Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 295 - CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL BALLOT QUESTIONS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 295.009 (2026)

General requirements for state or local petition for initiative or referendum: Must embrace one subject; must include description of effect

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 295.009  General requirements for state or local petition for initiative or referendum: Must embrace one subject; must include description of effect.

      1.  Each petition for initiative or referendum must:

      (a) Embrace but one subject and matters necessarily connected therewith and pertaining thereto; and

      (b) Set forth, in not more than 200 words, a description of the effect of the initiative or referendum if the initiative or referendum is approved by the voters. The description must appear on each signature page of the petition.

      2.  For the purposes of paragraph (a) of subsection 1, a petition for initiative or referendum embraces but one subject and matters necessarily connected therewith and pertaining thereto, if the parts of the proposed initiative or referendum are functionally related and germane to each other in a way that provides sufficient notice of the general subject of, and of the interests likely to be affected by, the proposed initiative or referendum.

      (Added to NRS by 2005, 2837)

STATE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case: Nevadans for the Prot. of Prop. Rights, Inc. v. Heller, 141 P.3d 1235 (Nev. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nevadans for the Prot. of Prop. Rights, Inc. v. Heller, 141 P.3d 1235 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 78× “In this opinion, we consider the constitutionality of NRS 295.009, which places a single-subject requirement on initiative petitions, and whether the initiative petition at issue in this appeal, the Nevada Property Owners' Bill of Rights, violates that requirement.”
Las Vegas Taxpayer Acct. Comm. v. City Council, 208 P.3d 429 (Nev. 2009). · cites it 27× “The district court concluded that NRS 295.009, which requires that ballot questions pertain to a single subject and that they include an accurate description of effect, applies to municipal initiatives and referenda.”
Educ. Initiative PAC v. Comm. to Protect Nevada Jobs, 293 P.3d 874 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 18× “In its complaint, the Committee sought a declaration that (1) El PAC’s Initiative violated NRS 295.009’s single-subject rule because it sought to enact a multi-subject law, and (2) its description of effect was misleading in several respects.”
Nevadans for Nevada v. Beers, 142 P.3d 339 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 11× “*936 The opponents’ complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief Because of the difference between the March 8 version filed with the Secretary of State and the version circulated among voters, and on the basis that the initiative, in violation of NRS 295.009, embraced more…”
Candelaria v. Roger, 245 P.3d 518 (Nev. 2010). · cites it 12× “Single-subject requirement This appeal presents the perfect opportunity for this court to reconcile the different approaches it has taken in applying Nevada's constitutional and statutory single-subject requirements.”
Personhood Nevada v. Bristol, 245 P.3d 572 (Nev. 2010). · cites it 4× “: This is an appeal from a district court order determining that a proposed initiative violated NRS 295.009’s single-subject rule and enjoining its placement on the 2010 general election ballot.”
Helton v. Nev. Voters First Pac (ballot Issue), 2022 NV 45 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 22× “Here, the initiative’s proposed changes are functionally related and germane to each other and the initiative’s subject and are therefore in accord with NRS 295.009 and our holding in Nevadans for Property Rights.”
Pest Comm. v. Miller, 648 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (D. Nev. 2009). · cites it 23× “Plaintiffs argue the single-subject and description-of-effect requirements found in NRS 295.009 and the pre-election challenge procedure found in NRS 295.”
Ed. Freedom Pac v. Reid (ballot Issue), 2022 NV 47 (Nev. 2022). · cites it 4× “SuPREME Court OF NEVADA (0) 1947A oS “In determining whether a ballot initiative proponent has complied with NRS 295.009, it is not the function of this court to judge the wisdom of the proposed initiative.”
Las Vegas Convention & Visitors Auth. v. Miller, 191 P.3d 1138 (Nev. 2008). “Secretary of State 81 (Property Rights), this court considered which test to apply in determining whether NRS 295.009’s single-subject requirement was constitutional.”
Nevadans for Reprod. Freedom v. Washington, 546 P.3d 801 (Nev. 2024). · cites it 4× “" NRS 295.009(1). A petition meets this single-subject requirement if its provisions "are functionally related and germane to each other in a way that provides sufficient notice of the general subject of, and of the interests likely to be affected by, the proposed initiative.”
Child v. Lomax, 188 P.3d 1103 (Nev. 2008). · cites it 3× “21 The Legislature also argues that the ballot question’s language confused voters and that it violated NRS 295.009, which requires that “[ejach petition for initiative or referendum must .”
Show all 18 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 295.009(1) — 4 cases
Las Vegas Taxpayer Acct. Comm. v. City Council, 208 P.3d 429 (Nev. 2009). “The district court concluded that NRS 295.009, which requires that ballot questions pertain to a single subject and that they include an accurate description of effect, applies to municipal initiatives and referenda.”
Educ. Initiative PAC v. Comm. to Protect Nevada Jobs, 293 P.3d 874 (Nev. 2013). “In its complaint, the Committee sought a declaration that (1) El PAC’s Initiative violated NRS 295.009’s single-subject rule because it sought to enact a multi-subject law, and (2) its description of effect was misleading in several respects.”
Helton v. Nev. Voters First Pac (ballot Issue), 2022 NV 45 (Nev. 2022). “Here, the initiative’s proposed changes are functionally related and germane to each other and the initiative’s subject and are therefore in accord with NRS 295.009 and our holding in Nevadans for Property Rights.”
Nevadans for Reprod. Freedom v. Washington, 546 P.3d 801 (Nev. 2024). “" NRS 295.009(1). A petition meets this single-subject requirement if its provisions "are functionally related and germane to each other in a way that provides sufficient notice of the general subject of, and of the interests likely to be affected by, the proposed initiative.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 295.009(1)(a) — 3 cases
Nevadans for Nevada v. Beers, 142 P.3d 339 (Nev. 2006). “*936 The opponents’ complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief Because of the difference between the March 8 version filed with the Secretary of State and the version circulated among voters, and on the basis that the initiative, in violation of NRS 295.009, embraced more…”
Nevadans for the Prot. of Prop. Rights, Inc. v. Heller, 141 P.3d 1235 (Nev. 2006). “In this opinion, we consider the constitutionality of NRS 295.009, which places a single-subject requirement on initiative petitions, and whether the initiative petition at issue in this appeal, the Nevada Property Owners' Bill of Rights, violates that requirement.”
Prevent Sanctuary Cities v. Haley (Ballot Issue) (Nev. 2018).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 295.009(1)(b) — 7 cases
Las Vegas Taxpayer Acct. Comm. v. City Council, 208 P.3d 429 (Nev. 2009). “The district court concluded that NRS 295.009, which requires that ballot questions pertain to a single subject and that they include an accurate description of effect, applies to municipal initiatives and referenda.”
Helton v. Nev. Voters First Pac (ballot Issue), 2022 NV 45 (Nev. 2022). “Here, the initiative’s proposed changes are functionally related and germane to each other and the initiative’s subject and are therefore in accord with NRS 295.009 and our holding in Nevadans for Property Rights.”
Ed. Freedom Pac v. Reid (ballot Issue), 2022 NV 47 (Nev. 2022). “SuPREME Court OF NEVADA (0) 1947A oS “In determining whether a ballot initiative proponent has complied with NRS 295.009, it is not the function of this court to judge the wisdom of the proposed initiative.”
Nevadans for Reprod. Freedom v. Washington, 546 P.3d 801 (Nev. 2024). “" NRS 295.009(1). A petition meets this single-subject requirement if its provisions "are functionally related and germane to each other in a way that provides sufficient notice of the general subject of, and of the interests likely to be affected by, the proposed initiative.”
Prevent Sanctuary Cities v. Haley (Ballot Issue) (Nev. 2018).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 295.009(2) — 7 cases
Candelaria v. Roger, 245 P.3d 518 (Nev. 2010). “Single-subject requirement This appeal presents the perfect opportunity for this court to reconcile the different approaches it has taken in applying Nevada's constitutional and statutory single-subject requirements.”
Nevadans for the Prot. of Prop. Rights, Inc. v. Heller, 141 P.3d 1235 (Nev. 2006). “In this opinion, we consider the constitutionality of NRS 295.009, which places a single-subject requirement on initiative petitions, and whether the initiative petition at issue in this appeal, the Nevada Property Owners' Bill of Rights, violates that requirement.”
Las Vegas Taxpayer Acct. Comm. v. City Council, 208 P.3d 429 (Nev. 2009). “The district court concluded that NRS 295.009, which requires that ballot questions pertain to a single subject and that they include an accurate description of effect, applies to municipal initiatives and referenda.”
Helton v. Nev. Voters First Pac (ballot Issue), 2022 NV 45 (Nev. 2022). “Here, the initiative’s proposed changes are functionally related and germane to each other and the initiative’s subject and are therefore in accord with NRS 295.009 and our holding in Nevadans for Property Rights.”
Educ. Initiative PAC v. Comm. to Protect Nevada Jobs, 293 P.3d 874 (Nev. 2013). “In its complaint, the Committee sought a declaration that (1) El PAC’s Initiative violated NRS 295.009’s single-subject rule because it sought to enact a multi-subject law, and (2) its description of effect was misleading in several respects.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 295.009(l)(a) — 5 cases
Nevadans for Nevada v. Beers, 142 P.3d 339 (Nev. 2006). “*936 The opponents’ complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief Because of the difference between the March 8 version filed with the Secretary of State and the version circulated among voters, and on the basis that the initiative, in violation of NRS 295.009, embraced more…”
Candelaria v. Roger, 245 P.3d 518 (Nev. 2010). “Single-subject requirement This appeal presents the perfect opportunity for this court to reconcile the different approaches it has taken in applying Nevada's constitutional and statutory single-subject requirements.”
Educ. Initiative PAC v. Comm. to Protect Nevada Jobs, 293 P.3d 874 (Nev. 2013). “In its complaint, the Committee sought a declaration that (1) El PAC’s Initiative violated NRS 295.009’s single-subject rule because it sought to enact a multi-subject law, and (2) its description of effect was misleading in several respects.”
Nevadans for the Prot. of Prop. Rights, Inc. v. Heller, 141 P.3d 1235 (Nev. 2006). “In this opinion, we consider the constitutionality of NRS 295.009, which places a single-subject requirement on initiative petitions, and whether the initiative petition at issue in this appeal, the Nevada Property Owners' Bill of Rights, violates that requirement.”
Las Vegas Taxpayer Acct. Comm. v. City Council, 208 P.3d 429 (Nev. 2009). “The district court concluded that NRS 295.009, which requires that ballot questions pertain to a single subject and that they include an accurate description of effect, applies to municipal initiatives and referenda.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 295.009(l)(b) — 4 cases
Educ. Initiative PAC v. Comm. to Protect Nevada Jobs, 293 P.3d 874 (Nev. 2013). “In its complaint, the Committee sought a declaration that (1) El PAC’s Initiative violated NRS 295.009’s single-subject rule because it sought to enact a multi-subject law, and (2) its description of effect was misleading in several respects.”
Las Vegas Taxpayer Acct. Comm. v. City Council, 208 P.3d 429 (Nev. 2009). “The district court concluded that NRS 295.009, which requires that ballot questions pertain to a single subject and that they include an accurate description of effect, applies to municipal initiatives and referenda.”
Nevadans for Nevada v. Beers, 142 P.3d 339 (Nev. 2006). “*936 The opponents’ complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief Because of the difference between the March 8 version filed with the Secretary of State and the version circulated among voters, and on the basis that the initiative, in violation of NRS 295.009, embraced more…”
Pest Comm. v. Miller, 648 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (D. Nev. 2009). “Plaintiffs argue the single-subject and description-of-effect requirements found in NRS 295.009 and the pre-election challenge procedure found in NRS 295.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.