JUST THINK

There is little doubt that the original intent of Nevada's initiatives
and referendum process has been perverted by politicians and monied
interests.

This process was created in the first half of the 20th century to help
common citizens reform their government, which at that time was
characterized by corruption, business influence and cronyism.

Last week, as outlined in our news story ("Just say no," Jan. 26), the
Nevada Taxpayers Association found technical problems with the
language of some of the initiatives for November's election and has
taken a stand on the broader issue of over-use of these processes.

"[T]he right of initiative process that is available to the residents
of the Silver State is a right that should be used judiciously," wrote
NTA president Fred Gibson.

OK, that's fine. We're in agreement there. Where we part company is in
how the problem should be addressed. Groups like the NTA would see the
tendency "adjusted" by having voters vote against referendums and
initiatives that come up on the ballot.

That seems to suggest voters don't have the intelligence to discern
good measures from bad measures. It's a stickier problem than that
and, unfortunately, will require further government intervention into
what is supposed to be a citizens' process.

First, since politicians who have been unable to work with other
elected officials to get their legislation passed are leading
subverters of these progressive laws, those politicians' ability to
promote agendas outside the lawmaking process should be lessened or
eliminated. For example, Bob Beers is running for governor, and
Sharron Angle is running for the U.S. House. Both are promoting
initiative petitions that are being used to advance the politicians'
aspirations for higher office. But each had the opportunity to espouse
their laws in front of the Nevada Legislature and failed. The
referenda and initiative petition laws should be modified to prevent
seated or campaigning politicians from using them.

The other underminers of these citizen processes are corporations both
inside and outside the state.

Doesn't it seem as though citizen initiatives should be primarily
sponsored by, well, citizens? Shouldn't it be real human individuals
who actually attempt to change the status quo in Nevada? One of the
initiatives already on next November's ballot was designed by gambling
interests to confuse voters and prevent them from understanding
another bill put forth by the American Lung Association. Transparent
funding and limits on amounts that can be donated by corporations and
nonprofits would help reduce the number of citizens' initiatives that
don't have real citizens' backing and interest.

Finally, it seems reasonable that laws that will define how our
state's citizens live should come from within the state, and a large
percentage of money funding those initiatives should come from within
the state. For example, for several election cycles now, we've had
various marijuana initiatives promoted and funded by out-of-state
interests. This election, a petition is being circulated proposing to
make hemp legal again in Nevada (for energy producing purposes). It's
sponsored by Reno college student Kathryn Whitman. Has an authentic
and reasonable citizen action been marred by the efforts of
out-of-staters to bust the national marijuana prohibition by using
Nevada as an example? Maybe, maybe not. But out-of-state money should
be prevented from having major influence on Nevada law.