Question 1
A Yes vote would amend the Nevada Constitution to provide for initial appointment of Supreme Court justices and district judges by the governor from lists developed by the Commission on Judicial Selection. After serving at least 12 months, those appointees would be evaluated by an independent Commission on Judicial Performance and voters at the following general election would decide based on those evaluations whether to retain the judge. If the judge failed to get at least 55 percent of the vote, he or she would be removed and a replacement appointed. If the judge gets the votes, he or she would serve a six year term, following which another evaluation and vote would take place
Supporters say the appointment process mirrors existing law to fill a judicial vacancy between elections and has worked well by recommending highly qualified appointees. They add that this process would free the judges from having to seek contributions.
A No vote would retain the existing system of directly electing judges.
Question 2
A Yes vote would amend the Nevada Constitution to authorize the Legislature to create an intermediate appellate court between district courts and the Supreme Court. It does not mandate creation of an appellate court. If created, the appellate court would hear appeals from civil and criminal district court cases, relieving the caseload on Nevada's Supreme Court that is one of the nation's busiest. Supporters say it would reduce delays in resolving cases while improving the quality of rulings by giving justices more time to deal with a reduced caseload. Nevada is one of just 11 states without an appellate court.
A No vote would maintain the current language that does not allow an appellate court.
Question 3
A Yes vote would amend the 1955 sales and use tax act which created Nevada's base 2 percent sales tax. It would authorize the Legislature to amend that act without first getting voter approval but only when a change is necessary to resolve a conflict with federal law or an interstate agreement to provide for collection and enforcement of the tax. Lawmakers would be prohibited from increasing the tax rate or reducing any of its existing exemptions. The question is designed to help all states better capture such things as tax revenues from Internet sales.
Supporters say Nevada must act in a timely manner to comply with the nationally adopted Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement because requiring voter approval to make any changes can cause upwards of two years' delay in complying with that national agreement, which can generate significant revenues for Nevada.
Question 4
A Yes vote will approve changes to the constitutional amendment approved four years ago known as the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land (PISTOL), which strictly limited governmental powers of eminent domain. The original amendment was designed to prevent governments from condemning property then turning it over to another private business entity to develop. This amendment was agreed upon by government as well as the authors of the original PISTOL amendment to fix several problems all agreed could cost taxpayers far more money and interfere with efforts to build and maintain infrastructure such as schools, roads, water supply, sewage systems and public transportation. Supporters say it will still protect property owners from improper moves by state or local government to take their land.
Opponents say it will weaken the original amendment's protections of their property rights.