There are six statewide ballot measures to consider. Two are constitutional amendments which were previously approved by the voters in 2016. Nevada state law requires that a measure be passed two times, in two even-numbered election years to become a state constitutional amendment. Question 1 and 4 were first approved by voters during the 2016 election.
Question 1. Marsy’s Law Crime Victims Rights Amendment
Marsy’s Law describes a set of constitutional protections for crime victims that have been proposed and adopted in some states. The model constitutional amendment released by the organization Marsy’s Law for All, which closely resembles amendments proposed and passed in several states, includes the following key provisions:
- The right to be notified about and present at proceedings;
- The right to be heard at proceedings involving release, plea, sentencing, disposition, or parole of the accused;
- The right to have the safety of the victim and victim’s family considered when making bail or release decisions;
- The right to be protected from the accused;
- The right to be notified about release or escape of the accused;
- The right to refuse an interview or deposition at the request of the accused;
- The right to receive restitution from the individual who committed the criminal offense.
The model amendment states that the Marsy’s Law definition of victim includes both the person directly harmed by a crime and “any spouse, parent, grandparent, child, sibling, grandchild, or guardian, and any person with a relationship to the victim that is substantially similar to a listed relationship.
- A “YES” vote supports this measure to add specific rights of crime victims, together known as Marsy’s Law, to the Nevada Constitution. This amendment would among other things, provide crime victims with specific rights including the right to be treated with fairness and respect and be free from intimidation, harassment and abuse throughout the criminal justice process. Also a victim is to be protected from the defendant and release of information about the victim is to be prevented. This measure is supported by Gov. Sandoval (R), Atty Gen. Adam Laxalt(R) and several other Republicans.
- A “NO” vote opposes this measure. There is no organized opposition that has been identified
More information can be found on Marsy’s Law at Ballotopedia.
Question 2. Sales Tax Exemption for Feminine Hygiene Products Measure
EXPLANATION—This proposed amendment to the Sales and Use Tax Act of 1955 would exempt from the taxes imposed by this Act the gross receipts from the sale and storage, use or other consumption of feminine hygiene products.
If this proposal is adopted, the Legislature has provided that the Local School Support Tax Law and certain analogous taxes on retail sales will be amended to provide the same exemptions.
Additionally, the Legislature has provided that in administering these sales and use tax exemptions for feminine hygiene products, Nevada’s Department of Taxation will interpret the term “feminine hygiene product” to mean a sanitary napkin or tampon.
Finally, the Legislature has provided that these sales and use tax exemptions for feminine hygiene products will become effective on January 1, 2019, and expire by limitation on December 31, 2028.
- A “YES” vote supports this measure to exempt feminine hygiene products from state and local taxes. Since 1956, State law has required voter approval to exempt products from sales and use tax.
- A “NO” vote opposes this measure.
As of September 2018, there were no committees registered in support or opposition to the measure.
Question 3. The Legislature to Minimize Regulations on the Energy Market and Eliminate Legal Energy Monopolies Amendment
Note that this measure is a constitutional amendment. Amending our State Constitution is a lengthy process and should something not work as anticipated, keep in mind that we won’t necessarily be able to take actions in a timely manner to remedy problems that arise.
- Section 1 of article 19 of the Nevada Constitution explains how the Assembly or Senate may propose amendments to the constitution.A majority of all members of both houses must pass the proposed amendment. The proposed amendment must then pass the next consecutive biennial session. If it passes, the proposed amendment is sent to the people for vote. If the majority of the registered votes pass the amendment, the constitution is amended/changed.
- Sections 2 and 3 of article 19 defines how citizen initiatives for constitutional amendments can be approved. In short, ballot initiatives must be approved in two general elections.
As of 2018, utility companies in Nevada are permitted to establish monopolies in their service areas. As of 2016, NV Energy controlled 90 percent of the state’s energy market. This model of regulated and state-imposed monopolies was originally established to incentivize electrical development for Nevada.
Question 3 was designed to prohibit electricity monopolies and place a guarantee in the Nevada constitution that energy customers have a right to choose their energy provider and generate their own for resale. If approved, the amendment would require the legislature to pass laws by 2023 establishing an open competitive retail electric energy market.
What would be deregulated under the proposed law? There are three aspects to the energy market: generation, transmission and distribution. The measure requires competition in the generation category. Transmission and distribution do not need to be deregulated to create the competitive market, according to the measure.
What happens to the Public Utilities Commission of Nevada? Under energy choice, the market itself would set its own prices based on competition. Setting prices was the Public Utilities Commission’s responsibility, and energy choice would shift the focus of the group to consumer protection.
- A “YES” vote supports this constitutional amendment to:
- require the state legislature to pass laws to establish “an open, competitive retail electric energy market,” prohibit the state from granting electrical-generation monopolies, and protect “against service disconnections and unfair practices” and
- declare that persons, businesses, and political subdivisions have a “right to choose the provider of its electric utility service” and cannot be forced to purchase electricity from one provider.
- A “NO” vote opposes this constitutional amendment.
This measure is supported by Atty Gen Adam Laxalt (R), Michael Roberson (R), Wes Duncan (R), Former Sen. Harry Reid (D), Nevada Resort Association, Las Vegas Sands Corp., Walmart, SolarCity and many others. The measure is opposed by The Coalition to Defeat Question 3, two locals of the IBEW, Nevada State AFL-CIO, Nevada State Education Assoc., NV Energy, Berkshire Hathaway and others. The opposition believes the measure if passed could lead to immediate and severe increases in electrical rates for residential customers and our schools.
More information can be found on this ballot question at Ballotpedia and in at article written in the LV Sun.
Question 4. The Medical Equipment Sales Tax Exemption Initiative proposes to amend the NV State Constitution.
The question on the ballot is as follows:
- A “YES” vote supports this amendment requiring the state legislature to exempt from sales and use tax durable medical equipment, oxygen delivery equipment, CPAP machines, hospital beds, wheelchairs, mobility and other medical equipment prescribed for human use.
- A “NO” vote opposes this amendment.
The measure was initiated in 2016 by The Alliance to Stop the Taxes on the Sick and Dying. The measure is opposed by the State Controller Ron Knecht (R) who believes a constitutional amendment is unnecessary and a similar law could be accomplished by the legislature.
Question 5. The Automatic Voter Registration via DMV Initiative
Currently, Nevadans can register to vote online or in person at a county clerk’s or registrar’s office, various social service agencies, college campuses, or any DMV office on an “opt in” basis. Question 5 would establish an automatic voter registration system in Nevada. An individual who submits an application for the issuance or renewal of a driver’s license or identification card or an address change at the Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) would have his or her information automatically forwarded to the secretary of state and county clerk within five working days for voter registration. Citizens would be permitted to opt out of automatic voter registration.
As an indirect citizen-initiative, supporters collected signatures to first put the measure before the state legislature. The initiative was approved in both legislative chambers along partisan lines, with Democrats favoring and Republicans opposing the measure. Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) vetoed the initiative, sending the issue to a public vote.
A strong argument in favor of automatic registration is that it should improve individual security in that it reduce the amount of people (of unknown character) confronting people during registration drives who gain unfettered access to one’s most sensitive information (address, social security number, etc.). Concerns involve fail-safes in process/procedure established to incorporate checks to assure duplicate registrations aren’t being created for people who reside in different voting jurisdictions depending on time of year (main v. vacation homes) and that eligibility is checked for those who’ve had prior felony convictions where voting privileges may or may not have yet been restored (and that notice provided when any rejection of such registration has occurred).
- A “YES” vote supports this initiative to provide for the automatic voter registration of eligible citizens when receiving certain services from the Nevada
Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). - A “NO” vote opposes this initiative.
The initiative is supported by IVote, a national PAC based in Washington DC whose aim is to “secure voting rights for all Americans” and the Nevada Election Administration Committee. The initiative is opposed by Gov. Brian Sandoval (R) who believes the initiative eliminates individual choice and may create unnecessary risk that unqualified persons may unintentionally apply to vote, subjecting themselves to criminal prosecution. As of October 8, 2018, no political action committees were registered to oppose the ballot initiative.
Question 6. The Renewable Energy Standards Initiative
Question 6 would increase the state’s renewable portfolio standards (RPS). An RPS is a mandate that electric utilities acquire a minimum amount of electricity from renewable energy sources. As of 2018, Nevada’s RPS is 25 percent by 2025. Question 6 would increase the RPS to 50 percent by 2030. The initiative would define renewable energy to include sources such as solar, geothermal, wind, biomass, and hydroelectric. Specifically, Question 6 would require an increased RPS each year until reaching 50 percent in 2030.
- A “YES” vote supports this initiative to require electric utilities to acquire 50 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2030.
- A “NO” vote opposes this initiative, thus keeping the existing requirement that electric utilities acquire 25 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2025.
This initiative is supported by Nevadans for a Clean Energy Future with their donor being NextGen Climate Action, founded by Tom Steyer. It is also supported by the Sierra Club, Solar Energy Industries and various others. There is no political action committee opposing the measure. In 2017, Gov. Brian Sandoval vetoed a bill that would also have increased the state’s standard to 40% by 2030.
More information can be found on this ballot question at Ballotpedia and more specifically, how it relates to Question 3.