LOSING INITIATIVE GROUPS PONDER THE FUTURE

Two weeks removed from a crushing Election Day, Billy Rogers sounds
surprisingly upbeat as he talks about the failure of Question 9.

"I think we got ahead of a tidal wave," says the leader of Nevadans for
Responsible Law Enforcement, the group behind the question that would have
legalized adult possession of up to three ounces of marijuana.

He says he's been studying the election statistics, and he's stunned at
what was an amazing Republican turnout. He says some Republican-leaning
precincts in Jon Porter's congressional district saw 80 percent turnout,
while many of Shelley Berkley's Democratic-leaning precincts saw only 45
percent turnout.

He points out that Berkley was fortunate in a sense; while she won by 11
percentage points, Dario Herrera - who lost by 19 percentage points - got
2,000 more votes than Berkley, illustrating how well Porter's campaign did
at getting his conservative supporters to the polls.

Rogers also points out that the top vote-earning statewide Democratic
candidate, Erin Kenny, got 41.5 percent of the vote, which is 5 percentage
points less than what the best Democrat got in his home state of Texas.

"If you'd have told me that Nevada would be 5 percent more Republican than
Texas, I'd have told you that you were crazy," says Rogers.

In other words: 39 percent of the vote, considering the conservative tidal
wave that hit Nevada (and much of the rest of the country) this year, isn't
too bad.

And that begs the question: Is this the end of NRLE, or will the folks
behind Question 9 stick around for a while?

Rogers says he isn't sure, but he does relate this story: On Election Day,
after Question 9's defeat was secured, someone from Nevadans Against
Legalizing Marijuana - the group formed to fight Rogers and his group's
efforts - made a joke about giving Rogers a one-way plane ticket back to
Austin.

"I am certainly tempted to say, 'Take that plane ticket and shove it up
your ass,'" Rogers says.

In other words: This may not be the end of NRLE. As a matter of fact,
Rogers says he hopes it is not.

"Ultimately, you have to be able to fund an organization," Rogers says.
"Hopefully, we'll continue to maintain an organization here in Nevada."

Where would that funding come from? Considering that the vast majority of
NRLE's money came from the Washington, D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project,
the decision probably lies with that organization.

The way Rogers speaks - while he makes it clear that things are still up in
the air - it sounds like this: If NRLE doesn't remain, some form of it may
return in the future.

"There are issues around the edges where we clearly had public support," he
says. "Most people just don't think that people should be arrested for
having small amounts of marijuana."

He also said that even NRLE's strongest opponents conceded there are flaws
in Nevada's medical marijuana distribution system.

And therefore, what Rogers, the MPP and NRLE have to decide is: Was this
Republican storm a fluke? Will the atypical Republican turnout (Rogers says
the GOP voted in numbers like it was a presidential election, while
Democrats voted in numbers typical for a midterm election) reoccur without
Question 2 on the ballot in two years?

He says a lot of it depends on the presidential race. If George W. Bush is
headed for a 1984-type Republican romp, then conservatives will rule the
day. But if it's a repeat of 1992, then who knows?

"Nobody knows what the election is going to look like in 2004."

In other words: Stay tuned.

Equal Rights Nevada

NRLE has an unsure future, even in terms of its existence. In contrast,
Equal Rights Nevada - the group that formed in 2000 to fight Question 2 -
is almost guaranteed to stay around in some form.

But that's all that's certain. According to Executive Director Richard
Schlegel, much is to be decided at ERN's December meeting, when a new board
will be elected - and the fate of the group's three employees, Schlegel
included, will be decided.

"This is an opportunity to talk with our membership about the organization
and find out what they want," says Schlegel. "Since we've been focused on
Question 2 [since the beginning], this will let us redefine why Equal
Rights Nevada exists."

Schlegel said it's clear that the group will lobby at the 2003 Legislature
to get more legal privileges for gay and lesbian couples. He says that even
though Question 2 passed so overwhelmingly, and even though Nevada's
legislators are more conservative than before, he has high hopes for
legislative efforts.

"Regardless of party, we can at least be confident that Republicans can
make a distinction between the two issues [of defining marriage and legal
rights for couples]," he says

He adds that the group needs to build its membership and its fund-raising
efforts. After all, the folks behind the Coalition for the Protection of
Marriage aren't going away - and they remain a force to be reckoned with.