At that point, however, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals --
which has jurisdiction over Nevada -- threw out similar rules in
Idaho, ruling in a case there that the system violated the principle
of "one man, one vote."

In essence, the appeals court ruled that residents of thinly
populated counties had been given an improper veto power over the
will of the vast majority of a state's residents who might live in
urban areas. It wouldn't matter if virtually every resident of Clark
and Washoe counties wanted a question put to a vote (for instance); a
few ranchers in a cow county could veto the will of the majority
simply by refusing to sign.

Those seeking to qualify initiatives for the Nevada ballot welcomed
the change, since dispatching petition-gatherers to the lonely
crossroads of Mina, Ruth and Austin could be both expensive and time-consuming.

But state Sen. Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora, and others expressed
concerns that the change bypassed the rural counties, making hem
irrelevant. So last year Sen. Rhoads convinced his fellow legislators
to enact a new law, requiring ballot qualifying signatures to be
gathered not merely in 13, but in every Nevada county.

Under a complex formula, any petition would now require 40,364 Clark
County signatures to qualify for the statewide ballot -- but also 123
signatures in sparsely settled Lincoln County.

"They've just put a different shade of lipstick on the same old pig,"
objects Neal Levine, director of state campaigns for the Marijuana
Policy Project, which has placed questions on the Nevada ballot in
the past and plans to do so again. "It's an antidemocratic move
designed to take a voice away from the people."

Nevada attorney Kermitt Waters, who helped finance the successful
petition drive to limit government abuses of eminent domain and who
plans additional future initiatives to raise the gaming tax and
eliminate the property tax on private homes, agrees that the main
thrust of the law is to make it more expensive and difficult to
qualify questions for the ballot.

"The power brokers who run the state don't want initiatives from the
people," Mr. Waters says.

So Thursday, Mr. Waters, the Marijuana Policy Project, and the ACLU
joined in a federal lawsuit seeking to toss out this latest version
of the "must petition in the cow counties" rule.

Since essentially the same question was already settled in the Idaho
case. ACLU general counsel Allen Lichtenstein says he expects the
court to "resolve the matter quite quickly."

As it should.

State Sen. Rhoads may be sincere in his desire to see residents of
the rural counties consulted in such decisions, but that doesn't
change the fact that the courts have already ruled on this question,
and ruled correctly.

No, our system of government was never meant to be a pure democracy.
There are questions that should never be decided by majority vote --
proposals to infringe basic constitutional rights come to mind.

The courts can and do toss out such unwise proposals before they ever
come to a vote.

Nor should our government ever be primarily by direct ballot
question. Erecting some modest hurdles to keep scores of frivolous
questions from casual placement on the ballot makes sense.

But the direct citizen initiative is a wise safety valve for a
populace that finds its will being stymied by barnacle-encrusted
lawmakers too long beholden to the well-padded special interests.
That a measure desired by a vast majority of Nevadans should fail for
lack of time and funds to locate a few dozen signatories among the
miners of Silverpeak or out on the blustery range of McGill or
Duckwater is just plain goofy.