THE STATE BALLOT QUESTIONS

Ten Issues To Consider In The Voting Booth.

Nevada voters will pass judgment on 10 statewide ballot questions this
election, dealing with matters that range from the irrelevant to the
significant.

Undoubtedly the most controversial measure confronting residents is
Question 9: "Should the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow the
possession and use of (marijuana) for the treatment or alleviation of
certain illnesses upon advice of a physician, to require parental
consent for such use by minors, and to authorize appropriate methods
of supply to patients authorized to use it?"

Critics argue this is a back-door effort to legalize drugs, and there
can be little doubt that many of who backed similar measures in
California and Arizona also advocate the widespread liberalization --
if not the abolishment -- of many drug laws. But the motivation of a
handful of initiative supporters should not obscure the specific issue
at hand; besides, without a sudden widespread shift in public opinion,
fears that this measure represents a foot in the door to full-blown
drug legalization remain wildly overblown.

In reality, the measure is carefully tailored and would tightly
regulate the distribution of marijuana to sick Nevadans whose medical
doctors believe the drug could be of use to alleviate nausea
associated with chemotherapy or to treat diseases such as glaucoma.
With the proper safeguards, the measure represents a compassionate
effort to give doctors one more tool to treat the ill. Vote yes on
Question 9.

The remaining statewide questions, all but one of which (Question 17)
originated in the Legislature:

- -- Question 1 would amend the state constitution to implement a
mechanism for resolving conflicts should two contradictory
constitutional amendments or state laws be approved by voters during
the same election. This has not been a problem in the past, but as the
state continues to grow -- and more items are put on the ballot
through the initiative process -- the potential does exist for
difficulty. It just makes sense to address this issue before the fact,
not after. Vote yes on Question 1.

- -- Question 2 alters the provisions governing the Judicial Discipline
Commission. Currently the Nevada Supreme Court enjoys sole authority
over the commission, but this measure would allow the Legislature to
set standards regarding the confidentiality of proceedings and the
discipline that may be imposed. In addition the commission itself
would have a hand in adopting its own rules of procedure and members
of the commission could initiate an investigation even without a
formal complaint from a member of the public.

Critics see the measure as a violation of the constitutional doctrines
concerning separation of powers because lawmakers would have some
input in the process. That's a stretch. In reality, the question -- in
addition to improving the accountability of the judicial discipline
process -- actually strengthens adherence to the constitutional
principle of the balancing powers between the branches of government.
Vote yes on Question 2.

- -- Question 3, which bears little relevance to Clark County, would
allow the Legislature to designate locations in rural counties other
than the county seat at which a District Court could be convened. This
measure is aimed specifically at alleviating the inconvenience of
Pahrump residents, who must travel 165 miles to the Nye County seat in
Tonopah to attend District Court. It seems a reasonable proposition to
allow Nye County to hold District Court hearings when deemed necessary
in the county's largest city. Vote yes on Question 3.

- -- Question 4 urges the Legislature to designate the last Friday in
October as the legal holiday for observing Nevada Day, which now takes
place each Oct. 31. There is no compelling reason to make this change.
Vote no on Question 4.

- -- Question 5 limits the length of Nevada's regular, biennial
legislative session to 120 days. The amount of dithering that goes on
in Carson City would shock even the most cynical government observer.
This measure would force lawmakers to act more efficiently and to
prioritize the business of the state. Vote yes on Question 5.

- -- Question 6 authorizes the Legislature to craft a tax break for
those whose property is developed "in a manner that conserves water."
While well-intentioned, this is another example of the tax code being
used as a social engineering mechanism to reward and punish behavior.
A fair tax code should be neutral, not cluttered with exemptions and
loopholes. Setting water rates to encourage conservation is the
preferable way to go. Vote no on 6.

- -- Question 7 would force government entities that sell goods to the
public -- municipal golf courses or state-owned museums, for instance
- -- to charge the sales tax. Currently, they may sell items tax-free,
prompting private businesses in competition with them to complain they
are at a disadvantage given they must impose the tax. This is a matter
of basic fairness. Vote yes on Question 7.

- -- Question 8 would amend the state constitution to replace the
lieutenant governor as president of the state Senate -- who is
responsible for breaking ties -- with a senator elected by the Senate.
What's the point? The lieutenant governor doesn't do much anyway; why
take away his one real duty and not abolish the office altogether?
Vote no on Question 8.

- -- Question 17 (designated such because of its location on the 1996
ballot) deals with term limits. It is an effort to force Congress to
pass a constitutional amendment limiting the terms of U.S. senators
and representatives, a push born of the Supreme Court's decision that
such state-imposed restrictions are illegal. The measure passed easily
in 1996 but, like all initiatives that would amend the state
constitution, must be approved twice by voters before becoming law.
Vote yes on Question 17.

Checked-by: Patrick Henry