Elko County - 3293 Final Female · 2019. 6. 10. · elko county, nevada sample ballot and voter...

ELKOELKOCOUNTY,COUNTY,NEVADANEVADASAMPLE BALLOT

and Voter Information Pamphlet

GENERAL ELECTIONTuesday, November 2, 2010

POLLS OPEN ON ELECTION DAY7 A.M. AND CLOSE AT 7 P.M.

THE LOCATION OF YOUR POLLING PLACE IS SHOWNON THE LABEL ON THE BACK COVER.

SAVE THIS SAMPLE BALLOT TO HELP YOU LOCATEYOUR POLLING PLACE ON ELECTION DAY!

Compiled and Distributed by

WIN SMITH, ELKO COUNTY CLERK

VOTE

NOTICEYour pollingplace may havebeen changed!See back coverfor polling placelocation.

Bal

lot

Sty

le G

6

2010 GENERAL ELECTIONTuesday, November 2, 2010Vote at your polling place on Election Day.

7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

IMPORTANT: Your Polling Place may have changed since the last election. See your Polling Location on the back of this booklet.

OR

Vote EarlyAt the Elko Convention Center

700 Moren Way

October 16–29, 2010

EARLY VOTING SCHEDULE:Saturday, October 1610 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Monday–Friday, October 18–October 228 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Saturday, October 2310 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Monday–Thursday, October 25–October 288 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Nevada Day, Friday, October 29, 201010 a.m. to 2 p.m.

Early voting schedule for West Wendover, Wells, and Carlin on page 21.

For your voting convenience, REVIEW and MARK your sampleballot. Bring it to the Polls when you vote.

If you would like an Absent Ballot, submit your request in writing to theClerk’s Office no later than Tuesday, October 26.

ABSENT BALLOTS MUST BE RETURNED TO THE CLERK’SOFFICE BY 7 P.M. ON ELECTION DAY.

1

GENERAL INFORMATION

If you need to contact the Election DepartmentCall: (775) 753-4600Fax: (775) 753-4610

Website: www.elkocountynv.net

Office Location: 571 Idaho Street, Third FloorElko, Nevada 89801

REVIEWING YOUR BALLOT: Each voting machine will allow you to review yourballot before printing. After you have reviewed your ballot on the screen, printa paper record of your selections. You can review your selections to ensure youhave not made a mistake before casting your ballot. If you note a mistake, youcan ‘‘make changes’’ and it will return you to the ballot screen. Another recordof your selections will print out to review before casting your ballot. Once youcast your ballot, the paper printout will scroll out of view and the machine willbe ready for the next voter. Return your VOTER CARD to the Election Workerbefore leaving the polling place.

IDENTIFICATION MAY BE REQUIRED if you registered to vote by mail or didnot provide an ID at the time of registering. Proof of identity and residence maybe required before your ballot is counted.

ASSISTANCE WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR VOTERS IF NEEDED. Ask anElection Worker for assistance:

• If you need help reading the ballot or operating the voting machine.• If you think you have received an incorrect ballot style. Do not cast the ballot.

Every polling place has a voting machine that can enlarge the screen on the vot-ing machine, print the voter-verifiable paper trail in extra large font, supportaudio voting and support ‘‘sip and puff’’ technology.

Reasonable accommodations will be made to help any voter requesting assis-tance at a polling place. (NRS 293.565(8))

WARNING: A person who is entitled to vote shall not vote or attempt to votemore than once in the same election. Any person who votes or attempts to votetwice at the same election is guilty of a Category D Felony and shall be punishedas provided in NRS 193.130. (NRS 293.780)

BRING YOUR SAMPLE BALLOT WHEN YOU GO TO THE POLLS TO VOTE.

INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERSREACH OUT & VOTE

.

.

Voting Instructions Per NRS 293B.200

3

FEDERAL PARTISAN OFFICES STATEWIDE PARTISAN OFFICES

ANGLE, SHARRON ORepublican

ASHJIAN, SCOTT OTea Party of Nevada

FASANO, TIM OIndependent American Party

HAINES, MICHAEL L. OIndependent

HOLLAND, JESSE OIndependent

REEVES, JEFFREY C. OIndependent

REID, HARRY ODemocrat

STAND, WIL OIndependent

NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES O

UNITED STATES SENATORSix (6) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

CURTIS, DAVID SCOTT OGreen

DISIMONE, EUGENE ‘‘GINO’’ OIndependent

FITZGIBBONS, FLOYD OIndependent American Party

HONIG, AARON Y. OIndependent

LAMPITT, JR., ARTHUR FOREST OLibertarian

REID, RORY ODemocrat

SANDOVAL, BRIAN ORepublican


GOVERNORFour (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

FITZGIBBONS, RYAN OIndependent American Party

KROLICKI, BRIAN K. ORepublican

SFERRAZZA, JESSICA ODemocrat


LIEUTENANT GOVERNORFour (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

BEST, RUSSELL OIndependent American Party

HELLER, DEAN ORepublican

PRICE, NANCY ODemocrat

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE INCONGRESSDISTRICT 2

Two (2) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

STATE TREASURERFour (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

4

STATEWIDE PARTISAN OFFICES, CONTINUED

COUNTY PARTISAN OFFICES

LAUER, ROB ORepublican

MILLER, ROSS ODemocrat

WAGNER, JOHN OIndependent American Party


SECRETARY OF STATEFour (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

HAWKINS, MIKE OIndependent American Party

MARSHALL, KATE ODemocrat

MARTIN, STEVEN E. ORepublican


HERR, BARRY ORepublican

MARKOWITZ, WARREN OIndependent American Party

WALLIN, KIM R. ODemocrat


STATE CONTROLLERFour (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

BARRICK, TRAVIS ORepublican

CORTEZ MASTO, CATHERINE ODemocrat

HANSEN, JOEL F. OIndependent American Party


ATTORNEY GENERALFour (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

RUSSELL, KATRINKA S. ORepublican

SMITH, MICHAEL LEE OIndependent American Party

ASSESSORFour (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

STATE DISTRICTPARTISAN OFFICE

ELLISON, JOHN ORepublican

HANSEN, JANINE OIndependent American Party

MCFARLANE, MICHAEL ODemocrat

STATE ASSEMBLY, DISTRICT 33Two (2) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

5

COUNTY PARTISAN OFFICES, CONTINUED

FOSMO, CAROL ORepublican

MCKNIGHT, WILLIAM R. OIndependent American Party

CLERKFour (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

EVERHART, JOHN OIndependent American Party

MYERS, CHARLIE ORepublican

COUNTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT 2Four (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

ROACH, NATALIE ORepublican

SMALES, D. MIKE ORepublican

RECORDERFour (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

KING, ALLISON OIndependent American Party

WILLIAMS, R. JEFF ORepublican

COUNTY COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT 4Four (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

TORVINEN, MARK ORepublican

DISTRICT ATTORNEYFour (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

JENKINS, JANYCE E. ORepublican

JENKINS, KAY DAWN OIndependent American Party

PUBLIC ADMINISTRATORFour (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

ERICKSON, REBECCA ‘‘BECKY’’ ORepublican

TREASURERFour (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

PARRAGUIRRE, RONALD D. ONonpartisan


SUPREME COURT JUSTICESEAT E

Six (6) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

HARDESTY, JAMES W. ONonpartisan


SUPREME COURT JUSTICESEAT A


STATEWIDENONPARTISAN OFFICES

6

COUNTYNONPARTISAN OFFICE

PITTS, JAMES ONonpartisan

WELLINGTON, KEN ONonpartisan

SHERIFFFour (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE

MELCHER, KEVIN C. ONonpartisan

PUCCINELLI, MARGARET ONonpartisan

UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTSDISTRICT 8


STATE DISTRICTNONPARTISAN OFFICE

BELLIO, BETH ONonpartisan

BRIGGS, ROY ONonpartisan

CARTER, EMILY ONonpartisan

CARTER, JIMMY D. ONonpartisan

CHRISTIE, JAMEY ONonpartisan

GUTIERREZ, IZZY ONonpartisan

LACOMBE, JR., BUDDY ONonpartisan

PEREIRA, TONY ONonpartisan

RODD, PAUL ONonpartisan

ROWLEY II, ALAN ONonpartisan

WEYLAND, SCOTT G. ONonpartisan

COUNCIL MEMBERSEATS 1, 2, 5

Four (4) Year TermVOTE FOR THREE

CITY OF WEST WENDOVERNONPARTISAN OFFICE

QUESTION NO. 3

Amendment to the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955

Assembly Bill 403 of the 75th Session

CONDENSATION (ballot question)

Shall the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 beamended to authorize the Legislature to amendor repeal any provision of this Act only if neces-sary to resolve a conflict with any federal law orinterstate agreement for the administration, col-lection, or enforcement of sales and use taxes?

YES ONO O

QUESTION NO. 1

Amendment to the Nevada Constitution

Senate Joint Resolution No. 2 of the74th Session


Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended toprovide for the appointment of Supreme Courtjustices and District Court judges by theGovernor for their initial terms from lists of can-didates nominated by the Commission onJudicial Selection, with subsequent retention ofthose justices and judges after independent per-formance evaluations and voter approval?

YES ONO O

7

QUESTION NO. 2


Senate Joint Resolution No. 9 of the74th Session


Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended toallow for the establishment of an intermediateappellate court, that would have jurisdiction overappeals of certain civil and criminal cases arisingfrom the district courts?

YES ONO O

QUESTION NO. 4


Assembly Joint Resolution No. 3 of the74th Session


Shall Article 1, Section 22 of the NevadaConstitution be repealed and shall Article 1,Section 8 of the Nevada Constitution be amend-ed to revise provisions relating to eminentdomain proceedings?

YES ONO O

STATEWIDE BALLOT QUESTIONS

8

ELKO COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTCAPITAL PROJECTS TAX PROPOSAL

Shall the Elko County School District be author-ized to continue to levy a property tax of 75 centsper $100 assessed valuation previously author-ized for School District capital projects for a peri-od of 10 years commencing July 1, 2012?

YES ONO O

LOCAL REVENUE ADVISORYQUESTION

Shall the consent of the governing body of thelocal government be required before the StateLegislature can act to decrease revenues orreserves collected by, distributed to, or held bythe local government, or impose fees on or man-date new or different services be performed bythe local government?

YES ONO O

COUNTY BALLOT QUESTIONS

QUESTION NO. 1


Senate Joint Resolution No. 2 of the 74th Session

CONDENSATION (Ballot Question)Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to provide for the appointment of Supreme Courtjustices and District Court judges by the Governor for their initial terms from lists of candi-dates nominated by the Commission on Judicial Selection, with subsequent retention of thosejustices and judges after independent performance evaluations and voter approval?

■ Yes � ■ No �

EXPLANATION

Currently, the Nevada Constitution provides for the election of Supreme Court justices andDistrict Court judges in Nevada to 6-year terms. When a vacancy occurs between elections, theGovernor appoints a justice or judge from a list of candidates recommended by the Commissionon Judicial Selection. The Commission consists of the Chief Justice of the Nevada SupremeCourt and equal numbers of attorneys and non-attorneys.

The proposed amendment to the Nevada Constitution would provide for the initial appointmentof all Supreme Court justices and District Court judges through the same process currently usedto fill midterm vacancies. When any vacancy occurs, the Commission on Judicial Selectionwould nominate a list of candidates based on their experience and qualifications, and providethe nominees’ names to the Governor and the public. The Governor would then appoint one ofthe nominees. After being appointed by the Governor, justices and judges will initially serveterms that expire in January following the next general election which occurs at least 12 monthsafter appointment.

Justices and judges seeking another term would be evaluated based on their record by the newlycreated Commission on Judicial Performance, which would consist of the Chief Justice of theNevada Supreme Court and equal numbers of attorneys and non-attorneys. A summary of theCommission’s evaluation would be made available to the public at least 6 weeks before the gen-eral election. The names of all justices and judges seeking another term would appear on theballot, and voters would decide whether justices and judges should serve another term. Justicesand judges need 55 percent of the vote to be retained. If retained by the voters, a justice orjudge will serve a 6-year term and will be subject to another evaluation and election at the endof each subsequent 6-year term if he or she wishes to serve another term. If a justice or judgedoes not declare his or her candidacy or receives less than 55 percent of the votes cast at theelection, the vacancy is again filled through the appointment process.

This question also increases the number of members on the Commission on Judicial Selectionby adding an additional attorney and a non-attorney and provides for the membership of thenew Commission on Judicial Performance.

A “Yes” vote would amend the language in the Nevada Constitution to allow for theappointment of Supreme Court justices and District Court judges by the Governor fortheir initial terms from lists of candidates nominated by the Commission on Judicial

9

Selection, with subsequent retention of those justices and judges after independent per-formance evaluations by the Commission on Judicial Performance and voter approval.

A “No” vote would retain the existing language in the Nevada Constitution that SupremeCourt justices and District Court judges in Nevada must be elected except for those whoare first appointed to fill vacancies and then stand for election.

ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE

A fair and independent judiciary is essential to maintaining the public trust and confidence inNevada’s court system and preserving the rights of all citizens. Justices and judges are notintended to be politicians, yet they are required to campaign and engage in fundraising. Theextent to which they are able to impartially interpret and apply laws depends upon their abili-ty to remain free from political pressure and outside influence from campaign contributors.In recent years, judicial campaigns have been characterized by increased fundraising and spend-ing. Thus, elections may be based on a candidate’s ability to raise funds rather than the mer-its of the candidate’s legal career or judicial performance.

Justices and judges in the State of Nevada are allowed to solicit money directly from campaigncontributors and are not required to recuse themselves or give notice when a campaign con-tributor appears before them in court. Typical contributors to judicial campaigns include attor-neys, law firms, litigants, potential litigants, and special interest groups who may have pendinglegal cases. In addition, justices and judges who are subject to political campaigns cannot focustheir full attention on their judicial responsibilities.

The appointment and retention of justices and judges based on merit rather than the ability tomount a successful political campaign would remove them from partisan politics while main-taining the people’s ability to vote whether to retain or remove a justice or judge. Further, meritselection will give full consideration to the ability, character, and qualifications of a judicialcandidate before his or her name is placed on the ballot for retention, and will allow voters tofocus on the candidate’s judicial record when casting their ballots.

At present, several states across the nation have adopted a nominating plan like this one for theappointment of judges to initial terms on the bench, and many also hold retention elections atthe expiration of a judge’s term.

In 1976, the people of Nevada approved an amendment to the Nevada Constitution that pro-vides for the Commission on Judicial Selection to make recommendations for filling midtermvacancies at the Supreme Court and District Court levels. Thus, appointments to the bench arenot new in Nevada and already involve a rigorous selection process based on merit.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE

The ability of the public to elect justices and judges in Nevada is an important aspect of democ-racy. Providing that candidates for justice or judge must be nominated by the Commission onJudicial Selection and appointed by the Governor does not ensure judicial competence andintegrity. Passage of this question would eliminate the right of voters to initially elect justicesand judges.Appointment removes an essential level of public scrutiny and is an undemocratic way to selectjustices and judges that ignores the will of the people. This question assumes an uninformedelectorate and presumes that a select group of individuals are better qualified to choose those

10

who will sit on the bench. It also promotes a system in which those in the legal profession canrecommend colleagues to the highest positions of the judicial branch. Qualified candidates maybe excluded from consideration by the Commission on Judicial Selection for arbitrary reasons.Similarly, justices and judges may be unfairly evaluated by the Commission on JudicialPerformance.

This question will not eliminate the potential for judicial corruption and political influence.Several states have addressed this concern in other ways. For example, some states prohibit judi-cial candidates from accepting campaign contributions and others require recusal from cases inwhich a party or their attorneys have contributed to the justice’s or judge’s campaign. Thesealternatives would solve the problem of political campaigning and fundraising without eliminat-ing the right of the people to elect their judiciary. Finally, Rule 4.2 of the Nevada Code ofJudicial Conduct currently provides that justices and judges cannot raise campaign funds if theyrun for election unopposed.

FISCAL NOTE

Financial Impact – Cannot Be Determined

The provisions of this question would amend Article 6, Section 20 of the Nevada Constitutionto increase the membership on the Commission on Judicial Selection from seven to nine mem-bers, and require that the Commission select three nominees for a vacancy occurring for anyreason in the Supreme Court or the District Courts throughout the State. Based on informationprovided by the Administrative Office of the Courts, enactment of these provisions wouldincrease the workload of the Commission, requiring additional meeting preparation, travelexpenses, room rental, and staff costs for each meeting of the Commission necessary to createthe list of candidates for a judicial vacancy, thereby resulting in a financial impact upon theState. However, the timing and frequency of future vacancies that would require meetings of theCommission is not known, and the number of meetings that would be necessary to fill anyvacancy on the Supreme Court or in a District Court cannot be determined. Thus, the actualfinancial effect upon the State cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of certainty.

The provisions of this question would also amend Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution byadding a new section, designated Section 22, which would create a Commission on JudicialPerformance as a new entity responsible for evaluating any Supreme Court Justice or DistrictCourt judge who wishes to seek another term through a retention election. Based on informa-tion received by the Administrative Office of the Courts, enactment of these provisions wouldrequire the Commission on Judicial Performance to develop and implement specific evaluationcriteria to be used by the Commission to perform its specified duties. However, the specificevaluation criteria that will be established for use by the Commission and the number of judgesand justices who may wish to seek retention, if this question is approved, cannot be determined.Thus, the specific financial impact upon the State or local government or upon individual tax-payers cannot be determined at this time.

Under current law, justices of the Nevada Supreme Court and judges of the District Courts ofthe State are elected by popular vote at a general or special election. The provisions of the con-stitutional amendment would eliminate the election of Supreme Court justices and DistrictCourt judges when there is a vacancy and would require retention elections for any judge orjustice who wishes to retain his or her seat for another term. Based on information receivedfrom the Office of the Secretary of State, these provisions would have no financial impact uponthe State or local government.

11

QUESTION NO. 2


Senate Joint Resolution No. 9 of the 74th Session

CONDENSATION (Ballot Question)Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allow for the establishment of an intermediateappellate court, that would have jurisdiction over appeals of certain civil and criminal casesarising from the district courts?

■ Yes � ■ No �

EXPLANATION

The proposed amendment to the Nevada Constitution would authorize the Legislature to estab-lish an intermediate appellate court, known as the Nevada Court of Appeals, that would havejurisdiction to hear certain appeals arising from civil and criminal cases from the district courts.If the Legislature establishes the intermediate appellate court, the Nevada Supreme Court wouldbe responsible for establishing the specific jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals and for provid-ing review of its decisions.

Currently, language in Article 6 of the Nevada Constitution provides for the court system inNevada, comprised of a Supreme Court, district courts, justices of the peace, and municipalcourts. The Supreme Court is the only court in Nevada with jurisdiction to hear cases that areappealed from decisions rendered by the district courts. In addition, the Supreme Court hasoriginal jurisdiction over certain types of cases and administers the functions of the State Barof Nevada and the judiciary.

The proposed amendment does not create the Court of Appeals, but rather authorizes theLegislature to establish the Court.

A “Yes” vote would authorize the Legislature to establish an intermediate appellate court.

A “No” vote would retain the existing court system.


Increasing population and caseloads throughout Nevada’s court system support the establish-ment of an intermediate Court of Appeals. For several decades, Nevada was the fastest grow-ing state in the nation and the number of cases in the court system increased at a similar rate.Although the pace of Nevada’s population growth has slowed, the State is still growing and theworkload of its court system continues to grow. The number of judges in the district courts hasincreased in recent years in an effort to maintain the public’s timely access to justice.

Nevada’s Supreme Court is the highest court in the State. It is one of the busiest courts in thenation and has already implemented technological and procedural improvements to accommo-date caseload growth. It hears all appeals of civil and criminal cases originating in the districtcourts. However, the American Bar Association recommends that when the volume of appealsbecomes so great that the Supreme Court cannot decide these cases at a desirable pace, anintermediate appellate court should be created. Nevada has reached that point.

12

The new Court of Appeals will improve efficiency, minimize delay, maintain quality in the judi-cial process, ensure timeliness of decisions, provide the Supreme Court with the ability to focuson precedent-setting cases, and increase the number of written opinions that establish the State’scommon law. Currently, Nevada is one of only 11 states and the District of Columbia that donot have an intermediate appellate court.

Completion of the Regional Justice Center in Las Vegas would allow the Court of Appeals toshare facilities and other existing resources with the Supreme Court. Therefore, the costs asso-ciated with establishing the Court of Appeals may be reduced since no new facilities may benecessary.


Establishment of the new Nevada Court of Appeals would simply shift the increasing caseloadfrom the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals and would add another step to the process oflitigation. Another level in the judicial system is not desirable, as it would potentially increasecosts for litigants and add time to an already lengthy legal process.

Establishment of the intermediate appellate court would require the State to allocate funds andresources to the court system that might otherwise be used for more essential purposes.

FISCAL NOTE


If this proposal to amend the Nevada Constitution is approved by voters, the Nevada Legislaturewould be authorized to establish an intermediate appellate court within this State. Approval ofthis proposal by the voters would have no direct or immediate financial impact upon the Stateand local governments or individual taxpayers, as the proposal authorizes, but does not require,the Legislature to establish an intermediate appellate court.

If this proposal is approved by the voters and the Legislature chooses to establish an interme-diate appellate court, there would be a financial impact upon the State and local governments.The provisions of the constitutional amendment specify the minimum number of judges thatmust make up the appellate court, but allows the Legislature to add additional appellate judgesto the proposed court. The creation of an appellate court would require professional and admin-istrative staff, in addition to other one-time and ongoing costs related to the operation of theappellate court. The Legislature would be responsible for setting the salaries of the judges andprofessional and administrative staff, as well as establishing the one-time and ongoing costsrelated to the operation of the court. Because it is not possible to determine the decisions theLegislature may make with respect to the establishment and operation of an intermediate appel-late court, if the Legislature chooses to establish one, the specific financial impact upon theState and local government or individual taxpayers cannot be determined at this time.

If this question is approved by voters and the Legislature considers legislation that would estab-lish an intermediate appellate court, a fiscal note would be prepared based on the proposed leg-islation and made available at that time for consideration by the Legislature.

13

QUESTION NO. 3

Amendment to the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955

Assembly Bill 403 of the 75th Session

CONDENSATION (Ballot Question)

Shall the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 be amended to authorize the Legislature to amend orrepeal any provision of this Act only if necessary to resolve a conflict with any federal law orinterstate agreement for the administration, collection, or enforcement of sales and use taxes?

■ Yes � ■ No �

EXPLANATION

This proposed amendment to the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 would authorize the NevadaLegislature to enact legislation amending or repealing any provision of this Act without obtain-ing voter approval whenever such legislation is necessary to resolve a conflict with any feder-al law or interstate agreement for the administration, collection, or enforcement of sales anduse taxes. The proposed amendment would not authorize the Legislature, without obtainingvoter approval, to enact any legislation that increases the rate of any tax imposed pursuant tothis Act, or to narrow the scope of any exemption under the Act.

Nevada has enacted laws providing for the administration of sales and use taxes in accordancewith the interstate Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement to which Nevada is a member.The purpose of this Agreement is to simplify and modernize sales and use tax administrationin order to reduce the burden of tax compliance for all sellers and types of commerce withinand across state lines. To avoid a conflict with the provisions of the Agreement, the Legislaturemay be required to enact legislation amending the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 in responseto federal legislation approved by Congress affecting the Agreement or in response to interstateactions amending the Agreement. The Legislature has the authority to amend local sales taxeswithout voter approval, but the Sales and Use Tax Act, which was enacted by referendum, can-not be amended without voter approval. Passage of this question would grant limited authorityto amend the Sales and Use Tax Act to resolve certain conflicts.

A “Yes” vote would authorize the Legislature to amend or repeal any provision of theSales and Use Tax Act of 1955 without voter approval in order to resolve a conflict withfederal law or interstate agreements for the administration, collection, or enforcement ofthe sales and use tax, except for legislation that would increase the rate of tax imposedpursuant to the Act or narrow the scope of any exemption under the Act.

A “No” vote would continue to require the Legislature to obtain voter approval beforeenacting any legislation amending or repealing any provision of the Sales and Use Tax Actof 1955.


To remain in compliance with the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, Nevada must actin a timely manner regarding federal legislation or amendments to the Agreement that affectthe Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955. Authorizing the Legislature to amend or repeal provisions

14

of the Act without voter approval, under certain limited conditions, would allow the Legislatureto respond flexibly and efficiently to such legislation and amendments. Because the Legislatureonly meets regularly in odd-numbered years and general elections only occur in even-numberedyears, there is already a potential 2-year delay in maintaining compliance with the Agreement.The additional delay of requiring approval of a ballot question to make technical and adminis-trative changes relating to sales and use taxes increases the risk of falling out of compliancewith the Agreement, which would jeopardize Nevada’s membership status under theAgreement.

This amendment does not authorize the Legislature, without voter approval, to increase theState’s portion of the tax rate (2 percent) or to take away or narrow the scope of any tax exemp-tion under the Act.


Amendments to the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 have required voter approval since 1956when Nevada voters approved the Act through the constitutional referendum process. Since thattime, the Department of Taxation has been able to administer sales and use taxes and theNevada Legislature has been able to enact appropriate legislation to amend the State’s portionof the sales and use tax and obtain voter approval when required. With respect to federal lawand the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, the State was able to become a member tothe Agreement and has been able to maintain compliance with the Agreement up to this pointunder the current process that requires voter approval. The citizens of Nevada should not giveup the right to approve even minor legislation that changes the administration, collection, andenforcement of the State’s portion of the sales and use tax.

FISCAL NOTE


If this proposal to amend the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 is approved by voters, the NevadaLegislature would be authorized to make changes to the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 with-out voter approval under certain conditions. It cannot be determined with any degree of cer-tainty the number or types of legislative actions that would be required by the Legislature whichwould meet all of the conditions specified within the question. Thus, the financial impact onthe sales and use taxes collected in the State or upon individual taxpayers cannot be determinedwith any reasonable degree of certainty.

QUESTION NO. 4


Assembly Joint Resolution No. 3 of the 74th Session

CONDENSATION (Ballot Question)

Shall Article 1, Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution be repealed and shall Article 1, Section8 of the Nevada Constitution be amended to revise provisions relating to eminent domainproceedings?

■ Yes � ■ No �

15

EXPLANATION

Approval of this question would repeal Article 1, Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, knownas the People’s Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land (PISTOL), and amend Article 1,Section 8 of the Nevada Constitution in order to: (1) provide that the transfer of private prop-erty from one private party to another is not considered a public use except under certain cir-cumstances; (2) require an entity that takes private property to provide the property owner withall appraisals it has obtained; (3) grant a property owner the right to a separate determinationof whether a taking constitutes a public use and place the burden of proof on the entity takingthe property; (4) define “fair market value” and “just compensation”; (5) provide that neitherparty to an eminent domain action is liable for the other party’s attorney’s fees except under certain circumstances; and (6) make certain other changes related to eminent domain proceedings.

The proposed amendment provides five exceptions to the prohibition against exercising eminentdomain in order to transfer property from one private party to another. Under the followingconditions, such a transfer would be considered a “public use” if: (1) the private party obtain-ing the property uses the property primarily to benefit a public service such as a utility, rail-road, public transportation project, pipeline, road, bridge, airport, or facility that is owned bya public entity; (2) the property is leased to a private party that takes up a portion of an air-port or facility that is owned by a public entity so long as the public entity notifies the origi-nal owner of its intention and allows the owner the opportunity to bid or propose on such alease; (3) the property taken has been abandoned by the owner, is a threat to public safety, orcontains hazardous waste that must be remediated, and the original owner is granted first rightof refusal to reacquire the property on the same terms and conditions as anyone else; (4) theentity that obtains the property exchanges it for other property in order to relocate public orprivate structures or avoid excessive compensation or damages; or (5) the person from whomthe property is taken consents to the taking.

Additionally, the proposed amendment defines the terms “fair market value” and “just com-pensation” and provides for the manner of computing these amounts. It also stipulates that nei-ther party may be held liable for the other party’s attorney’s fees in eminent domain proceed-ings except in the circumstance of an inverse condemnation, wherein a property owner makesa request for attorney’s fees in a legal action. The proposed amendment revises from 5 yearsto 15 years the amount of time within which the entity that took the property must put it touse before the property must be offered to, and will revert to, the original owner upon pay-ment of the original purchase price.

Finally, the repeal of Article 1, Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution would rescind a proper-ty owner’s right to disqualify one judge at the district court level and one judge at each appel-late level in any eminent domain action.

A “Yes” vote would repeal Article 1, Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution and amendArticle 1, Section 8 of the Nevada Constitution relating to eminent domain proceedings.

A “No” vote would retain Article 1, Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution and keep intactthe current provisions of Article 1, Section 8 of the Nevada Constitution relating to emi-nent domain proceedings.

16


Although the People’s Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land (PISTOL) remains a well-inten-tioned, popular initiative that provided much needed protection for Nevada’s private propertyowners, it also contains several flaws that have the potential to cost taxpayers money and ham-per efforts to maintain and upgrade infrastructure, including schools, roads, water supply andsewage systems, and public transportation.

Recognizing these problems, representatives of local governments, state agencies, private busi-nesses, the public, and even the original sponsors of PISTOL worked together over the courseof two legislative sessions to craft a workable constitutional amendment relating to eminentdomain that allows Nevada to move forward with public projects while protecting private prop-erty rights, saving taxpayers money, and avoiding unnecessary lawsuits. The provisions of thisquestion clearly define the limited instances in which private property can be transferred orleased to a private party through eminent domain, which do not include increasing tax revenueor generating profit for private businesses. This question builds on the successes of PISTOLwhile correcting its deficiencies.


The People’s Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land (PISTOL) was a response to eminentdomain practices upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Kelo v. the City of NewLondon and by the Nevada Supreme Court in Pappas v. the City of Las Vegas. In those cases,the courts expanded the definition of “public use” to allow local governments to increase theirtax bases by turning over private property to private persons in order to support private busi-ness interests. This question seeks to weaken the protections contained in PISTOL by expand-ing the circumstances under which a government can use eminent domain to transfer propertyfrom one private party to another.

The PISTOL initiative sought, in clear and concise language, to put a stop to these transfersonce and for all, and to give property owners legal tools to use in the event that their proper-ty was targeted for taking by the government. The initiative passed with over 60 percent of thevote in both 2006 and 2008. Voters understood the issues at hand and chose to pass the initia-tive in two successive elections. There is no reason to change the provisions of PISTOL.

FISCAL NOTE

Financial Impact – Cannot be Determined

This question would amend the Nevada Constitution to include new provisions relating to emi-nent domain proceedings within the State of Nevada, including:

• Allowing the direct or indirect transfer of any interest in private property to another privateperson or entity as a public use in certain circumstances, as specified in the proposed consti-tutional amendment;

• Removing the right for property owners to preempt one judge at the district court level andone judge at each appellate level in any eminent domain action; and

• Requiring that property taken by eminent domain must be offered to, and reverts to, the per-son from whom the property was taken, upon repayment of the purchase price, if the entity

17

who took the property fails to use the property within 15 years after obtaining possession ofthe property.

These proposed changes relating to eminent domain proceedings may affect the number of emi-nent domain proceedings that are undertaken by the State and local governments. However,because the number of eminent domain actions that may be undertaken cannot be estimated,the financial effect upon the State and local governments cannot be determined with any rea-sonable degree of certainty.

Subsections 4 through 8, inclusive, and subsection 12 of Article 1, Section 22 of the NevadaConstitution contain various provisions relating to the rights of property owners in eminentdomain proceedings, the calculation of fair market value for the property, and the determina-tion of just compensation to the property owner. If this question is approved by the voters, theseprovisions of the Nevada Constitution would be repealed and replaced with similar languagecontained in this proposed constitutional amendment. These provisions of this question are notanticipated to have a financial effect upon the State or local governments, if approved by thevoters.

LOCAL REVENUE ADVISORY QUESTION

Shall the consent of the governing body of the local government be required before the StateLegislature can act to decrease revenues or reserves collected by, distributed to, or held bythe local government, or impose fees on or mandate new or different services be performedby the local government?

■ Yes � ■ No �

EXPLANATION

The use of revenues paid by taxpayers for functions of local government by the State is result-ing in the reduction and elimination of services provided by local governments. This ballotquestion will serve to advise the Nevada Legislature of whether the majority of the voting pub-lic in this County believes that the consent of the governing body of the local governmentshould be required before the State Legislature can act to decrease revenues or reserves col-lected by, distributed to, or held by the local government, or impose fees on or mandate newor different services be performed by the local government. “Local government” means everypolitical subdivision or other entity which has the right to levy or receive money from ad val-orem or other taxes or any mandatory assessments, and includes, without limitation, counties,cities, towns, boards, school districts and other districts organized pursuant to Nevada RevisedStatute, and any agency or department of a county or city which prepares a budget separatefrom that of the parent political subdivision. Examples of other districts organized pursuantto Nevada Revised Statute are water and sewer general improvement districts, and library dis-tricts. Examples of an agency or department of a county or city which prepares a budget sep-arate from that of the parent political subdivision are district health departments and districtcourts.

“Local revenues” include taxes, fees, intergovernmental transfers and other revenues that areused by local governments to provide services and programs, and to construct, operate andmaintain facilities. Examples of fees that the State has or may impose are administrative feesfor collecting sales taxes (increased by the 2009 Legislature) and a mandatory fee per employ-ee to fund the administration of the state run Local Government Employee Management

18

Relations Board. New service mandates without commensurate funding are often referred toas “unfunded mandates.” The consent of the local government would be considered and actedupon by the governing body of that local government in a public meeting noticed and conduct-ed in conformance with Nevada’s Open Meeting Law.

The question is purely advisory and does not place any legal requirement on any local gov-ernment, any member of local government, or any officer of the county or the NevadaLegislature.

GENERAL FISCAL NOTE FOR ALL COUNTIES

If the Legislature is required to obtain the consent of the governing body of the local govern-ment before the State Legislature can act to decrease revenues or reserves collected by, distributed to, or held by the local government, or impose fees on or mandate new or differ-ent services, it would have a positive financial effect on local government by potentially eliminating the need for local governments to adjust their adopted budgets and possibly reduc-ing services or laying off employees due to the loss of local revenue.

ELKO COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT CAPITAL PROJECTS TAX PROPOSAL

Shall the Elko County School District be authorized to continue to levy a property tax of 75cents per $100 assessed valuation previously authorized for School District capital projects fora period of 10 years commencing July 1, 2012?

■ Yes � ■ No �

EXPLANATION

A ‘‘yes’’ vote would permit Elko County School District to continue to levy a capital proj-ect tax for (10) ten years in an amount not to exceed 75 cents per $100 of assessed valu-ation commencing July 1, 2012. The proceeds of the capital projects tax are to be usedonly for the purposes set forth in NRS 387.335, including but not limited to, acquiringsites and constructing and equipping new schools and improving older schools.

A ‘‘no’’ vote would prevent the District from continuing to levy the capital projects taxat this time.

Argument For the Capital Projects Tax Question: The Capital Projects Tax or “Pay-As-You-Go” tax has been in place in Elko County since 1986. The passage of this Question will notincrease the District’s existing tax rates for the taxpayers in Elko County, and will continueto provide an interest free funding source to acquire, construct, equip and improve existingand new school facilities.

With “Pay-As-You-Go” the District accumulates the money in advance of construction, allow-ing the District and the taxpayer to substantially reduce the cost of school construction andrenovation by avoiding interest payments. Although population growth in Elko County hasslowed, the District continues to need new schools, and older schools often require major ren-ovation in order to remain useful in today’s technologically oriented society and to complywith Federal and State mandates.

19

Brick-and-mortar schools ultimately cost taxpayers 1/2 to 1/3 less than modular classrooms.Recent numbers estimate that 24 percent, or over 2,200, of our students are being educatedin modular classrooms. While modular classrooms function effectively for both students andteachers, the life span of a modular classroom is 20 years, or less than half that of a schoolconstructed of brick and mortar. In fact, Elko Grammar School #2 was constructed in 1929and continues to safely house approximately 350 students in grades K-4 to this day.

Older schools throughout the District continue to need improvement including, but not limit-ed to, roof repair, heating and ventilation upgrades and electrical/technological systemsupgrades and repair. Such renovations can be costly, but result in an extended useful life ofthese buildings, and are generally less expensive than construction of an entirely new facility.“Pay-As-You-Go” will ensure that the District has a revenue source to provide for these proj-ects.

Argument Against the Capital Projects Tax Question: The current quality and capacity ofschool facilities is adequate in Elko County. The District should make do with the currentcondition of facilities, and should wait to improve and construct facilities until the needs aremore critical. The District should replace systems and equipment only when they can nolonger be repaired, and focus on the education of our students.

In the event rapid enrollment growth occurs, the “Pay-As-You-Go” plan does not generate ade-quate revenue on an annual basis to keep up with the District growth and the inflation in con-struction costs. This may result in facilities not being available in a timely manner. If a bondissue was passed these facilities could be built in a timely manner, and the facilities could beprovided at a lower tax rate.

If the Federal and State government mandates updates to school facilities, they should providethe resources necessary to comply with any required updates.

Rebuttal to the Argument Against the Capital Projects Tax Question: The need to repairand renovate school facilities is already critical. If the Question is not passed, the Districtwill not have the financial resources to repair and renovate schools, resulting in inadequateeducational facilities for students and a negative impact on local property values. The currentDistrict Master Facility Plan adopted by the Board of Trustees in the Spring of 2010 outlinesthe need for approximately $225 million dollars of funding for new or improved District facil-ities. The District has identified resources to construct just $38.5 million of these projects.The District prioritized the remaining projects and has identified approximately $180 milliondollars of projects to be funded by the proposed renewal of the tax. These priorities werebased on the District’s current projections of enrollment trends, program needs and facilityconditions.

Under “Pay-As-You-Go”:

• No hidden costs are incurred such as long term debt and interest payments,• Buildings are debt free as completed,• Building takes place on a priority basis as funds are collected, with priorities determined

by the electorate through the Board of Trustees,• Funds cannot be used for teacher salaries, salaries of other personnel, or operating costs

of any kind, and• The tax levy may be reduced or eliminated by the Board of Trustees as future conditions

dictate.20

Rebuttal to the Argument For the Capital Projects Tax Question: The current school facil-ities have been and will continue to be adequate for educational purposes. The costs ofrepairs, renovations and additional construction will exceed the benefits of those projects.Avoiding the additional costs that will result from delaying improvements does not justifyimmediate repair and renovation of the facilities.

Description of Anticipated Financial Effect: The District anticipates that the tax rate of 75cents per $100 of assessed valuation will continue to provide revenue of $10,275,000 per yearfor capital projects throughout the District. The cost to the owner of a new home with a tax-able value of $100,000 is estimated to be $262.50 per year. Voters are encouraged to checktheir most recent property tax bill for the taxable value of their property to determine theamount paid for this tax currently.

21

Early Voting is now available in West Wendover, Wells,and Carlin during the following dates and times:

Oct. 19 Early Voting in West Wendover 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.West Wendover Library, 590 Camper Dr., West Wendover, Nevada

Oct. 20 Early Voting in Wells 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.Wells Justice Court, 1510 Lake Ave., Wells, Nevada

Oct. 21 Early Voting in Carlin 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.Carlin City Hall, 101 S. 8th St., Carlin, Nevada

Oct. 26 Early Voting in West Wendover 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.West Wendover Library, 590 Camper Dr., West Wendover, Nevada

Oct. 27 Early Voting in Wells 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.Wells Justice Court, 1510 Lake Ave., Wells, Nevada

Oct. 28 Early Voting in Carlin 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.Carlin City Hall, 101 S. 8th St., Carlin, Nevada

PRSRT STDU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDCarson City, NVPermit No. 94

ELKO COUNTYCLERK’S OFFICE571 IDAHO STREETELKO, NEVADA 89801-3715

G6

ELECTION DAY POLLS OPEN AT 7 A.M. AND CLOSE AT 7 P.M.

POLLING PLACE IS ACCESSIBLETO THE HANDICAPPED VOTER

NRS 293.780 Voting more than once at the same election. A person who is entitled to vote shall not vote or attempt to vote more than once at the same election. Any person who votes or attempts to vote twice at the same election isguilty of a Category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.

EARLY VOTING SCHEDULEVote early at the Elko Convention Center, 700 Moren Way, starting Saturday,

October 16, 2010, through Friday October 29, 2010.If you would like to request an absent ballot, you must submit your request in

writing to the Clerk’s Office no later than Tuesday, October 26, 2010.

Date post:	03-Mar-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Elko County - 3293 Final Female · 2019. 6. 10. · elko county, nevada sample ballot and voter...

Documents