single-subject rule in Nevada

2024Washington takes issue with this view of the petition's subject, arguing that characterizing the broad idea of "reproductive freedom" as the petition's single subject results in "logrolling." The term "logrolling" was used by the concurring and dissenting justices in NPPRI to describe what the single-subject requirement is intended to prevent. 122 Nev. at 918 , 141 P.3d at 1251 (Maupin, J., concurring and dissenting); id. at 922 , 141 P.3d at 1254 (Hardesty, J., concurring and dissenting).

2024Washington takes issue with this view of the petition's subject, arguing that characterizing the broad idea of "reproductive freedom" as the petition's single subject results in "logrolling." The term "logrolling" was used by the concurring and dissenting justices in NPPRI to describe what the single-subject requirement is intended to prevent. 122 Nev. at 918 , 141 P.3d at 1251 (Maupin, J., concurring and dissenting); id. at 922 , 141 P.3d at 1254 (Hardesty, J., concurring and dissenting).

2022Thus, “the single- subject requirement helps both in prometing informed decisions and in preventing the enactment of unpopular provisions by attaching them to more attractive proposals or concealing them in lengthy, complex initiatives (i.e., logrolling).” Las Vegas Taxpayer, 125 Nev. at 176-77 , 208 P.3d at 436 - a7, SuPREME CourT OF NEVADA (0) 147A <GRB> In considering single-subject challenges, the court must first determine the initiative’s purpose or subject and then determine if each provision is functionally related and germane to each other and the initiative’s purpose or subject.?

2022Thus, “the single- subject requirement helps both in prometing informed decisions and in preventing the enactment of unpopular provisions by attaching them to more attractive proposals or concealing them in lengthy, complex initiatives (i.e., logrolling).” Las Vegas Taxpayer, 125 Nev. at 176-77 , 208 P.3d at 436 - a7, SuPREME CourT OF NEVADA (0) 147A <GRB> In considering single-subject challenges, the court must first determine the initiative’s purpose or subject and then determine if each provision is functionally related and germane to each other and the initiative’s purpose or subject.?

2022Thus, we conclude that even though the BVN Initiative proposes two changes, because those changes are functionally related and germane to each other and the subject of the framework of how specified officeholders are presented to voters and elected, the initiative does not violate the single-subject requirement.® Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not err in rejecting Helton’s request for injunctive relief based on a violation of the single-subject requirement. 4While we recognize that Alaska’s single-subject requirement is slightly different from our own, Meyer, 465 P.3d at 484,

2022Herbst Gaming, Inc. v. Heller, 122 Nev. 877, 883-84 , 141 P.3d 1224, 1228 (2006).

2006(Nev., April 12, 2005) (indicating that the purpose of Nevada's single-subject law is to prevent petition signer and voter confusion, especially regarding potentially "hidden" subjects in a petition); Campbell v. Buckley, 203 F.3d 738, 746 (10th Cir.2000) (recognizing that the single-subject rule advances the dual purposes of prevent voter confusion and promoting informed decisions); Senate of the State of Cal. v. Jones, 21 Cal.4th 1142 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 , 988 P.2d 1089, 1105-06 (1999) (noting that the "basic objectives" behind California's single-subject rule are to avoid voter confusion a

2006(Nev., April 12, 2005) (indicating that the purpose of Nevada's single-subject law is to prevent petition signer and voter confusion, especially regarding potentially "hidden" subjects in a petition); Campbell v. Buckley, 203 F.3d 738, 746 (10th Cir.2000) (recognizing that the single-subject rule advances the dual purposes of prevent voter confusion and promoting informed decisions); Senate of the State of Cal. v. Jones, 21 Cal.4th 1142 , 90 Cal.Rptr.2d 810 , 988 P.2d 1089, 1105-06 (1999) (noting that the "basic objectives" behind California's single-subject rule are to avoid voter confusion a

2006Const. art. 3, § 1; cf. McAlpine v. University of Alaska, 762 P.2d 81, 94-95 (Alaska 1988) (concluding that an initiative petition may be severed when in violation of the single-subject rule, if the remainder of the proposed legislation can be given legal effect and represents the measure's "spirit," and the measure's proponents' wishes appear to be reflected in the severance). [21] As I would strike the entire initiative because it violates NRS 295.009's single-subject requirement, I do not address the sever and strike issue in light of the administrative/legislative distinction.

2006But see Beebe v. Koontz, 72 Nev. 247 , 302 P.2d 486 (1956) (refusing to consider a procedural objection when the opponents delayed filing their challenge for a year and gave no reason for their tardiness and entertaining the matter at that time would disrupt the election process). [9] See Alaska Action v. Municipality of Anchorage, 84 P.3d 989 (Alaska 2004) (whether initiative proposed an "appropriation," prohibited by state constitution); McAlpine v. University of Alaska, 762 P.2d 81 (Alaska 1988) (same); Senate of the State of Cal. v. Jones, 21 Cal.4th 1142 , 90 Cal. Rptr.2d 810 , 988 P.2d 1

2022Thus, we conclude that even though the BVN Initiative proposes two changes, because those changes are functionally related and germane to each other and the subject of the framework of how specified officeholders are presented to voters and elected, the initiative does not violate the single-subject requirement.® Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not err in rejecting Helton’s request for injunctive relief based on a violation of the single-subject requirement. 4While we recognize that Alaska’s single-subject requirement is slightly different from our own, Meyer, 465 P.3d at 484,

2022Thus, we conclude that even though the BVN Initiative proposes two changes, because those changes are functionally related and germane to each other and the subject of the framework of how specified officeholders are presented to voters and elected, the initiative does not violate the single-subject requirement.® Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not err in rejecting Helton’s request for injunctive relief based on a violation of the single-subject requirement. 4While we recognize that Alaska’s single-subject requirement is slightly different from our own, Meyer, 465 P.3d at 484,

2018Servs., Inc. v. Amador Stage Lines, Inc., 128 Nev. 289, 299 , 279 P.3d 166, 172 (2012) ("An appellate court is not particularly well-suited to make factual determinations in the first instance."). 3 Having already concluded that the description of effect is insufficient, we decline to address Tu Casa's additional arguments on this issue.

2018Servs., Inc. v. Amador Stage Lines, Inc., 128 Nev. 289, 299 , 279 P.3d 166, 172 (2012) ("An appellate court is not particularly well-suited to make factual determinations in the first instance."). 3 Having already concluded that the description of effect is insufficient, we decline to address Tu Casa's additional arguments on this issue.

2018See In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015- 2016 #63, 370 P.3d 628, 632 (Colo. 2016) (addressing an initiative that sought to amend the Colorado Constitution to establish a "right to a healthy environment" and concluding that, despite its generality, it satisfied the single-subject requirement).

2018See In re Title, Ballot Title & Submission Clause for 2015- 2016 #63, 370 P.3d 628, 632 (Colo. 2016) (addressing an initiative that sought to amend the Colorado Constitution to establish a "right to a healthy environment" and concluding that, despite its generality, it satisfied the single-subject requirement).

2009In interpreting their constitutional single-subject requirement for initiatives, California courts have held that an initiative proponent may not circumvent the single-subject rule by phrasing the proposed law’s purpose or object in terms of “excessive generality”: “ ‘For example, the rule obviously forbids joining disparate provisions which appear germane only to topics of excessive generality such as “government” or “public welfare.” ’ ” Harbor v. Deukmejian, 742 P.2d 1290, 1303 (Cal. 1987) (quoting Brosnahan v. Brown, 651 P.2d 274, 284 (Cal. 1982)) (invalidating a proposed law for violating

2009In interpreting their constitutional single-subject requirement for initiatives, California courts have held that an initiative proponent may not circumvent the single-subject rule by phrasing the proposed law’s purpose or object in terms of “excessive generality”: “ ‘For example, the rule obviously forbids joining disparate provisions which appear germane only to topics of excessive generality such as “government” or “public welfare.” ’ ” Harbor v. Deukmejian, 742 P.2d 1290, 1303 (Cal. 1987) (quoting Brosnahan v. Brown, 651 P.2d 274, 284 (Cal. 1982)) (invalidating a proposed law for violating

2009Specialties Mfrs. v. Deukmejian, 278 Cal. Rptr. 128, 133 (Ct. App. 1991) (determining, under a “functionally related or reasonably germane” standard, that an initiative proposing to require disclosures pertaining to, among other things, household toxic products, senior health insurance, and senior nursing homes, could not proceed under the general rubric “public disclosure, i.e., truth in advertising” and violated California’s single-subject rule).

2006Fed. of Labor-Congress v. March Fong Eu, 36 Cal.3d 687 , 206 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 686 P.2d 609 (1984) (validity of initiative that urged state legislature to propose balanced budget amendment to Congress, and thus did not enact or amend any statute); City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Patterson, 202 Cal.App.3d 95 , 248 Cal.Rptr. 290 (1988) (whether initiative exceeded self-governance power under a charter); Wiltshire v. Superior Ct. (City of San Marcos), 172 Cal.App.3d 296 , 218 Cal.Rptr. 199 (1985) (whether grant of a special use permit in a specific situation was a legislative subject proper for init

2006Fed. of Labor-Congress v. March Fong Eu, 36 Cal.3d 687 , 206 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 686 P.2d 609 (1984) (validity of initiative that urged state legislature to propose balanced budget amendment to Congress, and thus did not enact or amend any statute); City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Patterson, 202 Cal.App.3d 95 , 248 Cal.Rptr. 290 (1988) (whether initiative exceeded self-governance power under a charter); Wiltshire v. Superior Ct. (City of San Marcos), 172 Cal.App.3d 296 , 218 Cal.Rptr. 199 (1985) (whether grant of a special use permit in a specific situation was a legislative subject proper for init

2006Const. art. 6, § 4. [2] See NRS 293.124. [3] See County of Clark v. Upchurch, 114 Nev. 749 , 961 P.2d 754 (1998) (acknowledging that, where a district court's decision in a declaratory relief action is based on statutory construction, this court's review is de novo). [4] See County of Clark v. Doumani, 114 Nev. 46, 53 , 952 P.2d 13, 17 (1998). [5] Koller v. State, 122 Nev. ___ , ___, 130 P.3d 653, 655 (2006) (citing City of Reno v. Reno Gazette-Journal, 119 Nev. 55, 58 , 63 P.3d 1147, 1148 (2003)). [6] 203 F.3d 738 (10th Cir.2000). [7] Id. at 746 . [8] Id. at 745 (stating that the single-subje

2006Const. art. 6, § 4. [2] See NRS 293.124. [3] See County of Clark v. Upchurch, 114 Nev. 749 , 961 P.2d 754 (1998) (acknowledging that, where a district court's decision in a declaratory relief action is based on statutory construction, this court's review is de novo). [4] See County of Clark v. Doumani, 114 Nev. 46, 53 , 952 P.2d 13, 17 (1998). [5] Koller v. State, 122 Nev. ___ , ___, 130 P.3d 653, 655 (2006) (citing City of Reno v. Reno Gazette-Journal, 119 Nev. 55, 58 , 63 P.3d 1147, 1148 (2003)). [6] 203 F.3d 738 (10th Cir.2000). [7] Id. at 746 . [8] Id. at 745 (stating that the single-subje

2006Const. art. 6, § 4. [2] See NRS 293.124. [3] See County of Clark v. Upchurch, 114 Nev. 749 , 961 P.2d 754 (1998) (acknowledging that, where a district court's decision in a declaratory relief action is based on statutory construction, this court's review is de novo). [4] See County of Clark v. Doumani, 114 Nev. 46, 53 , 952 P.2d 13, 17 (1998). [5] Koller v. State, 122 Nev. ___ , ___, 130 P.3d 653, 655 (2006) (citing City of Reno v. Reno Gazette-Journal, 119 Nev. 55, 58 , 63 P.3d 1147, 1148 (2003)). [6] 203 F.3d 738 (10th Cir.2000). [7] Id. at 746 . [8] Id. at 745 (stating that the single-subje

2006Const. art. 6, § 4. [2] See NRS 293.124. [3] See County of Clark v. Upchurch, 114 Nev. 749 , 961 P.2d 754 (1998) (acknowledging that, where a district court's decision in a declaratory relief action is based on statutory construction, this court's review is de novo). [4] See County of Clark v. Doumani, 114 Nev. 46, 53 , 952 P.2d 13, 17 (1998). [5] Koller v. State, 122 Nev. ___ , ___, 130 P.3d 653, 655 (2006) (citing City of Reno v. Reno Gazette-Journal, 119 Nev. 55, 58 , 63 P.3d 1147, 1148 (2003)). [6] 203 F.3d 738 (10th Cir.2000). [7] Id. at 746 . [8] Id. at 745 (stating that the single-subje

2006Fed. of Labor-Congress v. March Fong Eu, 36 Cal.3d 687 , 206 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 686 P.2d 609 (1984) (validity of initiative that urged state legislature to propose balanced budget amendment to Congress, and thus did not enact or amend any statute); City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Patterson, 202 Cal.App.3d 95 , 248 Cal.Rptr. 290 (1988) (whether initiative exceeded self-governance power under a charter); Wiltshire v. Superior Ct. (City of San Marcos), 172 Cal.App.3d 296 , 218 Cal.Rptr. 199 (1985) (whether grant of a special use permit in a specific situation was a legislative subject proper for init

2006Fed. of Labor-Congress v. March Fong Eu, 36 Cal.3d 687 , 206 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 686 P.2d 609 (1984) (validity of initiative that urged state legislature to propose balanced budget amendment to Congress, and thus did not enact or amend any statute); City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Patterson, 202 Cal.App.3d 95 , 248 Cal.Rptr. 290 (1988) (whether initiative exceeded self-governance power under a charter); Wiltshire v. Superior Ct. (City of San Marcos), 172 Cal.App.3d 296 , 218 Cal.Rptr. 199 (1985) (whether grant of a special use permit in a specific situation was a legislative subject proper for init

2006Unlike the statute at issue in Findley , which denied the right to vote to members of a particular church, NRS 295.009 simply requires that different subjects be addressed in different initiatives. [11] Cf. Citizens for Honest Gov't v. Sec. of State, 116 Nev. 939, 947 , 11 P.3d 121, 126-27 (2000) (rejecting a constitutional challenge to statutory limitations on the right to circulate a petition for the recall of an elected official, and noting that, "in determining whether legislation regulating the recall procedures `aid[s] the operation' of the recall right, this court has held that `any sta

2006Unlike the statute at issue in Findley , which denied the right to vote to members of a particular church, NRS 295.009 simply requires that different subjects be addressed in different initiatives. [11] Cf. Citizens for Honest Gov't v. Sec. of State, 116 Nev. 939, 947 , 11 P.3d 121, 126-27 (2000) (rejecting a constitutional challenge to statutory limitations on the right to circulate a petition for the recall of an elected official, and noting that, "in determining whether legislation regulating the recall procedures `aid[s] the operation' of the recall right, this court has held that `any sta

2006Fed. of Labor-Congress v. March Fong Eu, 36 Cal.3d 687 , 206 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 686 P.2d 609 (1984) (validity of initiative that urged state legislature to propose balanced budget amendment to Congress, and thus did not enact or amend any statute); City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Patterson, 202 Cal.App.3d 95 , 248 Cal.Rptr. 290 (1988) (whether initiative exceeded self-governance power under a charter); Wiltshire v. Superior Ct. (City of San Marcos), 172 Cal.App.3d 296 , 218 Cal.Rptr. 199 (1985) (whether grant of a special use permit in a specific situation was a legislative subject proper for init

2006Fed. of Labor-Congress v. March Fong Eu, 36 Cal.3d 687 , 206 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 686 P.2d 609 (1984) (validity of initiative that urged state legislature to propose balanced budget amendment to Congress, and thus did not enact or amend any statute); City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Patterson, 202 Cal.App.3d 95 , 248 Cal.Rptr. 290 (1988) (whether initiative exceeded self-governance power under a charter); Wiltshire v. Superior Ct. (City of San Marcos), 172 Cal.App.3d 296 , 218 Cal.Rptr. 199 (1985) (whether grant of a special use permit in a specific situation was a legislative subject proper for init

2006Unlike the statute at issue in Findley , which denied the right to vote to members of a particular church, NRS 295.009 simply requires that different subjects be addressed in different initiatives. [11] Cf. Citizens for Honest Gov't v. Sec. of State, 116 Nev. 939, 947 , 11 P.3d 121, 126-27 (2000) (rejecting a constitutional challenge to statutory limitations on the right to circulate a petition for the recall of an elected official, and noting that, "in determining whether legislation regulating the recall procedures `aid[s] the operation' of the recall right, this court has held that `any sta

2006Unlike the statute at issue in Findley , which denied the right to vote to members of a particular church, NRS 295.009 simply requires that different subjects be addressed in different initiatives. [11] Cf. Citizens for Honest Gov't v. Sec. of State, 116 Nev. 939, 947 , 11 P.3d 121, 126-27 (2000) (rejecting a constitutional challenge to statutory limitations on the right to circulate a petition for the recall of an elected official, and noting that, "in determining whether legislation regulating the recall procedures `aid[s] the operation' of the recall right, this court has held that `any sta

2006Fed. of Labor-Congress v. March Fong Eu, 36 Cal.3d 687 , 206 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 686 P.2d 609 (1984) (validity of initiative that urged state legislature to propose balanced budget amendment to Congress, and thus did not enact or amend any statute); City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Patterson, 202 Cal.App.3d 95 , 248 Cal.Rptr. 290 (1988) (whether initiative exceeded self-governance power under a charter); Wiltshire v. Superior Ct. (City of San Marcos), 172 Cal.App.3d 296 , 218 Cal.Rptr. 199 (1985) (whether grant of a special use permit in a specific situation was a legislative subject proper for init

2006Fed. of Labor-Congress v. March Fong Eu, 36 Cal.3d 687 , 206 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 686 P.2d 609 (1984) (validity of initiative that urged state legislature to propose balanced budget amendment to Congress, and thus did not enact or amend any statute); City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Patterson, 202 Cal.App.3d 95 , 248 Cal.Rptr. 290 (1988) (whether initiative exceeded self-governance power under a charter); Wiltshire v. Superior Ct. (City of San Marcos), 172 Cal.App.3d 296 , 218 Cal.Rptr. 199 (1985) (whether grant of a special use permit in a specific situation was a legislative subject proper for init

2006Fed. of Labor-Congress v. March Fong Eu, 36 Cal.3d 687 , 206 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 686 P.2d 609 (1984) (validity of initiative that urged state legislature to propose balanced budget amendment to Congress, and thus did not enact or amend any statute); City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Patterson, 202 Cal.App.3d 95 , 248 Cal.Rptr. 290 (1988) (whether initiative exceeded self-governance power under a charter); Wiltshire v. Superior Ct. (City of San Marcos), 172 Cal.App.3d 296 , 218 Cal.Rptr. 199 (1985) (whether grant of a special use permit in a specific situation was a legislative subject proper for init

2006Fed. of Labor-Congress v. March Fong Eu, 36 Cal.3d 687 , 206 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 686 P.2d 609 (1984) (validity of initiative that urged state legislature to propose balanced budget amendment to Congress, and thus did not enact or amend any statute); City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Patterson, 202 Cal.App.3d 95 , 248 Cal.Rptr. 290 (1988) (whether initiative exceeded self-governance power under a charter); Wiltshire v. Superior Ct. (City of San Marcos), 172 Cal.App.3d 296 , 218 Cal.Rptr. 199 (1985) (whether grant of a special use permit in a specific situation was a legislative subject proper for init

2006Fed. of Labor-Congress v. March Fong Eu, 36 Cal.3d 687 , 206 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 686 P.2d 609 (1984) (validity of initiative that urged state legislature to propose balanced budget amendment to Congress, and thus did not enact or amend any statute); City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Patterson, 202 Cal.App.3d 95 , 248 Cal.Rptr. 290 (1988) (whether initiative exceeded self-governance power under a charter); Wiltshire v. Superior Ct. (City of San Marcos), 172 Cal.App.3d 296 , 218 Cal.Rptr. 199 (1985) (whether grant of a special use permit in a specific situation was a legislative subject proper for init

2006Fed. of Labor-Congress v. March Fong Eu, 36 Cal.3d 687 , 206 Cal.Rptr. 89 , 686 P.2d 609 (1984) (validity of initiative that urged state legislature to propose balanced budget amendment to Congress, and thus did not enact or amend any statute); City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Patterson, 202 Cal.App.3d 95 , 248 Cal.Rptr. 290 (1988) (whether initiative exceeded self-governance power under a charter); Wiltshire v. Superior Ct. (City of San Marcos), 172 Cal.App.3d 296 , 218 Cal.Rptr. 199 (1985) (whether grant of a special use permit in a specific situation was a legislative subject proper for init