Nevada high court declines to hear single-subject initiative rule challenge

CARSON CITY — The Nevada Supreme Court has rejected a request to determine if the Legislature's "single subject" rule requiring bills to be limited in scope is constitutional.

The challenge was brought by Citizen Outreach and two other groups that argued last year that the single-subject rule for citizen-backed initiative petitions is too restrictive and should mirror the more liberal legislative rule.

But in an unpublished order dated Friday, the court rejected the challenge to the legislative single-subject rule because the groups don't have a petition in circulation to make the issue eligible for review.

The court did not agree however, with a lower court's ruling that the Legislature's single-subject rule is constitutional. That finding was premature and was reversed by the court, leaving the potential for a future challenge.

The case for Citizen Outreach was brought by Las Vegas attorney Kermitt Waters, who told the court in oral arguments in March 2014 that the rule for citizen petitions should be the same as for the Legislature, which may enact bills dealing with multiple subjects.

Waters in court papers included a proposed initiative petition for an constitutional amendment that would raise the state mining tax and impose a broad-based gross receipts tax. But because the petition was never filed with the Secretary of State's office, the court said the issue was not ripe for review.

Waters told the court that two measures passed by the Legislature, Senate Bill 224 from the 2005 session, which enacted the single-subject rule for initiative petitions; and Assembly Bill 81 from the 2011 session, which required signatures to be gathered in each of the state's four congressional districts, were unconstitutional. Waters argued that the two bills at issue should have been drafted as 20 separate measures by lawmakers to satisfy the single-subject rule.

But Kevin Benson, representing the secretary of state on behalf of the attorney general's office, said rules for creating laws are different because the processes of direct and representative democracy have almost nothing in common.

"Every state that has a similar rule in their constitution has applied that very liberally," he said. "So there is simply no reason to change the rule in this case."

Kevin Powers, deputy legislative counsel for the Nevada Legislature, argued that if the liberal interpretation for the single-subject rule used by lawmakers was restricted by the court, it would have a drastic effect on the legislative process.

Contact Sean Whaley at swhaley@reviewjournal.com or 775-687-3900. Find him on Twitter: @seanw801