NRS
295.061 Challenge to description of petition; challenge to legal
sufficiency of petition.
1. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 3, whether an initiative or referendum embraces but one subject and
matters necessarily connected therewith and pertaining thereto, and the description
of the effect of an initiative or referendum required pursuant to NRS 295.009, may be challenged by filing a
complaint in the First Judicial District Court not later than 15 days,
Saturdays, Sundays and holidays excluded, after a copy of the petition is
placed on file with the Secretary of State pursuant to NRS 295.015. All affidavits and documents
in support of the challenge must be filed with the complaint. The court shall
set the matter for hearing not later than 15 days after the complaint is filed
and shall give priority to such a complaint over all other matters pending with
the court, except for criminal proceedings.
2. The legal sufficiency of a petition for
initiative or referendum may be challenged by filing a complaint in district
court not later than 7 days, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays excluded, after
the petition is certified as sufficient by the Secretary of State. All
affidavits and documents in support of the challenge must be filed with the
complaint. The court shall set the matter for hearing not later than 15 days
after the complaint is filed and shall give priority to such a complaint over
all other matters pending with the court, except for criminal proceedings.
3. If a description of the effect of an
initiative or referendum required pursuant to NRS
295.009 is challenged successfully pursuant to subsection 1 and such
description is amended in compliance with the order of the court, the amended
description may not be challenged.
(Added to NRS by 1999,
3560; A 2005,
2839; 2007,
326, 1251;
2011,
3074)
COUNTY BALLOT QUESTIONS GENERALLY
Notes of Decisions
Nevadans for Nevada v. Beers, 142 P.3d 339 (Nev. 2006).
· cites it 10× “009, which requires initiatives to include a description of effect, and NRS 295.061, which provides the right to challenge an initiative’s description of effect, are constitutional Preliminarily, the committee argues that any noncompliance with the description-of-effect…”
Las Vegas Taxpayer Acct. Comm. v. City Council, 208 P.3d 429 (Nev. 2009).
· cites it 11× “The district court further rejected appellants’ contention that NRS 295.061’s time limits bar consideration of the City’s objections to the measures, holding that this statute applies only to statewide measures.”
Personhood Nevada v. Bristol, 245 P.3d 572 (Nev. 2010).
· cites it 3× “009; NRS 295.061. The district court determined that appellants’ proposed amendment violated NRS 295.”
Ed. Freedom Pac v. Reid (ballot Issue), 2022 NV 47 (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 16× “First, the district court concluded that while the hearing had not been set within 15 days after the complaint was filed, dismissal was unnecessary because the hearing was expedited to the best of the court's ability.”
Pest Comm. v. Miller, 648 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (D. Nev. 2009).
· cites it 24× “009 and the pre-election challenge procedure found in NRS 295.061 violate their First Amendment rights.”
Rogers v. Heller, 18 P.3d 1034 (Nev. 2001).
· cites it 2× “On October 2, 2000, appellants, numerous business entities, filed a complaint in the district court pursuant to NRS 295.061. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief, or in the alternative, writ relief in the form of mandamus or prohibition.”
Educ. Initiative PAC v. Comm. to Protect Nevada Jobs, 293 P.3d 874 (Nev. 2013).
“009(l)(b); NRS 295.061(1). *45 The Legislature, like in other states, could have prohibited a ballot initiative proponent from gathering petition signatures until the proponent receives a pre-approved summary from the state official in charge of elections.”
Bizpac Vs. Fund Our Schs. (Ballot Issue) (Nev. 2020).
· cites it 4× “On appeal, BizPAC challenges the district court's authority to order specific amendments to the initiative's description of effect and contends that the amended description is misleading.”
Prevent Sanctuary Cities v. Haley (Ballot Issue) (Nev. 2018).
· cites it 3× “NRS 295.061(3) provides that if a description of effect is deemed insufficient "and such description is amended in compliance with the order of the court, the amended description may not be challenged.”
Cegavske v. Hollowood (ballot Issue), 2022 NV 46 (Nev. 2022).
· cites it 2× “009’s description of effect requirement and NRS 295.061’s proviso allowing for a challenge to that description are legitimate procedures”).”
Coal. for Nevada's Future v. Rip Com. Tax, Inc. (Ballot Issue) (Nev. 2016).
“See NRS 295.061(3) ("If a description of the effect of an 3 We take judicial notice of the Fiscal Analysis Division's statement entitled Financial Impact of the Referendum on Provisions Related to the Commerce Tax From Senate Bill No.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 295.061(1) — 5 cases
Personhood Nevada v. Bristol, 245 P.3d 572 (Nev. 2010).
“009; NRS 295.061. The district court determined that appellants’ proposed amendment violated NRS 295.”
Ed. Freedom Pac v. Reid (ballot Issue), 2022 NV 47 (Nev. 2022).
“First, the district court concluded that while the hearing had not been set within 15 days after the complaint was filed, dismissal was unnecessary because the hearing was expedited to the best of the court's ability.”
Las Vegas Taxpayer Acct. Comm. v. City Council, 208 P.3d 429 (Nev. 2009).
“The district court further rejected appellants’ contention that NRS 295.061’s time limits bar consideration of the City’s objections to the measures, holding that this statute applies only to statewide measures.”
Educ. Initiative PAC v. Comm. to Protect Nevada Jobs, 293 P.3d 874 (Nev. 2013).
“009(l)(b); NRS 295.061(1). *45 The Legislature, like in other states, could have prohibited a ballot initiative proponent from gathering petition signatures until the proponent receives a pre-approved summary from the state official in charge of elections.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 295.061(2) — 1 case
Nevadans for Nevada v. Beers, 142 P.3d 339 (Nev. 2006).
“009, which requires initiatives to include a description of effect, and NRS 295.061, which provides the right to challenge an initiative’s description of effect, are constitutional Preliminarily, the committee argues that any noncompliance with the description-of-effect…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 295.061(3) — 6 cases
Ed. Freedom Pac v. Reid (ballot Issue), 2022 NV 47 (Nev. 2022).
“First, the district court concluded that while the hearing had not been set within 15 days after the complaint was filed, dismissal was unnecessary because the hearing was expedited to the best of the court's ability.”
Bizpac Vs. Fund Our Schs. (Ballot Issue) (Nev. 2020).
“On appeal, BizPAC challenges the district court's authority to order specific amendments to the initiative's description of effect and contends that the amended description is misleading.”
Prevent Sanctuary Cities v. Haley (Ballot Issue) (Nev. 2018).
“NRS 295.061(3) provides that if a description of effect is deemed insufficient "and such description is amended in compliance with the order of the court, the amended description may not be challenged.”
Coal. for Nevada's Future v. Rip Com. Tax, Inc. (Ballot Issue) (Nev. 2016).
“See NRS 295.061(3) ("If a description of the effect of an 3 We take judicial notice of the Fiscal Analysis Division's statement entitled Financial Impact of the Referendum on Provisions Related to the Commerce Tax From Senate Bill No.”
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.