The Nevada Supreme Court ruled 7-0 that the Tax and Spending Control initiative will not be on ballots this November.
We will have more on this decision later tonight and in tomorrow's Nevada Appeal.
The court also decided today the voters will get to decide whether to ban
smoking from almost all public places.
The court ruled the objections raised by tavern operators, Herbst
Gamingand the other opponents don't warrant keeping the question off
the ballot and that some of their objections can only be properly made
if and when the Nevada Clean Air Act is approved by voters.
In line with that logic, tthe court voided District Judge Bill Maddox's
ruling the ban would apply to all hotel and motel rooms as well.
Petition supporters had testified they never intended the ban be
applied to hotel and motel rooms but Maddox said that's not how he
interprets the language in the petition.
The high court said Maddox exceed his authority in making that ruling.
The court unanimously agreed the quesiton should remain on the ballot.
But Chief Justice Bob Rose differed with the other six members of the
court in how to handle the definition of stand alone bars, which are
excluded form the ban. The majority said the explanation on the ballot
question must explain the term means those bars without a food license.
Rose said he would instead require the definition of stand alone be
expanded to include all "stand alone" bars whether they serve food or
not since that's how the petition was explained to signers.
In addition, the court upheld the lower court decision to pull a
petition designed to block development of 100,000 acres in Boulder City
off the November ballot.
Citing earlier rulings in Carson City's Fuji Park case and the
sustainable Growth Initiative case from Douglas County, the court
agreed with the district judge the Boulder question was an improper
attempt to have voters make an administrative decision. Initiatives and
referendums, they ruled, are limited to legislation and do not extend
to administrative matters.
Voters, the court said, can set policy, but can't interfere with
administrative matters such as deciding a specific zoning, permit or
development issue.