EQUALIZING INITIATIVES

To the editor:

This letter is in response to your Feb. 17 editorial, “Different lipstick, same old pig,” regarding Senate Bill 549 of the 2007 legislative session, which addresses initiative petition signature gathering procedures and requirements.

While your “pig” reference is cute, the bill’s formula is based on an entirely different, and fair, premise. Maybe we could characterize the Legislature’s action on SB 549 to a desperately needed “extreme makeover” of an entirely different pig. Indeed, your editorial fails to represent accurately the provisions of SB 549.

As the primary proponent of the bill, I feel compelled to respond.

State initiative proposals impact all of us, whether we live in Clark, Washoe, Eureka, Humboldt, or any other Nevada county. Keep in mind that SB 549 applies to statewide initiative procedures, and the bill was designed to specifically address the holdings of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concerning procedures for gathering signatures on an initiative petition that violated the principle of “one person, one vote.”

Neal Levine, director of state campaigns for the Marijuana Policy Project, characterized SB 549 as “an anti-democratic move designed to take a voice away from the people.” Perhaps Mr. Levine needs to refresh his memory on this “one person, one vote” concept, which was clarified by the courts in the 1960s to provide “as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote” must “be worth as much as another’s.” It is no wonder that a representative of extreme special interests, such as Mr. Levine, is disparaging this bill. For without it, fringe lunatics will be able to set up shop in front of a handful of supermarkets located within a few miles of each other, manage to collect enough signatures to get on the ballot, and call that the will of the people of Nevada.

The bill, in fact, represents the very democratic concept that one person’s vote or signature should not outweigh another. Indeed, SB 549 sets forth a fair, proportional formula that ensures the signature of a voter in any one county is just as important as the signature of a voter in any other county.

According to the latest census figures, 69 percent of the population of the state resides in Clark County, so 69 percent of the signatures must be collected in Clark County. Likewise, 1 percent of the population lives in Churchill County, so 1 percent of the signatures must be collected in Churchill County. How is this formula unfair?

Senate Bill 549 was crafted to ensure all regions of the state are represented, albeit proportionately, when a statewide initiative is proposed. Indeed, without the protections offered in SB 549, it is inevitable that a proposal which is designed to play against the interests of Clark County would eventually be placed on the ballot. For example, a measure prohibiting water importation projects could easily garner enough support outside of Clark County to be placed on the ballot as a statewide question.

By requiring a small threshold of support throughout Nevada for an initiative, we avoid a Balkanized state where North is pitted against South, rural is pitted against urban, mining based economies are pitted against tourism driven economies, arid areas are pitted against agricultural areas — the divisive list goes on.

I eagerly await the decision of the U.S. District Court on this issue. The process set forth in SB 549 gives every Nevadan, living in any county, an opportunity to fairly participate.

DEAN A. RHOADS

TUSCARORA

THE WRITER IS A REPUBLICAN STATE SENATOR REPRESENTING NEVADA’S RURAL SENATORIAL DISTRICT.