COUNTY OF CHURCHILL GENERAL ELECTION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2010 REVIEW, MARK AND TAKE THIS SAMPLE BALLOT TO THE POLLS Take this sample ballot with you to the polls on Election Day. The information on the mailing label will assist the polling location workers in speeding up the voting process for you. You may make notes inside this sample ballot for your own reference. The election workers will not open this sample ballot. VOTE EARLY and avoid the last-minute rush! EARLY VOTING is October 16–29, 2010 SEE INSIDE COVER FOR EARLY VOTING SCHEDULE Questions: Call 423-6028. HOURS OF VOTING ON ELECTION DAY Polls open: 7:00 a.m. Polls close: 7:00 p.m. Ballot Style 2
Transcript
COUNTY OFCHURCHILL
GENERAL ELECTIONTUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2010
REVIEW, MARK AND TAKE THIS SAMPLE BALLOT TO THE POLLS
Take this sample ballot with you to the polls on Election Day. The information on the mailing label will assist the polling location workers
in speeding up the voting process for you. You may make notesinside this sample ballot for your own reference.
The election workers will not open this sample ballot.
VOTE EARLY and avoid the last-minute rush!EARLY VOTING is October 16–29, 2010
SEE INSIDE COVER FOR EARLY VOTING SCHEDULE
Questions: Call 423-6028.
HOURS OF VOTING ON ELECTION DAYPolls open: 7:00 a.m. Polls close: 7:00 p.m.
Bal
lot
Sty
le 2
GENERAL ELECTIONTuesday, November 2, 2010
EARLY VOTING SCHEDULE AND LOCATIONS:
Vote Early
At the Churchill County Administrative Complex155 N. Taylor Street
Commission Chambers
Saturday, October 1610 a.m. to 2 p.m.
Monday, October 18 through Friday, October 228 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Saturday, October 2310 a.m. to 2 p.m.
Monday, October 25 through Thursday, October 288 a.m. to 6 p.m.
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.
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: Reasonableaccommodations will be made to help any voter requesting assistance at apolling place. (NRS 293.565(8))
Every polling place has a voting machine to enlarge the screen and prints the voterverifiable paper trail in extra large font. Also available is audio voting technology.
Ask an election worker for assistance if you need help reading the ballot or oper-ating the voting machine.
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)
For your voting convenience, REVIEW and MARK your sampleballot. Bring it to the Polls when you vote.
If you need to contact the Election DepartmentCall: (775) 423-6028
Website: www.churchillcounty.org/clerktrs/Office Location: 155 N. Taylor Street, Suite 110
Fallon, Nevada 89406
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
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATORFour (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE
SIMS, JOAN ORepublican
TRIPP, VICKY L. ODemocrat
RECORDERFour (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE
MALLORY, ART ORepublican
DISTRICT ATTORNEYFour (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE
PARRAGUIRRE, RONALD D. ONonpartisan
NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES O
SUPREME COURT JUSTICESEAT E
Six (6) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE
HARDESTY, JAMES W. ONonpartisan
NONE OF THESE CANDIDATES O
SUPREME COURT JUSTICESEAT A
Six (6) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE
MELCHER, KEVIN C. ONonpartisan
PUCCINELLI, MARGARET ONonpartisan
UNIVERSITY BOARD OF REGENTSDISTRICT 8
Six (6) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE
STATE DISTRICTNONPARTISAN OFFICE
6
COUNTY NONPARTISAN OFFICES
BIRD, BRANDON ONonpartisan
GAILEY, DENNIS K. ONonpartisan
GENT, RICH ONonpartisan
HENDRIX, CLAY ONonpartisan
HYDE, MATT ONonpartisan
LUDLOW, MIKE ONonpartisan
MCFARLANE, NONA ONonpartisan
SOMMER, JACOB ONonpartisan
BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEESFour (4) Year TermVOTE FOR FOUR
EWING, OLIVIA ONonpartisan
LATTIN, CHRISTY ONonpartisan
LINGENFELTER, JAY ONonpartisan
RUDDEN, RON J. ONonpartisan
SPENCER, MICHAEL ONonpartisan
MOSQUITO, VECTOR CONTROLAND WEED ABATEMENT BOARD
Four (4) Year TermVOTE FOR THREE
INGRAM, RICHARD ONonpartisan
TROTTER, BENJAMIN D. ONonpartisan
SHERIFFFour (4) Year TermVOTE FOR ONE
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
CONDENSATION (ballot question)
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
Amendment to the Nevada Constitution
Senate Joint Resolution No. 9 of the74th Session
CONDENSATION (ballot question)
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
Amendment to the Nevada Constitution
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 3 of the74th Session
CONDENSATION (ballot question)
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 MEASURES AND CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
CHURCHILL COUNTY QUESTIONQUESTION NO. 1
TAX AD VALOREM FORCHURCHILL COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Shall the Board of County Commissioners ofChurchill County be authorized to levy an addi-tional property tax rate to assist in the continuedfunding of the necessary facilities and servicesfor the Churchill County Senior Center in anamount of $0.03 per $100 of assessed valuationfor a period of six years beginning July 1, 2011,and ending June 30, 2017? The cost for theowner of a new $100,000 home is estimated tobe $10.50 per year. If this question is approvedby the voters, any property tax levied as author-ized by this question will be outside of the capson a taxpayer’s liability for property (ad valorem)taxes established by the legislature in the 2005session.
YES ONO O
8
CHURCHILL COUNTY QUESTIONQUESTION NO. 2
LOCAL REVENUE ADVISORY QUESTION
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
Amendment to the Nevada Constitution
Senate Joint Resolution No. 2 of the 74th Session
CONDENSATION (Ballot Question)
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to pro-vide for the appointment of Supreme Court justicesand District Court judges by the Governor for theirinitial terms from lists of candidates nominated bythe Commission on Judicial Selection, with subse-quent retention of those justices and judges afterindependent performance evaluations and voterapproval?
■ Yes � ■ No �
EXPLANATION
Currently, the Nevada Constitution provides for theelection of Supreme Court justices and District Courtjudges in Nevada to 6-year terms. When a vacancyoccurs between elections, the Governor appoints ajustice or judge from a list of candidates recom-mended by the Commission on Judicial Selection.The Commission consists of the Chief Justice of theNevada Supreme Court and equal numbers of attor-neys and non-attorneys.
The proposed amendment to the NevadaConstitution would provide for the initial appoint-ment of all Supreme Court justices and DistrictCourt judges through the same process currentlyused to fill midterm vacancies. When any vacancyoccurs, the Commission on Judicial Selection wouldnominate a list of candidates based on their experi-ence and qualifications, and provide the nominees’names to the Governor and the public. The Governorwould then appoint one of the nominees. After beingappointed by the Governor, justices and judges willinitially serve terms that expire in January followingthe next general election which occurs at least 12months after appointment.
Justices and judges seeking another term would beevaluated based on their record by the newly creat-
ed Commission on Judicial Performance, whichwould consist of the Chief Justice of the NevadaSupreme Court and equal numbers of attorneys andnon-attorneys. A summary of the Commission’sevaluation would be made available to the public atleast 6 weeks before the general election. Thenames of all justices and judges seeking anotherterm would appear on the ballot, and voters woulddecide whether justices and judges should serveanother term. Justices and judges need 55 percentof the vote to be retained. If retained by the voters,a justice or judge will serve a 6-year term and willbe subject to another evaluation and election at theend of each subsequent 6-year term if he or shewishes to serve another term. If a justice or judgedoes not declare his or her candidacy or receivesless than 55 percent of the votes cast at the elec-tion, the vacancy is again filled through the appoint-ment process.
This question also increases the number of mem-bers on the Commission on Judicial Selection byadding an additional attorney and a non-attorneyand provides for the membership of the newCommission on Judicial Performance.
A “Yes” vote would amend the language in theNevada Constitution to allow for the appoint-ment of Supreme Court justices and DistrictCourt judges by the Governor for their initialterms from lists of candidates nominated by theCommission on Judicial Selection, with subse-quent retention of those justices and judgesafter independent performance evaluations bythe Commission on Judicial Performance andvoter approval.
A “No” vote would retain the existing languagein the Nevada Constitution that Supreme Courtjustices and District Court judges in Nevadamust be elected except for those who are firstappointed to fill vacancies and then stand forelection.
ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE
A fair and independent judiciary is essential tomaintaining the public trust and confidence in
9
QUESTIONS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE VOTERS OF THE STATESTATE QUESTION NO. 1
Nevada’s court system and preserving the rights ofall citizens. Justices and judges are not intended tobe politicians, yet they are required to campaign andengage in fundraising. The extent to which they areable to impartially interpret and apply laws dependsupon their ability to remain free from political pres-sure and outside influence from campaign contrib-utors.
In recent years, judicial campaigns have been char-acterized by increased fundraising and spending.Thus, elections may be based on a candidate’s abil-ity to raise funds rather than the merits of the can-didate’s legal career or judicial performance.
Justices and judges in the State of Nevada areallowed to solicit money directly from campaigncontributors and are not required to recuse them-selves or give notice when a campaign contributorappears before them in court. Typical contributors tojudicial campaigns include attorneys, law firms, liti-gants, potential litigants, and special interest groupswho may have pending legal cases. In addition, jus-tices and judges who are subject to political cam-paigns cannot focus their full attention on their judi-cial responsibilities.
The appointment and retention of justices andjudges based on merit rather than the ability tomount a successful political campaign wouldremove them from partisan politics while maintain-ing the people’s ability to vote whether to retain orremove a justice or judge. Further, merit selectionwill give full consideration to the ability, character,and qualifications of a judicial candidate before hisor her name is placed on the ballot for retention, andwill allow voters to focus on the candidate’s judicialrecord when casting their ballots.
At present, several states across the nation haveadopted a nominating plan like this one for theappointment of judges to initial terms on the bench,and many also hold retention elections at the expi-ration of a judge’s term.
In 1976, the people of Nevada approved an amend-ment to the Nevada Constitution that provides forthe Commission on Judicial Selection to make rec-ommendations for filling midterm vacancies at theSupreme Court and District Court levels. Thus,
appointments to the bench are not new in Nevadaand already involve a rigorous selection processbased on merit.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE
The ability of the public to elect justices and judgesin Nevada is an important aspect of democracy.Providing that candidates for justice or judge mustbe nominated by the Commission on JudicialSelection and appointed by the Governor does notensure judicial competence and integrity. Passageof this question would eliminate the right of votersto initially elect justices and judges.
Appointment removes an essential level of publicscrutiny and is an undemocratic way to select jus-tices and judges that ignores the will of the people.This question assumes an uninformed electorateand presumes that a select group of individuals arebetter qualified to choose those who will sit on thebench. It also promotes a system in which those inthe legal profession can recommend colleagues tothe highest positions of the judicial branch. Qualifiedcandidates may be excluded from consideration bythe Commission on Judicial Selection for arbitraryreasons. Similarly, justices and judges may beunfairly evaluated by the Commission on JudicialPerformance.
This question will not eliminate the potential forjudicial corruption and political influence. Severalstates have addressed this concern in other ways.For example, some states prohibit judicial candi-dates from accepting campaign contributions andothers require recusal from cases in which a partyor their attorneys have contributed to the justice’s orjudge’s campaign. These alternatives would solvethe problem of political campaigning and fundrais-ing without eliminating the right of the people toelect their judiciary. Finally, Rule 4.2 of the NevadaCode of Judicial Conduct currently provides that jus-tices and judges cannot raise campaign funds ifthey run for election unopposed.
FISCAL NOTE
Financial Impact – Cannot Be Determined
10
STATE QUESTION NO. 1 (CONTINUED)
The provisions of this question would amend Article6, Section 20 of the Nevada Constitution to increasethe membership on the Commission on JudicialSelection from seven to nine members, and requirethat the Commission select three nominees for avacancy occurring for any reason in the SupremeCourt or the District Courts throughout the State.Based on information provided by the AdministrativeOffice of the Courts, enactment of these provisionswould increase the workload of the Commission,requiring additional meeting preparation, travelexpenses, room rental, and staff costs for eachmeeting of the Commission necessary to create thelist of candidates for a judicial vacancy, therebyresulting in a financial impact upon the State.However, the timing and frequency of future vacan-cies that would require meetings of the Commissionis not known, and the number of meetings thatwould be necessary to fill any vacancy on theSupreme Court or in a District Court cannot bedetermined. Thus, the actual financial effect uponthe State cannot be determined with any reasonabledegree of certainty.
The provisions of this question would also amendArticle 6 of the Nevada Constitution by adding a newsection, designated Section 22, which would createa Commission on Judicial Performance as a newentity responsible for evaluating any Supreme CourtJustice or District Court judge who wishes to seekanother term through a retention election. Based oninformation received by the Administrative Office ofthe Courts, enactment of these provisions wouldrequire the Commission on Judicial Performance todevelop and implement specific evaluation criteriato be used by the Commission to perform its speci-fied duties. However, the specific evaluation criteriathat will be established for use by the Commissionand the number of judges and justices who maywish to seek retention, if this question is approved,cannot be determined. Thus, the specific financialimpact upon the State or local government or uponindividual taxpayers cannot be determined at thistime.
Under current law, justices of the Nevada SupremeCourt and judges of the District Courts of the Stateare elected by popular vote at a general or special
election. The provisions of the constitutional amend-ment would eliminate the election of Supreme Courtjustices and District Court judges when there is avacancy and would require retention elections forany judge or justice who wishes to retain his or herseat for another term. Based on informationreceived from the Office of the Secretary of State,these provisions would have no financial impactupon the State or local government.
11
STATE QUESTION NO. 1 (CONTINUED)
QUESTION NO. 2
Amendment to the Nevada Constitution
Senate Joint Resolution No. 9 of the 74th Session
CONDENSATION (Ballot Question)
Shall the Nevada Constitution be amended to allowfor the establishment of an intermediate appellatecourt, that would have jurisdiction over appeals ofcertain civil and criminal cases arising from thedistrict courts?
■ Yes � ■ No �
EXPLANATION
The proposed amendment to the NevadaConstitution would authorize the Legislature toestablish an intermediate appellate court, known asthe Nevada Court of Appeals, that would have juris-diction to hear certain appeals arising from civil andcriminal cases from the district courts. If theLegislature establishes the intermediate appellatecourt, the Nevada Supreme Court would be respon-sible for establishing the specific jurisdiction of theCourt of Appeals and for providing review of its deci-sions.
Currently, language in Article 6 of the NevadaConstitution provides for the court system inNevada, comprised of a Supreme Court, districtcourts, justices of the peace, and municipal courts.The Supreme Court is the only court in Nevada withjurisdiction to hear cases that are appealed fromdecisions rendered by the district courts. In addition,the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over cer-tain types of cases and administers the functions ofthe State Bar of Nevada and the judiciary.
The proposed amendment does not create the Courtof Appeals, but rather authorizes the Legislature toestablish the Court.
A “Yes” vote would authorize the Legislature toestablish an intermediate appellate court.
A “No” vote would retain the existing court system.
ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE
Increasing population and caseloads throughoutNevada’s court system support the establishment ofan intermediate Court of Appeals. For severaldecades, Nevada was the fastest growing state inthe nation and the number of cases in the court sys-tem increased at a similar rate. Although the pace ofNevada’s population growth has slowed, the State isstill growing and the workload of its court systemcontinues to grow. The number of judges in the dis-trict courts has increased in recent years in an effortto maintain the public’s timely access to justice.
Nevada’s Supreme Court is the highest court in theState. It is one of the busiest courts in the nation andhas already implemented technological and proce-dural improvements to accommodate caseloadgrowth. It hears all appeals of civil and criminalcases originating in the district courts. However, theAmerican Bar Association recommends that whenthe volume of appeals becomes so great that theSupreme Court cannot decide these cases at adesirable pace, an intermediate appellate courtshould be created. Nevada has reached that point.
The new Court of Appeals will improve efficiency,minimize delay, maintain quality in the judicialprocess, ensure timeliness of decisions, provide theSupreme Court with the ability to focus on prece-dent-setting cases, and increase the number ofwritten opinions that establish the State’s commonlaw. Currently, Nevada is one of only 11 states andthe District of Columbia that do not have an inter-mediate appellate court.
Completion of the Regional Justice Center in LasVegas would allow the Court of Appeals to sharefacilities and other existing resources with theSupreme Court. Therefore, the costs associated withestablishing the Court of Appeals may be reducedsince no new facilities may be necessary.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE
Establishment of the new Nevada Court of Appealswould simply shift the increasing caseload from theSupreme Court to the Court of Appeals and would
12
STATE QUESTION NO. 2
add another step to the process of litigation. Anotherlevel in the judicial system is not desirable, as itwould potentially increase costs for litigants andadd time to an already lengthy legal process.
Establishment of the intermediate appellate courtwould require the State to allocate funds andresources to the court system that might otherwisebe used for more essential purposes.
FISCAL NOTE
Financial Impact – Cannot Be Determined
If this proposal to amend the Nevada Constitution isapproved by voters, the Nevada Legislature wouldbe authorized to establish an intermediate appellatecourt within this State. Approval of this proposal bythe voters would have no direct or immediate finan-cial impact upon the State and local governments orindividual taxpayers, as the proposal authorizes, butdoes not require, the Legislature to establish anintermediate appellate court.
If this proposal is approved by the voters and theLegislature chooses to establish an intermediateappellate court, there would be a financial impactupon the State and local governments. The provi-sions of the constitutional amendment specify theminimum number of judges that must make up theappellate court, but allows the Legislature to addadditional appellate judges to the proposed court.The creation of an appellate court would requireprofessional and administrative staff, in addition toother one-time and ongoing costs related to theoperation of the appellate court. The Legislaturewould be responsible for setting the salaries of thejudges and professional and administrative staff, aswell as establishing the one-time and ongoing costsrelated to the operation of the court. Because it isnot possible to determine the decisions theLegislature may make with respect to the establish-ment and operation of an intermediate appellatecourt, if the Legislature chooses to establish one,the specific financial impact upon the State andlocal government or individual taxpayers cannot bedetermined at this time.
If this question is approved by voters and theLegislature considers legislation that would estab-lish an intermediate appellate court, a fiscal notewould be prepared based on the proposed legisla-tion and made available at that time for considera-tion by the Legislature.
13
STATE QUESTION NO. 2 (CONTINUED)
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 amend-ed to authorize the Legislature to amend or repealany provision of this Act only if necessary to resolvea conflict with any federal law or interstate agree-ment for the administration, collection, or enforce-ment of sales and use taxes?
■ Yes � ■ No �
EXPLANATION
This proposed amendment to the Sales and Use TaxAct of 1955 would authorize the Nevada Legislatureto enact legislation amending or repealing any pro-vision of this Act without obtaining voter approvalwhenever such legislation is necessary to resolve aconflict with any federal law or interstate agreementfor the administration, collection, or enforcement ofsales and use taxes. The proposed amendmentwould not authorize the Legislature, without obtain-ing voter approval, to enact any legislation thatincreases the rate of any tax imposed pursuant tothis Act, or to narrow the scope of any exemptionunder the Act.
Nevada has enacted laws providing for the adminis-tration of sales and use taxes in accordance withthe interstate Streamlined Sales and Use TaxAgreement to which Nevada is a member. The pur-pose of this Agreement is to simplify and modernizesales and use tax administration in order to reducethe burden of tax compliance for all sellers andtypes of commerce within and across state lines. Toavoid a conflict with the provisions of theAgreement, the Legislature may be required toenact legislation amending the Sales and Use TaxAct of 1955 in response to federal legislationapproved by Congress affecting the Agreement or inresponse to interstate actions amending the
Agreement. The Legislature has the authority toamend local sales taxes without voter approval, butthe Sales and Use Tax Act, which was enacted byreferendum, cannot be amended without voterapproval. Passage of this question would grant lim-ited authority to amend the Sales and Use Tax Act toresolve certain conflicts.
A “Yes” vote would authorize the Legislature toamend or repeal any provision of the Sales andUse Tax Act of 1955 without voter approval inorder to resolve a conflict with federal law orinterstate agreements for the administration,collection, or enforcement of the sales and usetax, except for legislation that would increasethe rate of tax imposed pursuant to the Act ornarrow the scope of any exemption under theAct.
A “No” vote would continue to require theLegislature to obtain voter approval beforeenacting any legislation amending or repealingany provision of the Sales and Use Tax Act of1955.
ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE
To remain in compliance with the StreamlinedSales and Use Tax Agreement, Nevada must act ina timely manner regarding federal legislation oramendments to the Agreement that affect the Salesand Use Tax Act of 1955. Authorizing theLegislature to amend or repeal provisions of the Actwithout voter approval, under certain limited condi-tions, would allow the Legislature to respond flexi-bly and efficiently to such legislation and amend-ments. Because the Legislature only meets regu-larly in odd-numbered years and general electionsonly occur in even-numbered years, there isalready a potential 2-year delay in maintainingcompliance with the Agreement. The additionaldelay of requiring approval of a ballot question tomake technical and administrative changes relat-ing to sales and use taxes increases the risk offalling out of compliance with the Agreement,which would jeopardize Nevada’s membership sta-tus under the Agreement.
14
STATE QUESTION NO. 3
This amendment does not authorize the Legislature,without voter approval, to increase the State’s por-tion of the tax rate (2 percent) or to take away ornarrow the scope of any tax exemption under theAct.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE
Amendments to the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955have required voter approval since 1956 whenNevada voters approved the Act through the consti-tutional referendum process. Since that time, theDepartment of Taxation has been able to administersales and use taxes and the Nevada Legislature hasbeen able to enact appropriate legislation to amendthe State’s portion of the sales and use tax andobtain voter approval when required. With respect tofederal law and the Streamlined Sales and Use TaxAgreement, the State was able to become a mem-ber to the Agreement and has been able to maintaincompliance with the Agreement up to this pointunder the current process that requires voterapproval. The citizens of Nevada should not give upthe right to approve even minor legislation thatchanges the administration, collection, and enforce-ment of the State’s portion of the sales and use tax.
FISCAL NOTE
Financial Impact – Cannot Be Determined
If this proposal to amend the Sales and Use Tax Actof 1955 is approved by voters, the NevadaLegislature would be authorized to make changes tothe Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 without voterapproval under certain conditions. It cannot bedetermined with any degree of certainty the numberor types of legislative actions that would be requiredby the Legislature which would meet all of the con-ditions specified within the question. Thus, thefinancial impact on the sales and use taxes collect-ed in the State or upon individual taxpayers cannotbe determined with any reasonable degree of cer-tainty.
15
STATE QUESTION NO. 3 (CONTINUED)
QUESTION NO. 4
Amendment to the Nevada Constitution
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 3 of the 74thSession
CONDENSATION (Ballot Question)
Shall Article 1, Section 22 of the Nevada Constitutionbe repealed and shall Article 1, Section 8 of theNevada Constitution be amended to revise provi-sions relating to eminent domain proceedings?
■ Yes � ■ No �
EXPLANATION
Approval of this question would repeal Article 1,Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, known as thePeople’s Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land(PISTOL), and amend Article 1, Section 8 of theNevada Constitution in order to: (1) provide that thetransfer of private property from one private party toanother is not considered a public use except undercertain circumstances; (2) require an entity thattakes private property to provide the property ownerwith all appraisals it has obtained; (3) grant a prop-erty owner the right to a separate determination ofwhether a taking constitutes a public use and placethe burden of proof on the entity taking the proper-ty; (4) define “fair market value” and “just compen-sation”; (5) provide that neither party to an eminentdomain action is liable for the other party’s attor-ney’s fees except under certain circumstances; and(6) make certain other changes related to eminentdomain proceedings.
The proposed amendment provides five exceptionsto the prohibition against exercising eminentdomain in order to transfer property from one pri-vate party to another. Under the following condi-tions, such a transfer would be considered a “pub-lic use” if: (1) the private party obtaining the proper-ty uses the property primarily to benefit a publicservice such as a utility, railroad, public transporta-tion project, pipeline, road, bridge, airport, or facilitythat is owned by a public entity; (2) the property is
leased to a private party that takes up a portion ofan airport or facility that is owned by a public entityso long as the public entity notifies the originalowner of its intention and allows the owner theopportunity to bid or propose on such a lease; (3)the property taken has been abandoned by theowner, is a threat to public safety, or contains haz-ardous waste that must be remediated, and theoriginal owner is granted first right of refusal toreacquire the property on the same terms and con-ditions as anyone else; (4) the entity that obtains theproperty exchanges it for other property in order torelocate public or private structures or avoid exces-sive compensation or damages; or (5) the personfrom whom the property is taken consents to thetaking.
Additionally, the proposed amendment defines theterms “fair market value” and “just compensation”and provides for the manner of computing theseamounts. It also stipulates that neither party may beheld liable for the other party’s attorney’s fees ineminent domain proceedings except in the circum-stance of an inverse condemnation, wherein a prop-erty owner makes a request for attorney’s fees in alegal action. The proposed amendment revises from5 years to 15 years the amount of time within whichthe entity that took the property must put it to usebefore the property must be offered to, and willrevert to, the original owner upon payment of theoriginal purchase price.
Finally, the repeal of Article 1, Section 22 of theNevada Constitution would rescind a propertyowner’s right to disqualify one judge at the districtcourt level and one judge at each appellate level inany eminent domain action.
A “Yes” vote would repeal Article 1, Section 22of the Nevada Constitution and amend Article 1,Section 8 of the Nevada Constitution relating toeminent domain proceedings.
A “No” vote would retain Article 1, Section 22 ofthe Nevada Constitution and keep intact the cur-rent provisions of Article 1, Section 8 of theNevada Constitution relating to eminent domainproceedings.
16
STATE QUESTION NO. 4
ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE
Although the People’s Initiative to Stop the Taking ofOur Land (PISTOL) remains a well-intentioned, pop-ular initiative that provided much needed protectionfor Nevada’s private property owners, it also con-tains several flaws that have the potential to costtaxpayers money and hamper efforts to maintainand upgrade infrastructure, including schools,roads, water supply and sewage systems, and pub-lic transportation.
Recognizing these problems, representatives oflocal governments, state agencies, private busi-nesses, the public, and even the original sponsors ofPISTOL worked together over the course of two leg-islative sessions to craft a workable constitutionalamendment relating to eminent domain that allowsNevada to move forward with public projects whileprotecting private property rights, saving taxpayersmoney, and avoiding unnecessary lawsuits. Theprovisions of this question clearly define the limitedinstances in which private property can be trans-ferred or leased to a private party through eminentdomain, which do not include increasing tax rev-enue or generating profit for private businesses.This question builds on the successes of PISTOLwhile correcting its deficiencies.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE
The People’s Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land(PISTOL) was a response to eminent domain prac-tices upheld by the United States Supreme Court inKelo v. the City of New London and by the NevadaSupreme Court in Pappas v. the City of Las Vegas. Inthose cases, the courts expanded the definition of“public use” to allow local governments to increasetheir tax bases by turning over private property toprivate persons in order to support private businessinterests. This question seeks to weaken the protec-tions contained in PISTOL by expanding the circum-stances under which a government can use emi-nent domain to transfer property from one privateparty to another.
The PISTOL initiative sought, in clear and conciselanguage, to put a stop to these transfers once and
for all, and to give property owners legal tools to usein the event that their property was targeted for tak-ing by the government. The initiative passed withover 60 percent of the vote in both 2006 and 2008.Voters understood the issues at hand and chose topass the initiative in two successive elections. Thereis no reason to change the provisions of PISTOL.
FISCAL NOTE
Financial Impact – Cannot be Determined
This question would amend the Nevada Constitutionto include new provisions relating to eminentdomain proceedings within the State of Nevada,including:
• Allowing the direct or indirect transfer of any inter-est in private property to another private person orentity as a public use in certain circumstances, asspecified in the proposed constitutional amend-ment;
• Removing the right for property owners to pre-empt one judge at the district court level and onejudge at each appellate level in any eminent domainaction; and
• Requiring that property taken by eminent domainmust be offered to, and reverts to, the person fromwhom the property was taken, upon repayment ofthe purchase price, if the entity who took the prop-erty fails to use the property within 15 years afterobtaining possession of the property.
These proposed changes relating to eminent domainproceedings may affect the number of eminentdomain proceedings that are undertaken by theState and local governments. However, because thenumber of eminent domain actions that may beundertaken cannot be estimated, the financial effectupon the State and local governments cannot bedetermined with any reasonable degree of certainty.
Subsections 4 through 8, inclusive, and subsection12 of Article 1, Section 22 of the NevadaConstitution contain various provisions relating tothe rights of property owners in eminent domain
17
STATE QUESTION NO. 4 (CONTINUED)
proceedings, the calculation of fair market value forthe property, and the determination of just compen-sation to the property owner. If this question isapproved by the voters, these provisions of theNevada Constitution would be repealed andreplaced with similar language contained in thisproposed constitutional amendment. These provi-sions of this question are not anticipated to have afinancial effect upon the State or local governments,if approved by the voters.
18
STATE QUESTION NO. 4 (CONTINUED)
CHURCHILL COUNTY – QUESTION NO. 1
TAX AD VALOREM FORCHURCHILL COUNTY SENIOR CENTER
Shall the Board of County Commissioners ofChurchill County be authorized to levy an additionalproperty tax rate to assist in the continued fundingof the necessary facilities and services for theChurchill County Senior Center in an amount of$0.03 per $100 of assessed valuation for a period ofsix years beginning July 1, 2011, and ending June30, 2017? The cost for the owner of a new$100,000 home is estimated to be $10.50 per year.If this question is approved by the voters, any prop-erty tax levied as authorized by this question will beoutside of the caps on a taxpayer’s liability for prop-erty (ad valorem) taxes established by thelegislature in the 2005 session.
■ Yes � ■ No �
EXPLANATION
A $0.03 increase in the property tax rate would addapproximately $10.50 annually to the property taxbill of a new home with a fair market value of$100,000. A property tax rate of $0.03 will gener-ate approximately $196,118 in revenues for fiscalyear 2011-2012 beginning July 1, 2011 and, for theyears thereafter, will generate revenue in an amountdetermined by that year’s assessed valuation for alltaxable property in Churchill County. The additionallevy automatically ceases at the end of the six-yearperiod. All revenue generated will be used exclu-sively to provide a variety of programs and facilitiesfor senior citizens of Churchill County.
A “YES” vote on the above question will author-ize the Board of County Commissioners toimpose a property tax rate of $0.03 per $100 ofassessed valuation in support of the ChurchillCounty Senior Citizens Center. The additionallevy would begin July 1, 2011 and end June 30,2017. Proceeds generated by the proposedproperty tax rate will be used to maintain cer-tain programs and services provided to senior
citizens of Churchill County through theCoalition for Senior Citizens, the group, whichadministers the Churchill County Senior CitizensCenter.
A “NO” vote on the above question constitutes arejection of the proposed levy of an additionalproperty tax. In that event, the additional rate of$0.03 per $100 of assessed valuation will not belevied, and the property tax rate will not beimpacted by this measure.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE QUESTION
• The County anticipates using revenue generatedby the levy to provide assistance in support ofvarious programs and services for seniors suchas Healthy Nutrition Site, Meals on Wheels forhomebound, Senior Advocacy, Volunteer pro-grams, and repairs and maintenance of SeniorCenter facilities to support independent livingwith dignity and health for the senior citizens ofChurchill County.
• Without the levy, certain programs and servicesprovided to senior citizens of Churchill Countymay be eliminated; others will be reduced inscope to a minimal level since many of the out-side sources for grant funding are being phasedout of state and federal budgets.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE QUESTION
• Passage of the question will increase propertytaxes by $0.03 per $100 of assessed valuation or$10.50 per year on a new $100,000 home.
• Property taxes in Churchill County are alreadyexcessive. We do not need to increase thembeyond the current rate.
• Reducing expenditures elsewhere in the Countybudget, rather than increasing property taxescan fund senior citizens’ programs.
19
QUESTIONS TO BE PRESENTED TO THE VOTERS OF CHURCHILL COUNTYCOUNTY QUESTION NO. 1
CHURCHILL COUNTY - QUESTION NO. 2
LOCAL REVENUE ADVISORY QUESTION
Shall the consent of the governing body of the localgovernment be required before the StateLegislature can act to decrease revenues orreserves collected by, distributed to, or held by thelocal government, or impose fees on or mandatenew or different services be performed by the localgovernment?
■ Yes � ■ No �
EXPLANATION
The use of revenues paid by taxpayers for functionsof local government by the State is resulting in thereduction and elimination of services provided bylocal governments. This ballot question will serve toadvise the Nevada Legislature of whether themajority of the voting public in this County believesthat the consent of the governing body of the localgovernment should be required before the StateLegislature can act to decrease revenues orreserves collected by, distributed to, or held by thelocal government, or impose fees on or mandatenew or different services be performed by the localgovernment. “Local government” means everypolitical subdivision or other entity which has theright to levy or receive money from ad valorem orother taxes or any mandatory assessments, andincludes, without limitation, counties, cities, towns,boards, school districts and other districts organ-ized pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute, and anyagency or department of a county or city whichprepares a budget separate from that of the parentpolitical subdivision. Examples of other districtsorganized pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute arewater and sewer general improvement districts,and library districts. Examples of an agency ordepartment of a county or city which prepares abudget separate from that of the parent politicalsubdivision are district health departments and dis-trict courts.
“Local revenues” include taxes, fees, intergovern-mental transfers and other revenues that are usedby local governments to provide services and pro-grams, and to construct, operate and maintain facil-ities. Examples of fees that the State has or mayimpose are administrative fees for collecting salestaxes (increased by the 2009 Legislature) and amandatory fee per employee to fund the administra-tion of the state run Local Government EmployeeManagement Relations Board. New service man-dates without commensurate funding are oftenreferred to as “unfunded mandates.” The consentof the local government would be considered andacted upon by the governing body of that local gov-ernment in a public meeting noticed and conductedin conformance with Nevada’s Open Meeting Law.
The question is purely advisory and does not placeany legal requirement on any local government, anymember of local government, or any officer of thecounty or the Nevada Legislature.
GENERAL FISCAL NOTE FOR ALL COUNTIES
If the Legislature is required to obtain the consent ofthe governing body of the local government beforethe State Legislature can act to decrease revenuesor reserves collected by, distributed to, or held bythe local government, or impose fees on or mandatenew or different services, it would have a positivefinancial effect on local government by potentiallyeliminating the need for local governments to adjusttheir adopted budgets and possibly reducing servic-es or laying off employees due to the loss of localrevenue.
ARGUMENTS FOR PASSAGE
Local governments provide services such as fireand police protection, courts, water and sewer sys-tems, libraries, parks and recreation programs, andstate mandated services such as indigent medicalcare and defense. The Nevada Association ofCounties has estimated that since July 2008 theLegislature has taken over $265 million in revenuescollectively from the 17 Nevada Counties to balance
20
COUNTY QUESTION NO. 2
the State’s budget. The loss of these revenues hasimpacted the Counties’ ability to provide essentialservices. Many local governments are experiencingdeclining revenues and have balanced their budgetsby reducing or eliminating services and employees.Using the revenues directly imposed or received bylocal government, or imposing fees or new man-dates on local governments in order to balance theState's budget is a disservice to the public. Ifapproved, this question would send the message tothe Nevada Legislature that the voters of this Countywant their local taxes to fund the provision of serv-ices by their local government and that the Stateshould balance its budget without taking revenuefrom local governments.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST PASSAGE
The State of Nevada is a sovereign entity. Localgovernments are created by, and for the conven-ience of, the State. The primary responsibility ofproviding government services remains with theState, therefore it is the duty of the State to useavailable revenue regardless of the source to bal-ance its budget and carry out its responsibilities. Inaddition, the taxes and fees that are imposed bylocal government must first be authorized by theLegislature. The right of the Legislature to use localrevenues to balance its budget should not be abro-gated. According to studies prepared by the NevadaDepartment of Administration, Budget Office in2009 local government revenues increased at afaster rate than the State’s. Also according to thesestudies the salaries of certain local governmentemployees are higher than their counterparts whowork for the State. Therefore, local governmentsshould be required to help the State balance itsbudget by contributing a portion of their revenues,paying higher State administrative fees and takingon additional services previously provided by theState.
21
COUNTY QUESTION NO. 2 (CONTINUED)
VOTE
NON PROFIT ORG
US POSTAGE
PAID
CARSON CITY NV
PERMIT NO. 94
YOUR VOTEMAKESA DIFFERENCE
BRING YOUR SAMPLE BALLOT WHEN YOU GO TO THE POLLS TO VOTE.
Kelly G. HeltonChurchill County Clerk/Treasurer155 N. Taylor Street, Suite 110Fallon, Nevada 89406
